Frustration

[Ghastly]

(Sticking with the 100/100/50)

So, in your version, the closer you take off to the outnumbered side, the higher the ENY, forcing you to choose poorer aircraft to launch in. Additionally, the closer you die to the outnumbered sides field relative to the distance from your own, the higher the cost of dying in terms of perks lost, by some ratio of your side to their side in combination with the "original cost" of your plane.  

1) Some people have mammoth numbers of perks.  How do you deter them from going back as far as they need to to launch the lowest numbered ENY aircraft, and not caring about the perks they might lose?
2) How do you deter a pilot with no perks from caring that he's going to lose some of what he doesn't have, and taking off from a field far enough away to get the plane he wants?

(edit-> Slapshot hit on these two points while I was typing away as well - and valid they are!).  

3) This might be a good thing or a bad thing - I can't guess which. I think that many of the players for the sides with 100 & 100 are going to simply choose to fight in the areas of the map where they aren't affected by ENY.  This sounds like what you'd want - but may not be. The danger with this design is that if enough of the the players signing into the side with the lower numbers begin simply changing sides to get to where the fights are, you end up further unbalancing things until you end up with one side being a ghost town.  If there are 287 people in an arena, and only 11 of them are flying for the side you're on, how many players coming into the side with only 11 plaryers are going to just switch sides? On the other hand, the side with the lower numbers is going to have a much easier time of rolling up territory, so they can't be ignored forever (assuming that the "distance" part of the equation allows them to try to take fields without negating the effect) - that is, if enough players who care about who wins the map reset are on, which many don't.

4) What incentive is there to keep the side that has the number's from launching from behind the lines,  and just defending in late war equipment near their own fields?

In the current version, there is incentive to change to the outnumbered side, a disincentive to change away from it, and no way to ignore the imbalance.

In your "design", there is no reason to change to the outnumbered side, a significant incentive to actually change away from it, and for the players on the countries that outnumber, the imbalance can be effectively ignored. On the positive, there may be additional incentive to be on the lower numbered side, if you are into taking territory, and things are carefully jiggered to make that easier.

What I don't like about the idea is that it appears to have a positive feedback loop, which I fear would eventually overwhelm any positive benefit. The fewer players there are on any one side, the less likely that anyone is going to want to fight against them, and the more likely that the players on that side are going to want to leave (change arena's, or sides, to get to more "action").

<S>

[Shuffler]

Dang slapshot..... I only have 30,000

[SlapShot]

Dang slapshot..... I only have 30,000

Switch to an FM2 instead of flying a bomber ...

[CAP1]

Switch to an FM2 instead of flying a bomber ...

hey.......if the ole pee38 is a bomber.....how come we can't do the "F3" view? 

[sycodon]

There are a lot of us that have 10s of thousands of perks points ... so this really would have no effect on them at all.

You really haven't flushed it out completely ... you flushed it out to the point that it works for you.

Easy, so you charge a percentage of your perk points, so that 50 points becomes 50,000. Is that a bigger disincentive?

As far as fleshing it out, that's what happens when you discuss things. Or perhaps you don't want to talk to anyone unless they come to you with a complete, 100% ready to go, turn key solution?

[sycodon]

(Sticking with the 100/100/50)

1) Some people have mammoth numbers of perks.  How do you deter them from going back as far as they need to to launch the lowest numbered ENY aircraft, and not caring about the perks they might lose?

Good point. So perhaps charge a percentage of your perk points? I upping a 262 and taking it to the Rook's fields to vulch and you end up losing the plane, maybe 50% of your perk points. Obviously the percentages would have to be worked out to be proportional to the value of the plane.

2) How do you deter a pilot with no perks from caring that he's going to lose some of what he doesn't have, and taking off from a field far enough away to get the plane he wants?

(edit-> Slapshot hit on these two points while I was typing away as well - and valid they are!).  

I would guess that a pilot with no perks is new and therefore likely to simply fly the plane into the ground. But I'll think on this some.

3) This might be a good thing or a bad thing - I can't guess which. I think that many of the players for the sides with 100 & 100 are going to simply choose to fight in the areas of the map where they aren't affected by ENY.  This sounds like what you'd want - but may not be. The danger with this design is that if enough of the the players signing into the side with the lower numbers begin simply changing sides to get to where the fights are, you end up further unbalancing things until you end up with one side being a ghost town.  If there are 287 people in an arena, and only 11 of them are flying for the side you're on, how many players coming into the side with only 11 plaryers are going to just switch sides? On the other hand, the side with the lower numbers is going to have a much easier time of rolling up territory, so they can't be ignored forever (assuming that the "distance" part of the equation allows them to try to take fields without negating the effect) - that is, if enough players who care about who wins the map reset are on, which many don't.

True, and I like that your point has two sides to it. So I'd call it a double edged sword. Only time would tell  how people would react to these circumstances.

4) What incentive is there to keep the side that has the number's from launching from behind the lines,  and just defending in late war equipment near their own fields?

If you mean defending against the Rooks (50 players) I would expect they will not be launching attacks deep into Bish territory, which would be silly even when all sides are equal. Rather, they would be going agains fields close to their own, so the local ENY would hamstring the Bish in defending. Just as it is now.

Is that what you were getting at?

In the current version, there is incentive to change to the outnumbered side, a disincentive to change away from it, and no way to ignore the imbalance.

In your "design", there is no reason to change to the outnumbered side, a significant incentive to actually change away from it, and for the players on the countries that outnumber, the imbalance can be effectively ignored. On the positive, there may be additional incentive to be on the lower numbered side, if you are into taking territory, and things are carefully jiggered to make that easier.

Hmm...I think that being on the lower staffed side will always have the advantage of a superior plane set, as it is now with the current scheme.

And the fact that the other two sides would be unhindered by ENY (as long as they stay away from the rooks (in this scenario)) is pretty much what I'm going for here.

What I don't like about the idea is that it appears to have a positive feedback loop, which I fear would eventually overwhelm any positive benefit. The fewer players there are on any one side, the less likely that anyone is going to want to fight against them, and the more likely that the players on that side are going to want to leave (change arena's, or sides, to get to more "action").

Good point, I'll get back to you on that.

BTW, thanks for participating in a discussion as opposed to other posts in this thread.

[Lusche]

Good point. So perhaps charge a percentage of your perk points? I upping a 262 and taking it to the Rook's fields to vulch and you end up losing the plane, maybe 50% of your perk points. Obviously the percentages would have to be worked out to be proportional to the value of the plane.

Impractical and unfair. Someone did fly high eny planes and saved his perks for a long time and now he has to pay more than someone who did not?

[sycodon]

Impractical and unfair. Someone did fly high eny planes and saved his perks for a long time and now he has to pay more than someone who did not?

In what sense is it unpractical?

I don't see how it is unfair. You save your perks forever and ever and eventually get to 200 (like me :-0), and decide to splurge on some super ride, as long as you don't go trying to vulch a side with 10 times less players, you are fine.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are getting at?

[WMLute]

See my post#66. I feel it is fleshed out fairly well. Check it and discuss it.

Without being privy to Aces High code base, all I can do is describe the desired behavior. How it fits in the code in up to them. But I have to expect that is it isn't nearly as difficult as most of the things in the Aces High code.

You do not need the AH Coad to figure out the variables in your idea.  

So far you are still on the surface level.  

Dig deeper.

Start taking your ideas to logical conclusions.  

You will find that most everything you have suggested is a pretty bad idea once thought completely through.


(Edit: re: perks.  Might I suggest killing more than you die.  If you do that perks are a non issue.)

[Lusche]

I don't see how it is unfair. (...)

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are getting at?

Charging a percentage of a players perk price leads to perk rides having different prices for different folks. Someone who has got more perk point son his account will have to pay a higher price.
Someone saving his perks up has to pay more. Someone usually flying a P-40E instead of an LA-7 will have to pay more for his Tempest, 163 or Ar 234. That's unfair and not really an incentive to fly high eny planes as a main ride.

[sycodon]

You will find that most everything you have suggested is a pretty bad idea once thought completely through.

Well, if you have any ideas other than "it will never work", I'm all ears.

[SlapShot]

Easy, so you charge a percentage of your perk points, so that 50 points becomes 50,000. Is that a bigger disincentive?

As far as fleshing it out, that's what happens when you discuss things. Or perhaps you don't want to talk to anyone unless they come to you with a complete, 100% ready to go, turn key solution?

Your grabbing for straws here with that percentage notion and really isn't a fleshed out solution, just a snappy response.

You still need to address the situation when someone ups a plane and when they get to the ENY zone and they really don't have the perks to "pay" ... what happens then ?

To properly flesh out an idea you have to look at the idea from ALL angles and cover all the "what if's" and have a solid solution/answer ... which at this point, there are more "what if's" than there are answers.

[SlapShot]

Well, if you have any ideas other than "it will never work", I'm all ears.

Most of us are not really concerned with ENY. We either already fly planes that aren't effected by ENY or don't have a problem jumping into a plane that has a high ENY value when the ENY hammer comes down or we simply switch to the side with the least numbers to help out.

ENY is your problem ... you figure it out to completeness and pass it on to HT ... he will then decide. If you bring it here, you get many viewpoints that will shoot it down if not properly presented and complete.

[sycodon]

Charging a percentage of a players perk price leads to perk rides having different prices for different folks. Someone who has got more perk point son his account will have to pay a higher price.
Someone saving his perks up has to pay more. Someone usually flying a P-40E instead of an LA-7 will have to pay more for his Tempest, 163 or Ar 234. That's unfair and not really an incentive to fly high eny planes as a main ride.

Yes it does, and that's kinda the entire point. The "punishment" for going to the effort of upping in the rear, flying for 10 minutes to get the understaffed team, is a bigger risk to your points if you get shot down or fly into a tree. If don't want to risk that, just up from a base closer and deal wit the ENY, just like what happens now.

See what I'm getting at? It's only unfair if someone decides to be unfair in the first place.

[sycodon]

Your grabbing for straws here with that percentage notion and really isn't a fleshed out solution, just a snappy response.

You still need to address the situation when someone ups a plane and when they get to the ENY zone and they really don't have the perks to "pay" ... what happens then ?

To properly flesh out an idea you have to look at the idea from ALL angles and cover all the "what if's" and have a solid solution/answer ... which at this point, there are more "what if's" than there are answers.

Well, that's what we are doing. Thank you for providing a new angle. Keep bringing the "what ifs".

So, what to do with someone who has little to no perk points and insists on actions that are unfair (within the context of this discussion)?

First, I must express that I don't think this would be one of the bigger issues, yet it is most certainly going to be an issue.

Options:
1. Raise their ENY even higher. But that's starting to get complicated in that you are now tracking individuals. Not the best solution.
2. Give them negative perk points. That, with a tweak to the aircraft cost subsystem, would avoid having to track individuals and work within the existing point scheme. But depending on the code base, it could be a big issue making what may be an unsigned integer into a signed integer. So better, but potentially a pain in the butt to code.
3. I don't know...how about you throw something out?