Frustration

[sycodon]

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.

Many viewpoint is what I'm after. If I were HT, I'd rather something be thrashed out in here than be thought up without the input of many people.

[Lusche]

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.

You entirely miss my point:
Again: 2 players are doing that very same thing: Grabbing a now perked plane from the rear, side by side.
If you charge percentages of perk points, one usually flying a P40E is now paying a higher price than the guy next to him who usually flies Spit 16's, because he has more perk points than the low eny Spixteen flier.


This IS unfair.

[SlapShot]

Ok ... here is a view point.

So far this idea appears to be more punitive than the ENY solution that is already in effect. People have a hard time already grasping the current ENY logic. Can you imagine the amount of confused and pissed off people who would be slammed with this idea ... it would be epic.

If this idea were to be implemented, the amount of BBS threads (whines) would be deafening and would most likely cause more people to quit than the current solution could ever generate. Also, the ROI (rate of return) to coad/implement this complex of solution would be in the negative zone.

You have absolutely no clue as to what it would take ... coading / logic / resources ... to implement this. You think it may be easy, but from just thinking about at a cursory level, what would need to be collected as far as data in real time ... it would blow your mind ... just so a group of people could continue to fly their late war monsters and have a numerical advantage at the same time ... it ain't gonna happen.

[SlapShot]

3. I don't know...how about you throw something out?

Seriously ... not trying to twist you nips here.

The only thing I would throw out here is this "idea". No doubt it could be implemented, by as I pointed out above, the ROI would suck and people would be confused and really pissed off ... and most likely due to confusion more than the "punitive" measure that would be imparted on them.

To replace the current ENY notion, the idea would have to be simple to implement, simple to understand, eloquent, and fair ... most importantly fair ... which sounds exactly like what we already have implemented.

[sycodon]

Ok ... here is a view point.

So far this idea appears to be more punitive than the ENY solution that is already in effect. People have a hard time already grasping the current ENY logic. Can you imagine the amount of confused and pissed off people who would be slammed with this idea ... it would be epic.

If this idea were to be implemented, the amount of BBS threads (whines) would be deafening and would most likely cause more people to quit than the current solution could ever generate. Also, the ROI (rate of return) to coad/implement this complex of solution would be in the negative zone.

You have absolutely no clue as to what it would take ... coading / logic / resources ... to implement this. You think it may be easy, but from just thinking about at a cursory level, what would need to be collected as far as data in real time ... it would blow your mind ... just so a group of people could continue to fly their late war monsters and have a numerical advantage at the same time ... it ain't gonna happen.

OK. Thanks for your input.

This idea may not be going anywhere, but does it hurt to discuss it?  Who knows, after enough discussion, we may come up with something that works better than the current ENY system. If not, then a bunch of ideas and viewpoints have been exchanged at the cost of nothing.

If for some reason this discussion just rubs you the wrong way, I encourage you to no longer follow it.

[sycodon]

You entirely miss my point:
Again: 2 players are doing that very same thing: Grabbing a now perked plane from the rear, side by side.
If you charge percentages of perk points, one usually flying a P40E is now paying a higher price than the guy next to him who usually flies Spit 16's, because he has more perk points than the low eny Spixteen flier.


This IS unfair.

True, but then the actions you describe are also unfair under the circumstances.

If we look at points as wealth...something that lets someone fly around in a Tempest tearing up all the other planes for instance, then should someone who has lots of wealth (and most likely more experience and therefore should have a better sense of fair play) pay proportionally more for transgressions?

Yes, that's weak, I'm working on it.

[The Fugitive]

OK. Thanks for your input.

This idea may not be going anywhere, but does it hurt to discuss it?  Who knows, after enough discussion, we may come up with something that works better than the current ENY system. If not, then a bunch of ideas and viewpoints have been exchanged at the cost of nothing.

If for some reason this discussion just rubs you the wrong way, I encourage you to no longer follow it.

 The problem is all of this has been discussed before in one form or another. Slaps been here forever, like me and we have seen all of this before. It's very hard NOT to come on the boards and and just blast someone for posting stuff like this.

While your intentions are noble your idea is old, or not well thought out. If you were to search these boards you could spend HOURS reading information and ideas that have been discussed a million times. Read that info, THEN try to come up with something NEW. You could be THE ONE to come up with the better way everyone is looking for. However if you start out WITHOUT the research you just re-hash the same ideas and get hammered on the boards. That will get you discouraged and you'll give up. Do the research, learn what has come before, then give it a new shot.

Personally, I think the way they have ENY set now works well. I don't mind dieing in a P40 and more or less than a P51, as long as it was a good fight. 

[SlapShot]

OK. Thanks for your input.

This idea may not be going anywhere, but does it hurt to discuss it?  Who knows, after enough discussion, we may come up with something that works better than the current ENY system. If not, then a bunch of ideas and viewpoints have been exchanged at the cost of nothing.

If for some reason this discussion just rubs you the wrong way, I encourage you to no longer follow it.

It's not that it rubs me the wrong way, it's just that this notion has already been brought to the table multiple times and each time the author doesn't really present a well thought-out proposal.

If local ENY is to be implemented, it cannot take place while someone is en route ... it has to have it's effect from your take off point.

Currently ...

The server only needs to monitor, in real time, the total population of each country ... run those numbers thru an algorithm ... determine if ENY needs to be turned on, what country or countries needs to be penalized, and what is the ENY threshold for the whole country.

Local ENY ...

The server would need to monitor, in real time, the different countries in-action population density on a sector basis across the whole map.

It would then have to establish the virtual "fronts", across the whole map, which will be fluid. Each field, across the virtual front, would have to be monitored and handled on an individual basis.

So for each base across "the front", it would constantly have to monitor all planes in flight and all GVs on the ground, for each country on the front, and establish the ENY for each of the fields across the front, for all three countries.

To make it more fair, the ENY established for a base on the front would then have to extend outwards for maybe a two or three sector diameter to all fields, for that country, that fall within that diameter.

With that ...

A mission of 30 guys takes off with late war monsters, or maybe your squad leaves with 10 guys or more with late war monsters, and your late to the party. Well because they are in the air and en-route, towards a field that has 0 airplanes in the air and 0 GVs on the ground, the server determines that the ENY is 20 for the field that they left from. You are now forced to fly something higher than 20 ENY ... there goes your late war monster that you desperately needed to fly.

Take the same scenario above, but replace the planes with GVs (a group of people have decided to bum-rush the base). They call for air support, but the ENY is 20 ... OH NOES !!! ... what do you bring to the party for air support ... the late war monsters are not available.

I can understand where your coming from on this idea. It would work, in part, if your attacking a base away from where the real hording is taking place and it's 15 v 15.

But what if ...

Your 15 P-51s v their 15 P-51s results in your guys taking out 14 of the enemy and the one remaining guy shoots you down just before your wingman takes him out. You are now in the tower and because you have 15 guys in the air and they have none, the ENY at your base is now 10 ... there goes your late war monsters, and your now forced to choose something else beside your beloved P-51. So while you are in the tower steaming that you can't take the ride that you want, 5 of your guys spawn GVs to rush the town ... OH NOES !!! ... the ENY has just jumped to 20 ... what now ?

Because the granularity of ENY is now at this level, the fluidity for ENY would be constantly fluctuating on a field by field basis and would most likely cause more angst than the current solution generates. Most importantly, I would bet that 90% or better, of the population, would not understand this concept and the logic for establishing a "local" ENY and it would piss off more people than it does now.

Can you imagine the amount of processing that would be required to monitor, on a real time basis, the in-action population across a map ... along with all the other real time data that the server needs to monitor and send out to each individual ? ... just to appease a very small group of people who cannot deal with the current ENY logic.

I have been programming since 1978. I have met and talked with Dale at three conferences and believe you me, there isn't anything that man could not coad and implement.

You have to look at the ROI ...

What would be Dale's effort in implementing this complex solution versus him spending his time on things that are really more important ?

Would there be a significant impact on the server coad to keep track of all this information ?

Does it really solve the problem or does it exacerbate it ? Personally I think it would exacerbate the problem.

How many more people would this ENY notion piss off than what the current ENY notion already pisses off ? Pissed off people means calls to HTC which means more time on the phone for Skuzzy when he can be doing more important and fruitful things.

Kudos to you for bringing this solution, which we have seen in many incantations, again, but seeing that it has been broached before and Dale hasn't really jumped on it ... I think that he and his crew have asked the ROI questions and most likely have not gone forward with it because the ROI is just not worth it.

[Masherbrum]

Many viewpoint is what I'm after. If I were HT, I'd rather something be thrashed out in here than be thought up without the input of many people.

You obviously haven't a clue of how and where the ENY idea originated. 

[CAP1]

You obviously haven't a clue of how and where the ENY idea originated. 

? i understand its purpose, but never knew how it was decided on as a factor.

[BoilerDown]

A simple SEARCH for "local ENY" will show you many threads on the subject.

Nobody has come up with a viable way to implement Local ENY.

Nor have you.

So far all you have is an idea that isn't fleshed out yet.

"I think it would work" or "I think they should..."  really doesn't help figure out the solution.

I hope you can figure out a VIABLE solution to this quandary.  Hopefully reading the hundreds of post on the topic after you do a SEARCH will help out some as you can see what some others have thought would "work" (but really wouldn't)

In all fairness, no matter what idea he comes up with, no matter how well thought out it is, he'll have 20 veterans like you coming on here saying how his idea won't work.

[WMLute]

In all fairness, no matter what idea he comes up with, no matter how well thought out it is, he'll have 20 veterans like you coming on here saying how his idea won't work.

Not at all.

If it is a good idea and viable it will get support.

It has happened in the past and HTC put their idea into the game.

[Ghosth]

I have to agree with Lute.

However, you can't just think a new idea half way through.
You have to think it all the way through, look at exactly what happens all the way through the changes.

And then, if it has merit, if it is better than what we have, if it is doable, HT will figure out how to do it.

And if you don't believe me, pony up the price to attend con and discuss it with HT yourself.
And yes he's taken ideas from con and incorporated them also. Last year for me it was the bomber damage points
(getting rewards for bombing, not killing) and a new CM tool that lets CM's and trainers put someone in the tower who's being disruptive instead of booting them out for an hour. (Well worth me going to con last year IMO)

And, if at the end of it, HT says no, don't think that will work, you have to accept that this is his sandbox, with his rules, and if he thinks its not going to work you have to accept that and walk away.