Is this what Hitech wants?

[LLogann]

And I should point out that this isn't about Bish, it's about all 3 countries...... Whoever has +40 people is going to be attacked on both sides.  It's always been like that and we all know it. 

You didn't really listen to what he said though Chief.........  I may have a bias, but I do find that if Bish has 40 more than the others, the others are both concentrating on Bish.  That is actually a natural reaction that behavioral psychos would talk to you until your head falls off about.  

Again, your wrong.  And your entitled to your twisted logic no matter how you want to quantify and justify having 40 extra players on a side, there is nothing fair about it when eny has little or no effect.   

[mechanic]

bye bye

you going somewhere?

[Crash Orange]

He didnt answer my question either.  

It seemed like useful conversation had concluded, but if you insist...

You cannot assume that the other two sides only will fight bish, it happens to all sides.

I don't assume that, in fact I used rooks as the gangee in my latest example.

I have yet to hear you answer the question of having this same advantage against the lowest side and both sides ganging the lower side, would that still be fair in your eyes?

If one side is getting ganged by both other sides, the gangee will be at a disadvantage regardless of the overall numbers.

If you define numerical imbalance as unfair, no, that isn't fair. But ENY does nothing to address it because ENY doesn't take the ganging into account, it assumes each side is putting half its resources against each other side, which is rarely true.

Another problem with ENY is it's based on the lowest side rather than the total. If you have 100 nits against 80 rooks and 80 bish, and all the rooks and bish are attacking the nits, it is 160-100 with the 100 nits having a moderate ENY (which is definitely unfair, they're outnumbered AND have ENY?!?) But if you have 100 nits against 120 rooks and 40 bish, the nits' ENY suddenly shoots up to 29, even though the numerical imbalance - 160 rooks + bish against 100 nits - is EXACTLY the same. Of course the rooks will have a high ENY too, but the bish won't even though they probably have a numerical advantage because most of the nits will be fighting the rooks. If all the nits give up fighting the bish because they're fed up with ENY and instead go to fight the rooks on roughly equal terms, then you have a bish "excess" of 40 planes free to horde unopposed, with 0 ENY, even though OVERALL they are the smallest side by far. This is why overall numbers mean nothing.

[Dadsguns]

A simple yes or no will suffice, I did not ask for your explanation and justification.  A yes or no.

........the question of having this same 40+ advantage against the lowest side and both sides ganging the lower side, would that still be fair in your eyes?

[Crash Orange]

A simple yes or no will suffice, I did not ask for your explanation and justification.  A yes or no.

........the question of having this same 40+ advantage against the lowest side and both sides ganging the lower side, would that still be fair in your eyes?

It is unfair to the side getting ganged regardless of the overall numbers or of which side is getting ganged that day.

If you're worried about "fair".

[Dadsguns]

It is unfair to the side getting ganged regardless of the overall numbers or of which side is getting ganged that day.

If you're worried about "fair".

I asked for a simple yes or no.
This is not a difficult or complicated question.  If we are going to dance around the question then feel free to carry on. If you would like to continue with my request to answer this question with a simple yes or no I would appreciate your honesty.

[Dadsguns]

And I should point out that this isn't about Bish, it's about all 3 countries...... Whoever has +40 people is going to be attacked on both sides.  It's always been like that and we all know it.  

My point exactly llogann, when you have the numeric superiority your going to draw attention. I was using bish as an example it seemed it was going that way  

This "snowball" effect is not producing the effect I think most of us are after.

[Crash Orange]

I asked for a simple yes or no.

You aren't a judge and this isn't a court of law.

Logic 101: Many questions cannot be answered "yes" or "no" because they contain implied premises that would lead to further incorrect implications regardless of which way they're answered. The most famous example is the one Hitech mentioned: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you never have beat your wife, a literal and honest answer would be "No" (you can't stop what you never started) but this falsely implies that you did beat your wife at one time, and you are still beating her. The only correct answer to that question is "I never have beaten my wife."

The way you phrased your questions asks whether something is unfair, and implies a reason why it should be unfair. The only correct answer is that it is unfair, but for a reason different from what you are implying. There is no shorter or simpler correct answer to that question.

Of coruse if I really have to explain this to you at this point in your life, you probably aren't capable of understanding it.

[Dadsguns]

You aren't a judge and this isn't a court of law.

Logic 101: Many questions cannot be answered "yes" or "no" because they contain implied premises that would lead to further incorrect implications regardless of which way they're answered. The most famous example is the one Hitech mentioned: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you never have beat your wife, a literal and honest answer would be "No" (you can't stop what you never started) but this falsely implies that you did beat your wife at one time, and you are still beating her. The only correct answer to that question is "I never have beaten my wife."

The way you phrased your questions asks whether something is unfair, and implies a reason why it should be unfair. The only correct answer is that it is unfair, but for a reason different from what you are implying. There is no shorter or simpler correct answer to that question.

Of coruse if I really have to explain this to you at this point in your life, you probably aren't capable of understanding it.

oh contrare monfrair  

I knew you would answer this question like this...... but what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?...

........the question of having this same 40+ advantage against the lowest side and both sides ganging the lower side, would that still be fair in your eyes?

There is no twisting.

Say there are 140 rooks, 100 nits, and 100 bish on. Not a single bish and nit are fighting each other, all 200 of them are attacking the 140 rooks. Who has the numerical advantage?

If you say the rooks, you are either considerably less educated than Jethro Bodine, or just being stubborn and refusing to admit plain and obvious fact.

The rooks are outnumbered almost 3-2 in that situation. Giving them a high ENY would only make things worse.

Have you stopped beating your wives?  Your logic applies when you want it to, not when it has to.

 

And I did all that without calling you any names, I am rather proud of that.........   

[CptTrips]

Wabbit is characterizing the defending swarm of uncoordinated players as if it were as single-minded as a chess opponent, but it isn't.

Wabbit also used a team analogy:

If it’s really 11 vs. 11 but 6 of the other guys are just tools and won’t cooperate with their team; if they are stopping to text on their cell phones in the middle of a play; picking their nose and day dreaming; moving off to the sideline and demanding someone come play them 1 vs. 1 football- man to man; if they can’t cooperate and coordinate their efforts like a proper team so that only 5 are really even effective……then yeah.  I’ll crush them like insects and I enjoy every minute of it.  I’ll break them like a freakin stick.  They are stupid, and weak, and are not using the resources available to them and that should be punished mercilessly in the harsh crucible of competition.  

However, in my opinion, its the same.  

A player or team fails to perform.  The player or team endures the consequences of failure.
Individually for the chess player.  Collectively for the football players.  
Is that fair for the 5 players on that team that were trying to work together?  Irrelevant.  The team failed.  The team loses.  All its members lose.  I assure you, those 5 players are highly incentivized to find some way to "encourage" the others to improve their teamwork for the next time we play.  The pain of getting the snot beat out of them is the mother of improvement.  Never underestimate the power of collective punishment.  

(Again, I have to be careful because different posters in this thread are asserting different scenarios.  In this context I am assuming there are reasonably balanced team number where there are resources available that the TEAM is failing to cooordinate effectively to defend themselves.)

,
Wab

[moot]

Wab That was a reply to Urchin so I'd skipped it..
I think your team pov is totally unfair, but... I'm not concerned by it so it's hard to argue beyond 'agree to disagree'.  I'm convinced it's wrong because I've been on the winning side enough that I can tell a hollow victory when I see it. 

You're an adult so I assume I can just tell you straight-forwardly without jumping thru PC hoops that your (general your) victory's only as great as the opponent. No opponent, no victory.  No peril, no victory.  I don't actually think of everything in AH so simplisticly but that's the gist of it.

Maybe the root of our disagreement is that I'm naturally competitive but.. I don't want to beat others so much as go further and beat bigger opponents everytime. Beating a straw man country in AH is hollow.. Beating inanimate objects is meaningless.  I don't want weak enemies, I want them at their best, to actually put up a challenge. 

If I'm leading a 32 man squad and the opposition is nothing but "miscreants", if they aren't up to our challenge then.. the whole lot of planning and gloriously orchestrated execution's basically masterful baiting.  Of course we'll win - the opposition's not even trying.

Irrelevant.  The team failed.  The team loses.  All its members lose.  I assure you, those 5 players are highly incentivized to find some way to "encourage" the others to improve their teamwork for the next time we play. 

I've just as often seen the whole team simply log off.  Another incentive might be to log on only when they can safely ignore the "war" big picture and just fly their own "irrelevant" sorties.

[Urchin]

Wabbit,

Sorry about the long lag time, I was putting in my time on the treadmill lol.

I think the biggest difference between us is you take the game a heck of a lot more seriously than I do. It isn't a bad thing at all, I used to be really competitive as well. As I got older I guess that fire sorta left . Now I just play (anything, not AH quite yet) to have fun. I do try to make sure my opponent is having fun too, at least to the best of my ability.

That is one of the things that usually frustrates me a lot every time I come back to playing AH - I'm still waaaaaaaaay better than most of the folks I run into (and no, I'm not bragging... I think the overall 'fighting ability' has just fallen over the years) so running around in an uber ride makes for unfun 1v1 fights (because there isn't much of a fight, it is over too quick) but handicapping myself by flying the 'poor' rides leads to me getting the everloving crap ganged out of me because I'm not good enough to kill quick enough to avoid it. I've never been able to find that happy medium.

[The Fugitive]

Wabbit also used a team analogy:

However, in my opinion, its the same.  

A player or team fails to perform.  The player or team endures the consequences of failure.
Individually for the chess player.  Collectively for the football players.  
Is that fair for the 5 players on that team that were trying to work together?  Irrelevant.  The team failed.  The team loses.  All its members lose.  I assure you, those 5 players are highly incentivized to find some way to "encourage" the others to improve their teamwork for the next time we play.  The pain of getting the snot beat out of them is the mother of improvement.  Never underestimate the power of collective punishment.  

(Again, I have to be careful because different posters in this thread are asserting different scenarios.  In this context I am assuming there are reasonably balanced team number where there are resources available that the TEAM is failing to cooordinate effectively to defend themselves.)

,
Wab

Your placing the game as a "team sport" with a single leader. This is one many options available. The game can also be played as a single. As well as a number of teams working different areas. Expecting the 3 guys that up to defend a base from a horde " to do better next time" is unrealistic.

Moot's pay-per-view- boxing match covers it well. If you paid $15 and the fight went the limit it was worth the money. If on the other hand it was over in two punches you got screwed. It doesn't matter which guy you were rooting for, the fights over and your out $15.

A lot of people are looking at it as they are getting screwed. Either your getting run over or they are running away, either way the fights suck. In a general sort of way. I admit that there are still fights to be had, but they are becoming fewer and fewer. Just like in your chess match. Your planning the next 4 or 5 moves in your head and your opponent pulls a gun and shoots you right between the eyes. Game over! Wheres the fun in that?

[CptTrips]

I mean this as honestly and helpfully as possible.

I believe moot, Urchin, and Fugitive would have more fun spending their time in the DA.  Splitting their time between the simple furballing at the lake (never having to worry about strat or bombers) and 1 vs. 1 duels at the other fields.

You may not realize it, but I think thats what you really want.  Start yourself a DA club so that you can organize 2 vs 2 and 4 vs 4 for variety.  

You can control it and optimized it to be perfectly fair.

The MA is not that controllable.  Its a cross between Rave party, the Special Olympics, and the Russian Front.  Its never going to conform to your delicate sensibilities.


,
Wab
  
 

[moot]

Nope, I generally don't like the DA compared to MA or events.  DA is to MA and events what chess is to tic-tac-toe.

your delicate sensibilities.

  come on.. you can't seriously say that followed by a solemn 
 

My delicate sensibilities... I want em twisted and pushed to the max.  I'm a thrills and variety junkie Wab.

This whole discussion, as far as I'm concerned and I reckon in good part for Urchin and Fugi as well, is mostly academic.  There's certainly intent to fit a shoe to a foot, if it fits, but... There's no tyrannical intentions either.  Personally I don't worry a rat's about strat or bombers because they either don't affect me or can be dealt with easily enough.  AH isn't rocket science.  Its gameplay mechanics are pretty simple and.. we've been at it 10+ years.  The only unknown left is in the practical lottery of tactics and strategy. And the monotony of ship shape missions versus disinterested and disorganized defenders is just the kind of variety killer I stay away from, just like DA lake which wasn't quality furballing last time I saw it a few years ago.  The same air combat patterns over and over again.

No thanks.  The only thing I seriously argue is that there needs to be a better grasp on the basics of dogfighting, for most players. Regardless what they're used for.