Author Topic: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.  (Read 2057 times)

Offline dalllas71

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« on: February 13, 2012, 01:21:09 PM »
It's becoming more and more common to see one nation having to compete against three.

Historically speaking, ENY has been the standard regulator of high end tools available to a given country or countries that outnumber another. When numbers are below one hundred on all sides ENY seems to work just fine. But when all sides are well over one hundred ENY starts to put the blinders on, especially when it concerns where the fighting is actually happening.

For example, let's say that Nation A might have 210 players on. Nation B has 184 and Nation C has 140. These numbers are very realistic lately and yet this will trigger an ENY of below 10, for sure, and maybe even below 5. Now, this might be sustainable, at least concerning balance, provided that all three nations are engaged with one another. But this is not always the case.

The Trinity map is notorious for two front fighting for several reasons that are obvious. For this discussion, there's no reason that Nation C should be fighting A and B with such few numbers. Nation C's 140 people end up roughly 70 players per front while taking on Nation A's 210 and Nation B's 184. This equals a 3-1 advantaqe for the most populated side which is probably still upping 262's and any other high end aircraft. Better than a 2-1 advantage exists for Nation B and these numbers or circumstances really don't fall into any definition of balance that I've ever heard of.

Some serious thought needs to go into fixing this kind of periodic lopsidedness that's pretty common, especially during the peak times of roughly 7p to 11p CT and pretty much all weekend long.

Could the sensitivity of ENY not be modified in order to address high populations better than right now? Presently it's essentially non-existent. I'm no fan of ENY in general but imbalanced three nation battle probably requires.

Better yet, a front based ENY would be the better solution. In other words, if one nation wants to dog pile another then they'll have to do it in early war aircraft. In this case, simply attacking the other enemy who's numbers compare to yours puts you back in the tools you want.

The latter seems like a stretch but the former seems the easiest. Nonetheless, circumstances like the photos included need to stop. There's just no reason for it. No nation should be fighting more than two-thirds of the population.

dalllas71

     

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2012, 01:32:59 PM »
My suggestion to direct forces at each other in multiple areas:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325800.msg4260336.html#msg4260336
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17422
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2012, 04:50:45 PM »
It's becoming more and more common to see one nation having to compete against three.

Historically speaking, ENY has been the standard regulator of high end tools available to a given country or countries that outnumber another. When numbers are below one hundred on all sides ENY seems to work just fine. But when all sides are well over one hundred ENY starts to put the blinders on, especially when it concerns where the fighting is actually happening.



The Trinity map is notorious for two front fighting for several reasons that are obvious. For this discussion, there's no reason that Nation C should be fighting A and B with such few numbers.


dalllas71

  


I am curious about why on Saturday when we were being attacked on both fronts you directed your squad to attack  undefended knight bases.  I am pretty sure you could have directed your squad to attack the rooks instead.

is it possible that change you propose in the game will help you even more as you will switch to attacking undefended bases like you did saturday but the defenders will be in even more of a disadvantage?  we had a pretty good fight going on in our front when we stopped you guys several times cold.  while we were in the air you upped from another base and attacked our gv bases on a place where it would take 15 minutes to bring a plane and even then, we took many of you down with us.

with the change you propose all you had to do was wait in the tower for us to have greater number of uppers then launch to attack a different base knowing that by then the defenders would have a higher eny in that front and would be at a disadvantage.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2012, 08:46:56 PM »
Semp what is this fascination you have with the attackers having to bring their own defenders?  

I'd ask you why you don't do a better job defending but this nonsense you continually post leads me to believe that you're out of your uplifting mind.

If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline wil3ur

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2012, 09:15:57 PM »
Great idea!  Here's how to implement it!!!

BASE LAUNCH #'s!

Lets say for the sake of argument, each hangar could only field 8 aircraft at a time... this would mean a small airfield could launch:

24 Fighters
16 Bombers (...but that's not a full formation?!?!?!?)
and 8 Vehicles (VH might have to be adjusted for better gameplay...  or maybe it's accurate considering it's an airbase and not a Vehicle base?)

This would solve two major complaints in the game:

There would be an effective "ENY" on a base for defenders, making it nearly impossible for a huge horde to switch for a quick defense then split back off and go their own ways...  only a relative few defenders could be 'up' at any one time, the rest would wait for a slot to become open, or up from another base.

The other issue it would solve would be hordes.  No longer could you up 30 bombers and 50 P51's from a small airfield... you'd have to coordinate across a front to consolidate aircraft into an offensive.  This then would give defenders time to do the same thing, or ignore it at their own peril.

+1 on this idea!  I hope they do it!!!!

 :salute
"look at me I am making a derogatory remark to the OP"


Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17422
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2012, 02:31:00 PM »
Great idea!  Here's how to implement it!!!

BASE LAUNCH #'s!

Lets say for the sake of argument, each hangar could only field 8 aircraft at a time... this would mean a small airfield could launch:

24 Fighters
16 Bombers (...but that's not a full formation?!?!?!?)
and 8 Vehicles (VH might have to be adjusted for better gameplay...  or maybe it's accurate considering it's an airbase and not a Vehicle base?)

This would solve two major complaints in the game:

There would be an effective "ENY" on a base for defenders, making it nearly impossible for a huge horde to switch for a quick defense then split back off and go their own ways...  only a relative few defenders could be 'up' at any one time, the rest would wait for a slot to become open, or up from another base.

The other issue it would solve would be hordes.  No longer could you up 30 bombers and 50 P51's from a small airfield... you'd have to coordinate across a front to consolidate aircraft into an offensive.  This then would give defenders time to do the same thing, or ignore it at their own peril.

+1 on this idea!  I hope they do it!!!!

 :salute

I detect a hint of sarcasm  :noid.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline matt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2012, 08:49:27 AM »
David Wales could solve this problem. :bhead :furious

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2012, 09:50:50 AM »
Semp what is this fascination you have with the attackers having to bring their own defenders?  

I'd ask you why you don't do a better job defending but this nonsense you continually post leads me to believe that you're out of your uplifting mind.



I think his concern is wondering why a  bunch of guys playing a game that allows them to fight other live players, avoids that by attacking empty bases.  Of course doing this knowing full well that no one dies for real and that no matter how many undefended bases they take, the war will never really end.

Not a very complicated thought process I admit, but one that has had many of us wondering over the years regarding any number of different squads.

I would think the joy of a game where you can challenge other players knowing you won't really die, is being able to say, "Here I am!"   'Come and stop me".  Some of us are kinda goofy that way I guess.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2012, 11:08:01 AM »
Tell me Guppy isn't drinking the "attackers must be responsible for the defense as well" Kool-Aid

You guys know what a sector counter is don't you?
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2012, 08:37:56 PM »
Tell me Guppy isn't drinking the "attackers must be responsible for the defense as well" Kool-Aid

You guys know what a sector counter is don't you?

You still haven't answered the 64,000 dollar question.  Why don't you want to fight?  No one is dying, planes are free.  What's the thrill in not having anyone to attack?  After you've captured 10,000 bases, what's the thrill?  At least against an actual opponent, there is a chance they might provide a different response to a move you make.  Sadly the buildings at a base don't do that.  What's the challenge for you?
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2012, 08:50:44 PM »
You still haven't answered the 64,000 dollar question.  Why don't you want to fight?  No one is dying, planes are free.  What's the thrill in not having anyone to attack?  After you've captured 10,000 bases, what's the thrill?  At least against an actual opponent, there is a chance they might provide a different response to a move you make.  Sadly the buildings at a base don't do that.  What's the challenge for you?

I'm interested as well why a timid player like vBobO would ever play a PvP centric game.  He was flying a P-47 one night a couple of weeks ago when I upped from the base he was loitering at and when I finally got to his alt, all vBobO did was dive straight into the ground, giving me the proxy. 

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2012, 10:43:21 PM »
I took out your vh and ords while you were trying to capture one of our 'undefended' bases.

perhaps you realize the value of this jack-ack

If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2012, 10:47:38 PM »
I took out your vh and ords while you were trying to capture one of our 'undefended' bases.

perhaps you realize the value of this jack-ack



Did the ground put up a fight?

Still waiting for you to answer my question too btw.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline TheAssi

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2012, 10:53:06 PM »
I'm interested as well why a timid player like vBobO would ever play a PvP centric game.  He was flying a P-47 one night a couple of weeks ago when I upped from the base he was loitering at and when I finally got to his alt, all vBobO did was dive straight into the ground, giving me the proxy. 

ack-ack


Did that Macchi ever come down and fight last night?

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2012, 11:13:41 PM »
Didn't see your question.

The ground is still undefeated.

I have no issues with fighting. 
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.