Losing the war

[tuton25]

Last night the knights we really taking a beating on ND isles, one of my favorite maps. When I got on the knights only had control of 47% of their bases. It was so bad the only bases we controlled were the ones on the main island by the HQ and the two bases near tank town. As a tactical bomber by it was impossible for me to find a decent place to launch, so into the furball with my A6m I go...
While I had a few great white-knuckle turn fights (which I lost all but one) I couldn't get the altitude I wanted. It wasn't that bad, low and slow is the life story of an A6m pilot, but a few squaddies logged because they couldn't get high enough. My suggestion is once a side losses so many bases (maybe >50%) the message appears "X have lost the war" and the map is rotated. This would cut down of the number of instances like last night where there are very few to no places to launch if you don't want to furball....

[Someguy63]

I know that map has based on the mainland to the West, East and North, you couldn't launch from those? (Just asking )

And on such a small map for one country to lose that amount of bases is totally a relatively common event, and it's better for you to switch sides to do what you want rather than have a map's worth of people's fun to end for a portion of that population's own "good".

[glzsqd]

I vultch 4 rooks in 1 pass with a 262. It was glorious.

[Lusche]

My suggestion is once a side losses so many bases (maybe >50%) the message appears "X have lost the war" and the map is rotated.

We had a similar system until about 8 years ago, and it was horrible. It simply meant that the smallest team was regularly ganged by both bigger once in a race for reset. Unlike today, it meant that there was no incentive for them to turn against each other at any point, because it only mattered who got the most fields of the underdog at reset to be declared winner. Coincidentally that country happened to be the knights. And I can assure you, much more players logged of in disgust back then...

I can already hear the objection by some: "But that's what happens today!"
No. Not that much not anywhere that much, and not that much against the same team without a break for days and weeks. It's very much different today (That's the good thing in switching teams every tour, you really see what happens on all sides )

Oh, and if you meant "nobody would win the war, it just would be lost and the  terrain would be rotated" - this would have an enormous griefing potential.

[Someguy63]

What Lusche said



And Glzz what a noob you are.

[Kingpin]

With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue.  There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt.  Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt.  Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.

The bigger problem, I believe is that players do log off due to frustration when one side is getting ganged.  When one side has a dis-incentive to play, it then naturally creates an ENY problem for the other two sides, which expands the problem because now players log off due to ENY. (I personally believe more people log off due to ENY switch sides.)  I think every time a player logs off in frustration with the game, for whatever reason, it is a bad thing.

Here's another idea to deal with one side being ganged (that I think I put on the Wishlist ages ago):

When an attacking side has taken in excess of 20% of another side's bases, start decreasing the downtime for all objects on the side being attacked.  The concept would be to make it increasingly harder to take bases from a side that has lost a considerable number of their bases.  Call it a "stiffened resistance" or "shorter supply lines" or whatever you want to justify the concept.

For example: Once the 20% threshold has been met, reduce the downtime on objects for the "losing" side by 5% per 1% percent over the 20% threshold.  Sounds complex, but yields simple results:  If one side attacks until they have 25% of a side's fields, they have reduced the enemy downtime by 25% (5 x 5) -- a little harder to take bases, but not impossible.  However if they continue to push and get to 30%, the downtime is now reduced to 50%, making it considerably harder to take fields.  If BOTH sides gang one country and get to say 27% each (like we saw last night) then they are a combined 14% over threshold, 14x5=70, so now the down-times reduce by 70%, making it VERY hard to take fields from that side.

This also effectively caps the number of bases BOTH sides can take from one side at 30%.  If both sides have 30% of an enemy's field they are over the threshold by a combined 20%, 20x5=100, meaning NO downtime for objects on that side, making it impossible to take more fields from the side that only has 40% of their bases left.

Yeah, that's a lot of math, but it should work.  

<S>
Ryno

[Arlo]

You obviously put thought into that. I pushed back the pain and read it front to back. Not bad, squaddie.

[Zoney]

With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue.  There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt.  Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt.  Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.

The bigger problem, I believe is that players do log off due to frustration when one side is getting ganged.  When one side has a dis-incentive to play, it then naturally creates an ENY problem for the other two sides, which expands the problem because now players log off due to ENY. (I personally believe more people log off due to ENY switch sides.)  I think every time a player logs off in frustration with the game, for whatever reason, it is a bad thing.

Here's another idea to deal with one side being ganged (that I think I put on the Wishlist ages ago):

When an attacking side has taken in excess of 20% of another side's bases, start decreasing the downtime for all objects on the side being attacked.  The concept would be to make it increasingly harder to take bases from a side that has lost a considerable number of their bases.  Call it a "stiffened resistance" or "shorter supply lines" or whatever you want to justify the concept.

For example: Once the 20% threshold has been met, reduce the downtime on objects for the "losing" side by 5% per percent over the 20% threshold.  Sounds complex, but yields simple results.  If one side attacks until they have 25% of a sides fields, they have reduced the enemy downtime by 25% (5 x 5) -- a little harder to take bases, but not impossible.  However if they continue to push and get to 30%, the downtime is now reduced to 50%, making it considerably harder to take fields.  If BOTH sides gang one country and get to say 27% each (like we saw last night) then they are a combined 14% over threshold, 14x5=70, so now the down-times reduce by 70%, making it VERY hard to take fields from that side.

This also effectively caps the number of bases BOTH sides can take from one side at 30%.  If both sides have 30% of an enemies field they are over the threshold by a combined 20%, 20x5=100, meaning NO downtime for objects on that side, making it impossible to take fields from the side that only has 40% of their bases left.

Yeah, that's a lot of math, but it should work.  

<S>
Ryno

-1 No.

I believe your idea would mean no one would be engaging the "down" country and they would have no one to fight.

[Skull-1]

With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue.  There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt.  Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt.  Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.

The bigger problem, I believe is that players do log off due to frustration when one side is getting ganged.  When one side has a dis-incentive to play, it then naturally creates an ENY problem for the other two sides, which expands the problem because now players log off due to ENY. (I personally believe more people log off due to ENY switch sides.)  I think every time a player logs off in frustration with the game, for whatever reason, it is a bad thing.

Here's another idea to deal with one side being ganged (that I think I put on the Wishlist ages ago):

When an attacking side has taken in excess of 20% of another side's bases, start decreasing the downtime for all objects on the side being attacked.  The concept would be to make it increasingly harder to take bases from a side that has lost a considerable number of their bases.  Call it a "stiffened resistance" or "shorter supply lines" or whatever you want to justify the concept.

For example: Once the 20% threshold has been met, reduce the downtime on objects for the "losing" side by 5% per percent over the 20% threshold.  Sounds complex, but yields simple results.  If one side attacks until they have 25% of a sides fields, they have reduced the enemy downtime by 25% (5 x 5) -- a little harder to take bases, but not impossible.  However if they continue to push and get to 30%, the downtime is now reduced to 50%, making it considerably harder to take fields.  If BOTH sides gang one country and get to say 27% each (like we saw last night) then they are a combined 14% over threshold, 14x5=70, so now the down-times reduce by 70%, making it VERY hard to take fields from that side.

This also effectively caps the number of bases BOTH sides can take from one side at 30%.  If both sides have 30% of an enemies field they are over the threshold by a combined 20%, 20x5=100, meaning NO downtime for objects on that side, making it impossible to take fields from the side that only has 40% of their bases left.

Yeah, that's a lot of math, but it should work.  

<S>
Ryno

Stiffened resistance.   Flipping brilliant. +1

[Kingpin]

-1 No.

I believe your idea would mean no one would be engaging the "down" country and they would have no one to fight.

I get what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree with that.  I think you're over-exaggerating the result.  What you mean is that one side might stop being attacked -- but that doesn't mean the fight is over.  The side getting trounced simply has a chance to go offensive and take the fight to the enemy, which still creates its own fights.

There is always an ebb and flow to where the fights are anyway, often based on the horde changing focus from one side to the other.  This system simply gives more incentive to fight evenly on all fronts once you have taken 20% of an enemy's fields rather than continuing to gang one side (the point the OP was making).

<S>
Ryno

[Wiley]

I get what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree with that.  I think you're over-exaggerating the result.  What you mean is that one side might stop being attacked -- but that doesn't mean the fight is over.  The side getting trounced simply has a chance to go offensive and take the fight to the enemy, which still creates its own fights.

There is always an ebb and flow to where the fights are anyway, often based on the horde changing focus from one side to the other.  This system simply gives more incentive to fight evenly on all fronts once you have taken 20% of an enemy's fields rather than continuing to gang one side (the point the OP was making).

<S>
Ryno

Not quite sure what to make of this.  In the spirit of 'what are the unintended consequences?'  suppose a side has been pushed back so they're capped.  Instant or near instant uptime.

Wouldn't that create a situation where it would be obscenely profitable to find a base and just keep bombing the town center over and over and over with your lancs for full points every pass?

I don't particularly think the motivation to gang one side is winning the war, but rather funneling the defense into one easy area to control/vulch.  I don't really see this change affecting that, other than making the front a little bit larger.

Wiley.

[tuton25]

With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue.  There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt.  Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt.  Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.

In the half an hour I was on last night, there were only about 8-10 knight bases (The main island near the strats and the 2 in tank town, including the v-base) and the air base near tank town was half-vulched. I could get up just couldn't climb anywhere before being jumped.....

This is partially the community's fault as well. Some of the veteran players need to tell their countrymen to back off the side that is getting pounded and focus on the other side. (This is similar to capturing v-bases in the tank towns. Let the GV guys sit on their ridge tops and lob shells at each other).

[Kingpin]

This is partially the community's fault as well. Some of the veteran players need to tell their countrymen to back off the side that is getting pounded and focus on the other side. (This is similar to capturing v-bases in the tank towns. Let the GV guys sit on their ridge tops and lob shells at each other).

I agree with that.  In fact, when I was on I put on 200 "What did Knights do to deserve this?"  I'm not sure that my comment can entirely take credit for it, but I'm fairly certain some Bish base-takers looked at the percentages as they immediately started attacking a couple Rook bases in short order.  I then joined in the defense of that Rook base, as that was better action on the Rook side, IMO, than was hunting for the few Knights that were on.

[Kingpin]

Not quite sure what to make of this.  In the spirit of 'what are the unintended consequences?'  suppose a side has been pushed back so they're capped.  Instant or near instant uptime.

Wouldn't that create a situation where it would be obscenely profitable to find a base and just keep bombing the town center over and over and over with your lancs for full points every pass?

Yes, I try to think of "unintended consequences" as well, and you have raised a good one, with regard to someone score-whoring the heck out of that situation. I suppose that is one consideration, but personally, I don't care about a small number of players using that to score points compared to seeing one side continually ganged for hours on end that causes people to log off.

Maybe also incrementally reduce the points earned for bombing a side you already have 20% or more bases on?  If a side's downtime is 0 then points earned should be 0, making it literally "pointless".

I don't particularly think the motivation to gang one side is winning the war, but rather funneling the defense into one easy area to control/vulch.  I don't really see this change affecting that, other than making the front a little bit larger.

That's exactly my thinking, and I believe my idea aims to cut down on this.  Lowered down-time means unporked fields, hangers up and most importantly having ACK up, giving the cornered or ganged side a better ability to defend itself.

Good points, Wiley.

<S>
Ryno

[Lusche]

This is partially the community's fault as well. Some of the veteran players need to tell their countrymen to back off the side that is getting pounded and focus on the other side.

This does never work. At best, telling other players what to do and what not creates pointless quarrels on 200 and Country.