A New War

[Kingpin]

Jabocide/bomb and bailers aren't thinking strategic, they're thinking porking the field is all that matters.  I really, really want to like the idea of punishing jabocides and bomb and bailers for doing it (pet peeve), but it wouldn't affect them personally only their side as a whole.

Most of the dar/ord jabo-cide guys I encounter are part of the "war winning" crowd, and lowering the downtime of the enemy DOES affect them to some extent.  By jabo-ciding, not only would they lower the downtime on what they just porked, but EVERY object on the opposing sides.

Carrying a bomb (heavy vs. light fighters) could definitely be a factor in the downtime value of the lost plane as well.

<S>
Ryno

[TW9]

Thanks guys for all the valid pros and cons. I think its good to have open discussions about how to make a game better and keeping it sane rather than going at each others throats over simple disagreements.

[Wiley]

Thanks guys for all the valid pros and cons. I think its good to have open discussions about how to make a game better and keeping it sane rather than going at each others throats over simple disagreements.

I don't think there's a lot of point in arguing over the details of the idea, tbh I disagreed with quite a few of them, but I really like the general spirit of it and would be thinking hard on it if it were up to me.

It's got some thought behind the possible downsides, which puts it head and shoulders above 90% of what comes in here.

Wiley.

[Stampf]

I only need to read the title of this thread to give it my support.

HTC needs to work out the specific pro/cons and implement the changes, not us.

[Arlo]

This is one of the best wishlist threads I've ever read. I like the merits presented by the OP (though I am one to consider such in light of the coding it may require). This is a true discussion of changing the actual environment and feel of the game without going overboard (except for maybe the bomber nerfing bit that seems to have gone by the wayside  ). I am truly forced to digest this slowly. I may not have anything to add, at all, in the long run and just remain an appreciative reader of both the pros and cons of this discussion. I simply felt moved to thank you all. The wishlist is seldom blessed like this.

       

[Oldman731]

I may not have anything to add, at all

All right, twerp, what have you done with Arlo?

- oldman

[Arlo]

All right, twerp, what have you done with Arlo?

- oldman

We are holding him for ransom. We want a tootsie roll, a bunch of bananas, a spur and a confederate dollar bill. If we don't get all that by midnight tomorrow we'll give him back.

[bustr]

We will pay you to keep him......

[TW9]

I like the merits presented by the OP (though I am one to consider such in light of the coding it may require).

I don't think it would require much more work though I know nothing about coding. But the game already has a point system and there were specific zones and strats tied to them in the past.

[Arlo]

So ..... let's see. If the current system was left in place but another element was added, would that do the trick? In other words, if 'simulated attrition' was factored in as an alternate method of 'winning the war' then would that suffice? Not a lot of change, coding wise (an obvious presumption on my part, however). Having seen the point suggestions, let's see if I have a rough hold on this:

Using a system already in place to base the point factor on, ENY/perk, all perk points earned per sortie would also go toward a team's tally. That would cover everything, right? Well, everything but gun ship/field, right? Gun emplacements have no ENY, currently. But that should be code-able. Anything a player can shoot from and be shot in could have an ENY factor applied to it (I would think). So if an ENY 40 fighter shoots down an ENY 2 B-29 it would yield 38 points toward an attrition victory.

Now .... attrition is an act of subtraction. Usually a theater involved 2 opposing forces. Subtraction works fine there. Both sides start with a pool of points and if one of them drops to zero before the percentage needed to capture happens, they lose (even if they were one base away from winning - could you imagine the heartbreak?). What about Aces High's three sided fight, though? It requires a winner (by territory capture only, currently). If one out of three zeros out their point pool, who wins?

If we decide that attrition could be modeled by those points going from one side to another (no .... actually just to - like the ENY model) with no starting pool and just a threshold to reach then that sound like a more manageable model. One side can shoot down, bomb, sink a certain number of perks (whether it be split evenly from the other two sides of mostly from one and some from the other) and when the entire team reaches a specific threshold, it wins (earning, of course, bonus perks,as well). I know this is pretty obvious but I'm just writing it down to see if we're all on the same page.

I'd like a rough idea of how many overall perks a side should accrue to win a map through attrition.

Lusche?  

P.S. Bomber formation sneaky milk runs on a large map wouldn't be discouraged by such a system. Just sayin'.

[Arlo]

Erg. The above does nothing to encourage augering buffheads to try to land their missions (other than a perk multiplier, which is already the case). No perks earned by an opposing side.

Back to a 'point pool' system.

What if all three sides do start with a point pool and losing equipment subtracts from it? 50 - ENY subtracted from their point pool. That would be 48 points per bomber for a formation of 29s. 10 points for a Spit I. What about losing a fleet? A straight 50?

This still presents a problem for three sides. A loser can be determined but what happens when there are two 'non-losing' sides left?

[TW9]

The current perk and ENY system wouldn't change. Though I think ENY may end up not being necessary since people would be more inclined to even up the sides.

Perk points are not the points I am referring to. I haven't played for awhile but there use to be something that said "Points" or "Total Points" whenever you looked at your stats in game. I believe they are used to determine rank. So the game does currently have a point system as far as I know.

I suggested a flat target specified by HTC. I used a target number of 50000 just as an example. I wouldn't know what a good number would be for something like this. The goal for each team would be to reach the target number first. You would get points by dogfighting, bombing, attacking, GV'ing, and base captures.

Someone else in this thread suggested the attrition idea which I also think is good.

I also suggested a zone method where the map has zones with bases and strats (Ammo,Radar, Fuel, AAA etc) attached to them. This has been in use before. I don't know if it is still the case. The strats would be valid targets and directly effect the capabilities of the zones. Like back in AH1 where you could take a base's fuel down to 25%. If your strats were also damaged, it would take longer to repair.

Each country would have a certain number of frontal zones active determined by the numbers of players online. Something similar is currently in place where some rear bases cannot be captured. It would be the same accept these bases would also cannot be damaged or taken off from.  This would consolidate online players so ensure activity and interaction which is what most MMO players are looking for when playing an online game.

Once an entire zone is captured the victors get bonus points and their overall strats restored to an extent or fully. The zone itself would reset back to the original country after say 10 or 15minutes. Enough time for the victors to land or rearm and ransack and pillage. Think of it kind of like a map reset but at a smaller level.

If a team has overwhelming numbers on one front compared to the corresponding zone on the enemy side they would receive less points than they would if they were outnumbered or on an evenly split front. This would encourage people to find a more even fight or balance the sides altogether. It would also give an outnumbered side an equal chance to win the overall war. Consider it kind of like a handicap.

The maps would also have HQ and major strat targets for each country. These would be prime targets for bonus points as well. And these strats directly effect all the strats ability to repair for the individual zones. I think radar should revert somewhat back to old times. Nothing like the 2 hours no radar like before but maybe something like 30minutes if HQ was hit with city 0%.

[bustr]

I put this yesterday in the new strat post. It stays within the current framework of the game. Increases strategic targets without resorting to two sided war strategic chokeholds to win by denying everyone in a country their uber rides. Allows those who don't give a flip to keep playing their way. While attracting them to these new areas for the fight, rather than herding them there with complicated board game strategic rules of engagement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Strats to change War Win Percentages.

HTC could add sub-strats to each country that modify the percentage of fields you need to capture in that country towards winning the war and flipping the map. Some number would have to be determined along with salting them in across the medium back field of each country. They can artistically look like rail yards, steel factories and such.

Their structure would be strategic targets with about the same kill ability and rebuild\resupply ability as a town. Their purpose, as your bombers, or jabo, or tanks destroy them. The percentage of fields needed to win the war from that country is reduced from 20%. Very heavy auto ack would be reasonable due to their direct impact on winning the war.

Just as a town can be destroyed, an M3 or C47 can bring the place back up. If you own the next GV base or airfield over, hurray for your side wining the war sooner. Or hurray for that evil M3 driver or sneaky C47 pilot who gave up an hour or more to drive or NOE across a sector to stick you in the eye by bringing up the strat.

So the percentage destroyed of a substrat or combination of substrats destroyed would combine to modify the percentage of country fields you need in your possession to win the war. And that sneaky M3 driver or C47 pilot would be able to change the odds back to his country's favor in one or two trips along with the rebuild time controlled by the City strat. A detailed page from the clipboard would be needed to clearly show all country's substrat, their percentage damage in real time, and what percentage of fields are needed at that moment for a country to win the war.

Outcomes or Downsides.

Those who don't care can furball or GV spawn fight like always. Those who do, now have real short term war like targets to impact the outcome of the war including the ability to stick the winning country in the eye at the last moment by resupplying.

In the end, you get a new map to do it all over again faster if one country gets it together to smash all of the substrats with strategic bomber missions and quickly steam rolls the minimum number of bases in concert. And you keep an open sand box world for the players who simply want to drop in for an hour and shoot at things. If a furball, bomber intercept or GV battle is happening near a substrat, funsies for them. Or they hunt up the usual offering of game play and not worry about the strategic war win.

The biggest downside, you will need bodies and a certain amount of coordination of assets to leverage the reduced percentage of fields to win the war quickly. On the up side, just as a last minute M3 can raise the percentage of fields needed to win the war and cut your success short. A single bomber or even jabo can suddenly win the war with the small number of bases you already have. Strategic options so to say instead of needing a hoard. But a hoard can do it like old times since the maximum number of fields needed will still be 20%. 

[Tilt]

The OP suggested ( wished) that the outcome of fighter on fighter had a secondary role in the War win criteria.

The suggestion was based on a point based target.

I like this idea but do not like points...... What other other mechanisms may there be where fighter on fighter generates a secondary bias to war outcome.

[TW9]

What other other mechanisms may there be where fighter on fighter generates a secondary bias to war outcome.

I would be good with anything really. I think the game is too heavily focused on capturing bases and with the current setup I think the game has become counter intuitive.

These are my general critiques of the game.

The maps are huge which allows for a lot of smaller fights to break out across it. But it takes a lot more than a squad or 2 of players to capture an undefended base let alone a defended one.

As an MMO it should encourage interaction amongst it's player base considering that's what most people who play MMOs are looking for. As it is now players are encouraged to take as many as possible and fighting where there's the least amount of resistance.

Most gamers seek instant action. From my experience I'd fly 5-10 minutes to a fight just to get there and realize it's a one-sided affair and all the enemy has left or the enemy defended well and all the friendlies have left leaving me to fight 10-20 alone. Either way not much reward for a 5-10minute flight.

People logging in and seeing their country is losing really have no incentive to play. If you're not an experienced player or good at fighting (which most aren't) constantly getting shot down by greater numbers gets old very fast.

Those are just a couple basic critiques.