I am out of the other thread. I'll be happy to discuss the design here, however.
From the other thread:
Origninally posted by Pongo
Never heard of handycaping in a game Toad?
Never heard of a game where the sides by design are the same size?
I dont like Mandobles idea from a game play stand point..but all this righteosness about someone haveing to win someone having to lose without any consideration of the likley hood of that happening is a bit unusual.
It would be cool if the game could isolate all the non perfomance related issues and only be won by the better flying side..But like the war it imitates, ours is a war of brute attrition. The larger side wins. Period. And then they are awarded for being larger.(and having a sence of urgency) It seems to move arround with the AKs who is the largest though so there is some variety at least...
Handicapping: Yes. it's common. What would be uncommon, however, is handicapping AFTER the game began I think. For example, horses are handicapped before a race by adding weight to carry. It'd be pretty unusual to stop the horses and add or subtract weight half way through the distance wouldn't it?
Now we have a different situation anyway: a 24/7 persistent game that basically it began when the arena first opened. There never was an "equal" starting point for any side, nor did HTC design it for an "equal" starting point. The game began and just rolls on from there without pause. People log on and off at will.
One could consider a reset a pause, however. Theoretically, one could auto-balance the side after a reset but then as the 24/7 gameplay continued and people logged on and off the balance would change again. As I mentioned before, unless you include some sort of non-voluntary auto-balancing action by the Host, you never will have "equal" sides in all probability.
Bottom line though is that handicapping a never-ending 24/7 persistent arena game seems impossible to me.
Righteousness: It isn't righteousness on my part. I certainly didn't intend that. It's merely common sense. All games in which score is kept have winners and losers. That's the whole point of keeping score, isn't it?
AH keeps score by awarding "perk points" to a side that accomplishes a certain task. "Owning" the most bases at the time that one of the other sides basically loses all theirs. At this point, the game is considered at an "end", although after a brief pause to change maps the 24/7 persistent arena returns and the party goes right on.
Without this "win/lose" design concept, what would the point of capturing all the enemy bases be? What would happen to the "strat" portion of the game? Would there be anything necessary other than Lasz furball concept?
It's obvious that the game is designed to have winners and losers. It's inherent.
So there isn't any righteousness involved at all. It's just a fact that someone wins and someone loses. It's the point of the struggle, the point of the whole design. The game is designed that way so there is always a strong likelihood that some side will do that in some period of time. The periods of time vary depending on the particular map and the desire of a particular player base to achieve a reset.
Additionally, the larger side does not always win. There are two clear examples of this situation.
Example 1.
I think all of us have been on when "our" side was numerically superior to either of the other two sides. However, due to a lack of "leadership"
or perhaps desire "our" side just doesn't seem interested in "world conquest". People are just out furballing around and ignoring the "conquest" aspect. Sooner or later one of the other two sides achieves a reset.
Hasn't everyone seen this over the past year?
Second example: Side X has 130 players, Side Y has 130 players, Side Z has 150 players. Ah! Perfect balance!
Unfortunately, Side X is fighting Side Y with only 30 players. Side Y is fighting Side X with only 30 players.
Poor Side Z! Their brave 150 are engaged on two fronts against 100 enemy players on both fronts! It's 150 V 200!
Side Z eventually loses, despite being numerically superior.
How would one "balance" the sides in example 1?
How would HTC "balance" the sides in example 2?
So, it really isn't a simple question, IMO.
The gameplay is designed by HTC as a persistent 24/7 arena where some side eventually wins and some side eventually loses. The resets are merely a brief pause in non-stop action.
HTC, by design, allows players to switch sides at will (there are reset perk point award restrictions, however. Of course, these restrictions only affect those who actually care about perk points.)
Lastly, doesn't the fact that the side that flies the "best" can still lose the war mimic the oft sought after "realism"?
Your turn.
