Solutions and Statistics.....

[DoctorYO]

There has been some debate over numbers in the Main arena about how rooks are severely outnumbered.

This is very true but note the following stats....

as of 11:11 EST +/- 1% due to constant killing in main.

Rooks Kills: 32765 vs all 28776    1.14 KD

Rooks Kills:  15345 vs Knits 13062    1.17 KD

Rooks Kills:  17430 vs Bish  15720  1.10 KD

As you can see if attrition was factored Rooks are kicking all others tails.

Note the other slob countries:

Bish kills:  44441 vs all 47652  .93  

Bish kills:  28703 vs Knits 30207  .95

Bish kills:  15720 vs Rooks 17430  .90



Knit kills:  43289 vs all  44077  .98

Knit kills:  30207 vs Bish 28703  1.05

Knit Kills:  13062 vs Rook 15345  .85

As you can see clearly Bish are by far the worst proforming bunch in the game.  Even with their Hordes they can't even crank a positive KD ratio.


Note to HTC you have the data as shown here to create simple attrition model.

Perked plains should be cheaper in the country that is most efficient; likewise they should be more expensive in those countries who expend the most resources.  Perk planes should count as 1.5 factor of the attrition model.  hence for 2 perk planes down would be the same a 3 normal planes.

This model kills two birds with one stone.   first off.. the perk planes will balance the numbers issue with superior planes going to the efficient side...  Second the arena will most likely balance as a result of those who want to fly perk planes cheap and will shift countries.  Then when one country gets to powerful the attrition model will balance it self do to dweeb factor loosing the perk planes at a rate of 1.5 to 1....  it will also have the hidden bonus of thwarting suicide attacks, hence increase acm and people actually have incentive to land their kills...  

MA arena is saved.


just a suggestion..  And a razing to slob Bish and Knit who cant even break 1:1 but then claim how uber they are...  more like suxor....  



my 2 cents...


DoctorYO

[Innominate]

The rooks apparent "skill", and the bishops lackthereof is exactly why things are the way they are.

The rooks are more concerned with air-to-air fighting, stats, furballing, etc.  They're less inclined to do more dangerous jabo runs, and base attacks.

Bishops(And knights) are the other way around.  They care less about air combat, and more about winning the war.  More bishops fly as jabos into dangerous(or sucidal) situations.

When it comes to winning the war, I'd rather have a newbie who doesn't mind dying on my side, than a fighter pilot who is going to hang out at 20k picking off stray enemy fighters.  Sometimes skill can be a liability.

[ra]

It would be interesting to see how many assists the average Bish gets during a tour.  

[DoctorYO]

Inn, point taken but notice this example:  

You say youd rather have suicide tactics to win than have a more true to life system of attrition....  Ive flown on all three sides and i notice no more jabo or less jabo per sortie on any side.  More suicide yes... (bish); more alt monkey (knit luftwabbles), and more quality pilots all around (Rooks)

so what your saying youd rather game the game to win at all costs.  With no penalty for your actions.  

I rest my case......






DoctorYo

[Innominate]

No, no, you're putting words into my mouth.

I'm not saying I want the game to be that way.
I'm saying the game IS that way.

In AH there is NO attrition.  Trying to fight the war using attrition is not only completly worthless, but also retarded.  Taking bases is about getting ordnance onto the target.  Trying to play the game (AH -IS- a game) like you want it to be played, rather than how it is played, is always going to result in losing.  The rooks play the game the way they want to(Air combat, furballing, etc) and because of they they lose.

(There is a difference though, between suicide jabo, and a mission which is suicide.  Suicide jabo is when someone makes no attempt to pull out of a dive, and plows into the target with thier bombs, as opposed to someone who tries to pork a fields fuel in the middle of a couple dozen enemies)

Still though, you're misinterpreting what I said.  The rooks don't launch jabos nearly as much, bombs weigh you down, and make you an easy target.  Flying a jabo will always result in a lower k/d than leaving the bombs behind, wether or not you suicide.  Without ordnance, taking fields is rather difficult.  Jabos are far more important the furballers for winning the war.  Flying a jabo is guarenteed to lower your k/d ratio.  The rooks don't fly as many jabo sorties as either the knights or bishops.

Anyways, what it comes down to in the end is, rooks don't want to win, they just don't like losing, because it spoils the furballs.
(Also note that all usage of a team is generalizing, You may feel differently, but the generalization still applies)

[ra]

<>

<>

Which is it?  Swarmer's denial.

ra

[Innominate]

Originally posted by ra

Which is it?  Swarmer's denial.

It's exaggeration to make a point.  The rooks focus more on air-to-air and less on land grabbing than the other teams.

[ra]

Very true, but it also very difficult to mount offensives when it's 140 v 100.  Not impossible, but difficult.  Being outnumbered is tolerable for a while, but when it's every day for months, it affects the way people fly.  Everyone who flies in AH has been outnumbered from time to time, but Rooks have been overwhelmingly outnumbered for most of the last 8 months or so.  That is a new phenomenon in AH.   The only solution is for people to voluntarily switch countries when they see chronic side imbalances.
 
ra

[Mathman]

Attrition may seem like a good idea, but it could lead to several things that many people here either squeak about or would not put up with.

Ok, lets use me as an example.  I fly the F6F almost exclusively.  I usually only fly a few hours at night, pacific coast time.  My squad is Bish.  I can't be online during the day because I actually work.  Now, lets say that attrition is implemented.  If the people that are on during the day fly like crap or decide to suicide or whatever, and they expend the resources that the bish have been allotted.

Now, depending on how attrition would be implemented, one of two things happen.  First, the ability to fly fighters or the plane of my choice is taken away from me through no fault of my own.  Second, my team (the Bish) will be unable to fight effectively during this period through no fault of their own because they don't have any weapons/planes/vehicles/etc to use in order to fight.  The key point being that it is NO FAULT OF OURS.  We didn't decide to furball.  We didn't decide to suicide.  We didn't decide to do whatever it would be that would kill our supplies because we weren't around to make that choice.

Well, these lead to a few things that would cause people to come here and squeak about this:
1) unfair to the people who play at different times (i.e. US vs Euros do to time difference)
2) the dreaded sideswitching that people love to squeak about.  Why stay with a country in which I can't fly the F6F?
3) people canceling their accounts.  Why should I pay to play a game that other customers decide for me the planes that I can and can't fly through their own decisions?

That is why attrition won't work and is a bad idea.  If you don't understand that, oh well.

Now, if all you were doing was coming here to say how great the rooks are and how bad the other countries in the game are, well good for you.  You have discovered just how important your "AH Nationality" truly is.  You know, my last girlfriend left me because her brother was a Knit and I was a Bish.  Her father told her that there is no way that she could go out with someone who is from the wrong country in AH.  Also, my co-workers have treated me like trash ever since us Bish were reset, and my landlord increased my rent by 25% for the ver same reason.  I guess what chess piece country I fight for in a game truly is important and determines how much of a man I truly am.

[Innominate]

Originally posted by ra
Very true, but it also very difficult to mount offensives when it's 140 v 100.  Not impossible, but difficult.  ...  The only solution is for people to voluntarily switch countries when they see chronic side imbalances.

It's always difficult to overcome the inertia of a bigger team, but all it takes is a good solid attempt at it. (Which is impossible unless the team wants to)  Once a teams attack has been stopped, reversing it is fairly easy, even against superior numbers.  Once the intertia is on your side, the numbers will tend to go the other way.

Nobody wants to switch to a team that doesn't want to win.  When you only want to avoid losing, you're commiting yourself to that fate.

The only real solution is for the rooks to start trying to win, and stop worrying so much about stats.  Or maybe shuffle around those who don't care, and import some who do from the knights/bishops.

[ra]

Once a teams attack has been stopped, reversing it is fairly easy, even against superior numbers.

That has not been the Rook experience at all.  We often stop attacks, but counter attacks against overwhelming numbers are very difficult.

Nobody wants to switch to a team that doesn't want to win.

If players who 'want to win' switch to a chronically outnumbered side (where players don't want to win), they will presumably bring their desire to win with them.  It's the numbers, not the attitude.  

ra

[DoctorYO]

Note I say perk planes would be affected by the attrition model not normal latewar planes.

Hence your F6 would not be wasted on some dweebery by your countrymates.
Only the cost of perk planes...

whats this would mean is simple if your country suicide jabo attacks may indeed  take the base but at a cost to resources to your country; which would be implemented via a percentage of the normal perkplane cost either up or down...

exp:  if say team A is at a 1.10 etc..  then his perk cost for say 10%-50% (would need some thought and playtesting) less for perked planes.  hence a spitXIV would only cost at 30% modifier at 42perks instead of 60.

on the other side of the coin the team with .90 KD would pay %30 more at 78 perks for the same aircraft.

This in turn would create some people saying why fly this country if they do this bull every camp and rotate to another country.

Those who suck it up in their country even despite the dweebery might be more inclined to indentify those who are a  waste of your country's war resources and do some self policing.

Again I say no penalties to common used aircraft.  Just to perked plane cost.  

Granted there would be exploiters just like those take carriers and send them   into the blue yonder but they would be very easy to identify using the current score stats we already have implemented.


DoctorYO

[Innominate]

Changing perk prices really is a pointless idea.

Those who fly them often enough to be any good in them have enough perks that cost is pretty irrelavant.  Those who don't couldn't afford to anyways.  Plus the perk planes, besides the 262 don't really offer anything not available in the free planes.

The big thing that stops people from flying perk planes isn't the cost, but the tags, changing the cost won't change that.

Plus all of the perk planes, excepting the 262 have a free "cousin" with similar(slightly below, but only sligtly) performance.

Tempest: La7
F4U-4: P-51D
Spit14: 109G-10
152: 190-D9

[Furious]

Do the rooks really need a side balancing technique?

I mean, you rooks are always telling us how much better you are than the rest of us dweebs.

[Dead Man Flying]

I see some pretty flimsy logic being thrown around in this thread.

Rooks are more concerned with furballing and stats?  I see no proof of that from any of the statistics provided.  Think about it... if you're outnumbered 2 to 1 or more, you're going to be spending all of your time defending bases from attack rather than going on the offensive.  And even if you do manage to get every Rook to attack the same enemy base, the enemy may nonetheless put up half of its own players to resist while sending the other half to take otherwise undefended bases.

In addition, the higher K/D ratio doesn't necessarily indicate an excessive willingness to furball.  Maybe it indicates that most Rook battles take place over or near areas that afford them some ack protection.  Base attack and suicide jabos would drop the K/D of opponents and correspondingly up the K/D for Rooks in a purely defensive situation like this.  If Rooks are rarely capable of mounting a successful offensive push given their numbers, then their own levels of base attack and suicide jabo deaths would be substantially lower.  Is it any surprise that Rooks have the highest K/D against Knights and Knights have the lowest K/D against Rooks given this explanation?  With vastly superior odds, Knights will almost always be on the offensive, performing dangerous base attack rather than defending against Rooks.

And spare me the anecdotal "That's not the way it is when I'm flying" stuff.

-- Todd/Leviathn