Author Topic: Side balancing - not needed!  (Read 745 times)

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Side balancing - not needed!
« on: December 11, 2002, 03:58:50 PM »
It doesn't matter if one country has a few players less. 120 vs. 70 is still not even 2 vs. 1.

The real problem is two countries joining forces.

(in the screenshot rookland is in the west; player numbers about bish 120, knit 80, rook 70. That's where it's getting bad - 3 vs. 1)

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2002, 05:58:10 PM »
And whose fault is it that this kind of game play is worse than usual?

This started today when hitech was online for a few minutes without sayig anything. Now players believe 1.11 will be out after reset. Gang bang time.

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2002, 05:04:36 PM »
rooks living in the northern piece, bishops and knits on the southern pieces. player numbers and field numbers are balanced (more or less).

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2002, 05:58:38 PM »
ccvi, I doubt there is anything more that we can do, or ask of.

 I do not know if it is the effect of the new perk system, but for about a week now, in the times that I logged on, I had some pleasant experiences of us Rooks being the largest country around. Other times we were outnumbered, but only marginally like 10~20 people. That's a fair game.

 According to situations, and the way the terrain is designed, one country always receives a combined attack from the other two from time to time. I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy or tendency for the other two to gang up on the Rooks. Sometimes we team up with Knits and bang Bish, other times we team up with Bish and bang the Knits.

 .. since I more often than not find our numbers our in par with the other two after 1.1, the gangbangs don't concern me much.

Offline Fancy

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2002, 06:57:12 PM »
Yeah, I hate Nits and Bish EQUALLY and will hit whomever is closest at hand.

Offline TheCage

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2002, 09:53:30 PM »
Personally I think it's the cash prizes that have made things even worse.   In the whole time I have flown this sim, I have never been ganged banged by twelve enemy aircraft.   All which were shooting all over the sky every where.   With no place to go, except down in flames.   I think it was a extremely bad move on HTC's part offering the cash prizes.   Only makes the dweeb hordes worse then ever.   As for the people that fly here to have fun, I wish you the best, but the dweeb score hordes will ruin the game for many.  Oh and by the way, flame away, I don't care, nor do I give a damn.  Enough said!!!!!!!!!!

Exit stage left.....over and out :P

Offline TWOLF

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Just an Observation
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2002, 10:10:48 PM »
Well, I am just now returning after a long break.  The game play now as opposed to when I moved to other interests is pretty much the same.  As a matter of fact it is exactly the same from my perspective.  I currently fly with the knights.  The set up in AH is exactly the same as Air Warrior save for the names of the countries.  I can guarantee that each side Knights, Bishops, and Rooks are exactly the same in terms of practice, and number of Jerks.  The cash issue may change some players but by and large most folks fly to their abilities and as a result have little hope for a prize.  So on that note the vast majority of the Arena (98%) are not in the running for anything but fun.  Also on that note, if someone is playing this game solely for the money prize, then they should probably move on since the prize isn’t anything more then a token.

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
Re: Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2002, 08:47:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ccvi
It doesn't matter if one country has a few players less. 120 vs. 70 is still not even 2 vs. 1.

The real problem is two countries joining forces.

(in the screenshot rookland is in the west; player numbers about bish 120, knit 80, rook 70. That's where it's getting bad - 3 vs. 1)


And the problem gets worse when, as it seems to happen when I'm logged on, the country in the middle of the player range is the one getting gang-banged. For example, on a recent night the Bishops hat 180, the Knights had 160, and the Rooks had 100, but the Knights were on the receiving end of both the Bishops and the Rooks. 280 to 160 doesn't quite make it to 2:1, but the fact that the Knights were close to the Bishops in numbers meant that the Rooks were out with the cheap perk planes, while the Knights were almost as badly hosed as the Bishops.

Offline Ecliptik

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2002, 10:03:13 AM »
Quote
In the whole time I have flown this sim, I have never been ganged banged by twelve enemy aircraft.


And in all the time I have flown this sim, whenever I've screwed up and actually flown into 12 enemy aircraft (a huge mistake in itself), I've never expected them to politely engage me one at a time so I'd have a chance at shooting them down, as if I was an action hero in a kung-fu movie.  

Trust me, this hasn't changed.

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2002, 10:36:05 AM »
So why not add a country or take one away to make it more balanced? Why does HTC have to invent some sort of side balancing code instead of being simple about it?

Just a thought on the subject here.
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline Wlfgng

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5252
      • http://www.nick-tucker.com
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2002, 10:52:53 AM »
2, 3 ir 4 countries.. doesn't matter...

it's all been tried before.  IMO HT is taking a step in the right direction.

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2002, 05:51:08 PM »
"balancing" depends no countries teaming up. with more than 2 countries and balanced country numbers, any areana will be unbalanced...

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2002, 10:21:53 PM »
Shut up.

Offline anton

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
      • http://n/a
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2002, 02:25:45 AM »
For me the best fights are found when the red & green dar bars in my sect are equal. Too many red - possibilty of lead-poisoning increases. Too many green & ya gotta race to the kills.

But then, I dont care about perk points, or cash prizes.
 Anton

Offline NoBaddy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
      • http://www.damned.org
Side balancing - not needed!
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2002, 11:02:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by TheCage
In the whole time I have flown this sim, I have never been ganged banged by twelve enemy aircraft.   All which were shooting all over the sky every where.  


Right...what are the odds that even ONE of the 12 has the most remote chance to get in on the prize money? Nil? Less than nil?? I too noticed a change in player behavior...the first week. After that, all of the wannabees had been weeded out.
NoBaddy (NB)

Flying since before there was virtual durt!!
"Ego is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."