Author Topic: Maxtor's stupid idea #7  (Read 1463 times)

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2003, 05:06:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rod367th
First Exact words from Hitech, "This game will never be 2 sided or rolling plane set".


AH2 will have a two sided war (axis-allied), with a plane set that progresses with time, aka rps.

;)

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2003, 08:46:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ccvi
AH2 will have a two sided war (axis-allied), with a plane set that progresses with time, aka rps.

;)


good point.


Seems to me judging by what you can see every time we get close to a reset is that:

There is a huge contingent of players who merely wish to be on the winning side.
They will change countries either to gain the extra perks for the win or simply to have more chances of easy fights.

You can see this happen when your country starts to lose.Suddenly your numbers dwindle and the other country,usually those closest to a win, start to increase in number.

So HTC need a way of stopping this 'side switching' mentality without making it impossible to change.


MY SUGGESTIONS:

either:

a) When a player changes country It COSTS them perks.(would prevent frequent switchers but not squads who switch for the benefit of the game.They would be willing to pay i think if they are indeed doing it to 'even th numbers')

b) For a short period a player who has just joined a country cannot earn perk points.(this would make switching in the final stages of the war totally profitless).

c) Give benefits to players who remain with ONE country longer.Perhaps a perk modifier that very slowly increases the longer you remain LOYAL to one country.


basically before you start raving about how its not right to stop players switching consider what switching in the numbers we see (ie 40 or 50 people at a time) causes.Pretty much misery for the players who stick it out and fight to the end of the war for the losing country.Extra perk points for players who switch but have done nothing to really help win the war.Who benefits from the late stage switching?.I think HTC has already made it impossible to gain the war win perk bonus if you switch over within the last (30?) minutes of the war but it doesnt seem to be discouraging anyone.

Lets make it unappealing to switch sides and rewarding to stay loyal.

Players who have been on one country (for years in some cases)would have a slightly better perk earning potential.
Players who constantly switch sides earn LESS.

Some will say the perk points mean nothing to them but after seeing this last minute switching pattern over and over as the war ends. I would say they actually do care, or at least enough do to reduce the trend significantly if it became profitless to switch.
My personal opinion of these players who quickly leave as soon as it gets a bit tough is that they are 'rats leaving the sinking ship'.
Lets treat them as such :D

once you have a more stable population you can then possibly use a system where HTC invites (with an incentive of some kind) a certain number to change countries to even up the numbers.If once people settle in to their respective countries and one side has less consistanly HTC could give that country score modifiers or even perhaps a special weapon?

If we had a V2 or V1 flying bomb it would be cool if only the country that has very few members is allowed to use it. Anyway i digress, I hope HTC considers this.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2003, 09:05:04 AM by hazed- »

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2003, 06:13:59 PM »
If you switch sides to the 'winning' side, you don't get perks for the win unless you have been on that side for 12 hours...


Used to be at least

SKurj

Offline zipity

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2003, 12:02:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
if you add this idea, you might as well just delete all the bomber aircraft in the game


That's not a bad idea.  I joined this game to fly bombers, but find myself doing it less and less.  I like the new bomb site but don't like not being part of the game.  The furball dudes won this battle.  Not only is there no strategic point to flying a bomber but they're so easy to kill it's just silly to take them up.

Here's an idea for a new feature, when someone gets into a bomber, blow up the whole formation as soon as they start their engines.  You'll save the player anywhere from 1/2 to 1 hour flight time to get to the same result.

Offline rod367th

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2003, 03:22:23 AM »
zipity u must be a real bad shot, have landed 7 kills in b17's 4 were 163's lol

Offline StracCop

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://www.digitaldioramas.com/
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2003, 12:59:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SKurj
If you switch sides to the 'winning' side, you don't get perks for the win unless you have been on that side for 12 hours...


Used to be at least

SKurj


I think thats still the case.

Besides, I don't think that many of the new players even have an idea of what perk points are or that members of the country winning a reset gets them.  

My belief is that many players just jump on the pig pile and join in the frenzy when its obvious that the handle has been pulled and one country is swirling the tank.  Maybe locking a player to a specific country for 7 days would stop this nonsense?

David

Offline Griego

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Maxtor's stupid idea #7
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2003, 11:55:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Shssh... Ya know that price increase for development of AH2? It's actually going to be used to pay the rooks. :D



 YIPPEEEE!