Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Murdr on August 03, 2004, 10:44:45 PM
-
I would like to see a message like this when you try to switch to the country that already has X number more pilots online than another country. What should X be? 30 pilots? 15% more pilots? I dont know.
I do know when one of the countries is being overrun, many log off out of frustration, and many also switch countries. The switchers just magnify the difference in numbers. It would help if there was a threshold that once reached would prohibit defecting to the advantaged side.
My playtime hours are a little flexible, so the issue isnt a deal breaker for me, but I can understand the persistant 'whine about the numbers' threads considering many can only have a finite time period of flying.
Just offering a suggestion as opposed to a whine. Discuss.
-
im sure people are coming in to tell you its there 15$
well its other peoples 15 to!
i feel HTC is not going to deal with the Numbers one sided stuff anyway
-
Dont know about that. What I proposed is a refinement of a suggestion by Morph, and HT was at least interested in the idea.
You can still switch countries to fly with buddies, but if it so happens that your buddies country is up by many pilots at that particular time, he has to come to you. Hehe, and try moving an entire squad to the country that consistantly has numbers under a rule like this
-
indeed, something needs to be done...i dont want the "current" rooks punished...i want the guys that think "oh i cant beat them, so ill join them" to be stopped.........
when it was 200vs160vs160 it was ok but now its like 200vs140vs100 and thats just dam right stupid.....
id say 25% lead would be a good figure to "lock" a country at because sometimes fighting off large numbers IS FUN, but not all the time :)
but then how does the server (or HTC manualy) work this out?
is it a week lock? or just that day? or maybe a whole tour? Should the country switch thing be set to a week instead of only 24hours?
should it average out? Because the last AHI tour it was slightly balanced....you'd have RJO on sunday, and them with 300vs 170 vs 170 or whatever but then on monday, you might only have 90 rooks vs 140 vs 140? who knows. But right now rooks seem to have a lead at all time frames and most primetime slots are RJO numbers now it seems lol........
for any angery rooks, read my first sentance again.......
indeed, something needs to be done...i dont want the "current" rooks punished...i want the guys that think "oh i cant beat them, so ill join them" to be stopped.........
-
I would say the 'lock' be based on only the online roster at that minute. When the 25% (or whatever) lead disappears on the roster, so does the restriction.
It only addresses the "Im frustrated now, so Im switching" and the "Im switching over here so I can feel like im kickin arse" factor. Not too complex, but it would help with the advantage at the time growing worse.
-
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. There is a problem that needs addressing and this sounds both logical and reasonable.
-
How would you addess squads wanting to stay together?
Another thing to think about would be one side logging off.
E.g., it was 200, 175, 150 but now it is 175, 150, 75.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
How would you addess squads wanting to stay together?
Squads wishing to stay together would do just that, stay together in the country they were on at the time. What`s difficult in unerstanding that?
The other night we were outnumbered two to one or more. We got down to the last 5 or 6 bases and it was impossible to up at any of them , they were all being vulched. Most of course just logged off. the next morning at 4:30 AM I thought , no prob now, some sanity will rein and I can drink my cup of Joe and have some fun. Not so. Outnumbered still two to one, even with the with numbers very low and of course , even at this hour, it was the dweeb race to see who could pork HQ dar over and over and over again.
I`ve sort of publicly stayed out of numbers whines, but you can ask me squaddies how I liked it when it was the other way around. I didn`t. I t makes for a boring lopsided affair that I don`t know how anyone could enjoy.
One other suggestion I would make is since everything has been hardened against porking to the point of laughable, then why not eliminate the HQ dar porking.
When it gets to the point to where you log on to find that dar is porked, numbers are ridiculously against your country and there is not even a slim chance of enjoying some time in the game, then IMHO it`s time for some changes.
I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
-
How would you addess squads wanting to stay together?
With what I suggested everthing is the same, except once a country reaches a set advantage of online pilots, noone can switch to that country until the pilots online advantage disapates.
A squad would only run into a problem when it wants to switch to the country that already has too many pilots (and umm, thats kind of the idea).
Another thing to think about would be one side logging off.
E.g., it was 200, 175, 150 but now it is 175, 150, 75.
In that case, its still a lopsided situation, the logging is just a symptom.
Also remember the numbers fluxiate throughout the 24 hour day. The player who couldnt switch to country 'X' during USA prime time, could probably switch during the other 14-18 hours of the day if they wanted to. Its just a disinsentive for dogpiling, thats all.
-
i dont see anything wrong with this:aok
-
Here's a radical idea. Every week HT chooses what country a squad flies for. These would be random. One week your fighting a squad, the next week your working with them. Every week the squad flies for a different country and you can't change it. I know it will never happen it's just an idea.
-
Me, I would like to see unlimited (that is no time limit) switching allowed as long as you are going to the team with the least numbers. Still can't command CV or start a mission for 12 more hours, but you could jump around to help out.
...add to that a 25 perk bonus for moving to the smallest team (once per X number of hours) and I think we would have a workable system*. The carrot and not the stick sort of thing.
*spys are gonna spy anyway.
-
Or simply have it were you have to pay perks to move at all. The price depends on the numbers.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Here's a radical idea. Every week HT chooses what country a squad flies for.
In that case ,myself and many more would cancel accounts and go watch reruns of Homer Simpson or Debbie Does Dallas. Not an optiion for most.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Here's a radical idea. Every week HT chooses what country a squad flies for. These would be random. One week your fighting a squad, the next week your working with them. Every week the squad flies for a different country and you can't change it. I know it will never happen it's just an idea.
That would truly suck. I am about the biggest, hardcore fan of AH there is. If this kind of idea were implimented I'd drop AH like a bad habit.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Or simply have it were you have to pay perks to move at all. The price depends on the numbers.
That's a good idea. It would allow unlimited movement, but would also act as a perk point sinkhole for those fair weather flyers who jump around to the advantaged side perpetually. If someone wanted to move to the lowest numbered side it would be free.
Zazen
-
Never said it was a good idea Jackal, just an idea. My favorite so far is having to pay perk points to move. I have many more useless ideas if you want to hear them...lol.:D
-
Perk incentives/penalties route isnt a bad idea either.
-
Maybe even get perk points for going to the side with the lowest numbers.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Maybe even get perk points for going to the side with the lowest numbers.
The amount you got would have to be similiar to the amount you would receive upon a successfull reset, or no one will move from the biggest country to the smallest. The only ones that would move would be from the middle country, which really wouldn't help the situation. There would also have to be a disparity threshhold that would have to be met before the perks would kick in and a limit on the number of times per camp anyone could do this.
ZAzen
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Perk incentives/penalties route isnt a bad idea either.
It's not really a penalty unless the perk price is high enough that it really is a penalty. Those with tens of thousands of perks will hardly be effected and to make it a penalty for them the perk cost of moving would have to be in the thousands.
Your original idea of a 'zone system' kind of like the one we had in AW is a good idea and probably the most feasible. Once a country reaches a certain % above the rest of the player base, players will no longer be able to switch to that country until the numbers drop below the cap.
ack-ack
-
Some good ideas being discussed here. I hate the "switch to the side with the best advantage" movement. I don't like side switching in general because I feel that most people switch for a reason, and that reason is normally to gain an unfair advantage. No need for it! I've switched only twice in 33 months. Rook now, but have nothing to do with that RJO crap.
As well as some sort of side balancing/side switching regulation, I'd like to see plane allocation/balance. The number of wonderplanes would have to be in proportion to the arena attendance, instead of 50% of the planes being from a shortlist of about four. The perk system goes part way to address this, but doesn't go far enough. Originally posted by Jackal1
When it gets to the point to where you log on to find that dar is porked, numbers are ridiculously against your country and there is not even a slim chance of enjoying some time in the game, then IMHO it`s time for some changes. I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
Amen, Jackal - and that's sig material. It has to be said that the hording is far worse on the small maps, which have now become a permanent fixture.
-
How about this idea. If the Bish, Knights and Rooks each have 100 players no one will get perk points for their time in the air. But say if the Bish have only 50 players, the Knights 75 and the Rooks 100. The Bish will get perk points, the Knights a little less and the Rooks none. This would be updated every minute always changing for the amount of players on. You don't have to do anything for these perks, just fight. You would not get perk points for hanging out in tower.
-
Its fine the way it is.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Its fine the way it is.
No it's not; at least not on Sunday night given the small maps. I agree with the idea of limiting side switchers, or imposing a heavy perk cost to switch.
DmdMax
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I would like to see a message like this when you try to switch to the country that already has X number more pilots online than another country. What should X be? 30 pilots? 15% more pilots? I dont know.
Nice ideas. Most have been mentioned in part on several threads.
I think HT is looking into it by his response to this comment on another thread.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that I think HTC should do is only allow players to change sides if their country has more players at the time than either of the other two sides. If you want to have a rule to switch sides I think that should be it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitech "I sorta like this idea."
30 players is too many. If its going to be even then it should be closer.
-
some kind of perk payment sounds really good as an idea - but can you do it on a squad-scale?
Anyway I never understood this side-switching business its perfectly possible to get your prettythang handed to you no matter what side your on. :D
I've been a Bish since I started. I will remain a Bish until the game finally departs the ether. I like the hats. :aok
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
Explain this please.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Here's a radical idea. Every week HT chooses what country a squad flies for. These would be random. One week your fighting a squad, the next week your working with them. Every week the squad flies for a different country and you can't change it. I know it will never happen it's just an idea.
horrible, just horrible
Originally posted by Karnak
How would you addess squads wanting to stay together?
Another thing to think about would be one side logging off.
E.g., it was 200, 175, 150 but now it is 175, 150, 75.
err we arnt talking about STOPPING people loging on to the biggest size, we are talking about stopping people changing to the biggest size.
Im not sure if it can be blocked just for that night though...because that would mean the players could change to that side the night before they know its going to have numbers.......
-
I agree with the lock idea, except for one thing. There are
people out there devoted to their countries, like me. I am
a Rook, and if I end up logging on to play as a rook and get
a message it's locked, I'm not going to be happy.
-
Has nothing to do with logging in, only switching sides after you're logged in.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Never said it was a good idea Jackal, just an idea. My favorite so far is having to pay perk points to move. I have many more useless ideas if you want to hear them...lol.:D
LOL
-
Originally posted by Xargos
How about this idea. If the Bish, Knights and Rooks each have 100 players no one will get perk points for their time in the air. But say if the Bish have only 50 players, the Knights 75 and the Rooks 100. The Bish will get perk points, the Knights a little less and the Rooks none. This would be updated every minute always changing for the amount of players on. You don't have to do anything for these perks, just fight. You would not get perk points for hanging out in tower.
no way
i dont just see perks as a way of geting perk planes i look at perks as my score for my last flight to and geting perk planes:D
im a Bish never going to move unless forced by squad even when were suffering and wining :cool:
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Here's a radical idea. Every week HT chooses what country a squad flies for. These would be random. One week your fighting a squad, the next week your working with them. Every week the squad flies for a different country and you can't change it. I know it will never happen it's just an idea.
What if you're not in a squad?
-
Originally posted by Ohio330
I agree with the lock idea, except for one thing. There are
people out there devoted to their countries, like me. I am
a Rook, and if I end up logging on to play as a rook and get
a message it's locked, I'm not going to be happy.
someone isnt reading the thread :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
When it gets to the point to where you log on to find that dar is porked, numbers are ridiculously against your country and there is not even a slim chance of enjoying some time in the game, then IMHO it`s time for some changes.
I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
Heh... You must have been flying Knights at around 8:00PM EST last night. Cause that's exactly the way it was. You couldn't go anywhere or do anything because there were vulchers at just about every field. Score potatos GALORE!
-
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/wnbm.jpg)
Figured the above was more polite than saying "It's the maps, Stupid" - comments not addressed to anyone in particular.
-
not a bad idea
i can't see the cons of it
squads will learn how and when to chance.
that 15 dollar doesn't give the ability to fly the 262 either
we will live with it and gameplay will improve.
bigger maps that's what we need also
-
Originally posted by beet1e
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/wnbm.jpg)
Figured the above was more polite than saying "It's the maps, Stupid" - comments not addressed to anyone in particular.
:aok :lol
-
Since the 'cost per plane' system already takes into account the sides numbers, couldn't that be used in deciding which country has too many or too little?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
... I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
Get a grip. I would love to see your logic that backs this up and what "whines" in particular are responsible for the lopsided numbers.
There are furballers in all countries. If there weren't, then there would be no furballs. With that, every country is participating in furballs and for the most part, furballs are usually pretty balanced so the net effect is basically zero when it comes to having an effect on the numbers.
If your insinuating that the lopsidedness is do to the fact that "furballers" don't play "Capture the Flag" you couldn't be more wrong.
As far as the main thrust of this thread ...
I like Murdr's suggestion, but actually think that Furious's idea is probably a better and more simple solution to implement.
I would think that it would be very easy for HT to implement code that will look at the numbers of players in each country when a switch is requested and deny the switch if the chosen country has more players than the country you are currently in.
This approach has no hard coded time limit it. The "time" is only determined by how long other countries maintain numerical superiority over the others.
I also like the idea of getting perk points to switch to the lowest numbered country. I don't need the perks, but it just might be a good incentive for those that want/need perks.
And .... I have to also agree that this constant drubbing of one country would be lessened if we had the BIG maps back in rotation. I know that HTC is probably up to their arnoldes in alligators, but I only hope that they are converting the BIG map with great speed, cause their is going to be a massive explosion very soon.
I don't like the idea of having to pay perks to switch to a higher numbered country. I have over 17,000 perk points and with that logic, I could switch to any country without a problem for a long time. With Furious's idea, it doesn't matter how many perk points I have, I cannot switch to a numerically superior country, which is the way it should be.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Get a grip. I would love to see your logic that backs this up and what "whines" in particular are responsible for the lopsided numbers.
If anyone needs to get a grip, it`s you. Also grab a pair of bifocals. That part has nothing to do with lopsided numbers.
-
FWIW...being on the side doing the gangbanging is not that much fun either. Try fighting with 6 or 8 other guys for a sinlge kill sometime. The other day I saw (from dot-dar) what must have been an actual 100v5 going on down on the southeastern tip. Me an others went and attacked at a place that was relatively quiet, well somebody noticed there was activity over where we moved to and about 30 others showed up. Needless to say the oponents left and it was boring again.
I don't know what the solution is, and am not even going to try and propose one, but heavilly lopsided numbers make it unfun for almost everyone. I trust HTC's judgement here, if it doesn't work itself out (like it has repeatedly in the past) they'll figure out a good way to fix it.
-
How about adding another country or two....and setting a % factor within each country. Bigger maps like fester and oz could be used to their max then.
One thought is when a country is reduced to a certian number of bases the damage/porking ability could be configured so that you could not kill troops/supplies at zone bases, once the number of bases is regained then all are fair game.
This would help control the outnumbering issue and allow time for the numbers to reach a fair percentage.
It would make it harder to win the war but when you did you really have accomplished something verses just winning by numbers.....just a thought....Flame on!
-
Edbert/Slapshot -
I think what Jackal was alluding to (see quote in my sig.) was that it was the furballers who cried for fields to be moved closer together, and bugger the strat. It was the furballers who hailed the concept of "more choices" - hence, all planes available at all fields at all times. Translation: Everyone is allowed to fly an LA7 from any field!! ;)
What we have now is the result of combining the furballer utopian parameters within a single arena, with a front line consisting of about 2 bases instead of 22 as, for example, on the pizza map.
We have had endless map debates in the past two years. What a pity that it's taken some people that long to realise that small maps/close fields = Vulcherama™. :rolleyes:
-
Exactly.
Beet, you think we need larger maps? :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Edbert/Slapshot -
I think what Jackal was alluding to (see quote in my sig.) was that it was the furballers who cried for fields to be moved closer together, and bugger the strat. It was the furballers who hailed the concept of "more choices" - hence, all planes available at all fields at all times. Translation: Everyone is allowed to fly an LA7 from any field!! ;)
What we have now is the result of combining the furballer utopian parameters within a single arena, with a front line consisting of about 2 bases instead of 22 as, for example, on the pizza map.
We have had endless map debates in the past two years. What a pity that it's taken some people that long to realise that small maps/close fields = Vulcherama™. :rolleyes:
Well Beet that is a pretty far stretch for ...
I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
The ...
It was the furballers who hailed the concept of "more choices" - hence, all planes available at all fields at all times.
is complete bollocks. All planes (except the 163) have been available from all fields since the beginning, I believe, or at least since I have been playing this game, so I have no idea where you drummed up this little tidbit and have attached it to the "furballers quest".
Jackal1 ... Nothing wrong with my grip and I have my reading glasses on.
Your whole post (with that little tidbit at the end) was about lopsided numbers and how unbearable it is to fly under those conditions. Then, at the very end you make an accusatory remark that it's the "furballers" fault. What is one to assume and where do we make the distinction that that remark has nothing to do with all your previous remarks in that post.
Again, please enlighten us as to your reasons for making such a statement (without Beet1e's help).
-
We have had endless map debates in the past two years. What a pity that it's taken some people that long to realise that small maps/close fields = Vulcherama™.
Beet ...
Yes we need the large maps back in the rotation without a doubt.
As far as the small maps are concerned ...
Not one of those maps have had one base changed, distance or otherwise. The distances between the bases, on those maps, has nothing to do with the current gameplay problems that we see. The problem is due to the fact that the overall real estate cannot withstand the overwhelming poplution that the MA has grown to. It's a problem of oversaturation IMHO.
Large maps need to be released ASAP before there is a meltdown ... and yes ... at this point I would ENJOY the "Pizza" Map immensely ... not that I ever really had a problem with AKDesert.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Your whole post (with that little tidbit at the end) was about lopsided numbers and how unbearable it is to fly under those conditions. Then, at the very end you make an accusatory remark that it's the "furballers" fault. What is one to assume and where do we make the distinction that that remark has nothing to do with all your previous remarks in that post.
Again, please enlighten us as to your reasons for making such a statement
Beleive it or not it is actualy possible to include more than one train of thought and make more than one statement or opinion in a single post.
It is self explanatory the first time and has been explained to you since then. If you are wishing to hijack the thread or just wish to go around in circles you can do it without my assistance.
Have a goodun.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Beleive it or not it is actualy possible to include more than one train of thought and make more than one statement or opinion in a single post.
It is self explanatory the first time and has been explained to you since then. If you are wishing to hijack the thread or just wish to go around in circles you can do it without my assistance.
Have a gooun.
Fine ... that answers it for me.
Have a gooun.
It that some sort of beer ? ... ;)
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Not one of those maps have had one base changed, distance or otherwise. The distances between the bases, on those maps, has nothing to do with the current gameplay problems that we see. The problem is due to the fact that the overall real estate cannot withstand the overwhelming poplution that the MA has grown to. It's a problem of oversaturation IMHO.
Large maps need to be released ASAP before there is a meltdown ... and yes ... at this point I would ENJOY the "Pizza" Map immensely ... not that I ever really had a problem with AKDesert.
Slapshot! Good to see you, and even better to see you coming round to what has been my point of view these past two years. :):aok Indeed - my opinions have been influenced by the growing customer base of which you speak. As the CB grows, so do the original maps become too small. It's a relative thing, see. at this point I would ENJOY the "Pizza" Map immensely ...
Slapper, mi old fruit, I wish we could have half a dozen beers right now. ;) Now you know exactly how I have felt all this time. Please explain it to the other furballers in terms they would understand. I have always said I don't so much *like* the pizza map, but it sure deals with the hordes, provides variety and diversity - 11K airfields for those P47 sorties - :eek::)
Continuing with small maps with fields too close together in the face of a swelling customer base is the reason for the crap we have now. The only reason I can think of for HTC not having converted the large maps for AH2 is perhaps because they don't own the source code (???) but I don't know. Who does own the code for the player developed maps?
Cya tomorrow - I'm toodle-pipping at Tomato's tonight...
-
Actually I think they do own the source code. The problem is they have to convert the large maps to AH2 specs. That means going through every object and tile and making sure they are converted to the base specs and working.
Smalls maps are obviously less work to do and they only have so many resources. Looks like (best guess) is that more have been designated to hunting down programming issues and fixing them than redoing the maps. Maps are probably a back burner issue.
With the release of the TE hopefully the player base can help come in and lend a hand. Meaning the AKS redo Pizza to AH2 specs and Fester redoes his too AH2 specs.
I think its more an issue for HTC of they can't stamp out all the fires at the same time so its been stamp out the bigger fires first.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Slapshot! Good to see you, and even better to see you coming round to what has been my point of view these past two years. :):aok Indeed - my opinions have been influenced by the growing customer base of which you speak. As the CB grows, so do the original maps become too small. It's a relative thing, see. Slapper, mi old fruit, I wish we could have half a dozen beers right now. ;) Now you know exactly how I have felt all this time. Please explain it to the other furballers in terms they would understand. I have always said I don't so much *like* the pizza map, but it sure deals with the hordes, provides variety and diversity - 11K airfields for those P47 sorties - :eek::)
Continuing with small maps with fields too close together in the face of a swelling customer base is the reason for the crap we have now. The only reason I can think of for HTC not having converted the large maps for AH2 is perhaps because they don't own the source code (???) but I don't know. Who does own the code for the player developed maps?
Cya tomorrow - I'm toodle-pipping at Tomato's tonight...
Whoa there ...
I haven't gotten around to anything ... I have never said that I dislike AKDesert. I have been know to suggest that AKDesert is in need of some tweaks (base spacing just a tad ... not out of control).
Slapper, mi old fruit, I wish we could have half a dozen beers right now. ;)
Well then I presume that you are drinking something other than beer ... haha ... I would much prefer a very nice Cab Sav instead, but good beer is never something to turn down.
I have been to the UK quite a bit and have heard it referenced as shaggin', but have never really heard it called toodle-pipping ... ;)
Have fun !!!
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Here's a radical idea. Every week HT chooses what country a squad flies for. These would be random. One week your fighting a squad, the next week your working with them. Every week the squad flies for a different country and you can't change it. I know it will never happen it's just an idea.
NO way would I be forcrd to fly for the enemy side.
I would go play elsewhere.
Not that i think dale would ever try to make us do that.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I don't like the idea of having to pay perks to switch to a higher numbered country. I have over 17,000 perk points and with that logic, I could switch to any country without a problem for a long time. With Furious's idea, it doesn't matter how many perk points I have, I cannot switch to a numerically superior country, which is the way it should be.
Just to clearify, "Murdr's Idea" was the "cannot switch to a numerically superior country". Furious's idea was based on perk incentives.
I just posted that the idea of using the perk system would be able to work to a degree. For instance if you could perk farm by switching to a lesser staffed country and get paid for it, Im sure there would be takers on a system like that. But as you and AKAK both pointed out, many of us have more perks than we know what to do with, and no perk incentive would make a differnece to that segment of the population.
I dont automatically blindly oppose a different approach than one I suggested, but my suggestion was the culmination of a few discussions of ironing out the cons of different ideas.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Dislike the idea Jackal1. But like the flip side that the high number country can change regardless of time limit.
HiTech
Oh well, my first post would get vetoed. At least the issue is on the radar screen, and more suggestions are poping up, and to an extent being shot down :)
-
How about actually doing the right thing and switching sides to even the numbers yourselves. The core of long time AHers on this board could demonstrate some leadership. Words mean nothing until we put them into action.
Furthermore, if you have done nothing to help the situation, why bother comment on the subject?
-
RT, I was a rook when they were down. When their numbers pulled ahead of bishops I went to Bishops and flew with the former incarnation of AoM. When Knights finally lost their numbers advantage I went to knights. I plan to stay with my current squad now, so if the advantage cycles back around to knights, I would at minimum make visits to the other countries, and get the squads opinion on making a change.
If you were to search back on my comments in other threads regarding a large descrepancy in numbers I have consistantly advocated that it is the squadron that is the most effective tool in balancing the arena population. I have been with squads whos formal policy is to fly with the country that needs pilots the most.
Furthermore this thread has been an anomalily in that it has been strong in suggestions, and weak in whining. So if you're not doing anything to help the situation, why bother commenting on the subject?
-
Furballs will dominate as long as there are only small maps available for the MA.
I've begun to change the way I think of the "horde" in recent days. The small maps tend to concentrate numbers. Some of the physical setups tend to force action along a narrow front. For instance, it means little to say that each country has 24 bases because the reality of the situation is that there are only three "fronts," with at most half a dozen bases being scenes of action along each. Thus, if each country has approximately 150 players logged on at the same time, there are, on average, about 100 players flying along each narrow front.
On the nights when 500 players are logged on, the crowding is even worse.
The only time any side enjoys a particular advantage because of numbers is when there is a large enough disparity to overwhelm a side. If Rooks have 210 and the Knights and Bish about 100 each the Rooks can fight a holding action on one front and overwhelm the enemy on the other front. So if they are simply trying to hold the Knights and wear down the Bish they have a tremendous tactical advantage, for the Bish have to divide their 100 against both the Rooks and the Knights. 75 Rook pilots could successfully hold the pilots along a narrow front while the other 165 Rooks overwhelm a Bish force of 50 defenders.
Some of those jump sides to aggravate this problem could be successfully held back by a perk point system, which makes more sense to me than any other suggestion that has been made. Require each jumper to give up about 100 perk points, at least, and it might make a difference.
-
But as you and AKAK both pointed out, many of us have more perks than we know what to do with, and no perk incentive would make a differnece to that segment of the population.
Murdr I dont think the players with alot of perk points Jump Now,
IMHO. I think peolpe jump to Get More Perk Points that may not have Many.
Crims
479th Raiders
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that I think HTC should do is only allow players to change sides if their country has more players at the time than either of the other two sides. If you want to have a rule to switch sides I think that should be it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sorta like this idea.
HiTech
Originally posted by hitech
Dislike the idea Jackal1. But like the flip side that the high number country can change regardless of time limit.
HiTech
Trying to figure out how this would be applied. I log on, see my normal country has low numbers. Switch to the high number country, dogpile awhile. No time limit on the high number country that Im now in, so I just switch back to my normal country before I log. The next evening I can do the same thing again.
Isnt it easier to dogpile then, or am I misunderstanding the scenerio?
-
If we want realistic planes,flight model why not 2 sides fighting in MA, to make it more realistic.
-
Im too lazy to look the quote up, but HT has said he has experience with 2,3,4+ country "free-for-all" arenas and they feel 3 is the best, with no further elaboration.
-
I have been trying to do my part to alleviate the number problem for some months, when I decided to switch to the out-numbered side for the best interest of fair play in the game.
I understand that some squads are basically dedicated to countries, and respect that. I also know a lot of the pundits haven't done a thing but give the subject lip service.
If players feel country loyalty, I respect that. Personally, having experienced a couple years as a Rook playing out-numbered, and feeling at times that the situations were not very fair, I would feel like a hypocrite if I did unto others what I would not have them do unto me.
My point is that we each have the freedom to ask ourselves to step up, and not necessarily ask someone else to do what we could be doing for ourselves.
I disagree with any of the ideas suggesting that HT manage the numbers. The number imbalance goes to the integrity of the community, which speaks for itself.
-
I believe a large map is now in play. Will have to wait to see what effect it has on game play .. hopefully positive.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Im too lazy to look the quote up, but HT has said he has experience with 2,3,4+ country "free-for-all" arenas and they feel 3 is the best, with no further elaboration.
What happens in a 2 country setup is that when the second country gets banged down half the players are porked instead of
a third of the player base.
It was tried in AW also and it really messed up the game.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Trying to figure out how this would be applied. I log on, see my normal country has low numbers. Switch to the high number country, dogpile awhile. No time limit on the high number country that Im now in, so I just switch back to my normal country before I log. The next evening I can do the same thing again.
Isnt it easier to dogpile then, or am I misunderstanding the scenerio?
I believe that you have it backwards Murdr.
The way I read it ...
If the country that you are flying for has MORE numbers than the country that you want to switch to ... you can. This allows those players to switch to another country and try to obtain balance.
If the country that you are flying for has LESS numbers than the country that you want to switch to ... you can't. This doesn't allow players to switch to more populated countries and cause more of an imbalance. It would effectively stop those who "bail" out and move to the "other" country.
-
I am not sure of this but have read that the 2 country system over in WWII Online basically also has a number disadvantage. The allies consistently field more players than the Germans. Supposedly the Germans have developed a culture to counter this and a tighter organizations and multi-unit game ethic to counter being out numbered.
If what I have read is correct then it is also like it was in AW when two countries was tried. You never reach a point of balance and what is consider major imbalances are always argued over.
Are things massively disadvantage when its 120, 120, 160? 120, 120, 140? .. When its 120,120, 200 yes. But you will hear people scream about it when only 30+ more or 20+ more.
I think the idea here of not letting people switch from their country to another country if that country has more players (or is a certain percentage larger) is worth looking into.
Although truthfully I am not sure just exactly how many independents switch to the larger country. I think some but I don't think its a massive ground swell ... I haven't noticed large swells in numbers as the independents switch.
I have noticed that at certain point when a country gets reduced to just a few bases that many times you just see a large amount of people log. That goes for all countries. Oh, and then you will always see a fall of numbers at a certain point when the east coasters and mid america have to get ready for bed and work the next day.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I believe that you have it backwards Murdr.
The way I read it ...
the country that you are flying for has LESS numbers than the country that you want to switch to ... you can't.
Not true according to HT. Read up and in another thread I suggested this and HT said he did not like the idea.
-
ghostdancer, I wouldnt call independents a groundswell either, but their net effect of reducing one countries roster and padding the others in essence doubles their effect. If its 150/150/190 (the high# country up by 40) and only 5 pilots from each switch to the high number country it becomes 145/145/200(the high# country up by 55).
The only problem I see with the idea where HT said "I sorta like this idea." (above) is that 2/3rd of the people couldnt switch at a given time. That is actually what caused me to consider the scenerio described in my first post.
Was hoping someone could shed some light on my interpretation of by HiTech"But like the flip side that the high number country can change regardless of time limit."
Which was:
"Trying to figure out how this would be applied. I log on, see my normal country has low numbers. Switch to the high number country, dogpile awhile. No time limit on the high number country that Im now in, so I just switch back to my normal country before I log. The next evening I can do the same thing again.
Isnt it easier to dogpile then, or am I misunderstanding the scenerio?"
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
When it gets to the point to where you log on to find that dar is porked, numbers are ridiculously against your country and there is not even a slim chance of enjoying some time in the game, then IMHO it`s time for some changes.
I just hope the purist "furball only" crowd is satisfied. This is what your whines has done to the game.
Really? How? What does a furball-friendly map have to do with a numbers imbalance?
NM, I see that you've been asked already and weren't able to answer. Carry on.
-
I agree that it would be a nice thing to find a solution to the numbers imbalance.
But I don't think perks will do it. I think the people who switch to higher numbers do so because they want to join the horde, not anything related to perks (resets don't happen often anyway). Any side-switchers here to confirm or deny this?
Also, Murdr, I'm not sure if your suggestion will have much of an impact. I get the sense that the imbalance is not caused by switching, but rather the fact that people and squads tend to stick with a single country. Does anyone (i.e. HTC) have figures as to what percentage of players switch countries to the higher numbers, sampled say every night and averaged?
If it is actually a large percentage, then I say great idea! And the idea should also be applied if the numbers are something like 200-200-50. I.e. largest is 25% or more, or smallest is 25% or more.
-
Rgr pookat, I understand your points.
The numbers are like a pendulum that swings back and forth, that's just the way it is. I am looking at the fact that 5 people leaving 1 country for the high number country impacts the net difference between the 2 as 10. I feel the "pendulum" would swing a little more freely if that effect was curbed in some way. Also it would discourage a whole squad moving where its presence isnt really required.
Basically though I dont like how people wanting to take the easy route (however small a group) can have a magnified infuence (net difference) on the arena. Since the issue has been batted around lately I might as well add my opinion.
-
HT has addressed the preponderance of the top five popular planes (more commonly known as the "dweeb planes") indirectly, by adjusting the perk ratios. Although its early, I am seeing a few less of them and a bit more variety in the air -- not much change, but some.
Why not use the same indirect approach, tweaking rather than more radical change?
Now the most populous country gets fewer perks for kills, and pays less for perk planes. This helps play balance some for the night, and indirectly for the campaign.
Why not just add a multiplier? Double the ratio, so the outnumbered country gets twice its current perks for a kill, and finds perk planes half their current calculated cost. If that's too radical, then increase the ratio by 50-75%.
I really think this would work well, without adding a completely untested element.
-
You know Simaril, when perk incentives were brought to the discussion, I had a similar thought regarding a modifier. I wouldnt have a problem with the approach you mentioned. Perks have very little bearing on when/where/how I fly, but I know some people like to perk farm. Encouraging a portion of the pilots to switch where they are needed, is as good as discouraging a portion from switching where they arnt needed as far as Im concerned.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Really? How? What does a furball-friendly map have to do with a numbers imbalance?
NM, I see that you've been asked already and weren't able to answer. Carry on.
"Furball Friendly" was not mentioned by me, only by you.
Carry on.
-
12:25 AM Central time .
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1091770204_numbers.jpg)
-
So right now the perk modifier changes the value of the cost column. Make it apply to the ENY column too. I think that would change the dynamics of things. Out of the suggestions of using perks in some way, I like that one.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
when it was 200vs160vs160 it was ok but now its like 200vs140vs100 and thats just dam right stupid.....
Well hell whats wrong with that?Ive seen bish and Kniggit play tag team on rooks.That would make it 140 vrs 100, and 100 vrs 100 respecfully.Gotta split the rooks to deal with each.
This is all just BS anyway,Ive been flying as a Bish not ALL that long ago when the bish were the huge numbers.Then it went rook.It changes.You can beef about it ll ya want but Sometime in the near future the Kniggits will be the heavy hitters.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Well hell whats wrong with that?Ive seen bish and Kniggit play tag team on rooks.That would make it 140 vrs 100, and 100 vrs 100 respecfully.Gotta split the rooks to deal with each.
This is all just BS anyway,Ive been flying as a Bish not ALL that long ago when the bish were the huge numbers.Then it went rook.It changes.You can beef about it ll ya want but Sometime in the near future the Kniggits will be the heavy hitters.
and thats the problem with 3 sides too, you ALWAYS get one side getting ganged/tagteamed........
dont you think its fair that sometimes rooks x300 get tag teamed by bish and knits x250??? And anyway if bish/knit want to survive they HAVE to throw 90-100% of forces at defence.
hell last night rooks had more numbers than BOTH THE OTHER TEAMS put together. that just aint right.
Small maps (mindnao is even worse) compact these massive numbers to just 2-4 freaking bases which just makes matters even worse.
Lets use last night as an example
240 rooks (when i left)
130 knits
140 bish
240 / 4 bases = 60 in one group..... :eek:
lets say bish/knits have 90 defending against rooks, and the rest fighting each other. Thats 45 per base...doesnt sound so bad BUT, remember rooks wont attack BOTH sides at the same time, they hold one front while attacking another.
so we now have 20 at 2 bases while 200 players attack the other 2 bases......
This is where the problem starts, if knits see that rooks are hitting bish, they KNOW they got a easy option of attacking bish too so before you know its bish is ganged. (this happens to all sides.....)
all i can say, is PERK the top 3-6 planes with like 4-8 perks. When when rooks have this much numbers thats 8-16 perks they wasting........of corse people wantting EZ mode flyers wont like that.
really i dont understand how rooks can have fun with so little targets.......:confused:
-
Shameless with clifnotes reposted:
I would like to see a message like this when you try to switch to the country that already has X number more pilots online than another country. What should X be? 30 pilots? 15% more pilots? I dont know.
I do know when one of the countries is being overrun, many log off out of frustration, and many also switch countries. The switchers just magnify the difference in numbers. It would help if there was a threshold that once reached would prohibit defecting to the advantaged side.
The numbers are like a pendulum that swings back and forth, that's just the way it is. I am looking at the fact that 5 people leaving 1 country for the high number country impacts the net difference between the 2 as 10. I feel the "pendulum" would swing a little more freely if that effect was curbed in some way. Also it would discourage a whole squad moving where its presence isnt really required.
Basically though I dont like how people wanting to take the easy route (however small a group) can have a magnified infuence (net difference) on the arena. Since the issue has been batted around lately I might as well add my opinion.