Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tapakeg on August 13, 2004, 11:45:12 PM

Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: tapakeg on August 13, 2004, 11:45:12 PM
Ok, if you want to post or read opinions about the new balancing mode by HTC go to another thread.

SO........................... with one word reply's, are you FOR or AGAINST the new system.

me?

AGAINST

Tapakeg
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: SunKing on August 13, 2004, 11:57:51 PM
For



(change is good)
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: FBRaptor on August 13, 2004, 11:57:58 PM
Too soon to tell.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: jdpete75 on August 14, 2004, 12:06:00 AM
against
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: yb11 on August 14, 2004, 12:36:30 AM
for it    it has to be beter the gitin run over by the hord
Title: l
Post by: dragoon on August 14, 2004, 12:42:57 AM
against
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: B17Skull12 on August 14, 2004, 12:46:48 AM
for.  tired of the  down to 5 bases, 200+ rooks spread out over a front of 2 sector's  and radar out, log.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: 4510 on August 14, 2004, 12:48:56 AM
Against
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Xargos on August 14, 2004, 12:53:34 AM
If the planes were perked instead of disabled it wouldn't be so bad.  But as it is now I'm against.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Hyrax81st on August 14, 2004, 01:13:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Xargos
If the planes were perked instead of disabled it wouldn't be so bad.  But as it is now I'm against.



I agree that if a limiting factor is going to be introduced, it should be perking (something everyone already understands and can quickly adapt to) rather than restriction of the plane-set. But the old argument of why certain planes have never been perked will resurface as a result...
Title: against?
Post by: dragoon on August 14, 2004, 01:24:22 AM
you are against it as of now right hyrax?
Title: Re: against?
Post by: Hyrax81st on August 14, 2004, 01:37:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by dragoon
you are against it as of now right hyrax?


Yes, against it as currently implemented. Plane set shouldn't be restricted in MA. That's what the CT (and ToD) would be for.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: B17Skull12 on August 14, 2004, 02:02:20 AM
it has been shown perks aren't enough can't you see that?  most people have over 500 perks anyways so really whats the point of perks?
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Xargos on August 14, 2004, 02:06:06 AM
Most people, realy?  Not I.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: anton on August 14, 2004, 02:10:02 AM
For  (twenty) it
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: SunKing on August 14, 2004, 02:10:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by B17Skull12
it has been shown perks aren't enough can't you see that?  most people have over 500 perks anyways so really whats the point of perks?


I think after a month or so the perks would start to work. People would burn most of their PP bank off and Perks would work the way they were intended  eventually. Of course there are those who have 10k + perks , then again they are the community that can fly any plane and have success too. I would really like to see a slight perk cost on late war planes , but I'm dreaming.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: jdpete75 on August 14, 2004, 02:11:13 AM
B17 what about the C-Hog.  perked from 4 to 12 points and now they arent all that common
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: jetb123 on August 14, 2004, 02:13:05 AM
I am not against it or like it. Because I havent played yet. All I want to know is what happens when a big mission ups. And half cant up?
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: B17Skull12 on August 14, 2004, 02:18:56 AM
lets see.

F4U-1C   2246   905   1.32   0.53   2.48
now lets compare that with the spit9
Spitfire Mk IX   6697   6913   3.94   4.07   0.97
well hot damn 1/3 the use of the spit9.
2nd most used hog.  perks do nonthing.  if you dont understand the fact that people have huge bank rolls in perks and are to timid to fight.  that is why they have utterly failed to balance numbers.  Instead you just have more planes in the air with perks that are to scared to fight.

http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/totalstats.php
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: tshred on August 14, 2004, 02:20:32 AM
Against it. Rediculous idea. Life ain't fair, get over it.

ts
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Kev367th on August 14, 2004, 02:46:39 AM
For it.
Eventually all countries will be affected by it at one time or another.
If HT was to perk LA7, P51 etc we would be getting exactly the same complaints.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: FBRaptor on August 14, 2004, 02:58:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by tshred
Against it. Rediculous idea. Life ain't fair, get over it.

ts


LOL, exactly tshred, Life aint fair....get over it and adapt :0)
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Hyrax81st on August 14, 2004, 02:59:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
For it.
Eventually all countries will be affected by it at one time or another.
If HT was to perk LA7, P51 etc we would be getting exactly the same complaints.


Not exactly... because the planes would still be available for a nominal cost - as opposed to now, where they are completely eliminated from the plane-set.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Roscoroo on August 14, 2004, 03:09:20 AM
against it ... just because of a number inbalance ... we should lose plane choices ... hell its bad enough when 262's cost 500 perks and every one else gets them for 49 . (us rooks didnt get that perk adv 2 yrs ago )


hell just bribe one or two prime time squads over to the knits or bish and the whining will stop ...( i wish)


A noble Rook never whined when the numbers were the other way .
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Kev367th on August 14, 2004, 03:12:38 AM
Hyrax I would agree, but perking the Pony and La7 would result in the same complaints but for different reasons.
Kweassa had a post about perking planes, the majority of responses were negative.
HT can't win either way. Lets see how it pans out over a few weeks, like the 75% fuel and no night ( which I don't like ) people will adapt.
For people to say if I can't fly (insert model) plane I am cancelling or whatever is just ridiculous. Bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. The good/great whatever pilots in this game will adapt to the new style.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Xargos on August 14, 2004, 03:18:03 AM
If it gets to the point were I can't fly a Bf109G-10 nor a G-2 I'm out of here.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Hyrax81st on August 14, 2004, 03:34:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
For people to say if I can't fly (insert model) plane I am cancelling or whatever is just ridiculous. Bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face. The good/great whatever pilots in this game will adapt to the new style.


I agree that time will tell and there is no reason to quit the game in the first 48 hours after a patch like this.
Title: For it
Post by: zabe on August 14, 2004, 04:00:05 AM
For it



Zabe
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: TBolt A-10 on August 14, 2004, 04:28:26 AM
Neutral.  But, I'd prefer to see planes disabled as a result of a successful bombing mission, not because of numbers.    :rolleyes:
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: tapakeg on August 14, 2004, 04:29:14 AM
i like that idea T-bolt
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: simshell on August 14, 2004, 04:51:41 AM
for it

you no there is more then 1 ride last time i looked
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Kev367th on August 14, 2004, 05:00:13 AM
Nice idea T-Bolt - one major problem.
Side with big numbers advantage bombs the crap outta the lower numbered factories. They are in even more problems than previoulsy.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Meatwad on August 14, 2004, 06:30:42 AM
against!
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: xBarrelx on August 14, 2004, 07:20:44 AM
[SIZE=12]against[/SIZE]
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Goth on August 14, 2004, 07:31:37 AM
Against.

Maybe the RJO can convince rook squads to move to knights sunday night and let their pilots taste this new implementation.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: NoBaddy on August 14, 2004, 10:26:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Goth
Against.

Maybe the RJO can convince rook squads to move to knights sunday night and let their pilots taste this new implementation.


Oh please do. WAIT! Since I don't fly much of anything with a low ENY....nevermind :).

Of course, it is interesting that you might be willing to switch countries to annoy another group of players...but, not to help balance the game play in the arena.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Boozer2 on August 14, 2004, 10:53:37 AM
I'm with nobaddy here, usually fly P-47s so I'm completely unaffected, anyway, that said... FOR   (it forces some LA-7 dweebs to fly a real plane)
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Hornet on August 14, 2004, 11:59:17 AM
why are so many rooks against it?

I thought their success to this point had been attributed to superior teamwork and tactics, honed during their year in the bucket?
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: kj714 on August 14, 2004, 12:15:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Goth
Against.

Maybe the RJO can convince rook squads to move to knights sunday night and let their pilots taste this new implementation.


hehe, that would be a funny dance, then all the knits would go rook.

Oh yeah, too soon to tell. Personally, I fly the Spit  V, 109 F4, 205, 109 A8 so I don't know if I'd be all that affected if this comes to knits.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: killnu on August 14, 2004, 12:24:18 PM
For

if teamwork was the key to success, it shouldnt matter should it?
~S~
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: eilif on August 14, 2004, 12:29:42 PM
im FOR the drama on channel 200
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: mrniel on August 14, 2004, 12:36:34 PM
For.

Far better than time penalty, and make the game fair again for the lower side.

All against must be Rooks. :)    Just kidding.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: DipStick on August 14, 2004, 12:38:32 PM
Oh no, waaaaaa, I'm crying so hard, waaaaaaa, I'm blubbering, waaaaaa, waaaaaa. :rolleyes:

For so far. Worth it just to hear rookies cry and whine.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: TBolt A-10 on August 14, 2004, 12:41:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Nice idea T-Bolt - one major problem.
Side with big numbers advantage bombs the crap outta the lower numbered factories. They are in even more problems than previoulsy.


U have a point, but I still think it's something that could be worked out.

Re: anti-factory missions...
Mission success wouldn't come for 1-dweeb in a single shot-up bomber that lobs 6 eggs in the general direction of the factory buildings. Total mission success against factories would be quite a task.

I don't want to hi-jack this thead, though, with talk about factories.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Kev367th on August 14, 2004, 05:33:18 PM
Agreed T-Bolt.
But with NOE raids on strats its notorious difficult to get to them before they have have bit.
HQ NOE raids have proven to be a goog example.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: SFCHONDO on August 14, 2004, 05:38:37 PM
AGAINST!!!

(https://home.comcast.net/~samaras/wsb/media/287205/site1004.jpg)
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Overlag on August 14, 2004, 05:40:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FBRaptor
Too soon to tell.
Title: AGAINST1111
Post by: Bammer4 on August 14, 2004, 05:44:47 PM
Open Letter to Hitech

I pay good money to play this game and to fly these planes. I just watched 32 Bishops log off in the last 30 minutes (I made 33) in frustration.   i HAVE HAD TWO MISSIONS DISRUPTED AT LAUNCH BECAUSE PLANES THAT WERE OK WHEN THE MISSION WAS ACCEPTED WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED AT MISSION LAUNCH!!  I refuse to pay you ANY MORE money if I cannot fly the planes.

LET ME MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR.

I REFUSE TO PAY YOU ANY MORE MONEY UNTIL I CAN FLY THE PLANES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: phookat on August 14, 2004, 05:45:13 PM
For.  I'm with DipStick.  The whines are great entertainment.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: rabbidrabbit on August 14, 2004, 05:50:06 PM
AGAINST

There are better ways to accomplish the same task.. this is just punishing people to an extreme for something  they can't control.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Furious on August 14, 2004, 05:51:25 PM
I am thoroughly enjoying it.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: killnu on August 14, 2004, 05:51:44 PM
um bammer, nobody said you cant fly the planes, just to fly them you must switch countries, or even out the numbers, hence the term balancing.  oh well.  
~S~
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: FBBone on August 14, 2004, 05:52:03 PM
FOR
Title: Re: AGAINST1111
Post by: Overlag on August 14, 2004, 05:57:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bammer4
Open Letter to Hitech

I pay good money to play this game and to fly these planes. I just watched 32 Bishops log off in the last 30 minutes (I made 33) in frustration.   i HAVE HAD TWO MISSIONS DISRUPTED AT LAUNCH BECAUSE PLANES THAT WERE OK WHEN THE MISSION WAS ACCEPTED WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED AT MISSION LAUNCH!!  I refuse to pay you ANY MORE money if I cannot fly the planes.

LET ME MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR.

I REFUSE TO PAY YOU ANY MORE MONEY UNTIL I CAN FLY THE PLANES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


you can fly the planes just not the p51D/La7 etc, big deal, theres loads of other planes

idiot:rolleyes:
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: RDSaustinTX on August 15, 2004, 02:27:49 PM
Against

 
Quote
For so far. Worth it just to hear rookies cry and whine.

 
You ARE a rookie dipsh*t.
 
Mullah
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: doobs on August 15, 2004, 03:00:19 PM
For it
great idea IMHO
Title: so far
Post by: dragoon on August 15, 2004, 03:36:44 PM
against 15
for 13
undecided: did not tally
no real for or against respose: did not tally

the thread aint over yet. GO AGAINST yee ha
to bad most of the AGAINST players refuse to post on the BBS due to the people who have nothing better to do than flame. everyone has an opinion on this wether its against, for or neutral. to bad they choose to remain silent.

we do pay our 15 per month. its an investment of our time and money for something we consider alot of fun. that 15 per month also gives us the right to try instagate change. the people who complained about the numbers prompted change but im sure it wasnt exacly what they was looking for. now its our turn to complain about the change and try to reverse it or HELP find another solution EVERYONE can be happy with.:aok
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Murdr on August 15, 2004, 03:45:03 PM
well I wasnt going to participate, but if you're gonna cheerlead


FOR
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: SFCHONDO on August 15, 2004, 03:49:11 PM
Well at first I was against it. Now after seeing it in action I am

FOR IT


(https://home.comcast.net/~samaras/wsb/media/287205/site1004.jpg)
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: TDeacon on August 15, 2004, 06:13:43 PM
Against.  Balancing should be implemented using positive reinforcement, not negative.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: X2Lee on August 15, 2004, 06:44:14 PM
for.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: eskimo2 on August 15, 2004, 07:48:11 PM
[SIZE=10]For[/SIZE]

eskimo
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Arlo on August 15, 2004, 08:40:06 PM
4
____Q
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on August 15, 2004, 09:22:04 PM
AGAINST
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Goobman on August 15, 2004, 09:33:11 PM
AGAINST
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Ironblade on August 15, 2004, 10:09:13 PM
Salute All
Against it
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: TBolt A-10 on August 16, 2004, 12:04:37 AM
Now that I've actually flown under the new rules for a few hours, I'll change my "Neutral" to an "Against"[/b] even though it doesn't seem to affect my German rides much.

This change upsets and alienates many customer...a bad decision, imho.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Hades55 on August 16, 2004, 12:10:33 AM
I usualy had 10 lalas and 5 spits in my 6, so,
4 it
Title: Re: Re: AGAINST1111
Post by: TBolt A-10 on August 16, 2004, 12:10:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Overlag
you can fly the planes just not the p51D/La7 etc, big deal, theres loads of other planes

idiot:rolleyes:


Uhh...overlag?  I noticed that the pony and lgay-7 are not the only a/c affected by this change.  The B-17 is restricted, now.  What else...?
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: roofer on August 16, 2004, 12:30:26 AM
against
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: tapakeg on August 16, 2004, 01:32:10 AM
the B-17's are restricted?
Ok, what planes are restricted, and when are they unavailable? How much of an offset in numbers does it take to make what plane unavailable?

Tapakeg
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Shane on August 16, 2004, 02:15:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by tapakeg
the B-17's are restricted?
Ok, what planes are restricted, and when are they unavailable? How much of an offset in numbers does it take to make what plane unavailable?

Tapakeg


the higher the imbalance between the largest and smallest country the higher the eny-limiter goes...  which makes sense it whacks the b-17...  i dunno the exact %, but as an example lets say bish have 180 on, rooks 120 and knits 130... at that point the eny-limiter has probably crept up to the mid 20's due te the % differential being 33%. (100 - (120/180))

now with a 60 player differential, and lets be honest, no side ever has their #'s evenly split bewteen two fronts, removing the b-17 only forces the bish to use lower eny'd buffs like a b-26 or a-20 (which have smaller bomb loads), but with the #'s advantage it slows down that pigpile somewhat, requiring a bit more "teamwork" and strategy as opposed to sheer overwhelming numbers in conjunction with the "best" planes.

Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: kevykev56 on August 16, 2004, 03:00:59 AM
For it!!!

RHIN0
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Kev367th on August 16, 2004, 03:52:06 AM
It's interesting to see when 2 countries get limited also.
Title: for it or against it? (balancing)
Post by: Edbert on August 16, 2004, 09:06:02 AM
Its too early to decide for sure, I think we  have give it at least a whole tour before we can tell if it has the effect of evening out the sides. Too many are posting here that their choices are being limited. You still HAVE a choice. You can choose to fly any plane you want or for any country you want, you just cannot choose BOTH is all that has changed.

Put me down as a "FOR", but I reserve the right to change that vote after a month of this test.