Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 4510 on August 14, 2004, 10:49:29 AM
-
Why doesn't the three country model work?
The reason three countries exist (vice two) is that two would be subject to uneven numbers distribution. One side would end up with more people and there would be no effective manner to even the sides up. Well at least that was the thought process before such ideas as changing perk values based on numbers flying, changing plane availabilities based on numbers flying, instituting waiting periods between flights based on numbers flying.
So we have a three country model. The idea being, if one country starts to get too much of a numbers edge, the other two countries look at the numbers, map, etc... and go....hmmmmm. They stop fighting each other as much and focus on the country with the larger numbers. When numbers once again start to level (as numbers ebb and flow all evening) they readjust once again to meet their needs.
However, what I am hearing is this doesn't work? Why? Does one country develop such large numbers that the COMBINED strength of the other two countries cannot counter it? I mean, combined these two smaller countries are outnumbered by 60 or more or a regular, recurring basis? (singular events like RJO on a Sunday are not valid reasons to change things)
Last week I didn't see the Rooks with numerical advantage over the combined strength of the Knits and Bish. Never. (I wasn't on Sunday) So we have a situation where fliers in the other countries don't like it because their individual country doesn't match up 1 v 1 with the numerically superior one? That the singular numerically disadvantaged country cannot solely pursue its own agenda without consideration of modifying its efforts to counter the larger country? And for that we have a code change and limit the availability of airplanes?
So why DO we have three countries then? Why do we need to keep three countries if cross leveling is going to be "encouraged" (read forced?)
-
Originally posted by 4510
So why DO we have three countries then? Why do we need to keep three countries if cross leveling is going to be "encouraged" (read forced?)
Here`s a hint. HT wants it that way. :p
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Here`s a hint. HT wants it that way. :p
Really the bottom line isn't it Jackal? It isn't about how a system should work or even what is right. It is about who owns the system and everyone can accept it or suck it up.
Now that is a great business model !
:rofl
-
At the risk of being repetitive, why should only we rooks have fun? Why should other countries be forced to deal with being significantly outnumbered 50% of the time? Why should HT do nothing if the 3 country system didn't autocorrect the way it has for several years?
And if you don't like flying higher ENY planes, why can't you just log on as a knight for a couple hours?
Sheesh.
-
Originally posted by 4510
Really the bottom line isn't it Jackal? It isn't about how a system should work or even what is right. It is about who owns the system and everyone can accept it or suck it up.
Now that is a great business model !
:rofl
Awwww I guess you could go build one and run it the way you think is right. Keep us updated on your progress. :p
-
Originally posted by Simaril
At the risk of being repetitive, why should only we rooks have fun? Why should other countries be forced to deal with being significantly outnumbered 50% of the time? Why should HT do nothing if the 3 country system didn't autocorrect the way it has for several years?
And if you don't like flying higher ENY planes, why can't you just log on as a knight for a couple hours?
Sheesh.
Simaril,
How do you define being significantly outnumbered? Are you talking your country vs the strongest country or are you talking the combined strength of two countries vice the strongest country?
I mean.. if on your front with the strongest country you are only facing 1/2 that countries assets (because the strongest country is trying to fight off two countries) are you finding you are at a disadvantage at that point? Or is the problem that your country or whatever it wants to do, is not willing to make the decision to fight primarily only the large country? That your country wants to be able to fight in any direction against either foe every night ?
The three country model wasn't setup for that purpose. If the two smaller countries can't figure that out and use the model to their advantage why do we have to have an arena change to even sides? Ask HiTech for system logs or something. Lets see a posting of the total numbers of flyers on every hour. Then add the two smallest together and see if that total is more or less than the largest. (and we can logically assume, despite all the hype, that the largest country will not ALWAYS be the same country) I suggest you will find, predominantly, that the combined strength of any two smaller countries will nearly equal or exceed the strength of the larger.
If that is the case the 3 country model is viable and will work. Now if the flyers won't use the model.......why is that an arena problem?
-
Soup,
You bring up a good point, and the 3 country model I always thought was the time-tested solution for an MA..HTC thought so to dropping to 3 after WB's.
But for whatever reason those few perks for a reset have completely disoriented the majority of folks online now.
Its tactics of cowardice...both the strongest and the 2nd strongest country focus on ganging the weakest, basically racing for a reset. Once the weak country is down to 3 fields there will be a final battle between the 1st and 2nd countries to determine reset.
Before that the weakest country faces two fronts bearing the brunt of both numerically superior foes.
-
Originally posted by 4510
Why doesn't the three country model work?
I understand very clearly how teh 3 country model is supposed to work...
as for the reason why it doesn't seem to work in AH is due to teh overall general dweebiness of many players (on all sides) who won't take the initiative in helping the model function properly, i.e., they're too timid to risk going up against what is often localized bad odds (on top of what may be global bad odds).
having said that, i generally fly for the underdog side and hit the big red dar bars where the green one is small or even non-existent.. but what do i know, i'm a "suicide dweeb" who doesn't care to rtb.
-
Originally posted by Hornet
Soup,
You bring up a good point, and the 3 country model I always thought was the time-tested solution for an MA..HTC thought so to dropping to 3 after WB's.
But for whatever reason those few perks for a reset have completely disoriented the majority of folks online now.
The 2nd strongest country focuses on ganging the weakest, basically racing for a reset. Once the weak country is down to 3 fields there will be a final battle between the 1st and 2nd countries to determine reset.
Before that the weakest country faces two fronts bearing the brunt of both numerically superior foes.
Hornet....
DUDE ! Talk to me.... great observation.
I am not supposing that I am correct in all my opinions or observations. [caveat]
I see AH as having two real goals.
Individual goals (stats, perks for planes shot down, tgts bombed etc)
Collective goals (land grabbed, resets caused, perks)
How people fly, even if not targeted specifically at either one goal... still advances along those lines.
The three country is designed to be a modifier even if we aren't talking numbers... but to save the country about to be reset by having the wolves turn on each other at the last minute to try and grab the reset points for themselves.
So the reset points actually serve too functions. The reasons to strive for a reset and the reason to try and prevent one at the last minute if they aren't going to be your reset points.
The second place team should NEVER get any points for reset.
In your example then... our problems then aren't about inequity of numbers... but rather a design flaw in how flyers are rewarded in this game. The motivation for the flyers encourages the gang bang.
To this end rather than address that issue, we are masking it with a numbers issue and instituting a band aid fix that has nothing to do with the ailment.
Thanks for your insight!
-
I think the only bottom line is that if HTC ever did change the country set up, some of these guys will have full blown psychotic episodes.
As for HTC owning the system, that much is true but I really dont think they're doing this just to annoy the guys with a plane/country fetish. I'm pretty sure they dont want to go out of business anytime soon.
Other than that, what Shane said.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
I think the only bottom line is that if HTC ever did change the country set up, some of these guys will have full blown psychotic episodes.
As for HTC owning the system, that much is true but I really dont think they're doing this just to annoy the guys with a plane/country fetish. I'm pretty sure they dont want to go out of business anytime soon.
Other than that, what Shane said.
Even in my largest moment of frustration I never really feel that HiTech is trying to screw anyone group of people. Not because I know him or because he is a nice guy. It just isn't in his best interest.
However I don't think this particular course of action is in the best interest of the entire community. Everyone acts as if the Majority requested this change. Well if the issue is a numbers problem and two countries added together can't negate the advantage of a single country... I would extrapolate that you don't have a Majority asking for a change. If you did the two smaller countries added together would be numerically stronger than the one larger.
Also... this BBS doesn't reach everyone. On major game play issues... HTC should be contacting us directly via email. Posting surveys when entering the arena... those sorts of things. Relying on feedback based solely on disgruntled input is a sure way to skew your perspective.
Finally... what Shane said... but added....
If they are too dweeby to see the problem (smaller countries) and act to realign effort to fight less between the smallers and more against the larger.... we don't need a code change... we need a slap upside the head with a cold mackeral to educate them.
-
Soup,
Yes I suppose originally HTC may have envisioned the wolves turning on each other at the last moment being enough for the 3rd country.
Your concurrent lines of play are dead on and that is what reinforces the problem -- so HTCs check of the wolves turning on each other never actually happens.
Country 1 with most numbers: Decides to keep ganging and get that reset
Country 2 with 2nd most numbers: Decides to keep ganging because everyone can beef up their stats, earning enough perks to offset losing the reset award.
I don't know if HTCs focus on ENY is the final iteration of a solution, I do think it speaks volumes about acknowledging the uberplane crutch issue.
Basically, HTC needs to find a way to modify the behavior of country 1 and country 2. Switch them from a cowardly path of least resistance mentality towards a clash of titans mentalilty where they are both compelled to hurl themselves at the greatest threat.
-
Originally posted by Hornet
Soup,
Yes I suppose originally HTC may have envisioned the wolves turning on each other at the last moment being enough for the 3rd country.
Your concurrent lines of play are dead on and that is what reinforces the problem -- so HTCs check of the wolves turning on each other never actually happens.
Country 1 with most numbers: Decides to keep ganging and get that reset
Country 2 with 2nd most numbers: Decides to keep ganging because everyone can beef up their stats, earning enough perks to offset losing the reset award.
I don't know if HTCs focus on ENY is the final iteration of a solution, I do think it speaks volumes about acknowledging the uberplane crutch issue.
Basically, HTC needs to find a way to modify the behavior of country 1 and country 2. Switch them from a cowardly path of least resistance mentality towards a clash of titans mentalilty where they are both compelled to hurl themselves at the greatest threat.
4510, what hornet said
-
Originally posted by Hornet
Basically, HTC needs to find a way to modify the behavior of country 1 and country 2. Switch them from a cowardly path of least resistance mentality towards a clash of titans mentalilty where they are both compelled to hurl themselves at the greatest threat.
I agree 100% ! We should support the functioning of the three country model. If the offended don't use the tool provided them no further help should be offered. IF the three country tool cannot handle the situation (I.E. one country outnumbers the other two combined by X number (not sure what the delta needs to be) then we limit plane set in some manner. I suggest we limit the ENY planes to the ME163 field. So people can still have them.. they just need to fly them farther to join the fight. If the larger country is backed into a corner it affects nothing.. but the more successful they are... the farther distance to the front for the high ENY aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
4510, what hornet said
Simaril,
I am there.... Hornet and I essentially share the same viewpoint. Looking at your endorsement, I would suggest that same is true between you and I.
I too want to see things work well in the arena... I just think we have rushed to judgement and that we have flawed logic in use as to how and when to impose some sort of limitation.
I also am optimistic that we can all figure this out and come up with something that works.
-
Now that would be something, sides hurling themselves at eachother, lord of the rings style.
Its a complex problem no doubt, and no doubt will take time to sort out. IIRC HTC did use survey pop up boxes once when you logged in, some guys went nuts over it being an infringement of civil liberties and invading their privacy so that was the end of that.
buttering amazing really, seems to be more hot flushes here than ladies night at the local over 55s club.
-
So why not take the 'reset' out of the equation? Why not have a certain amount of uncapturable fields in each country?
Once the high number bunch pushes one country back into the corner they get bored and move to the other country. The first one then nickles and dimes the edges to retake their capturable fields etc.
There is an ongoing eb and flow of the battle then, instead of this overpowering drive for the 'reset'.
"winning" the war just restarts the war anyway, and in the process makes it fairly unenjoyable for the crowd that is being constantly ganged.
I always thought one of the bigger mistakes AW made was making all the fields capturable. It seemed to be the time when the mindset changed to 'winning it all' in that game, when previously it never entered the equation.
prior to this change, you knew that there were always safer fields to regroup and ounterattack from as there was a layer of uncapturable fields that even if damaged still posed a threat so the odds of all fields being totally wrecked was minimal.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
snip
I always thought one of the bigger mistakes AW made was making all the fields capturable. It seemed to be the time when the mindset changed to 'winning it all' in that game, when previously it never entered the equation.
prior to this change, you knew that there were always safer fields to regroup and ounterattack from as there was a layer of uncapturable fields that even if damaged still posed a threat so the odds of all fields being totally wrecked was minimal.
Dan/Slack
Yeah, that's exactly why we ended up not only having some uncapturable fields for each country, but also making "front line" fields (as in the border fields when the terrain was in default load mode) easier to damage than "middle" and "deep" fields that got progressively harder to damage (more ordnance per object required).
That last year or so of AW, the setup we arrived at that IMO worked the best was the one we used in the RR Large ETO arena - each country had 3 fields that were not only uncaptureable but were actually undamageable no matter how many eggs they got dropped on 'em. Even if one country got gangbanged really bad, they still were able to get good planes in the air without being totally vulched. (Keep in mind this was in an arena that would only allow 200 or 250 people max - in the current "one for all" AH model you''d need more than just 3 fields because there WOULD be enough numbers available to gangvulch that many fields....I'd guess 6 per side would be more like it in a large terrain here.)
That helped a lot. There was a constant ebb and flow of ownership in the "front line" areas, with one country occasionally making concerted attacks farther into one or both of the other countries. But when a country got ganged on and beat back to their last 3 fields, there was really not much more torment that could be dealt out to them, so the other 2 countries would always turn on each other like feeding sharks will when the food runs out :)
We also did stuff like make it harder to capture the more you penetrated by making it take more troops, etc.
The idea I had that I was proudest of was in the Allies vs Axis arena. There we had the 2 country conundrum - when one side would conspire to really load the numbers up they could quickly wipe the other off the map. So, I created zones based on logical logistics.
This was a "historic map" terrain, featuring England France and Germany. I considered France to be the middle ground, and wanted to allow either side to attack the other's homeland, but make it hard enough that the fighting stayed hot and heavy in France most of the time.
So......each side could get some planes only in their homeland.
For the Allies, this was the B17 and A26 bombers, unlimited from England, but not available on the continent. Players that wanted to carpet bomb had to be willing to fly a while.
For the Axis, it was the Me262. They were available in Germany, but only so many per 24 hour period. You could take one from Germany, and keep it all day long so long as you stayed alive and RTBed for fuel successfully - but, once killed, crashed, or landed in France, you "lost" that plane for the Axis that day. I played with the total number available per day based on what kind of numbers of players were using the arena at any given time. What I was shooting for was to allow them to have a few jets in order to counter any huge buff raids the Allies might mount, but not enough to dominate the F2F action.
Then, each team lost additional planes the farther they advanced the front. They could get B25s and Ju88s in France, but not in the other team's homeland. They each also lost some premium fighters in the other team's homeland (this varied due to whether we were in "early war" "middle war" or "late war" mode since the overall plane sets varied according to date of availability).
The result worked pretty damned well. When we started this 2 country concept it was common we'd get our chains yanked to come reset the arena because one side or the other had rolled it up. Once I got this setup fine tuned that never happened not even once - even when one side would really outnumber the hell out of the other, the dwindling resources that I attributed to "logistics" worked to slow the large side down enough that the other side could cope. The fights stayed mostly in France, and no matter what everybody had a fighting chance.
Oh well, just some old crusty centavos thrown in for consideration.
culero
-
Culero
.
The best times I've had in online WW2 air war sims, bar none, was in the AW AvA. We had some great squad v squad action in there (1CAC v JG26 Bose) and although the apparent advantage seemed to change back and forth between the sides with the plane set changes, neither side really had a big enough advantage to walk the map regularly. Some great times :).
Cheers,
-
Originally posted by detch01
Culero .
The best times I've had in online WW2 air war sims, bar none, was in the AW AvA. We had some great squad v squad action in there (1CAC v JG26 Bose) and although the apparent advantage seemed to change back and forth between the sides with the plane set changes, neither side really had a big enough advantage to walk the map regularly. Some great times :).
Cheers,
Yeah, that was really the only trouble I had there - getting people to realize there was no way to always make everything exactly even.
The wisdom moggy passed on to me was what I kept uppermost in my mind - when EVERYbody is biyatching, you have it set up perfectly :)
culero
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
So why not take the 'reset' out of the equation? Why not have a certain amount of uncapturable fields in each country?
BINGO !!!
I like it. It's like the tax code - stop fiddling with it to make it fair and just abolish it because it's FUBAR anyway. LOL !
Seriously, remove the reset goal of the game and make a group of homeland bases uncapturable. No more side-swapping for reset perks. No more complaints of bases porked and unusable. No more 2 vs 1 country gang-bangs. Leave all of that "strategic" stuff for the ToD arena.
hmmmmm...
-
Who broke the three Country model ? Why doesn't it work?
The answer is quite simple really.
The AH Subscriber/player base broke it.
It seems that a large enough portion of the players decided that it was more fun to Bottom Feed (Get an occasional Cherry Pick or Massive Vulching session) than it was to learn to enjoy the challenge of a 1v1, 2v1 or 2v2 Out and Out Dogfight.
It is an evolution that is on ever increasing with time and generation. (Fact)
The most recent event of the Rook numbers growing to an average of 30-to 50-even to a 100+ player advantage on Sunday nights is no fault of Loyal Rooks.
It could have been Bishop or Knights just as easily, but the migration went across the Rook border and it grew and grew till finally the Rooks had 80 to 90 to even a 100+ player advantage over the other two countries nearly every Sunday night. For the last 6 months the Rooks have had significant numbers (30 to 50+ players over the other two countries for probably 15 to 18 hours of a day.
For the past 6 months when i got home from work (4:00PM est.) the numbers are fairly even. At around 6:00pm est. every day of the week the Rook numbers would begin to climb. Around 10:00pm to 11:00pm est. the Rook were well ahead in numbers usually by 30 to 50+ players every weeknight. This remained till about 5:00 am EST the next morn. Then the Nits or Bishop would usually have like 20 to maybe 30 players advantage over the Rooks for the rest of the day till around about 5:00pm to 6:00pm the next evening. This has been the trend for nearly a year now.
I personally know of 5 players that canceled their account in the last 2 months that told me they were leaving because of the constant Balance problem. If they filled out the questionnaire that HTC pops when you cancel your account and explained the Balance issue. Then we can only imagine the red flags that started popping up for HTC.
If I know 5 personally we can only guess that there had to be plenty more. The New AH2 may have just been an excuse to act on something they had contemplated for some time prior.
Either way the 3 country system is still a good system. But it isn’t going to balance the MA. This has proven out.
HTC may have to change the current system that has and is being designed to try and keep balance in the MA.
If this one doesn’t work then im sure they can use other options to try and attain the desired effect.
-
But the truth is, if the game is based on numbers It will be played that way.
I said this a yr ago, 6 months ago & 3 months ago. I also stated that it would lead to more and more problems in the community. But what do I know huh.
Kind of a shame IMO
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
The most recent event of the Rook numbers growing to an average of 30-to 50-even to a 100+ player advantage on Sunday nights is no fault of Loyal Rooks.
It could have been Bishop or Knights just as easily, but the migration went across the Rook border and it grew and grew till finally the Rooks had 80 to 90 to even a 100+ player advantage over the other two countries nearly every Sunday night. For the last 6 months the Rooks have had significant numbers (30 to 50+ players over the other two countries for probably 15 to 18 hours of a day.
For the past 6 months when i got home from work (4:00PM est.) the numbers are fairly even. At around 6:00pm est. every day of the week the Rook numbers would begin to climb. Around 10:00pm to 11:00pm est. the Rook were well ahead in numbers usually by 30 to 50+ players every weeknight. This remained till about 5:00 am EST the next morn. Then the Nits or Bishop would usually have like 20 to maybe 30 players advantage over the Rooks for the rest of the day till around about 5:00pm to 6:00pm the next evening. This has been the trend for nearly a year now.
Mugzee,
I don't fly as often as you... or apparently as long. I just don't recall seeing 15-18 hours a day Rooks outnumbering both countries combined. Not to say it wasn't so.. but I don't remember it.
Sunday nights... that is an abberation.... and one night a week.... (shrug)
-
Originally posted by Hyrax81st
BINGO !!!
I like it. It's like the tax code - stop fiddling with it to make it fair and just abolish it because it's FUBAR anyway. LOL !
Seriously, remove the reset goal of the game and make a group of homeland bases uncapturable. No more side-swapping for reset perks. No more complaints of bases porked and unusable. No more 2 vs 1 country gang-bangs. Leave all of that "strategic" stuff for the ToD arena.
hmmmmm...
I doubt that will happen. Too many folks like the mudmoving and land grabbing. I am with you on doing away with it.... but don't see it happening.
-
every player should have their own country
-
Originally posted by Simaril
At the risk of being repetitive, why should only we rooks have fun? Why should other countries be forced to deal with being significantly outnumbered 50% of the time? Why should HT do nothing if the 3 country system didn't autocorrect the way it has for several years?
And if you don't like flying higher ENY planes, why can't you just log on as a knight for a couple hours?
Sheesh.
This weekend so far Rooks are outnumbered - it was Bish who couldn't lift spits or Yaks yesterday.....this is not about one specific "team" it's about all of us who play.
-
Agree, but prior to the patch it was unusual to find rooks outnumbered for any length of time. Are we seeing some effect?
HAve some squads that joined rooks in last few weeks, out of numbers desperation, switched back to their orgiinal country? I dont know, but I wonder.
-
Culero has it right, I logged on and Played AW for years and always had great fites etc... with uncapturable homeland fields.
Imagine NDisles map with the 3 mainlands having ALL uncaptureable fields. Suddenly the objective is no longer gangbanging for reset, but prominence is shown by who owns the center island.
The island maps in AW the objective was always to own the "Hawaii" island in the middle of the map. This was the "contested" portion of the map and where the land grabbing battles took place. Everything else was centered around grabbing a supporting base, CV for the attack on the Hawaii island. It was a blast.
You want good quality fights, they'll be in this scenario, you want to land grab, you can do it on the "center island". You want to show your country is the "best" you can grab the most "inner" bases. But bottom line is there will always be your homeland to launch from, and good fights to be had.
Rotate the maps every 3 days no matter what, have 6 or so uncapturable fields. You've effectively taken away the "objective" of resetting someones homeland and replaced it with the capturing of a generic piece of land in the middle of the map. This will quell the hate and discontent of all the subscribers.
-
Originally posted by Balsy
Culero has it right, I logged on and Played AW for years and always had great fites etc... with uncapturable homeland fields.
Imagine NDisles map with the 3 mainlands having ALL uncaptureable fields. Suddenly the objective is no longer gangbanging for reset, but prominence is shown by who owns the center island.
The island maps in AW the objective was always to own the "Hawaii" island in the middle of the map. This was the "contested" portion of the map and where the land grabbing battles took place. Everything else was centered around grabbing a supporting base, CV for the attack on the Hawaii island. It was a blast.
You want good quality fights, they'll be in this scenario, you want to land grab, you can do it on the "center island". You want to show your country is the "best" you can grab the most "inner" bases. But bottom line is there will always be your homeland to launch from, and good fights to be had.
Rotate the maps every 3 days no matter what, have 6 or so uncapturable fields. You've effectively taken away the "objective" of resetting someones homeland and replaced it with the capturing of a generic piece of land in the middle of the map. This will quell the hate and discontent of all the subscribers.
This setup would bring me back as a paying subscriber. I have absolutely no interest in land grabbing and got disgusted with the constant horde in AH.
des
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
every player should have their own country
its called ffa nilsen....go to h2h and play it some time. its a blast cause most of em suck so bad. when ya land 21 kills in a yak on a regular basis...
-
IMO, the flaw is in the reset system and not the country setup. Take away the perk bonus for a reset and you might see some normal fluctuation in odds. As it is set up now, what is the incentive for the player base to balance the odds? In the past, people would eventually get bored with having overwhelming odds and move on. With the bonus for a reset, why bother?
-
Originally posted by xBarrelx
its called ffa nilsen....go to h2h and play it some time. its a blast cause most of em suck so bad. when ya land 21 kills in a yak on a regular basis...
really?
-
Originally posted by 4510
I doubt that will happen. Too many folks like the mudmoving and land grabbing. I am with you on doing away with it.... but don't see it happening.
Heyas SOUP :)
Thing is, mudmoving and landgrabbing don't need the reset thing to exist. All the reset is is a way to have "winning the war" as a component of MA play.
Removing the reset concept would still allow the same kind of gameplay we have now, with the exception of the very end game.
I give you the argument that its the end game (arena reset) that is the cause of the anguish now associated with one country having disproportionate numbers. Think about it.....
Lets say Country X has time and a half the numbers of either the other two. If it chooses, it can proceed to roll up either country's fields.
But, if when it gets that country down to a few fields it hits the wall of uncapturable fields, because reset has been eliminated, it won't stay where it is long before it turns on the other smaller country.
The result is that there will be constant battle, with both larger and smaller countries having fields to fly from, and no reason for anyone to switch sides to gain an advantage (no reset bonus).
Instead of reacting to whines about numbers imbalance, why not examine what it is about numbers imbalance that causes a problem. I believe there's good reason to believe that if reset weren't a part of the equation, local area imbalance (gangbanging gone too far) would never have a reason to persist long enough to be as big a deal as it is now.
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
Heyas SOUP :)
Thing is, mudmoving and landgrabbing don't need the reset thing to exist. All the reset is is a way to have "winning the war" as a component of MA play.
Removing the reset concept would still allow the same kind of gameplay we have now, with the exception of the very end game.
I give you the argument that its the end game (arena reset) that is the cause of the anguish now associated with one country having disproportionate numbers. Think about it.....
Lets say Country X has time and a half the numbers of either the other two. If it chooses, it can proceed to roll up either country's fields.
But, if when it gets that country down to a few fields it hits the wall of uncapturable fields, because reset has been eliminated, it won't stay where it is long before it turns on the other smaller country.
The result is that there will be constant battle, with both larger and smaller countries having fields to fly from, and no reason for anyone to switch sides to gain an advantage (no reset bonus).
Instead of reacting to whines about numbers imbalance, why not examine what it is about numbers imbalance that causes a problem. I believe there's good reason to believe that if reset weren't a part of the equation, local area imbalance (gangbanging gone too far) would never have a reason to persist long enough to be as big a deal as it is now.
culero
Definately makes good sense. Seems kinda simple don't it? :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by 4510
Mugzee,
I don't fly as often as you... or apparently as long. I just don't recall seeing 15-18 hours a day Rooks outnumbering both countries combined. Not to say it wasn't so.. but I don't remember it.
Sunday nights... that is an abberation.... and one night a week.... (shrug)
I havent logged Near as many hours in the last 2 or 3 months as i used to. But yes..I fly a LOT. And i spread my time out over the period of the day. I have averaged over 98.75 hours per tour in the last 18 tours. 2 Tours i was away from AH. (Tour 41 and 42) from 05/02/03 to 07/01/03.
You can take my word for it or you can dispell it if you wish.
Either way i am very correct in my assesment.
-
Originally posted by culero
Instead of reacting to whines about numbers imbalance, why not examine what it is about numbers imbalance that causes a problem. I believe there's good reason to believe that if reset weren't a part of the equation, local area imbalance (gangbanging gone too far) would never have a reason to persist long enough to be as big a deal as it is now.
culero
I am with you culero. I don't particularly like the landgrabbing or the reset model. Never have. But that is the way it was designed. From a commercial standpoint I guess it makes sense as it certainly is very popular.
In an air to air mentality folks often switch to even the sides (you see this in the CT all the time) to keep things even and more fun. But in a land grab... numbers equate success. Of course organization and proficiency in tactics apply... but going for a reset... rarely does the country with the fewest flyers accomplish a reset. (has that ever happened?)
So... as several folks have said... we are treating a symptom here and not the cause. But I don't know how you fix the cause. It is the raison d'etre (did I spell that right?) for a HUGE number of people and they won't take kindly to it if it is changed.
-
Originally posted by Balsy
Culero has it right, I logged on and Played AW for years and always had great fites etc... with uncapturable homeland fields.
Careful Balsy... mentioning AW around here is often taken poorly...
-
Originally posted by 4510
Originally posted by culero
So... as several folks have said... we are treating a symptom here and not the cause. But I don't know how you fix the cause. It is the raison d'etre (did I spell that right?) for a HUGE number of people and they won't take kindly to it if it is changed.
Thing is, SOUP, eliminating the reset goal and establishing an uncaptureable stronghold for each country doesn't really deprive the mudmoving/landgrabbing crowd of anything. The nature of "victory" just changes.
Think about it. Things go the same as they do now, Country X getting numbers and crapping down Country Y's neck. Only difference is, when they take everything they can, Country Y still has a viable chance to fly and fight.
In this situation, Country X can beat up on Country Y, have its "victory celebration" ("YAY WE TOOK ALL THEIR STUPH LOOKIE LOOKIE THEY ONLY HAVE THEIR INVULNERABLE FIELDS LEFT!") but will now have a reason to stop beating up on Country Y ("OK LETS GO GET THOSE Z BASTIDS NOW!")
Simply put, the difference in the nature of the end game tends to alleviate the numbers imbalance problem because at some point, there's no point in further gangbanging for that crowd....rather, an incentive to re-focus (availability of new targets is now OVER THERE>>>)
Perk bonuses could even remain as a "reward", just awarded based on which country executes the most captures or some such stat.
I know this challenges one of the basic philosophies inherent in the game's MA design, but I do believe the idea deserves consideration.
culero
-
Originally posted by 4510
Careful Balsy... mentioning AW around here is often taken poorly...
Keep a civil tongue in your mouth when discussing officers in public, sergeant.
culero (~glares~)
-
Hehe culero.
Still remember one fight with you in AW, I was F4U you were spit, and we danced in circles above you base for what seemed like forever.
Of course, I only remember the ones I won in :).
SOUP is a salty old dog, he can feel free to give "advice" to this young buck Capt at his pleasure :).
-
Originally posted by 4510
So we have a three country model. The idea being, if one country starts to get too much of a numbers edge, the other two countries look at the numbers, map, etc... and go....hmmmmm. They stop fighting each other as much and focus on the country with the larger numbers. When numbers once again start to level (as numbers ebb and flow all evening) they readjust once again to meet their needs.
That's how it works in theory. In practice the two larger countries gangs up on the weak one ... they're easier to overwhelm and kill. The same thing gets played out at every elementary school in the world. It's human nature to ally yourself with the strong and pick on the weak.
Perhaps HTC should acquire the assistance of a psychiatrist specializing in human group behaviour and redo the entire strat system.
Edit: Who broke the three Country model ? Why doesn't it work? My guess is no one broke it because it didn't work in the first place. Perhaps it could work if everybody were conscientious about it and tries to make it work, but when the AH population gets filled with people barely in puberty, any "honour system" will fail.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That's how it works in theory. In practice the two larger countries gangs up on the weak one ... they're easier to overwhelm and kill.
snip
In the current model, yes.
But if the possibility of the "kill" is removed, at some point one of the two larger countries will inevitably glance sideways at the tasty looking flank of the other, and take a bite.
Then the focus of the fight shifts.
Think about it.
culero
-
Sounds good to me Culero. Has Hitech commented on this idea yet?
-
culero that would work, you would get a 24/7 vulch on all the fields left, no dar, and no bombs, manned guns, etc. i would call it the 24/7 vulchfest.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
culero that would work, you would get a 24/7 vulch on all the fields left, no dar, and no bombs, manned guns, etc. i would call it the 24/7 vulchfest.
Even a vultch fest gets old......
I don't what dynamic is playing out here vis a vis the three country model.... it worked well in "that other online flight sim".
Of course as Culero has said... you couldn't completely wipe out a country....
Maybe that is it?
-
Originally posted by Balsy
Hehe culero.
Still remember one fight with you in AW, I was F4U you were spit, and we danced in circles above you base for what seemed like forever.
Of course, I only remember the ones I won in :).
SOUP is a salty old dog, he can feel free to give "advice" to this young buck Capt at his pleasure :).
Ha ha Salute Balsy....
This salty dog's best days are behind him I'm afraid...
-
4510 people could for days on end for vulching. then you would see all these 50+ kills of which were all vulches in planes like 109G6's. G6+vulches=perks by the truck load.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
4510 people could for days on end for vulching. then you would see all these 50+ kills of which were all vulches in planes like 109G6's. G6+vulches=perks by the truck load.
Not if there is enough distance between undestroyable fields. As mentioned, in 'that other sim' you always had a field to mount a counterattack from, and the vulchers if not careful found themselves under a cloud of higher baduns clearing out the field. Throw in the flaks at the vulched field and it wouldn't be so simple.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Not if there is enough distance between undestroyable fields. As mentioned, in 'that other sim' you always had a field to mount a counterattack from, and the vulchers if not careful found themselves under a cloud of higher baduns clearing out the field. Throw in the flaks at the vulched field and it wouldn't be so simple.
Dan/Slack
And there, Skull12, is your answer (thanks Dan ;))
culero
-
B17- But to just be we're absoloutely 100% clear on this, because the Homeland bases are "indestructible" that INCLUDES the FLAK guns.
How long do you think a sustained vulch would last having to fly 1-2 sectors, and vulching a field with 100% of the ack up all the time.
Problem solved :):D
-
Hiya Soup.
Stop by the squad room wouldya?
-
Originally posted by RookieCAF
Hiya Soup.
Stop by the squad room wouldya?
Rookie,
I'd love to ... can you email me with some directions so I can find my way there?
SOUP
-
Is your email address in the CAF ORG correct? And do PM's work here? :confused: apparantly not.. Drop me a line at rookiecaf@gmail.com and I'll give you the roadmap ;)
-
instead dan you would get the vulchers's perched high above the field OUT of the range fo flak. then once a dot appears its zoom at 400 mph's all the akcs miss, like they always do and boom ya got a vulch. i can never stop a vulc once it start unless you pork the field, but even then you get p51's that will go to extreme lenghts just to vulch.
Where is that dweebiness thread? ahh here it is.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126739
you can't stop that, you might get a little windows but the dweebs on there perch just keep coming back for a few kills.
-
Originally posted by 4510
Really the bottom line isn't it Jackal? It isn't about how a system should work or even what is right. It is about who owns the system and everyone can accept it or suck it up.
Now that is a great business model !
:rofl
Actually it's about having a reasonably level playing field for all participants. The recent changes aren't aimed at "THE ROOKS", they are intended to promote a balanced arena. Since the rooks happen to be the side that has had a significant advantage for an awful long time your simply not used to the concept of playing on a level field. you'll get used to it again.
-
Originally posted by humble
Actually it's about having a reasonably level playing field for all participants. The recent changes aren't aimed at "THE ROOKS", they are intended to promote a balanced arena. Since the rooks happen to be the side that has had a significant advantage for an awful long time your simply not used to the concept of playing on a level field. you'll get used to it again.
I have absolutely no problem playing on a level field. Actually for my experience I'd rather play slightly outnumbered thank you. Makes it easier to find the fights... and provides more targets.
I am a Rook only because my squad and its predecessor the CAF ended up in Rookland. It doesn't hurt that the Ghostdancer's crowd ended up here as well. We all had a long relationship in AW and it has continued here. I have friends in all countries... but I just don't hop.
I was Rook when it was bad, I am Rook when it is bad again. (to the other extreme). I don't plan on moving... so if we leave this in place and it doesn't even numbers... I'll fly a 109E if ENY forces that to happen.
But it doesn't mean I agree with the diagnosis or the cure!
We have a lot of ideas on what the real cause of this unbalanced arena is. If we can't at least all agree on the root cause... we are not going to be successful in fixing it. Step one in problem resolution is a valid problem statement. I think, much as several others have opined, unbalanced numbers is a symptom of something else. We need to find THAT root problem and figure how we address it... not a band aid attempt at forcing a leveling of numbers.
Also refering to DOK's post about community...... I mentioned in an earlier post or two.... REACH to that community. We have an established community that consists of a lot of subsets..... let's just call them "Squads" for lack of a better word. Grab the squad leaders, the defacto community leaders... (like GhostDancer is in Rookland) or say Fester or... etc. etc.
Get the peer leaders in on the program... sell them on a voluntary leveling and groom the community. I don't believe you don't have to ask people... I believe you do..... and good people will respond if you appeal to their goodness...
(if they don't our community is in REAL trouble)
-
The problem is that it's been unbalanced for a long time, I think some folks just got used to being the big kid on the block...lets face it, it's fun. So you've evolved a culture of "advantage". No one can argue that the rooks have been very successful over the last 2 years...and you guys DO deserve alot of credit for that. BUT many others rotated to the "low side" and have been stuck there for along time. Meanwhile the "normal" rotation stopped and a more or less permanent imbalance took hold. For a "country" that was supposedly down for so long it'a amazing how many folks have been "rooks for life".
Personally I really don't think there is an underlying issue beyond the simple fact that as the overall number of folks flying has grown the number of folks willing to be cannon fodder grew....so there was less motivation for individuals or squads to change just to have something to kill. Now I'd bet that the imbalance reached a point that it became a "statistical issue" because enough folks have logged or quit ...or gone "rook".
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
instead dan you would get the vulchers's perched high above the field OUT of the range fo flak. then once a dot appears its zoom at 400 mph's all the akcs miss, like they always do and boom ya got a vulch. i can never stop a vulc once it start unless you pork the field, but even then you get p51's that will go to extreme lenghts just to vulch.
Where is that dweebiness thread? ahh here it is.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126739
you can't stop that, you might get a little windows but the dweebs on there perch just keep coming back for a few kills.
But you miss the point of a layer of fields. So there are a few diehards continuing to up from the 'vulched' indestructable field. Are you saying those Mustang drivers you are talking about are going to dive in on those singles with the possibilty of a higher force of planes coming in over the top of them and clobbering them?
I just remember in 'that other sim' knowing that if you were hitting one of the capturable fields that you could expect the counterattack train of fighters to be coming from that much more difficult to hit field further back. And because it wasn't capturable, the hoard was less inclined to spend as much energy at hitting that back field or capping it, hence the ongoing ebb and flow.
Dan/Slack
-
Way back in the days of AW on AOL the area of the map where Aland met Bland (the VOD) was always hopping, so was the equivalent area between Aland and Cland. In effect the various squads were constantly "calling each other out". It was much more of a squad vs squad game than I've ever seen in AH. Of course from time to time you'd launch an assualt across "the pond". Way way back when the squad I was in (many of whom went on to the 327th Steel Talons) took vaders and capped the very back Bland base (A84??) for 30+ minutes...relabeled the film clips "30 min over Beruit"...had em for years and it came up in conversations for a long time afterward. In some ways there was alot positive about have some capturabler bases and some not. What you could do as a comprimise is have a core of "key bases"...lets say three. A team would need to hold all three for a certain amount of time (4 hours?) to "win" and force a reset.
-
Originally posted by humble
A team would need to hold all three for a certain amount of time (4 hours?) to "win" and force a reset.
Now THAT would lead to some furious fights wouldn't it?
-
you would never get that counter attack, if you were down to what 3 unkillable fields. First you get the furballs whining because we dont have dar, that takes away a big chuck of your possible play countattack base. Second you wouldn't know where the enemy is coming from. the Buff dweebs would go roundtheclock HQ/strat raids. Thrid again you have the nonstop vulch n00bs.
typical player reaction.
"dar down, alt monkies in p51/spit/lgay7/nik 10k above field outta ack ranger, outnumbered, im outt here CYA "
that is the sad unforuniate truth.