Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pongo on August 14, 2004, 02:31:00 PM
-
Thier take off is delayed because of restricting the sorti rate? Or do they whine more because they cant fly the plane they "love" for the Country they "love"?
I think the sorti rate would have had less whining. And a better game effect.
-
I think the sortie limit would have caused even more complaints. Think of the poor newb constantly getting killed having to wait x mins to re-up. After he finishes his 2 week freebie, bye bye.
-
Not only the newbie. I spent enough time getting to the fight in the air, let alone, twiddling my thumbs sitting on the ground.
-
It never ends. Best thing to do IMO is to have restricted flights from certain fields. If a country has a numbers advantage, disable frontline fields maybe 2 sectors from those fields. But then we'd have increased alt monkey whines. I give up.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Thier take off is delayed because of restricting the sorti rate? Or do they whine more because they cant fly the plane they "love" for the Country they "love"?
I think the sorti rate would have had less whining. And a better game effect.
It would be worse with a restricted sortie rate. Think about it, all of the folks sitting in the tower with nothing to do but complain :).
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
It would be worse with a restricted sortie rate. Think about it, all of the folks sitting in the tower with nothing to do but complain :).
agreed, would be a terrible decision.
-
Just my opinion, but if HTC would implemented a 4th country none of this complaining would have hadda happen at all.
-
Originally posted by milnko
Just my opinion, but if HTC would implemented a 4th country none of this complaining would have hadda happen at all.
Good idea, we can take all the La-7 pilots, and make a 4th country, called the "queens"
-Sik
I Kid, I kid, I have nothing against the La-7 guys, they are my favorite to fight against.
-
WB had a 4th country---noone flew in it, except when close to reset so they could get new flanking positions
-
I flew WBs for quite a while in 1998-99 and it seemed to me the purps and golds often fought it out while the reds and greens battled each other.
I would have been all for joining the "new" country to balance the sides... more so than am I willing to switch to one of the existing countries, as I've been here since beta and have seen every country take it's turn 'in the bucket" as well as be "THE HORDE".
Besides the new system adds nothing to the game except restrictions.
It woulda added more realism to the game if HT had restricted the fuel, ordanance, and troops available to the "horde" country, instead of the restricting planes.
It seems to me a bit more logical that large numbers of "population" would overburden supply lines.
Less fuel equals less range and shorter flights, fewer bombs and bullets mean landing often to rearm, and less troops means fewer bases that can be captured.
All of which allows the "underpopulated" countries time to organize a defense.
Obviously as the number of players drop in a country more of the above would be available to each player.
The change doesn't effect our squad all that much as we don't fly a particular plane type regularly, but I can empathize with some squads being upset with the limitations on thier historic rides.
-
Milnko, what your idea does is artificially increase the amount of time it would take to reset a map.
If you push a team down to 3 fields and no dar, they are gonna log off. Now your idea hits the leading team and they can't finish it. That's not gonna help an outnumberd team bounce back, that's gonna leave 'em in a crappy situation longer.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Thier take off is delayed because of restricting the sorti rate? Or do they whine more because they cant fly the plane they "love" for the Country they "love"?
I think the sorti rate would have had less whining. And a better game effect.
I would suggest not a sortie rate... but a location limitation. If the strongest country is backed into a corner... so what.... leave the plane set alone. Once the start moving the front line.... at a point where they own X% of the map... then limit the plane set. However the limitation would be limiting certain planes to only the ME163 field near HQ for example. Everyone could still have the planes they want... they just would have to fly them a little further to the fight.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Milnko, what your idea does is artificially increase the amount of time it would take to reset a map.
If you push a team down to 3 fields and no dar, they are gonna log off. Now your idea hits the leading team and they can't finish it. That's not gonna help an outnumberd team bounce back, that's gonna leave 'em in a crappy situation longer.
You're probably right, but then I didn't see a need to patch the game in the first place either.
You know as well as I do that the numbers rotate, it was only a matter of time before the Rooks lost the advantage.
-
Don't completely forbid, just penalize or handicap instead.
It'd be better if the ENY-balancing was localized for each field relative to the (front line, for ex.) conditions.
-
All any of the suggestions, in any of the various threads, address is the symptoms. None address the cause, thus there will be perpetual whining no matter what "solution" is implemented.
Does restricting aircraft availability address the reason why people horde? No.
Does instituting a "time out" address the reason why people gangbang a country? No.
The game is set up to "reward" the achievement of a goal. That goal is "resetting" one of the countries and "winning". The most effective way to achieve that goal is by steamrollering a particular country using overwhelming numbers.
Until that changes, these band-aid fixes will be tried with varying amounts of success and lots of salty tears from lots of unhappy players.
Enjoy.
-
Toad: Your referencing a different dynamic. Flying in groups is part of game dynamic. Thats not what the balance system is trying to address.
All the system tryies to do is give each country the ability to fly in the same size groups if they wish.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Toad
The game is set up to "reward" the achievement of a goal. That goal is "resetting" one of the countries and "winning".
The problem is that most people see WINNING but they read it as WHINING
They are very similar looking :rofl
-
Originally posted by milnko
You're probably right, but then I didn't see a need to patch the game in the first place either.
You know as well as I do that the numbers rotate, it was only a matter of time before the Rooks lost the advantage.
I agree and I am not certain anything needed to be done either, but HT probably has some different numbers that he is watching.
For the record, I am not in favour of the chosen solution. I think it is easily gamed, (ie., whole groups of people changing sides and then going to bed with AH still running) and I think it could lead to resentment among players (ie., someone getting a ration of **** for changing sides).
But if HTC is losing subscriptions they gotta do something. Maybe it works best to provide a harsh solution first, then temper it later once everyone gets used to the idea that something IS going to be done. I dunno?!?
-
I made my comeback last night, and as far as I'm concerned, things are better. Had it not been for this change, or the reintroduction of larger maps, my sabbatical would have continued. Maybe there are people who are in this game for the reset/winning the war. For them, it makes perfect sense to join one particular chess piece en masse, and then go about their business of horde porkrollering through the arena. It is THAT mindless gameplay that the balancing algorithm has addressed. (hate the word "balancer") I'm sure all sides/chess pieces have adopted that style of gameplay from time to time. Latterly, it was the rooks. But other chess pieces do it too. As soon as one side would be losing, the other two would move in. The perk potatos would desert the losing side and switch to one of the winning sides to enjoy the spoils, and to reap the perk harvest.
I don't log on to win the war. If I were to play for an hour or two, it might be nice to capture a few bases, working as part of an organised team. But I'm not going to stay logged on for the 8 hours, or however long it takes, to be part of any reset.
The new system is a first step. It's almost certainly not the final solution, but time will be needed to assess MA behaviour before the next adjustment can be made.
-
This is painful...... Beetle is 100% correct.
-
Edit for flaim bait and name calling.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
This is painful...... Beetle is 100% correct.
Thank you, sir! Definite sig. material! :D
-
I think we should just disable AH2 and move back in to AH1.
I miss her so.
-
Originally posted by Toad
All any of the suggestions, in any of the various threads, address is the symptoms. None address the cause, thus there will be perpetual whining no matter what "solution" is implemented.
Does restricting aircraft availability address the reason why people horde? No.
Does instituting a "time out" address the reason why people gangbang a country? No.
The game is set up to "reward" the achievement of a goal. That goal is "resetting" one of the countries and "winning". The most effective way to achieve that goal is by steamrollering a particular country using overwhelming numbers.
Until that changes, these band-aid fixes will be tried with varying amounts of success and lots of salty tears from lots of unhappy players.
Enjoy.
I don't know if I really agree with ya on that, but I'm having a little trouble describing why.
I think saying the "goal" of AH2 is to win a reset is stretching it a little. It's my observation that no one starts looking at reset as a goal until one side really gets beat down and it just takes too long to do that for it to be a true goal that people actively pursue all the time. I would agree however that when resets happen, it's usually the numbers team that prevails.
-
"(ie., whole groups of people changing sides and then going to bed with AH still running)"
Ah, so maybe thats what the whole "cog in the works" discussion might've been about. I was trying to figure that whole deal out, thought it was baseless, the old imagination wasn't kicking in.
I would certainly hope that sort of unsportsmanship like conduct would be rooted out and dealt with. With the low numbers on at night that could really bum somebody out for no good reason at all.
-
Edit for rule number 6. Issues of moderation should be brought up via email.
-
The perk potatos would desert the losing side and switch to one of the winning sides to enjoy the spoils, and to reap the perk harvest.
Why do people keep perpetrating this myth ?
You cannot switch to the winning side just before a reset and get perks. I believe that you must be a member of the winning country for at least 12 hours before being able to get perks for a reset.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
You cannot switch to the winning side just before a reset and get perks. I believe that you must be a member of the winning country for at least 12 hours before being able to get perks for a reset.
Slap are you telling us that is the way it works, or the way you wished it worked?
I thought too that this 12 hour before reset you get perks thing, was already in place or am I just having another brain spasm?
-
You must be in country the same amount of time as the change country setting to recieve perks. It has always been that way. I.E. you have never been able to change sides just before a reset to get perks.
That setting used to be 12 hours it is now 6 hours.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
You must be in country the same amount of time as the change country setting to recieve perks. It has always been that way. I.E. you have never been able to change sides just before a reset to get perks.
That setting used to be 12 hours it is now 6 hours.
HiTech
Thanks for clearing that up HT. Did it change to 6 hours with the new balancing patch ?
-
Yea, I much prefer the plane limiter to sortie timer. A sortie timer punishes the new person who dies alot. A new person isn't really particular about what plane he flies, he's likely experiementing with all of them. A veteran on the other hand is 'set in his ways", and is more greatly impacted by being limited out of his favorite ride.
Zazen
-
It is just an arena setting Slapshot, not a patch issue. But changed it to 6 hours day after the patch.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Yea, I much prefer the plane limiter to sortie timer. A sortie timer punishes the new person who dies alot. A new person isn't really particular about what plane he flies, he's likely experiementing with all of them. A veteran on the other hand is 'set in his ways", and is more greatly impacted by being limited out of his favorite ride.
Zazen
There are a few vets that can be identified as having one plane preference, like Leviathan, our japanese friends, AKAK, Mosq, but it seems like just as many veterans fly varied planesets.
-
Originally posted by kj714
There are a few vets that can be identified as having one plane preference, like Leviathan, our japanese friends, AKAK, Mosq, but it seems like just as many veterans fly varied planesets.
I think most are niche flyers. Most old vets I know stick with 2 or 3 rides for specific roles, but focus on one as their 'main' ride.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
I think most are niche flyers. Most old vets I know stick with 2 or 3 rides for specific roles, but focus on one as their 'main' ride.
After some thought, you are probably more correct than I am. I guess really it's just a few that stand out from the crowd more that I'm thinking of. I didn't realize it, but I think I'm a Spit V guy, even though I've been feeling out the F4 lately.
-
Originally posted by Toad
All any of the suggestions, in any of the various threads, address is the symptoms. None address the cause, thus there will be perpetual whining no matter what "solution" is implemented.
Does restricting aircraft availability address the reason why people horde? No.
Does instituting a "time out" address the reason why people gangbang a country? No.
The game is set up to "reward" the achievement of a goal. That goal is "resetting" one of the countries and "winning". The most effective way to achieve that goal is by steamrollering a particular country using overwhelming numbers.
Until that changes, these band-aid fixes will be tried with varying amounts of success and lots of salty tears from lots of unhappy players.
Enjoy.
i set up a thread directed towards squads moving and balancing the game. it addresses the problem of the horde. if 50 dedicated players left the rooks maybe it would work???? i dont know, but i tried to offer up a solution agreeable to everyone. thing about it is only 1 squad is willing to move so far. im sure this squad would move if they knew that eventually the restrictions would be lifted.
its all up in the air and im sure HTC approves of ideas that might be agreeable to everyone. they are just thoughts.