Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on August 17, 2004, 12:57:09 PM
-
... which, people said will not happen... or happen only at a reset phase...?
...
Took a day off, started playing AH at 8:00 PM GMT +9:00, until 3:00AM. Here's a pic of the typical situation during that seven hours. This tendency has being going on the Pacific time zone prime time for like last two months:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1092765142_imbalance.jpg)
Any bright ideas to do away with the dweebs playing under the Non-agression pacts? Hey, I figure since HTC made the historic decision to directly intervene to enforce numbers balance, there's gotta be something that can be done?
-
Looks like Rooks paying price for their gangbanging (jk).
Seriously, what where the overall number of players as HT is thinking about disabling the current ENV system below a specific number. I beleive the current figure floating around is 200. It looks like there may be less that that so in that case it wouldn't affect you if this was implemented.
I have only known of a few non-aggression pacts ( prior to patch 8 ) on Sunday nights, and even these didn't work out. There were still Bish and Knits fighting.
-
May have been different if Rooks hadn't had an 11 and 13 base lead respectively? I doubt it but trying to think positive.
Other than that, some ideas have been floated about limiting the number of planes upping from specific bases.
Failing that, a psychological profiling questionnaire on the 'create new account' set-up, coupled with new customers being locked into a country depending on their likely behaviour. So if team A consistently exhibits timid, herd like behaviour, the next bunch of testosterone fueled crazies that sign up get placed in team A. That would sort it right out.
Either way, that bish/nit in 12,9 deserves a big round of applause.
-
Guess you BKJO'd:aok
-
looks to me there is a fight raging on the east side of map between knits and bish. but it is on deck having fun so it is below dar bar.
In the West and North the bishknits have to grab to 30k+ in order to reach the rooks to fight, so big bar.
-
Originally posted by hitech
...
3rd with this "use a local multiplier based on a 4 sector area" you suddenly are complety changing the issue at hand.
Basicly I am not against consentration of forces in the arena. That is a very valid war tactic and infact it is a fundemtal doctren that the attacker must have a numbers adavantage. When all sides are equal each country has the choice of how to allocate there forces i.e. in a group to go on attack/ or spread out/ how ever they wish. I do not see this as an issue. With a country imbalance 1 country could still dominate 2 different 4/sector areas while the others putting up adefense would have the same limitations as the large country but only in 1 area, and hence you are back to square 1. More numbers in a country would still be an advantage.
The issue is all about country balance not consentration of forces.
And to put it simply, fairly equal numbers between sides makes a better a game and is lot more fun for every one. I realy can not think of one game either board game/sport/computer game any type game where each side is not equal. It apears to me to be a fundimental game concept.
HiTech
-
Well, the problem with Hitech's response is that he is implying the other games to be games with RULES about how to play. In just about every other game I have ever seen (non video game) there are provisions to prevent 2 sides from ganging up on the lone 3rd.
How fair is it if team A has 150 players, team B and C both have 125 players.
If the three teams attack each other equally, then team A has a slight advantage.
But what is team B and C do not attack each other and go totally against team A. Now the odds are shifted dramatically against team A.
I don't think the current ENY disablements take this into consideration, do they?
-
They do not do that on purpose midnight.
HiTech
-
Simple, in your example rooks have more bases than the other teams - almost more than both of the others added together. You overlooked this, and it is a quite significant fact. (It is easy to miss things like this when you have an agenda)
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Simple, in your example rooks have more bases than the other teams - almost more than both of the others added together. You overlooked this, and it is a quite significant fact. (It is easy to miss things like this when you have an agenda)
Bingo! we have a winner.
btw. its my feeling from Ch200 and the BBS that Rooks are a little peeved as of now. And the Low Rook numbers and consistent Bishop and Knight numbers indicate that many Rooks are out in the back yard BBQing instead of playing AH2. Or perhaps with football season in America they are rooting for there favorite team. I know that very few have switched to Bishops. I have watched the Roster continuously since the system has been implicated.
-
Simple, in your example rooks have more bases than the other teams - almost more than both of the others added together. You overlooked this, and it is a quite significant fact. (It is easy to miss things like this when you have an agenda)
I can always post the screenshot of the situation before I logged off in disgust.
Rook fields shrank to 5 fields. Knits and Bish had one big fight at A7 that lasted for like one hour during the total seven hour game playing - but that was it.
During that time, we almost started a counter attack - when the Bish and Knits politely stopped fighting over A7 and started the banging again.
So, I beleive the question would be "how do you solve the gangbang problem"?
For all throughout gameplay we assumed that numbers balance would shift around naturally, and in some months the horde would become the underdogs.. and cycle cycle cycle..
Except at some point, we Rooks started being the untouchable horde at US prime time, and that didn't change.
So, there was intervention.
As much, we always assume that such 2side vs 1 gangbangs would be temporary. Well, unfortunately, on this side of the globe at our prime time, it isn't. It's a set tendency, just as much our Rookie horde was becoming.
So, I support the SBM(side balancing mechanism) - Rooks should be split and balance should be attained.
But I also think if such balance is taken into consideration, something also must be done to stop the 2vs1; the 'non-intervention to gameplay situations' tradition we've been seeing in AH has been broken now.
So, why not a balance tool for this too?
-
Well waddayaknow
Just logged in after some shut-eye
The gangbang continued straight till reset.
Well, at least glad that terrain's over.
-
Is it just me or do you think it might be a bit early to tell how the new system will work out?
As far as I have seen so far, at the times I have been on, our side (Bish) have been on the receiving end of the penalty about even with the Rooks.
I think a little more time might be in order before we jump to any decisions one way or the other.
-
Just so I can get in on the Biggest General Discussion Debate Of The Year.
Don't know why we just can't stop worrying about the #'s balance and work on the horde problem.
Pick a number, say 32. When you have that many red dots around 1 base, the hardness of the field objects starts to go up, and the downtime down.
Once everyone figures out the 50 people over 1 damn base will just make the hangers etc take 3 times the ordinance to destroy, at least the fights will be spread out.
-
Hitech even though it may not be on purpose it does still happen. With the current system it cannot account for this type of play whether folks are meaning to do it or not. I think it would be a little more fair if the system could account for amount of players per country on each frontline area. If folks actually choose to do the horde thing then they have no reason to complain if the numbers can be accounted for in such a manner. Not sure if this is possible though.
I do understand there is an issue with the numbers. It only seems to be extremely over balanced on one night of the week which is Sunday (RJO).
-
Its not really important at all how many each side has. Its how many each side is fighting. Closest you could get is number of enemy aircraft in your coutnies airspace.
Its not a supprise or anything,
-
Pongo that's what I meant in regards to numbers per side on a particular frontline. This should also include GVs. I assume the dar bar system accounts for certain amount of players per sector.
If the player in that sector is not friendly then it equates to a percentage of the actual darbar displayed in red. If it could go a little deeper and use the number of enemy dots and link them to a side then we could account for actual numbers playing, what country they are, and what sector/frontline they are fighting on in comparison to another country.
Using something similiar to this you could possibly tell exactly who is fighting who and with what kind of numbers they are using. I may also determine if particular side gets limited on aircraft (bomber or fighter) and gvs. Again I have no clue as to what it would take to make something like this. I may be a coders nightmare for all I know. But it would be fair when it comes to limiting and if folks keep chosing to fly with excessive numbers it's their own fault for the limitation.