Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Soda on September 08, 2004, 10:14:38 AM
-
I think a very important aspect that is missing in AH is attrition and it leads to the use of many of the "annoying" tactics that people frequently complain about. Without attrition, people have no fear of employing just about anything to get the job done knowing that if they don't at first succeed, try try again. With attrition, a failed sortie would result in the inability to make another attempt.
So, here is the concept, something really simple, a 30 minute restriction on re-spawning after a death that applies to the field that you launched from. Bails/Captures/Deaths all count the same and how you died doesn't matter, intention, unintentional, or just unlucky. The restriction is only in effect at that single field and would prevent you from spawning anything else there (or from there in the case of remote spawns) for the entire 30 min period. You could move to another field and spawn immediately UNLESS you have also died there and your 30 min counter at that location hasn't expired yet either. This would limit field-hopping to reset the timers, logging out/in, or spawn/land instantly. You could, therefore, have multiple locations where you are currently "Restricted" from spawning if you die quickly in multiple locations (the actual amount of time is up for some discussion, I just made it 30 min because that would represent the normal maximum amount of time that something would "Repair" in). A successful landing imparts no restriction, you can immediately re-spawn. With the new "war-won" model of 6 fields minimum, you'd have to die 6 times in 30 minutes (5 min sortie time) in order to run out of places to spawn on the strat side of the game... could happen but unlikely.
Before the furball crowd jump in too deep, I think there should be an exempt area because I like a good furball just like the next guy sometimes(some won't admit it). No restrictions there, anyone could go there and furball to their hearts content all evening with unlimited spawns. Most furballers just want to get into a ride and see lots of red-cons, hence the exemption. Also, if for some reason you do manage to "run out" of places to spawn elsewhere (like in the minutes before a reset), then you can go to furball island and fly there.
Now, this might be something for the MA, maybe it's not, but here are some things I think would occur because of it:
- Anything that is considered a "suicide tactic" (suicide plungers, 500ft bombers, dive-bombing Lancs, etc) would become less valuable because you'd only get 1 attempt. If you failed, you couldn't try again from the same location so you'd better make your first try count, either that or employ something that has a higher survival potential. This alone would cover probably 1/4 of the BBS complaints that come up about the MA play. How many CV's would stay floating if the same guy didn't have the opportunity to make 3 or 4 attacks until he got enough ord onto the CV to sink it? How many 10 minute GV drives where you get killed by the same guy who's upped 3 times to face you but died while plunging an A20 in attempt to get you?
- No more "re-up for revenge". If you beat 3 guys, spend your energy and position to do it, why should kill #1 immediately come back to extract revenge in his new-La7 while you nurse your 190 home low on ammo/fuel/damaged/etc. It might really help perk planes, no more F4U-4/Tempest/SpitXIV's killed by "fresh" La7's that you just finished killing... if the "Dead" can arrange someone new to take up his cause, so be it, but the same guy once shot down is out of the immediate action.
- The nature of attack/defense would fundamentally change, success would be based on who "wins" superiority, not who can replace lost aircraft quickest. Fights would be finite, whomever still has people alive, after what would probably be a pretty short time, would win (no enemies can up to replace losses unless they haven't died yet). No more "pork the hangers" as a primary method of stopping an attack/defense (though it would still work to do so). The "Red Wave" concept wouldn't be changed, bringing superior numbers is smart and HT agrees, but if you face superior quality opponents and lose at a bad ratio your attack would fail.... no more re-enforcements by the same guys that are already shot down, no more facing and killing the same guy 2-4 times in a row before he finally gets you. I like to call this the "overwhelm you eventually" concept, where superior numbers win not because they have better kill ratios but because they can replace their losses and eventually wear you down.
- Spawn Camping/Vulching would become pretty useless unless 10 unique people all spawned. It's still totally valid to set up for a vulch but now every kill you made would equate to one less defender to have to worry about for 30 minutes. No more score padding, no more frustrated newbies getting vulched 100 times on the runway at one location. No more constant ack-star tactics with formations of bombers. You spawn, you die, you move on or watch from the tower for 30 minutes.
- The Fighter Sweep would be VERY valid as a way to clear out defenders before launching an attack. Currently it's a way to stir up action and hence a poor choice if you tend to exploit it for attacking reasons. You could cut down on the number of defenders and specifically target types of aircraft that may hamper your efforts. It might make some attack aircraft that have difficulty dealing with lots/certain type of fighters more useful (Bf110, Mossie, Il2) because you could specifically target the most dangerous opponents and let the attack aircraft do their thing. A couple of guys roving around the frontlines might make the difference by knocking down a few key enemies.
- No more "Fight Stagnation", battles that run for hours, or maybe a whole evening, at one location. Things would shift around more, gangbangs might come and go more quickly, hot-spots would move around the map. While a "Red Wave" may arrive, once dealt with it would have to move on.
- No more Ostie swarms, once dead once a person couldn't just continue the attack/defense in an Ostie. If you chose an Ostie initially though, every guy you shot down is one less that can simply come back and drop ordinance on your head until he finally gets you.
- The "Counter Attack" concept. The enemy sends his attack and fails, now you can retaliate and know that anyone who died in the initial attack is not a potential defender. Currently the counter-attack is basically sneaking a bomber in to level the hangers or attracting enough people to match/exceed the enemy numbers. A large mission that launched and failed could leave the field they launched from VERY vulnerable to immediate counter-attack because a lot of potential defenders can't spawn.
- Backfield Hunting options are improved. You knock out the enemy goon, the same person can't launch another so either A) someone new launches one or B) someone rtb's and gets one (no bailing and grabbing one, remember). Don't want an HQ resupplied, have a fighter or two hunt some goons after you bomb out the HQ. Every goon they shoot down is one less guy who can launch another. Field resupply, again, M3/C47's that are shot down are not able to simply spawn again.
- Mutual Field support would become very important. Having two fields against the enemy's single would mean you have twice the spawn potential, even if the flight from the second field is a bit further. Right now mutual field support doesn't usually have an impact unless one of the fields is being vulched or if you are trying to launch some bombers from a direction the enemy may not expect.
There are lots of other examples of things it would change but it wouldn't "force" anyone to do anything, it would entice you to try something more survivable in general. I don't think it would make people "shy", or at least not overly, because if you die all you have to do it move on to someplace else for a while. It would tend to favor skill a bit more and hurt people who currently don't have good technique but it impacts everyone equally and if you are desperate you can always revert to any technique you want to get the job done (you'd better just make sure it works the first time). Some people would probably get pretty bent by the fact they had to watch the rest of a fight unfold from the tower (or move on) but isn't that part of how battles are decided, you attrit your enemies ability to continue? People who rely on steam-roller tactics consistently might be in for a shock.
Anyway, it's just an idea and I'm sure there will be lots of comments (objective and not). Maybe it's something for the MA, maybe not, maybe it would help address some inbalance issues with numbers (which could be beaten with attrition being modeled) and make some of the other ENY balancing issues less severe. Anyway, thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and mention this, it's been suggested in other forms before but I think this one is a bit simplier and I put some description behind it.
-Soda
-
sounds good Soda :)
-
not to me.
this just rewards/encourages even more horde/timid behavior.
-
How Shane?
Certainly the horde wouldn't change, but at least it could be beaten using this model. Right now that is basically impossible unless someone "turns off the tap" by blasting the enemy hangers. Just notice how quickly a fight is decided in the MA once one side loses their FH's.... this would be just like that but not require a horde of suicide guys to punch through to accomplish it. If you beat the enemy in the air then you win, OR you could strat them out, either would work but you'd have both options available. Having a couple of really skilled guys could make a 10:1 scenario winnable and the horde might lose.
As for timid, I guess it depends on how you define it. If it means people who are "tourists", it wouldn't change that. You can't force someone to engage though, unless you have a superior position to do so, so in that case it's up to you to force it. All too often people are described as timid because they won't force a bad situation though, I can't blame them for that. That said, the 30K pony pilot looking for low kills isn't going to change...but it you knock him off his perch you have the satisfaction of knowing he is having to relocate and can't oppose you anymore.
-
Some interesting ideas there Soda.
One thing that must be a challenge for HT is to keep all types of players happy in the same arena. For example, balancing the expansion of strategic aspects of the game, while still allowing the players who don't give a toss about war/strategy to still have fun in the same arena.
I really like the idea of the large maps having "furball islands" - , "early war islands" etc where folks can log on and jump into their preferred action of the night. Having separate arenas is probably not a good idea and I'm pretty sure they don't want to head that way.
The concept you are suggesting would help spread the players across the map , which should result in more fights occurring ingress and egress rather than 40 guys circling a field waiting for someone to up - that can only be a good thing.
Not sure how it would prevent the steamroller/horde effect though - would probably make things worse.
Personally I only have 2 complaints about AH arena's right now
- timidness/ lack of fighting
- overuse of the late war uber variants , by said timid pilots in point 1
Can you incorporate some ideas to fix those as well
-
You could, effectively not be able to fly at all with this idea.
If your country is down to say ... 15 bases ... and your getting ganged by both the other countries trying for the reset, you will run out of bases real quick and end up sitting in the tower along with most, if not all of your other countrymen.
In the same scenario, this would squash any type of base defense that one might try to muster against the onslaught.
So .. in effect, you are rewarding the horde and punishing the underdog ... don't think this will fly.
-
Originally posted by Shane
not to me.
this just rewards/encourages even more horde/timid behavior.
lol shane jumped in while I was typing
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
You could, effectively not be able to fly at all with this idea.
If your country is down to say ... 15 bases ... and your getting ganged by both the other countries trying for the reset, you will run out of bases real quick and end up sitting in the tower along with most, if not all of your other countrymen.
In the same scenario, this would squash any type of base defense that one might try to muster against the onslaught.
So .. in effect, you are rewarding the horde and punishing the underdog ... don't think this will fly.
Soda mentioned this would be open for discusson:(the actual amount of time is up for some discussion, I just made it 30 min because that would represent the normal maximum amount of time that something would "Repair" in). A successful landing imparts no restriction, you can immediately re-spawn. With the new "war-won" model of 6 fields minimum, you'd have to die 6 times in 30 minutes (5 min sortie time) in order to run out of places to spawn on the strat side of the game... could happen but unlikely.
or since everyone seems to think that you can not accomplish anything unles you have a horde, we should just insist everyone fly in hordes and ask hitech to rename the game High on hordes or Hordes flying High
seems nobody these days wants anything less except to fly in a horde because they are to skeered to fly a 1 on 1 or 2 vs 1, if it is not 3+ vs 1 most people run these days.......... if you get co alt on them and cause them to lose there superior E advantage , they run for the hills/higher ground.......
just plain silly...........
Still I think Soda has brought up some good debatable points and he said that they are open for discussion...........
I like the idea of stopping the spawn campers, suicide porkers, you kill 5 off , they can not relaunch to spoil your sortie when you low on ammo and dogpile you again......etc.... good points in soda's post indeed
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
You could, effectively not be able to fly at all with this idea.
If your country is down to say ... 15 bases ... and your getting ganged by both the other countries trying for the reset, you will run out of bases real quick and end up sitting in the tower along with most, if not all of your other countrymen.
In the same scenario, this would squash any type of base defense that one might try to muster against the onslaught.
So .. in effect, you are rewarding the horde and punishing the underdog ... don't think this will fly.
Technically you are correct, you could "run out" of fields, but with 15 fields remaining you'd have to die on average of every 2 minutes... possible, maybe, but on a field by field basis you'd expect that some sorties would last a bit longer than that. A death only impacts you the 30 min at the field you sortied from, not all fields. You'd always have furball island too, that would offer you a place to always spawn (some maps would need adjustment, typically the older ones). You are correct that a side could "collapse" pretty quickly too, honestly they made that easier with the larger number of fields that now give a reset (6 vs. 3 I think it is). At least it would end quickly, you could go to furball island in the mean time for some quick action while waiting for the end. There would be no purpose for the victors to not "finish it off" either... no repeat guys to vulch over and over... they'd be flying around waiting for nothing, may as well reset things.
HT has come out and said he doesn't see the "horde" as an issue, bringing more people to get the job done is simply smart. In this model though it would be possible to "beat" the horde with smaller numbers because every horde member shot down is not coming immediately back. It also might break up the horde a bit, early fatalities are not as likely to wait for the rest of the guys to die and catch up to them so they'd go off and run sorties from other places rather than wait. Remember that while you have 2-3 fields facing a front so could run out of spawns to face that country, so could the attackers, they may be forced to furball island OR to attack the other country simply because they can't spawn on the front they want to.
As for the typical horde right now, it would be funny to see the first 1/4 dive in to suicide, none of those guys would be coming back even though they did the damage (ie, they can't capitalize on it, maybe their friends can). Also, if you launch and nail their goon, well, anyone who has died (including the goon driver) can't bring another, leading to failure unless A) someone new is convinced to launch one or B) someone rtb's and grabs a new one. You could see a horde of guys "win", lose their goon, fly around waiting for a vulch that never happened (nobody can get vulched more than once) while the goon flys back.... and someone might nail that too. It could tie up hordes in useless actions for hours.
They've tried to "Even out" the side numbers anyway with the ENY retriction on aircraft, if the enemy has a horde you should be able to generate roughly equal numbers or superior aircraft, depends on the situation.
Good comments though, this is just an idea so I'm working through scenarios with it just like everyone else.
-
While the idea itself sounds good, it does seem to fall under the category of "individual attrition" rather than "total attrition".
Despite the fancy words the two concepts are fundamental in creating all "war" type games.
Attrition rates were an important factor in warring environments and makes up the drive for people to find targets of wider importance than just the fight in front of you. Raids to cities, facilities, factories all make up a part of the picture of attrition. So does individual deaths and kills.
However, there are two methods of attrition applied to a game - the first method is to make the individual pay the consequences of attrition. The second method is to make the whole team pay the consequences of attrition.
The former, individual attrition, is direct and very quickly applied. For instance, the idea making an individual being unable to up from a base, or having a set number of 'available planes' on a base.. or, the former AH MA style 'fuel busting' all fall under the "individual attrition" category. As we have noted from experiences of the past, individual attrition is THE source for complaints.
The latter, total attrition, is very hard to balance out. If it is anything like in the real world, it may be considered too powerful. If it is too little in effect, it becomes something like MA facilities - fuel refineris, troop training, radar factories, etc. These targets are virtually useless and more or less complete waste of time to go after, considering MA dynamics.
The former AH MA, had individual attrition of some resources(fuels), but no attrition for planes and pilots. It also had no strategic scale attrition rate at all(virtually useless).
The current MA, has removed all attritional resources. Killing fuel stuff was under huge complaint. If killing the fuels, which still allowed you to spawn, has met such high resistance, it isn't hard to see how people will react to attrition that effects plane spawning itself.
IMO the only way to go, is to strengthen attrition rates at a strategic scale, so it makes sense. People are required to hit fuel facilities, radar factories, ack factories and etc - but unlike it is now, these should have lasting effect to show some kind of continuity in strategic/tactical action.
An attrition applied to all resources(which is accounted by a factory), which acts slow, but steady as well. In this type of attritional setting, people will not be limited in their playing time directly, but the results of attrition to resource facilities will cause a slow but constant 'bleeding', which will in the end, bring a gigantic effect if not properly accounted for.
Only by this method IMO, will AH gamers be willing to make a compromose. They won't be limited in when they fly where, but they will be duty bound to protect their own facilities, and as much attack the enemy facilities.. or in the long run, it will decisively effect the ability to wage war.
-
For instance, I've come up with this idea in the past:
The problem with strat, I've come to think, is that if strats effect gameplay too quickly and directly, people come to hate it because it becomes a limiting factor all too quick.
However, if strats effect gameplay too indirectly and slowly, it's existence is hardly worthwhile.
I think, that in the MA, both of these problems exist side-by-side.
1. Field strats, are very few in numbers opposed to typically numerous people going after it. The field layout was designed in the early days of AH.
An airfield is immediately rendered useless for a time when a handful of fuel bunkers are destroyed. Frontline advances are immediately stopped when two~three barracks are down. A handful of suicidal people can delay many things.
2. On the contrary, country-level strats, are basically useless as a target. They act much too slowly. The only target of worth is the city and the HQ.
The problem with country strat, is that it is designed to effect strat capabilities only when a certain 'sequence' is reached. First kill all the city buildings(halt factory rebuild), then kill all the factory buildings(halt field strat rebuild), then kill the field strat - only by this sequence, the strat factor kicks into action. If any of the 'sequence' goes wrong, all the effort put into it before goes to waste. Since, typically country strats are placed at the deepest of fields, there's hardly ever a chance to initiate the 'sequence' so the strat factor goes into action.
...
In this case, logically, I think a 'middle point' has to be reached.
Many suggestions have come to pass that the only way a really profound strat factor can be applied to the game is by introducing attrition - but immediate attrition, hurts game play. Porking fuels, IMO, can be viewed as an example of immediate attrition.
On the contrary almost no attritional value at all, is what can be said of the strats - as it is almost impossible to destory so many things at so short limited time in the MA - considering the unorganized nature of players.
...
Would it be possible, that attritional values of strat objects be designed to work slowly, but steadily?
It's still the early stages of thinking, so I find it hard to describe what I have in mind, but it's something like this;
* If the 'official' policy is to switch maps every one-week term, then the strat values are updated by every real-time, one-day, 24hour length. In the MA, this will be referred to as "Day1", "Day2", "Day3" and etc.
* Field strats, will reup as fast as within 5 minutes when country strat effecting its rebuild time is at 100% efficiency.
* Field strats, will reup as slow as 2 hours, when country strat effecting its rebuild time is at 0% efficiency.
* "Country strat", takes on the form of accumulated damage.
* The visual objects of country strats, such as factory buildings or HQ, will of course, can be destroyed and rebuilt. But the strategic "value point" it holds, does not replenish.
* Every one-day term, the total damage done to a certain country strat objects are calculated. If the total damage exceeds a certain set point, then 30% of country strat efficiency goes down.
* Every one-day term, country strat replenishes 10% of its strategic efficiency.
* Therefore, when a certain side has extensively done enough damge to country strats in a certain day term, the country strat efficiency will go down 20% ({30% down in strat efficiency due to total damage exceeding the set limit} - {10% replenished strategic efficiency})
* For example, if Rooks attack Knit country strat of radar facility, constantly pounding it at Day1, and succeeding to exceed the set damage point: at Day2, the Knit radar facility efficiency will be at 80%.
* This means, rebuild time of destroyed field objects will be slowing down. In the example above, ALL Knit radar at ALL Knit fields, will be effected in rebuild time if destroyd, at Day2. Knit radar facility, will be at 80% efficiency
*The effect of strat efficiency - rebuild time is suggested as follows;
100% - 5 minutes
90% - 7 minutes
80% - 10 minutes
70% - 15 minutes
60% - 25 minutes
50% - 40 minutes
40% - 60 minutes
30% - 1 hour 10 minutes
20% - 1 hour 30 minutes
10% - 1 hour 50 minutes
0% - 2 hours
* So, in the example, in Day2, Knit radar facility efficiency will be down to 80%. If a radar on Knit base is destroyed, it will take 10 minutes to rebuild, as opposed to Day1, where all country's strat efficiency is at 100%, it will take only 5 minute to rebuild.
* This strat efficiency will be allowed to be resupplied/recovered by player supplies, but it should be fairly difficult to recover. Someting like 20 goon drops = 1% replenished value. To recover 10% manually, without waiting for automatic replenished values the next day, it will take 200 goon supply drops.
* The "total damage value" set for a country strat, which determines if a country can successfully bust 30% of the top efficiency the next one-day term, should be fairly high. Something like two Lancaster formations reaching enemy country strat once every hour, for 24 hours -> 48 Lancaster formations -> 144 Lancaster bombers in a 24hour term -> 2 million 16 thousand pounds of bombs.
* The city, will effect how fast a town reups.
* If this works, I view that MA gameplay can become something like this:
1. one week term of a certain map starts.
2. at Day1, every strat object rebuilds within 5 minutes. Including town.
3. so at Day1, field capture is extreme difficult. There will be a lot of furball fights. with almost nothing effecting the fuels. If one side wishes to capture a field, they will have to get a goon standing by, CAP the field completely, and precisely time the goon drop to advance.
4. so at Day1, the advancement in frontlines will be pretty much stagnant. But lot of furball fights will happen.
5. if, a certain side, is compelled to look further out than just Day1, they will start strat attacks.
6. Ideally, by Day 4~5, if a certain country has planned its long=term strategy well, some of enemy country strats will be effected and downed to 50~60%.
7. by Day6~7, reset phase becoming imminent, the losing country will have its strats down to 10, 20%, or even 0%.
...
The strengths of this strat system, is that there's literally everything for everyone. At Day1, it's furballer's paradise. Field porkage almost doesn't work. Everything reups in 5 minutes.
If, strat players look ahead of that, they will start hitting enemy country strats massively - but this, will not effect the gameplay profoundly in the first 2~3 days of a new map.
If the strat players succeed in the difficult task of hitting country strats for all week, then at the last few days of the map, it becomes strat paradise. If strat players fail to do that, it will be furballer's paradise for whole week.
So, it's a sort of a no-negotiations, fight to get what you want, style of strat with delayed attrition. If strat players organize large missions and hit strats continuously for days, in the final phases of the map they will have almost total victory - many field objects, and even towns, staying down for max 2 hours! But that will be a difficult thing to do.
If furballers sense the potential danger of that, they will divide their time to cooperative defense, and stop strat players from porking things for days, and reaching their objective.
In the first few days, furballers will be dominant, with lot of plane fights with fuels uneffected. So the only way of field advancement will be total vulch and swarm tactics - strat players will have to divide their time to strat planning/action and, local defense.
So ideally, if it works, it will naturally compell both sides of the different groups of players to participate in various actions, in a cooperative manner without anyone yelling at anyone.
So, for the strat guys:
*Pros: The attritional power of strat is immense, very powerful. If continuously succeeding in large-scale strat attacks, in the last days of the week, the enemy will be almost totally helpless.
*Cons: Objective is very slow to reach. Very high standards of success. Lot of organization and many people required in a week-long effort.
For the furball guys:
*Pros: Games starts in a position where furballing fun is extreme. If successfully defend important strats, they can practically furball for whole week.
*Cons: If everybody indulges in to too much of near-sighted fighting, the last few days of the one-week term, will be incredibly difficult.
For everyone:
*Suicidal porkers are largely neutered for almost whole week(as long as country strat efficiency stays over 70~80%). Short-term, immediate suicidal action rarely effects anything. Besides, nobody would be pissed if a deluded suicidal dweeb goes kamikazeing in some corner of the map, all by himself, doing pitiful damage to strat targets which is of no use.
*The fun for the whole week - strat players may not achieve their objectives, but they'll get the chance to try a worthy challenge which lasts for the whole week. Furballers, will not see things getting worse - if country strat efficiency is down to 40~50%, it's still about the same as now. Only when it is totally down to 10~0%, will it become significantly worse for them.
IMO, this type of strat concept, is what I consider "total attrition" - which applies slowly, but steadily, and firmly.
People will be granted the freedom to do what they want, but they will be responsible for what happens. If they play irresponsibly, the last few days before reset phase, is gonna be hell.
No direct means of limiting plane choices. But the continuous damage applied to the strat facilities, will in the end effect everything and everyone.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
While the idea itself sounds good, it does seem to fall under the category of "individual attrition" rather than "total attrition".
A completely valid point, my concept was not intended to address anything more than individual attrition. Lack of individual attrition is, in my mind, more related to some of the tactics/techniques that are most frequently complained about while opening some new gameplay options, not closing them.
A higher level of attrition, at a country level, or field level, is something that might be more appropriate for a TOD (I thought it would be a pretty hard sell anywhere else) where you would have to accept when you logged in that a certain level of "restriction" may already be placed on you before you even do anything. My model doesn't do that, when you log in you start as "enabled" as you do now (short of how many fields your country owns) and only your own actions may limit you.
-
Originally posted by Redd
Some interesting ideas there Soda.
One thing that must be a challenge for HT is to keep all types of players happy in the same arena. For example, balancing the expansion of strategic aspects of the game, while still allowing the players who don't give a toss about war/strategy to still have fun in the same arena.
Yes, I'm sure it is, and introducing new arenas like the CT hasn't seemed to cause mass movement. Most people like the more fluid action in the MA I think. That mixes the strat guys from the furballers to some extent. This would give a little bit of each type of action I think, and certainly wouldn't limit the furballers that much, they would still have their place.
I really like the idea of the large maps having "furball islands" - , "early war islands" etc where folks can log on and jump into their preferred action of the night. Having separate arenas is probably not a good idea and I'm pretty sure they don't want to head that way.
Most of the later maps have an area like this already. I think it's a very common and popular area so I wouldn't want to change that.
The concept you are suggesting would help spread the players across the map , which should result in more fights occurring ingress and egress rather than 40 guys circling a field waiting for someone to up - that can only be a good thing.
It would spread out the players, I agree, a side effect of making people move around to fly as they die. It would also stop the "hovering" of people looking to simply vulch a field because little, if anything, might up to defend once a vulch is established.
Not sure how it would prevent the steamroller/horde effect though - would probably make things worse.
It's wouldn't prevent the streamroll at all. HT has been pretty clear that he doesn't see that as an issue. It might even make the horde a bit worse, that could be, but compared to right now what is actually "worse"? I mean, having 30 guys show up once or have 30 guys show up endlessly? Even a small squad of 4 or 5 guys can use the "unending" resapwn in the current arena to get the job done.. half suicide, half tie up the enemy fighters, until eventually they manage to shut the field down and vulch/capture. Just the other night myself and someone else ran a defense on a field against about 5-6 enemy. By the end of it, I'd shot down the same guy 3 times over, the hangers were all flat, and I got vulched by someone I'd shot down twice while trying to rearm a damaged aircraft. Total K/D was 21:2 but the defense was a failure because of a lack of attrition. If there had been attrition, it would have ended 5-6:0 and the defense would have been successful.
Personally I only have 2 complaints about AH arena's right now
- timidness/ lack of fighting
- overuse of the late war uber variants , by said timid pilots in point 1
Can you incorporate some ideas to fix those as well
I doubt my idea can force either of these. It guess it depends on what it means to be "timid" also... if someone uses late war speed to extend from a better slow-performer, is that timid or just smart? I my mind he's using his advantage to beat yours. It can be frustrating as hell, no doubt, but if you can't stop it then he has the advantage and is using it for his own reasons. You might respect someone in a 190D9 that decides to turnfight a Spitfire V as brave/skilled but from a tactical standpoint that would be stupid.
As for overuse of late war rides, we see what has happened with the ENY penalty stuff, it's a mess of complaints. To me, it really hasn't made any difference, I have yet to have a single sortie not run because I couldn't take the aircraft I wanted. Too many people rely on the uber rides to survive as they really do hold an advantage over a majority of the planeset, it's certainly a handicap and does make people rely on speed to save them (it can rot your ACM and SA skills quite a bit) but whatever works for them and is within the rules has to be considered fair game I guess.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a planeset that was pushed back a bit though, bringing more "middle-planeset" options into play, something in the 190A5/SpitV range with light perking from there up... I think Kweassa has posted concepts along that line before.
-Soda
-
A version of this already exists in the arena settings.........
two settings (deathmaxcount and deathtimemult) are set to limit the number of deaths a player may experience over a set period of time.
It is (or can be) used in events to limit the number of "lives" a player may use.
However it can be set in the MA to do the same. It will not balance game play however..............
It could be used to limit repeated suicide attempts at
a)launching from a capped (vulch enabled) field
or
b)spawning at a camped GV spawnpoint
or
c)suiciding a whole formation of bombers
if set to say 3 lives over 4 or 5 mins
-
30 mins is way too long. Make it 10 minutes ... which is about how long it'd take to fly home from the "average" inter-base furball, or about how long it'd take to sortie from the next nearest field and get back to the same fight.
Then scale this timer by the metrics used for ENY. So if you're heavily outnumbered, you can sortie maybe 5 minutes after being vutched. Timer should never dip below 5 mins, though. And, of course, the logic to determine if you're really outnnumbered still needs to be done (yeah, I know, broken record.).
Now, if you really want to get fancy, you could have the ENY of the plane you take after getting shot down reduce the time. So if you take your La-7 and miscalculte the HO and die, well you can wait 10 minutes for another La-7, or you can wait say 5 minutes for a P-38, or maybe only 2 minutes for a P-51B.
I think individual attrition is the way to go as most players don't look much beyond their own wingtips. Country-wide attrition equates to porking opportunities which will only make matters worse. It is, afterall, individuals who choose to do suicide tactics.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
A version of this already exists in the arena settings.........
two settings (deathmaxcount and deathtimemult) are set to limit the number of deaths a player may experience over a set period of time.
It is (or can be) used in events to limit the number of "lives" a player may use.
However it can be set in the MA to do the same. It will not balance game play however..............
It could be used to limit repeated suicide attempts at
a)launching from a capped (vulch enabled) field
or
b)spawning at a camped GV spawnpoint
or
c)suiciding a whole formation of bombers
if set to say 3 lives over 4 or 5 mins
Interesting ... if you set it to 2 lives in 15 minutes, how would that affect the "conveyor belt?"
-DoK
-
Good ideas Soda, and I agree with DokGonzo's modifications. 10 minutes would be enough to make the average joe look somewhere else.
Hammer
netAces.org (http://www.netaces.org) - Tips, Tactics and More!
-
Originally posted by Tilt
A version of this already exists in the arena settings.........
[/b]
I thought the current system was at an entire arena level, I don't want that. I don't want people sitting in the tower unless they die a massive amount (which is generally only possible if being vulched or doing something else stupid which is difficult in my model). Even if you die every 2 minutes, with no transit time, you only have a max of 15 fields you are limited at. Those would have to be unique fields also, so count in some time to do a ".move" and at least 1-2 min of transit.. likely it would be nearly impossible to have more than 5 total fields that were off limits even at the worst time, assuming you die at a rate of once every 6 minutes. A single sortie longer than that and multiple fields would "re-open" to you spawning. I think you'd have to die a lot in order for it to be an issue and that usually happens when all you have left are fields that are all basically being vulched. When that happens a reset might be the kindest thing that can happen. Remember, even if you ran out of fields to spawn from, there is always furball island... unlimited spawning there.
Originally posted by Tilt
It will not balance game play however..............
[/b]
Correct, but it might make superior numbers more managable/beatable. I've always found that I didn't mind the aspect of facing superior numbers, it was when I knew beating it initially wasn't going to ultimately change the outcome. Eventually I'd have to leave (fuel/ammo/damage), or get beat, so sortie rates combined with superior numbers would almost always be the victor in the end. This would be more like the dueling arena, the sides are set and the person with the last guy(s) flying is the victor, regardless of what the odds were before. Having a couple of really skilled guys along is going to certainly help, some squads in AH are going to be able to beat 3:1 odds, or worse, because they can employ their skill better. Right now even at 5:1 ratios they eventually lose as fresh opponents come back over and over until they vulch/pork you back to your runway. I think a lot of large aircraft number but poorly staffed/planned capture attempts would fail miserably with my idea.
Originally posted by Tilt
It could be used to limit repeated suicide attempts at
[/b]
Yes, but it is an "equal opportunity penalty" for any death. Certainly it hits the suiciders the worst if they persist on using those tactics. If they adopt something with better survival chances they are less likely to die and more likely to have multiple sorties from one location. It means a few suiciders are less likely to have an impact, not that they can't try and succeed, but it make take more of them and ultimately may result in failures to suicide things "enough".
Originally posted by DokGonzo
30 mins is way too long. Make it 10 minutes ... which is about how long it'd take to fly home from the "average" inter-base furball, or about how long it'd take to sortie from the next nearest field and get back to the same fight.
[/b]
I was a bit ruthless in my choice of 30 min, maybe it could be changed, but here was my reasoning. Basically, if you fail I think you should "move on", or at least be enticed to do so. If you are really intent on seeing something through (even post-death), then the penalty is the flight from another field, likely an addition of +5 min or so of transit, but effectively if you died again you'd be looking at LONG flight times to continue anything (you'd really have to move then). Also, if you make it 30min, then the time it takes for something to "repair" like troops, would be shorter than your return times, ie, if you suicide porked something by the time you got back it would be fixed. Making it only 10 minutes, you could basically launch constant sorties from two fields (assuming you can survive 10 min consistently, which a majority would be climb/transit times) where mine makes it almost impossible to sustain any sort of attack for more than 1-2 sorties from any reasonably distanced field.
I think making people move on also populates the map a bit better. It releases people from "constant defense" who choose to oppose capture attempts. It also makes failed attacks more suceptable to counter-attack (there is a whole 30 min window of opportunity to counter-attack in before the same guys can defend). Attacks that failed would come back to a fully-functional field on their second attempt (30 min later). Defenses that failed would give the attackers up to 30 min to get the capture complete. Most attacks/defenses/furballs would turn into brief and bloody battles where the victors could really capitalize (basically 30 mins worth) on the result.
Good comments though, creative discussion.
-
Originally posted by Soda
I doubt my idea can force either of these. It guess it depends on what it means to be "timid" also... if someone uses late war speed to extend from a better slow-performer, is that timid or just smart? I my mind he's using his advantage to beat yours. It can be frustrating as hell, no doubt, but if you can't stop it then he has the advantage and is using it for his own reasons. You might respect someone in a 190D9 that decides to turnfight a Spitfire V as brave/skilled but from a tactical standpoint that would be stupid.
As for overuse of late war rides, we see what has happened with the ENY penalty stuff, it's a mess of complaints. To me, it really hasn't made any difference, I have yet to have a single sortie not run because I couldn't take the aircraft I wanted. Too many people rely on the uber rides to survive as they really do hold an advantage over a majority of the planeset, it's certainly a handicap and does make people rely on speed to save them (it can rot your ACM and SA skills quite a bit) but whatever works for them and is within the rules has to be considered fair game I guess.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a planeset that was pushed back a bit though, bringing more "middle-planeset" options into play, something in the 190A5/SpitV range with light perking from there up... I think Kweassa has posted concepts along that line before.
-Soda
Nah wasn't talking about using your plane correctly eg D9 vs Sp 5 , different thing completely.
And yas I would also like to see the perk system extended, it seems to me it is underutilized , and could be used to shape things more in the arena, and get more planes out of the hangars.
Anyway , don't want to shift your thread - that's all for another one, and been done to death probably.
-
I really like this! To historical rememberance to factual strategic doctrine of the Allies of WW2, specifically in reference to the 8th Air Force and British Bomber Command who lost over 60,000 airmen. It was imperative to the cause to diminish the war capability of the enemy to wage war at the front lines. Strategic planning must play a bigger part in MA. Creating a more sound tactical doctrine at the front lines. Main point: I get tired of just porking airfields with my strategic bomber want to see more relevance of cities and factories.
Originally posted by Kweassa
While the idea itself sounds good, it does seem to fall under the category of "individual attrition" rather than "total attrition".
Despite the fancy words the two concepts are fundamental in creating all "war" type games.
Attrition rates were an important factor in warring environments and makes up the drive for people to find targets of wider importance than just the fight in front of you. Raids to cities, facilities, factories all make up a part of the picture of attrition. So does individual deaths and kills.
However, there are two methods of attrition applied to a game - the first method is to make the individual pay the consequences of attrition. The second method is to make the whole team pay the consequences of attrition.
The former, individual attrition, is direct and very quickly applied. For instance, the idea making an individual being unable to up from a base, or having a set number of 'available planes' on a base.. or, the former AH MA style 'fuel busting' all fall under the "individual attrition" category. As we have noted from experiences of the past, individual attrition is THE source for complaints.
The latter, total attrition, is very hard to balance out. If it is anything like in the real world, it may be considered too powerful. If it is too little in effect, it becomes something like MA facilities - fuel refineris, troop training, radar factories, etc. These targets are virtually useless and more or less complete waste of time to go after, considering MA dynamics.
The former AH MA, had individual attrition of some resources(fuels), but no attrition for planes and pilots. It also had no strategic scale attrition rate at all(virtually useless).
The current MA, has removed all attritional resources. Killing fuel stuff was under huge complaint. If killing the fuels, which still allowed you to spawn, has met such high resistance, it isn't hard to see how people will react to attrition that effects plane spawning itself.
IMO the only way to go, is to strengthen attrition rates at a strategic scale, so it makes sense. People are required to hit fuel facilities, radar factories, ack factories and etc - but unlike it is now, these should have lasting effect to show some kind of continuity in strategic/tactical action.
An attrition applied to all resources(which is accounted by a factory), which acts slow, but steady as well. In this type of attritional setting, people will not be limited in their playing time directly, but the results of attrition to resource facilities will cause a slow but constant 'bleeding', which will in the end, bring a gigantic effect if not properly accounted for.
Only by this method IMO, will AH gamers be willing to make a compromose. They won't be limited in when they fly where, but they will be duty bound to protect their own facilities, and as much attack the enemy facilities.. or in the long run, it will decisively effect the ability to wage war.
-
Originally posted by SPQR
I really like this! To historical rememberance to factual strategic doctrine of the Allies of WW2, specifically in reference to the 8th Air Force and British Bomber Command who lost over 60,000 airmen. It was imperative to the cause to diminish the war capability of the enemy to wage war at the front lines. Strategic planning must play a bigger part in MA. Creating a more sound tactical doctrine at the front lines. Main point: I get tired of just porking airfields with my strategic bomber want to see more relevance of cities and factories.
Strategic changes are not really in my idea but might represent another layer. You have to remember that a strategic change would represent something that would likely take much more to accomplish and may have immediate impacts on people's play. Eg, you log on and you find that there are serious restrictions placed on play (be it aircraft available, fuel, etc)... You may find such a poor strategic position overall that "playing" would be accepting that you are honestly going to be defensive (or whatever) for a whole evening. I think only the hardcore person is going to accept that, hence why there is some talk about things like the TOD (where this might be part of such a model). The thing is the balance would be so difficult... how much should one person be able to "cripple" another country, how serious would be the restrictions, and how long would it last. These would all be difficult to balance. I agree if done right it could be cool though.
My idea is only local, short, attrition. It hands immediate advantage to the "victor" but has no longer term consequences.