Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pongo on October 27, 2004, 11:30:21 PM
-
Not playing the game they might have missed it.
Its been 2-3 to one for weeks now.
The eny thing has absolulty, uncatagorically failed. It has failed worse then anything that HTC has ever done.
turn it off. Turn on load ballanceing on log on and get it over with.
-
Well was the point to make the numbers even, or to make the effects of those numbers less harsh? If I'm tooling around in an el gay, having a crowd of P-47s around means I land 8 or 9 kills instead of the 2 or 3 I'd get if they were all in el gays too.
I don't think HTC will ever be able to stop people from taking the easiest route possible, nobody else has ever figured out how to. They can make it easier for the outnumbered side to get kills, that is just about it.
-
Good point. And some of the time the rooks have been in the bucket latley have not been as horrendus becuause of the size of the maps and the advantage in aircraft.
But people have just learned that an infinite number of 205s and 110s can get the same job done when the numbers are so out of wack.
I admit it seemed like an excellent idea. And seemed to work under the original settings it was adopted with. But it certainly doenst work now.
-
It could be made to work better ... no telling if or when HTC will do that though.
-
Pongo and Urchin,
I think the ENY Limiter for side balancing is a miserable failure too. All it seems to have done is cause a lot of folks to make an initial switch from Rooks to Nits and Bish, but they aren't coming back now that things are out of whack the other way.
If we have to live with it, then it needs to be tweaked. Here's the problem I've seen the last two weeks:
Rooks: 89
Nits: 148
Bish 140
No ENY limiter in effect! ! Apparently the limiter only works when 1 country is siginificantly numerically superior to the other two. But if two countries are both much larger, no limits. Here we have two countrys who each have 50% more pilots than the third country, but there is no side balancing occuring.
The result is the the smaller country gets gangbanged by the two large ones, fighting for scraps and the reset.
If we are going to have a balancing effect then the above should have resulted in an ENY limitation for both the Nits and Bish, encouraging a few of them to each switch sides to Rooks.
The limiter should be based on X% larger then the SMALLEST country, not X% larger than the No.2 country. And it should apply to the two larger countrys, not just the largest. For example:
Rooks: 50
Bish: 90
Nits: 100
Nits would have say a 20 Eny limter, Bish a 15 limiter.
Otherwise scrap the whole idea. I still think switching from the ENY limiter to a Ordanance Limiter is a better answer. Cut back on the larger countries abilities to drop bombs and rockets, not the kind of plane they can fly. I don't mind furballing with LA-7s, and it does no good to limit LA-7s when they larger country can JABO with P-47s carrying massive amounts of ordnance. The steamroller continues because they bomb you into submission at every base.
But limit their bombs and rockets:
X% = no 1,000 lbs bombs available
Y% = no 500 lbs or larger bombs or rockets available
Z% = no 250 lbs or larger bombs or rockets available.
Everybody gets to fly the plane of their choice but the steamroller will be slowed down to a manageable level.
Anything would be better than what we have now. It's time for HTC to experiment with something else.
-
Or give heavy bomber formations an ENY of 5.
If you wanna limit ord you also need to make buildings (and capital ships) immune to cannon fire. Who needs bombs when 3 Me110's can level a town in 2 minutes? You'll just get a NOE horde of La-7's and Me110's.
The system also needs to factor in how many bases a side owns. If you have a numerical edge but are holding only a dozen bases and everyone else has 40, then you shouldn't be ENY'd as bad as you try to regain your ground. This is one of my biggest gripes with ENY is that it gives the Horde-ing countries a built-in mechanism to retain their territorial edge.
-
DoKGonZo,
Great point about the base numbers needing to be taken into account too. I agree 100%.
As far as the 110's and La-7s taking down a town, you're correct. But they will have a tougher time taking out the VH and FHs, and any Panzers and Tigers that spawn to defend the town if they have reduced or virtually no ORD.
The idea is to slow down the steamroller, not stop it entirely.
-
it should be noted that the intial settings seemed to work for what ever reason,(curiosity?) but since they have been tweeked they have had no impact at all.
love to see the usage numbers for the 205 since the change though.
-
Tour 53 6-1-04 to 6-30-04:
The C.205 has 3877 kills and has been killed 3799 times.
Tour 54 7-1-04 to 7-31-04:
The C.205 has 5172 kills and has been killed 4212 times.
Tour 55 8-1-04 to 8-31-04:
The C.205 has 4935 kills and has been killed 3969 times.
Tour 56 9-1-04 to 9-30-04:
The C.205 has 4777 kills and has been killed 4288 times.
Tour 57 10-1-04 to 10-28-04 (so far):
The C.205 has 4667 kills and has been killed 4133 times.
-
Cool ... I do like that more of the plane set is seeing use with ENY. But the MA is still lopsided and numbers still rool.
-
Ya I looked at it. Strangely the main victems of the 205 seem to be the Bish. I guess the knights are using them there in even bigger numbers then vs the rooks.
-
The main victim of the average aircraft is bish. Because there are a lot of them and the average k/d of bish is worse than the k/d of the other two countries.
-
The ENY has helped balance the numbers ......
....... of players that don't even bother playing anymore
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Pongo and Urchin,
I think the ENY Limiter for side balancing is a miserable failure too. All it seems to have done is cause a lot of folks to make an initial switch from Rooks to Nits and Bish, but they aren't coming back now that things are out of whack the other way.
If we have to live with it, then it needs to be tweaked. Here's the problem I've seen the last two weeks:
Rooks: 89
Nits: 148
Bish 140
No ENY limiter in effect! ! Apparently the limiter only works when 1 country is siginificantly numerically superior to the other two. But if two countries are both much larger, no limits. Here we have two countrys who each have 50% more pilots than the third country, but there is no side balancing occuring.
The result is the the smaller country gets gangbanged by the two large ones, fighting for scraps and the reset.
If we are going to have a balancing effect then the above should have resulted in an ENY limitation for both the Nits and Bish, encouraging a few of them to each switch sides to Rooks.
The limiter should be based on X% larger then the SMALLEST country, not X% larger than the No.2 country. And it should apply to the two larger countrys, not just the largest. For example:
Rooks: 50
Bish: 90
Nits: 100
Nits would have say a 20 Eny limter, Bish a 15 limiter.
Otherwise scrap the whole idea. I still think switching from the ENY limiter to a Ordanance Limiter is a better answer. Cut back on the larger countries abilities to drop bombs and rockets, not the kind of plane they can fly. I don't mind furballing with LA-7s, and it does no good to limit LA-7s when they larger country can JABO with P-47s carrying massive amounts of ordnance. The steamroller continues because they bomb you into submission at every base.
But limit their bombs and rockets:
X% = no 1,000 lbs bombs available
Y% = no 500 lbs or larger bombs or rockets available
Z% = no 250 lbs or larger bombs or rockets available.
Everybody gets to fly the plane of their choice but the steamroller will be slowed down to a manageable level.
Anything would be better than what we have now. It's time for HTC to experiment with something else.
Originally posted by hitech
No xHammeRx: The numbers are just an example. It depends on the percentage wrather than numbers. I.E. take the player count in the small country , then divide your country by the smallest. I.E. int this example smallest is 100.
So if your country has 135 it would be 135/100.
HiTech
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It looks to me like the lower graph crosses above the top graph at around 190/100. So yeah, basically the punishment is relatively lighter until you have a 1.9:1 ratio, after which it becomes increasingly severe until it reaches the upper boundary.
This should give some more leeway to marginal but not overwhelming numbers advantages, which I think really encompass most of the complaining we've seen. It also puts a serious penalty on uberhordes. Sunday nights will become relatively more difficult for Rooks, though I suspect it won't do anything more than slow the steamroll.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Originally posted by Zazen13
It also doesn't kick in until there's at least a 40% or so disparity. As opposed to a 20% or so disparity under the old system, that is a big improvement in my opinion.
Zazen
I call BS on both Pongo and MOSQ !!!
Some like it hot ... some like it cold ... it all depends upon what side of the fence you are sittin' on.
-
Basing it on numbers does not tell the true story of what is happening in the MA at that time. Two lower number countrys ganging up on the higher number country etc.
Basing it on total bases owned would give a truer picture. A country with only five bases left needs all the help it can get no matter what their numbers are.
-
lol
what a joke. A full bore Knight steam roller goes on for 3 weeks and people try to deflect the truth. The ENY thing has failed.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
lol
what a joke. A full bore Knight steam roller goes on for 3 weeks and people try to deflect the truth. The ENY thing has failed.
Heads up ... BS and embelishment ALERT !!!
-
suprise suprise
a knight who thinks that having a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 advantage doenst matter!
Where where you when your countrymen were whining about being out numbered by 15% tough guy?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
suprise suprise
a knight who thinks that having a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 advantage doenst matter!
Where where you when your countrymen were whining about being out numbered by 15% tough guy?
Well ... I am not surprised at your posts being loaded with BS and embellished upon.
I have been Knight going on 3 years now (except for a 3 month period) so I know all too well the past and present of the MA.
I have also been flying alot within the past couple of weeks and I have not seen anywhere near the doom and gloom that you profess.
Can't tell you how many times in the past week that I have logged on and see that no real progress was made by anybody on the OZKansas map ... for days.
Nor do I remember being forced to endure the pain of the ENY limiter as you would have us to believe ... afterall ... a 3 to 1 advantage pretty much takes out all sorts of options when it comes to plane choice, yet I have been able to fly the Spit V, and P-38 pretty much 99% of the time. These planes are not available when a country enjoys a 3 to 1 advantage.
Also, if things were as bad as you paint, the Knights would be chewing thru maps at approximately 3 resets per day. That isn't happening from what I see.
If your gonna post such BS, please come with evidence in hand to support your claims, else I will call BS ... tough guy ... LOL
-
Slapshot. Im not embelishing.
The numerical advantage the knights maintained for the weeks prior to my post at the times I fly was staggering. I dont know what game your playing.
-
i didnt really care when we were outnumbered all the time..
I hate not having what planes I want to fly when I fly..I HATE THAT...but it happens ralrey enuff I will still pay to kill you guys: )
-
Well, look at how the thing came about: the ENY de-evolution bit was a stop-gap measure used to stop the horde in its tracks. Surprise! Hastily-built solutions rarely work. Forcing folks to fly early to mid-war aircraft instead of the uber rides is not much different than forcing a side change based on numbers. Some will get mad, some will give up, and some will swap rides. To fix the problem you have to work at it, not think up a 10-second solution to a problem that's been around for years.
A permanent fix to the horde:
Forward bases have 5 drunks, require 15 to capture
Medium bases have 8 drunks, require 24 to capture
Large bases have 12 drunks, require 30 to capture
Why the funny numbers? Logic: bigger fields have more fuel pumps, more hangars, more AA guns, and need more personnel to operate them.
Forward bases have limited munitions and fuel re-supply times. No more unlimited everything from every field. The more the horde pushes out from a forward field, the less gas, bullets and bombs they can use due to supply shortages. Obviously this will take a little tinkering to get just right. You want to allow operations up to, say, half a dozen bombed-up aircraft at once with another four fighters from any given field on the front. Call the resupply time as (a SWAG here) 5 minutes.
Medium bases, being a bit further from the front, have bigger stockpiles giving much more fuel and a lot more HE to play with. Call it 1.5x the fuel and ord of a forward base
Large bases obviously have the largest munitions and fuel stockpiles, being so far from the front. Call it 3.5x the fuel and munitions of a forward field.
Troop availability would ramp itself up or down based on the distance from a troop factory and intensity of local operations. If you're a long ways from the drunk maternity ward, but are conducting a lot of operations, obviously high command would send more troops if they were available. It could also add the ability to shuttle drunks in from other fields to mount a heavy assault.
Why change the supply system? It's been around in the same form for the past ten years with little or no changes. True, troop and ord factories didn't exist ten years ago, but then again they don't serve any real purpose. If you blow 'em up, what happens? Nothing, really, since a few guys with goons can whiz in and rebuild the place instantly. The supply system needs limits based on actual lag time from shipping dock or truck park to the field. It would also mean supply dumps would become valid targets once again, because those control how limited operations are at a given location. GV and AA defenses would be exempt from this limitation for obvious reasons.
Another aspect that would greatly influence things is ports. Instead of a single port, give each country two or three of 'em. Use freighters to ship supplies from the main port (close to Factory Central) to the outlying ports. By doing this you can...
Increase the number of targets available for not only aircraft, but also player-controlled subs or PT boats
Actually put a dent in the enemy's ability to wage war
Capture a port so your ships can supply your own offensive strikes into enemy territory
Let the enemy blast your supply ships so you run out of gas (literally) and he can take the darn thing back :D
Cut down the amount of supplies the enemy has stockpiled in a given area. Trucks would take up some of the slack, but a truck convoy can't haul as much as a 2,000 ton freighter.
Another standing gripe is the fact cannons are too effective against land targets and ships. Especially ship guns! Seeing a carrier stripped of all weaponry in a single Bf-110G firing pass means somethin ain't right in Muddsville.
Time to stowe the soap box and exit stage right...
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Slapshot. Im not embelishing.
The numerical advantage the knights maintained for the weeks prior to my post at the times I fly was staggering. I dont know what game your playing.
But you are ... here is a prime example.
maintained for the weeks
That is pure bunk ... I have almost twice as many hours logged this tour than you. That would lead me to believe that I am not only playing the same game as you, but also more than you, and I have not seen the picture that you are trying to paint.
-
Interesting, FlakBait ... I'll need to ponder on it some.
You'd need to make the capture timer something a bit longer so that it is at least possible to ferry 3 loads of troops to capture a field.
But I would expect massive whineage when folks can't up from the nearest base with full fuel and ammo - regardless of the reason. Many, many good ideas have been axed because flying more than 5 minutes to a fight is just too long.
-
I don't care. I just play the GAME.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
But you are ... here is a prime example.
maintained for the weeks
That is pure bunk ... I have almost twice as many hours logged this tour than you. That would lead me to believe that I am not only playing the same game as you, but also more than you, and I have not seen the picture that you are trying to paint.
Slap,
Last night the odds when I left (after many, many Knight "milk runs" on basically undefended Northern Rook bases ... ahem) was somthing like 85:155:90 ... it was like that much of the evening once whatever was going on in the SEA ended. Knights had almost as many players as Bish and Rook combined. For the hours I look in on the MA (usually after 9pm Pacific) this has been the trend for weeks now. And there appeared to be the "usual" disproportion of attacks on Rook bases - by the usual squads. If the "Southern Exposure" theory was valid, you'd expect Bishops to have been getting hammered on this map rotation - but they were not.
Maybe at the hours you fly you don't see this. I don't know. And maybe the sorties from your side of the map don't look quite like what the bar dars we see show. I may not fly as much as you, but I do study the odds and radar patterns.
So not only have the numbers shifted, but the prior held theory on which country gets ganged has changed - it is no longer random based on who gets stuck in the South. It is now apparently deliberate. And given the current dynamic where people gravitate away from the side which has the smallest numbers that is a very dangerous game to be playing at this point in AH's history.
-
Dok,
I basically fly prime time East Coast ... 8 PM to 12-1 AM.
I won't disagree that numbers will become very imbalanced at times, but will never agree that they are ...
"maintained for weeks"
at a time. That is just flat out over-emphasizing/embellishing what people see in snapshot situtations.
-
Slapshot.
I have played over 30 hours this month. I think that is a valid sample.
It has been going on for weeks. I didnt embelish at all.
I did see within 10% of parity last night though!
Maybe flying knigit you dont notice as much. those 3 rooks your 40 person hoard is chasing put up such a good fight that your not noticing how few they are.
As soon as there is anywhere near parity in numbers the knights get slaped down...
Your disareements would have had more meaning if you had used them when the knights where whining about what was near parity in comparison to what we are seeing now.
Your basically full of crap.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
...
I won't disagree that numbers will become very imbalanced at times, but will never agree that they are ...
"maintained for weeks"
at a time. That is just flat out over-emphasizing/embellishing what people see in snapshot situtations.
For the hours I check the arena, this has been the player load for weeks. Sorry ... but those are the numbers I've been seeing. I wouldn't say "for weeks" if I hadn't seen it for that long. When I embellish, you'll know it because it'll be very graphic and completely over the top. If this was the occasional or even weekly Sunday-night bash kind of thing I wouldn't even mention it - but it's every night.
ENY was supposed to make things better and all it did was move the problem and intensify it. If the goal was to make playing worthwhile for anyone logging in, then there is clearly much work left to be done.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
As soon as there is anywhere near parity in numbers the knights get slaped down...
BS!
why even say something like this?
anyhow the eny limiter has been constantly above 10 for a week or 2 ( and I am a knight) and it affected me for the first time this past week, it hit 39.5 for Knights.....so I was unable to fly the F4U1D and have now switched to the F4U-1, which I am glad I did switch, I am starting to like the F4U-1
I have never seen Knights SLAP DOWN Rooks or Bish, or Rooks SLAP DOWN Knights or Bish, or Bish SLAP DOWN Knights or Rooks, when the sides were near equal..........yes maybe in some parts afew flyers get whacked by the other side more frequently, but not SLAPED DOWN
only time any one side gets SLAPPED DOWN is when they are heavily outnumbered........
DOK, flakbait and others have brought up very interesting ideas, let's hope HTC decideds to try some of them out
-
another thing the ENY limiter has brought forth is now the map looks like this:
Rook horde hitting an undefended field or lightly defended field
Knight horde hitting an undefended field or lightly defended field
Bish horde hitting an undefended field or lightly defended field
everyone is to scared to engage with out numbers, this is a very sad sight to see in a WWII flight simulation combat fighter online war game.........when I say with out numbers I mean if they don't have a 4 to 1 advantage they will not engage yet they will call "whimpy monkey runner" to the 1 when it is 4 chasing him.....
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Slapshot.
I have played over 30 hours this month. I think that is a valid sample.
It has been going on for weeks. I didnt embelish at all.
I did see within 10% of parity last night though!
Maybe flying knigit you dont notice as much. those 3 rooks your 40 person hoard is chasing put up such a good fight that your not noticing how few they are.
As soon as there is anywhere near parity in numbers the knights get slaped down...
Your disareements would have had more meaning if you had used them when the knights where whining about what was near parity in comparison to what we are seeing now.
Your basically full of crap.
Pongo ...
If you would put your ego and internet tough guy act, off to the side, you might be able to hold an argument. I am done discussing this with you ... you bring nothing to the table but BS and testosterone.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
For the hours I check the arena, this has been the player load for weeks. Sorry ... but those are the numbers I've been seeing. I wouldn't say "for weeks" if I hadn't seen it for that long. When I embellish, you'll know it because it'll be very graphic and completely over the top. If this was the occasional or even weekly Sunday-night bash kind of thing I wouldn't even mention it - but it's every night.
ENY was supposed to make things better and all it did was move the problem and intensify it. If the goal was to make playing worthwhile for anyone logging in, then there is clearly much work left to be done.
DoK ...
Well what you see and what I see are not completely different ends of the spectrum, but rather a different interpretation.
Yes ... maybe the Knights have out-numbered Rooks, but has it been terribly lopsided ... consistently ... for weeks ? I don't think so ... haven't seen any real swarming and complete bulldozing of the maps as of late nor have I had to revert to flying a P-47 or a C205 all the time.
I logged on this afternoon and logged on tonight and really haven't seen a tremendous swing in base ownership ... yet supposedly we are tremendously overnumbered .. according to some.
Listen ... I am not comfortable, at this point in time, fighting for the Knights ... but the squad has not chosen to move as of yet, so we must endure the ENY limiter and forced to fly higher ENY planes when its active ... which is not something that I have had to endure alot lately ... even tonight I could fly the Spit V and the P-38 with no problem.
-
Bases won't change hands much if vultching is the goal.
-
I like Flakbait's idea. Make distance and supplies more of a factor.
And, I like being outnumbered and gangbanged. I won't complain. Just more people to shoot at. Newbs and the "poor of spirit" start to log. Then the 262s and 163s are cheaper. All the better if the NME are forced to fly 205s and P40Bs :).
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Interesting, FlakBait ... I'll need to ponder on it some.
You'd need to make the capture timer something a bit longer so that it is at least possible to ferry 3 loads of troops to capture a field.
But I would expect massive whineage when folks can't up from the nearest base with full fuel and ammo - regardless of the reason. Many, many good ideas have been axed because flying more than 5 minutes to a fight is just too long.
Oh I agree that there's a few points which need refinement, and some tinkering with the capture timer is required, but the idea itself is sound. I originally proposed this in HT's own thread regarding a time limit between sorties. Since the original idea stank to high heaven, I figured that instead of hollering long and loud that it reeked, I'd cook up something better and holler about that.
I also agree that the whiners will come out in droves if this idea is ever implemented. $5 says it's the Quake XXVIII mentality FFA tail-chasers that whine the most, since they won't be able to do what they want when they want. Well, here's another surprise: with the current system, you can't do that anyway! And what's worse, with the current system you're forced to swap sides to fly the ride you want if your country is over-populated. With this system you won't have to change sides; just change bases and there's your ride. The supply limits would spread out the horde, which can mean either:
A) The Mongolian Horde is forced to fly an extra 3 minutes to hit the target they want
B) The Horde hits many targets along a wider front to spread out, and minimize, the supply strain.
Another benefit is that a resupply lag will choke off the horde if they over-extend a given base. Fly too many ops from the same field and there's not enough gas to fill everybody up. Bombs? Sorry, those P-38 drivers took the last six. You'll have to wait for a resupply convoy before you can load any. Want to fly anyway? I hear A22 doesn't have a supply problem, you could fly from there. I'd also limit how much resupply could be flown in by players. A single C-47 can hold 3,700 lbs at max weight. Which is half a dozen 500 pound bombs, or about 600 gallons of gas if you're ferrying fuel. Not nearly enough to fuel a whole squadron as our current "magic box" allows. Then again, if twenty people want to get crates from twenty bases and fly 'em in to bring the op level up, there's no reason to stop 'em. I'd like to see them keep it up, though. Cause eventually someone will get bored of supply runs and dump the goon to drive a hot rod fighter.
Base repairs would require shipments of replacement parts from the factory. Creating a supply network slightly more expanded and orderly than the current one would be required. Trains would ship the big loads out to forward supply depots, where trucks would take over to spread things out to the dumps, and then the bases. Again this creates a lag between a base getting damaged and getting fixed, but after a period of time since the forward dump would have some spares on hand. However, the instant base repairs from six trucks would cease. Flying in repair supplies would not be limited, but there would be a slight (a minute at most) lag between dropping them off and the base getting fixed up by a given percentage. Why this odd limit? Aside from stopping the insta-fix, its also logical: you have to unload and unpack that stuff to use it. Yes, automated truck convoys that drop off stuff would also be subject to this.
Freighters would haul a similar load from the main port out to smaller ports, where trucks could take over to move those shipments to dumps or depots. Another benefit of the smaller ports is increased use of naval forces. Manned subs, destroyers, and PT boats could strike out from the mini-port to almost anywhere. They could also defend it rather effectively. If you manage to take an enemy mini-port, then a few of your freighters will start moving supplies in. Once you take a field near the mini-port, trucks would start supplying it. Miniports would also have a single runway, rearm pad, and a small hangar along with basic Gv facilities. More for defense or to rearm a fighter/gv than to attack outright.
Well, there's the whole monster. It would most likely take several dev cycles to get the whole thing implemented. The kicker is, once implemented players will actually have an effect on the country. Bombing a radar factory means nobody gets their radar rebuilt until the factory is rebuilt and new parts can be shipped. If the main port gets bombed, it'll be a while before freighters can start hauling stuff to your outlying bases. Smart players will quickly figure out how to strike a country without over-extending their own supplies. FFA furballers will most likely whine their heads off about the lack of fuel. There's a reason for the dueling arena, and H2H hosts are usually running FFA games. But this system doesn't break up squads, it lets a player fly what they want, and yet chokes off The Horde if too many fly from the same field or group of fields.
It'll also do one other thing: give new life to a strat system that hasn't really changed in basic function in nearly five years.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/lie.gif)
-
Slapshot. then leave the thread. You think your being mr polite or reasonable. Your not, your just lieing. You like haveing a huge advantage in numbers so you lie to maintain it.
The Knights at the time I posted this thread had had a routine 2 to 1 advantage vs the rooks and it had been as high as 3 to 1 on several occasions. That was for weeks at a time.
At the time I posted the original post in this thread it was true. Your just full of crap for denying it.
The knights only start to get effective a 50% advantage.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Bases won't change hands much if vultching is the goal.
So very true !!!
-
Slapshot,
I agree that the bases keep going back and forth on the big maps, with little progress made. Since this thread started we were on the big maps, the last few nights we've been on small maps and they've been reset twice in 24 hours.
I'm sure a great deal of the reason that the hordes are having troubles steamrolling is the out numbered side has figured out that if only 2-5 players concentrate on killing troops at the horde's bases, you can bring the steamroll to a dead stop.
I admit that I have been using this tactic quite effectively to stop the Nit steamroll first on the southern part of Ozkansas, and then on the Nit advance on northern Mindanao. Even though we Rooks were out numbered 2:1 by Nits both times, all they could do was send a horde to a base and trash/vulch it, but we had killed their troops for two bases back behind their lines. On Mindanao Nits had taken all the Rook northern coastal bases clear around to A61. A couple of us took out the troops at all the back bases clear back to A1. That was the end of the Nit offensive drive.
And before someone complains about Mosq suicide/ base troop killing/ augering; I almost never died doing this. If you take a fast plane like a Tiffy for nearby bases or P-51 for the longer range ones, the ENY limiter pretty much assures you the opposition won't have a plane that can catch you. But only because they were too stuck in the horde vulch program to bother having a moderately high fighter/interceptor cap on their bases where troops were still available. They would only try to intercept once I was inbound in radar range, in which case it's too late to stop or even to catch on the egress.
So in that regard the ENY limiter works. But I still don't like it. There has to be a better system.
-
Well as to the purpose of this thread.
The numbers have settled to where its just a normal in the bucket type situation with occasional parity.
So the ENY thing couldnt be demonstrated to have failed as it could when the thread started. It can just be demonstrated to have not changed anything.
-
I don't know how much experience you all have playing PvP MMO type games.. but I can tell you from experience (and I've run the gamut from FPS[Counter-Strike, BF-series, etc], to RPG[EQ, DAOC, Shadowbane], to Aces High) that people in general, as a herd, will ALWAYS take the easiest way possible.
For games like CS, that means finding the "best weapon" and using it.. constantly. To the exclusion of all (and I do mean ALL) others. For games like EQ, or DAOC, it means finding the best "template" and using it. Cookie cutting prevails. When I played on Rallos Zek in EQ (kind of a 'almost FFA' scenario.. you could attack and kill any player within 4 levels of you either way).. the server was absolutely filled to the brim with naked wizards. Why? Because the risk-reward was tilted absolutely in favor of a naked wizard. A wizard could kill hurt people in one hit, didn't need any equipment to do it, and could teleport away from danger if he happened to get in over his head. So.. for every 10 people on RZ, at least 6 of them were playing naked wizards.
DAOC shifted the balance somewhat... instead of everyone playing naked wizards... everyone played as a rogue. Furthermore, one "country" had much more powerful rogues than the other two, so for most of my DAOC career probably 50% of the people on my server played as "shadowblades" (the "best" rogue.. or the "best" version of the "best" class). Some innovative guy discovered that a different class could do it all exceedingly well (a caster), so after the shadowblade craze came an enchanter craze. The folks that could afford to run more than one account still used shadowblades, but for people who wanted something that was dominate in both PvE (killing monsters, i.e. 'levelling') and PvP (killing other players.. for shadowblades and EQ's naked wizards a.k.a "ganking"..) an enchanter was ideal.
The dev's for Camelot tried to keep abreast, every time some guy found a new way to make a class "uber" and set off a new craze, that class would get nerfed back into line with the rest... but it is a losing proposition.
How does this tie in with AH? Simple. In games like EQ or DAOC, your "template" decides about 45% of how "good" you are... and the amount of time you spend playing the game determines about 45% (i.e. level, equipment). "Skill" is probably about 1-2%, with luck making up the rest.
In a FPS like CS, your equipment is about 75% of what makes you effective, with "skill" making up most of the balance, barring luck's (mis)fortune.
In a game like AH, again the biggest factor is equipment (what plane you choose to fly), but the second biggest factor isn't skill.. it isn't even close. The second biggest factor is numbers. How many people are you flying with and against. Those two factors account for about 90% of "who wins".
Don't get me wrong, there is a definate (if small) effect on the outcome if one is "skilled". However, a "skilled" pilot in plane X will not defeat 3 or 4 "unskilled" pilots if they are in planes that are equal or better than plane X.
Obviously, taking the time to "master" the "art of fighting" (ACM, BST, OMGWTF, whatever you want to call it) is MUCH to difficult for your average gamer. It is a truism. It should be immediately obvious to anyone who spends more than about 1 minute a day in the MA. I saw a guy talking to some other guy after a kill (not sure who killed who, wasn't really paying that much attention until I saw) "Yea, great flying. I was trying to drag you back into the pack but you wouldn't bite." When I asked the guy that said that how long he'd been playing, he told me "3 years."
That really hit home... the "newbies" that refuse to fight unless they've got an overwhelming advantage, and run at the drop of a hat AREN'T NEWBIES! They are "cagey" and "skilled" "veterans"... at least they think they are. And if you are a new player, who do you learn how to fly from? The people around you. At least I did, I assume some of you folks out there may have just started playing this out of the blue and known what the hell you are doing, but for most people the learning curve is pretty steep.
I know back when I first started playing, I saw guys that would fight. Under any circumstances, they'd fight. I used to look up to Hblair... he was very good in a 109 (well, far better than me anyway). I bugged the hell out of him... "Let me join your plane.. send me some film of you fighting.. etc etc". I wanted to be as good as him someday. I wanted people to see a 109/190 and go "Oh ****, that might be Urchin!" Why did I want that? Simple, I am a competitive person, and back when I first started playing, the game was full of competitive people that enjoyed flying (and fighting) in WW2 fighters. In fact, I picked the LW planes because I wanted to make a name for myself fighting in planes that weren't the "best" planes available.
When I first started playing the C-hog was the "best" plane. Actually, it was the "best" purely because it had 4 Hispanos, which are modelled as one-hit kill guns in this game. The flight performance is actually pretty average, but if one got a snapshot on you the fight was over. So, people flew the C-hog. Why? Because it made it easier for them to kill other people. Back then the population was small compared to now, and the average skill level quite a bit higher, so most people would fly in small groups (well, smallish anyway) and typically if you took off alone and headed to some enemy field, the odds were good you'd be met in between by some enemy plane looking for a fight.
After HT decided the C-hog was being "overused", the atmosphere in the MA changed a bit. It has been sliding towards the "run" side of the "fight---run" bar ever since, probably because the "best" plane is now also the fastest plane. However, as the population grows (with the concurrent decline in skill), people find that is is usually much to difficult to kill someone if they are in a plane with similar performance to their own. And since HT has decided to make the planes available to all sides equally, typically the "best" planes are fielded roughly equally by all 3 sides. So, what other options do your average gamers have?
Only 2, as far as I can see (seeing as 3 things impact the outcome of a "fight", which I am defining very loosely as two planes interacting with one another and involving gunplay)
1. They can get better.
2. They can fly with more people.
Which one do you think is easier?
HT can't cure this problem... it is a basic flaw of human nature in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Well as to the purpose of this thread.
The numbers have settled to where its just a normal in the bucket type situation with occasional parity.
So the ENY thing couldnt be demonstrated to have failed as it could when the thread started. It can just be demonstrated to have not changed anything.
For years and years it always was that the two smaller countries ganged up on the biggest - that's why 3-country configurations worked. Now it's backwards - the two bigger countries gang up on the smallest. It's not even a question of going to a 2- or 4-country alignment - the behavior will be the same and will ruin the game for a substantial percentage of people.
You Bish/Knits better hope that the Rooks don't just start bailing. Because if we do and HT sees this becoming a 2-country game he may start putting in balancing code that'll make ENY look like a pinch on the backside.
-
It's all in the eyes of the the one who's having a tough time- because they think they're getting "pinched" by two sides.
Got news - happens to all sides. Bish get hit in the middle from both sides...don't say it doesn't happen. Look at last 2-3 resets.
Early AM times, (1am-5am central US) you will find an average of around 40-60 knits - 35-45 rooks and 15-30 bish.
I wish the eny limiter would be enforced when the numbers are low...under 100 people total. Would set it so maybe if theres under 50 folks - the eny limiter would not take effect.
-
Good post, Urchin
I've explained my feelings on HTC's ENY limiter many times already. I say again that it is a horrible idea, poorly executed and the simple way out. Rather than improving the game and making the horde ineffective by limiting supplies (many methods have been offered) or altering how newly captured fields can be used, HTC just continues to let the game become more and more of a simple furball that moves around on un-rememberable pieces of hilly terrain.
I also want to get out of this stupid stereotype of flying in the horde. Anyone who flies in the 412th can tell you that we are always the ones who find out where the enemy is and the friendlies aren't. We HATE competing for kills against the hordes of cannon-armed spits, La7s and N1ks. That is why you will usually find us somewhere between an enemy field and a friendly field that is being attacked. We are looking for the hordes of enemy (who think they are going to a vultch-fest) so we can shoot them down.
The 412th has gone the route of switching countries to keep our preferred aircraft (P-51D) and it is just a big hassle for the members who have to keep asking where we are and who can switch countries or who is stuck in what country for the next 5 hours, etc. - And NO, I'm not flying something else.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
The 412th has gone the route of switching countries to keep our preferred aircraft (P-51D) and it is just a big hassle for the members who have to keep asking where we are and who can switch countries or who is stuck in what country for the next 5 hours, etc. - And NO, I'm not flying something else.
Can I get an 'Amen Brother!'
the whole ENY thing sucks to much that the total amount of suckage cannot be measured with existing technology.
People cried about the "Rook Horde"... RJO was dreamed up and got started, and several squads changed thier squad nights to be the same night as RJO. Eventually "The Horde" was present once a week even if it wasn't an RJO night, just because several squads all had squad night on the same night, and as they started hitting places they'd build momentum and draw more people to them.
-
just to cast my vote..
yes..I do not like being limited to what planes I fly...And I will not swicth countires..We are a squad with loyalty
-
So Monday night I wanted to fly and try the new planes. Rooks in the South (as usual), completely outnumbered (was something like 100:150:90), simultaneous 30+ plane attacks on Rooks bases (defended and non) from both Bish and Knit. Scan the map - 2 full-size red bar dar anywhere else on the map but the Rook front.
So Tuesday night I wanted to fly to escape the election. Rooks in the North for a change but it don't matter. Odds are like 90:140:90. Rook radar is down. No supplies available anywhere within 3 sectors, so radar will probably stay down all night. First 3 fields I go to tower of are all being vultched by Knits - cities not even being touched.
All that ENY has accomplished is to move and intensify the problem. Entertainment value is quickly approaching nil.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
All that ENY has accomplished is to move and intensify the problem. Entertainment value is quickly approaching nil.
Well said!
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
All that ENY has accomplished is to move and intensify the problem. Entertainment value is quickly approaching nil.
Exactly well said. I think the other threads asking players how many hours they played the last few months compared to the same months last year say it as well. It seems players are loosing interest in the same old air-quake gameplay with nothing of value to fight for or claim in victory.
We hear those stating that they look at it as entertainment only. Well, human nature (especially in men) is that the same enetertainment again and again becomes stale after a while.
I remember asking if there would be any gameplay changes introduced in AHII, and HTC said that there would not
originally posted by HiTech
Midnight.
quote:posted by midnight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further than all of the "when" questions, what really would interest me is what is being planned/implemented in the gameplay department which again, has been deiscussed and theorized countless times by the community. Because one thing is absolutely certain... If there are no changes to the gameplay aspect in the MA, this extended wait for AHII is going to be extremely disapointing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be very disapointed, because as we stated from Day one of anouncing AHII ,basic game play in the main is not changing in AHII.
HiTech
In fact, we have seen gameplay changes, coaded by HiTech or not. Some for the better (i.e. terrain effect on GV battles) and some for the worse (i.e. bomber divebombing, no more fuel porkage, HQ radar destruction)
What is happening to AH now? Where is it going and what is the vision for when it will be there? What happened at the Con this year with the HiTech interview by a gamer magazine? Was there an interview? I guess I'd really like to know if this game has a plan for what it expects to be. I was looking forward to the TOD concept, but it's been 2 years now and we haven't seen anything nor heard much about new ideas for how it might work.
Granted, AHII is the best out there right now, but even a guy dating a supermodel will look elsewhere if she won't put out.
-
not failed at all. its worked 100%
-
Originally posted by Overlag
not failed at all. its worked 100%
ENY has proven that all you need is numbers, and now there's even less reason to change sides to even the odds than before. Preservation of numbers means preservation of reset victories.
Just hope that Rookland doesn't start emptying out, because I don't think HT will let this become a 2-country game.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
ENY has proven that all you need is numbers, and now there's even less reason to change sides to even the odds than before. Preservation of numbers means preservation of reset victories.
Just hope that Rookland doesn't start emptying out, because I don't think HT will let this become a 2-country game.
bish and knits emptyed out which brought ENY in
now the sides are relatively even rooks are moaning :lol :rofl
there are times where a side has 20-40 players more that the other, but there isnt the 100 player lead anymore and thats a good thing. Squads are moving about, with hornets split the old VMF guys went back to knits to make a squad. Some rooks came to knits, some went to bish. Soon, some may go back give it time, it took 2 months for ENY to do what its done, maybe 13tas (or whoever) will go back to rooks soon, who knows.
If rooks quit, it just proves that they only good with numbers......
-
Originally posted by Overlag
bish and knits emptyed out which brought ENY in
now the sides are relatively even rooks are moaning :lol :rofl
...
If rooks quit, it just proves that they only good with numbers......
I just finished showing how the odds aren't even close to even, but you ignore it.
Thank you for highlighting just how rotten the atmosphere in the MA is.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
now the sides are relatively even rooks are moaning :lol :rofl
Thats a joke right? Even? what arena are you in? I have seen even #'s since ENY only about twice and I usually fly daily for hours. Its always rooks are down knights are up and bish are in the middle.
-
We can trace the current Knights numbers imbalance to the period after the first revision to the ENY limiter.
Immediately after HTC introduced the ENY limiter into the game, the numbers remained fairly balanced but whining reached a fevered pitch. Subsequently, HiTech adjusted the ENY penalty such that it requires almost a 2:1 numbers advantage between the country with the largest numbers and the country with the smallest numbers before penalization begins. Prior to that, the limiter started kicking in at around 1.5:1, but it applied penalities more gradually. Now the system penalizes later, but the level of punishment increases at a far faster rate once the numbers imbalance reaches the minimum threshold. In addition, HTC increased the minimum number of players before the limiter kicks into effect.
Clearly the revision to the ENY limiter resulted in current imbalances rather than the failure of the ENY limiter itself. If anything, the limiter does not penalize early enough or harshly enough to dissuade arena behavior from falling back into the pre-ENY limiter days. Maybe it's time to firm up the ENY limiter thresholds again?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I tend to agree with Lev. The whining was at its greatest, but the numbers were pretty much even or evening out during the first iteration of the ENY limiter.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Thats a joke right? Even? what arena are you in? I have seen even #'s since ENY only about twice and I usually fly daily for hours. Its always rooks are down knights are up and bish are in the middle.
id say 130:120:100 is even as it gets. right now its 61:55:60 fair dont you think?
the most out of wack it got last night was 140:130:90, and thats because rooks dar was out for 2 hours and we was resetting them.......and they dont like fighting without numbers, so quit instead.
100:90:200 is NOT even no matter what way you look at it. and thats what rooks did for MONTHS, its been relativily even for about 3 weeks now. Open your eyes
sure, early mornings (11am UK) it sometimes has something like 50:10:10 but you cant really fix that....
(B:K:R)
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
If anything, the limiter does not penalize early enough or harshly enough to dissuade arena behavior from falling back into the pre-ENY limiter days. Maybe it's time to firm up the ENY limiter thresholds again?
-- Todd/Leviathn
The ENY limiter does NOTHING to dissuade the area behavior of the horde. All it does it change the speed at which the horde can work.
Seriously, if the numbers are even, what eventually happens is a big furball gets started at one point on the map and the "base takers" fly missions to capture fields where the furball isn't. Even numbers means they aren't capturing too many fields too fast, so the furballers don't notice which in turn means they don't care.
If the numbers are imbalanced, the furballers don't get a chance to make the big furball because the "base takers" are too many and the front moves too quickly, becasue the "base takers" end up porking strats at a lot more fields in a lot less time. The imbalanced numbers means they are capturing fields to fast, so the furballers notice and then they DO care.
All the ENY thing does is slow down the field captures some because the base takers can't get to the enemy fields fast enough with the cannons they like to have (No La7, N1K, etc.) to do their vulching.
The bottom line is that ENY does NOTHING to change Main Arena gameplay other than the speed at which it happens. The ENY does make people angry and it has reduced the play time by many players. So, as stated in the title, ENY has failed.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
The ENY limiter does NOTHING to dissuade the area behavior of the horde. All it does it change the speed at which the horde can work.
As stated, the first iteration of the ENY limiter does not seem to substantiate this claim. If anything, it did quite a bit to encourage arena balance but at the cost of alienating a large number of players whose favorite rides quickly became targets of the penalty. I would say that the lack of whining after the changes indicates that they were too generous.
Also, keep in mind that arena balance and "horde" are not the same things. The purpose of the ENY limiter was never to eliminate numbers imbalances as a method for achieving local air superiority. It was meant, however, to reduce the possibility that one side could achieve such superiority on every front against every possible opponent in any conceivable situation.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
As stated, the first iteration of the ENY limiter does not seem to substantiate this claim. If anything, it did quite a bit to encourage arena balance but at the cost of alienating a large number of players whose favorite rides quickly became targets of the penalty. I would say that the lack of whining after the changes indicates that they were too generous.
Also, keep in mind that arena balance and "horde" are not the same things. The purpose of the ENY limiter was never to eliminate numbers imbalances as a method for achieving local air superiority. It was meant, however, to reduce the possibility that one side could achieve such superiority on every front against every possible opponent in any conceivable situation.
If the player dynamic is that the two bigger sides attack the weaker (a reversal of the past trend), then the biggest side has numeric superiority on all its fronts.
ENY seems to have encouraged one round of player migration. Once players resettled their Hordes to new pastures, they found the same plane penalties there and that there was still overwhelming strength in numbers - so there was no reason to move again.
One problem is that while you win perks and the "war" by scoring a reset, you win basically nothing for a successful defense (save for whatever perks you could gather fighting at 1:3 odds). And the perks won for a reset are the same if you do it with 1:1 odds as with 3:1 odds - so why not do it the easy way with 3:1 odds?
As long as the reward for winning via Horde is the same as winning via skill, and as long as there's no reward for skillfull defense other than to postpone the inevitable I can't see the current MA dynamic changing all that much.
-
If the player dynamic is that the two bigger sides attack the weaker (a reversal of the past trend) ...
This has always been true ... since the first day I started in AH and that was almost 3 yrs ago ... this is not a new trend, nor was is fostered by the ENY Limiter.
The lowest numbered team (usually has the least amount of bases) gets consistently wacked by the other 2 trying to race for the reset. Only when the reset is close, do the other 2 then try and steal bases from each other, which then creates small intense fights between the two.
One problem is that while you win perks and the "war" by scoring a reset, you win basically nothing for a successful defense (save for whatever perks you could gather fighting at 1:3 odds). And the perks won for a reset are the same if you do it with 1:1 odds as with 3:1 odds - so why not do it the easy way with 3:1 odds?
Sorry, but I beg to differ ... "The rewards for winning via horde is the same as winning with skill". When fighting the "horde" I could, in one hour, tally more fighter perks than the "horde" could tally in 5-10 resets.
This is the part that I don't get ... what is the real driving force behind 25 measley perks in each category ? ... I just don't get it.
What I do believe, is the "real" reward is that one could say ... "We won the war !!!" and trash talk 'till the cows come home ... this is even stranger.
-
Perks are lame, perks have no real use, perks are give-aways to the low number country, perks are not awarded to the high number country, winning perks on a reset is just collecting more useless perks.
The whole idea that HTC says overwhelming numbers are OK to capture a field are contridicted by the ENY limiter. What's the sense of having overwhelming numbers if you are fighting with low performance equipment? The other side of that is why does HTC feel that the overwhelming numbers to capture a field is a good thing?
If all countries were exactly equal in numbers, it would be near impossible to capture a field being defended by the same number of players that were attacking it. So that only ENCOURAGES the milk run by HTC saying if you want to capture a field, you need to go attack the one that no one is defending.
If you think about it, if there were 10 attackers and 10 defenders, the attackers would never be able to capture the field. The reasons are many, but some obvious ones are that the defenders don't have to fly back to anywhere if they are shot down, at least one of the attackers has to fly/drive the troops in (one less fighter on the attacking side), at least 2 or 3 attackers need to destroy the town (putting them in vunerable position for being shot down) and then of course the attackers will eventually run out of ammo, even if they are able to supress the defense.
-
What I see is the ganging up starting the moment a map is reset, and also happening regardless of number of bases held.
You guys will deny it, but I study the maps and know what I see.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
What I see is the ganging up starting the moment a map is reset, and also happening regardless of number of bases held.
You guys will deny it, but I study the maps and know what I see.
I don't think anyone could deny that Dok. Every time I have seen a reset, it is a mad dash by those logging in to see how fast they can pork the nearest filed and make a capture before too many others log in to defend.
The ganging also occurs when a country is nearing a reset. Both countries gang up to crush the other because for some lame reason the mob is so excited to see a new terrain loaded because cod forbid they have to fly on the same map for more than 1 day.
I remember when perks were first introduced. They were supposed to encourage the middle country (not the one winning the war and not the one loosing) to attack the winning country to PREVENT them from getting the perk points. Well, as we have discovered, perk points are useless to the country as a whole and no one cares who gets awarded 70 perks, just reset the map.
-
That was part of it, but they were primarily intended to encourage the big country to finish the map off. Lots of times countries where getting the enemy down two 2 or fewer fields and then just sitting on them. People would change countrys to bring goons in and reset thier own countries to end the misery
-
Originally posted by Pongo
That was part of it, but they were primarily intended to encourage the big country to finish the map off. Lots of times countries where getting the enemy down two 2 or fewer fields and then just sitting on them. People would change countrys to bring goons in and reset thier own countries to end the misery
Yeah ... I vaguely recall that from AH1 days.
I guess there's two ways to look at the problem:
1) Find ways to entice/coax/force people to move around to even the odds. ENY was a step in this direction.
2) Modify the game system so that defending against superior odds is worthwhile - which in turn would mitigate the value of Hording. Ramping the perks for kills isn't enough as it us if you're outnumbered because you're vultched or swarmed so much.
-
theres two way it can go near reset
1: both sides pick on the weak one to get it over and done with....
2: the side that wont "win" the reset (2nd place) starts to pick on the leader, then the country which is nearly dead, gets a prolonged death....which kinda sucks, its better when 1 happens really...it gets it over and done with.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
If the player dynamic is that the two bigger sides attack the weaker (a reversal of the past trend), then the biggest side has numeric superiority on all its fronts.
[/B]
I'm not sure that this was a problem that ENY was even designed to address. In the very least, a more equitable distribution of players among the three teams alleviates some of the pain of two sides ganging the smallest; in a nearly evenly-divided arena you'd face close to 2:1 odds. As it now stands, the smallest team numerically faces far, far worse odds, and they often only sport half as many players as the single largest team alone.
Awarding perks for resets drives some of the hordelike arena imbalance. Overwhelming numbers roll over fields and destroy strat while protecting those involved. Taking bases no longer serves as a means to initiate air combat between opposing sides but instead becomes the end. The new means to that end becomes overwhelming, unstoppable numbers rapidly rolling over bases. Air combat serves as a hindrance to that end rather than its logical offspring.
The ENY limiter cannot fix that aspect of gameplay, though it can stall and frustrate it a bit.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
What I see is the ganging up starting the moment a map is reset, and also happening regardless of number of bases held.
This has happened for years and years in AH. No question about it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Midnight The whole idea that HTC says overwhelming numbers are OK to capture a field are contridicted by the ENY limiter. What's the sense of having overwhelming numbers if you are fighting with low performance equipment? The other side of that is why does HTC feel that the overwhelming numbers to capture a field is a good thing?
I don't think you're understanding the difference between local air superiority through a numbers imbalance and a general arena imbalance.
You can have equal numbers between every team and still enjoy an overwhelming numbers advantage for a brief time in a certain sector. If two opposing countries tie each other up fighting over a couple of bases, the third country can mount a major offensive with little opposition. Thus it enjoys overwhelming local air superiority without a massive overall advantage in numbers. There's nothing wrong with that, and the ENY limiter would not affect anybody in that case.
A general arena numbers imbalance would allow that third country to exhibit simultaneous and overwhelming local air superiority anywhere on the map at any time against any foe in any situation. It would never face less than amazingly favorable odds. The ENY limiter means to either dissuade players from creating such population disparities or to penalize players on the team with such an overwhelming advantage so that the elimination of powerful planes blunts their advantages.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Just to be clear ... my intent isn't to make the odds "even" all the time. That's dull. That's not "war."
But there comes a point where the odds advantage or disadvantage one side is enjoying/enduring is excessive. Making the game either too easy to win or pointless to even bother competing in.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Just to be clear ... my intent isn't to make the odds "even" all the time. That's dull. That's not "war."
[/b]
Balancing the arena -- i.e. finding some vestige of reasonably close numbers -- doesn't necessarily create even numbers in any one area. So the odds, at least locally, won't always be even. This provides more interesting and varied gameplay since strategy actually means something.
And of course I'm speaking of balance on average, so variation between countries could still exist in a meaningful way that makes for some interesting situations.
Any thoughts on how we might eliminate two bigger countries ganging on the smallest? How about penalizing the country with the 2nd most bases with a loss of perk points for not winning the reset? That might work, but it also might just drive the two countries with the most numbers (and, usually, bases) to roll over the smaller country even faster than before in a mad race to beat out the other.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I like being outnumbered, it is like war for real. The russians v. germans in ww2, chinese v. japanese ww2 etc.
For me, I love base defence, it my favourite thing. Nothing better than having tracers off and shooting down 5 or 10 nmy without them knowing why their wings are falling off.
Basically, more nmy = more things to shoot at. And, it is like a takeout shop, they come to me MUHAHAHAHA.
I ask myself all the time "why dont people chk that all base guns are disabled?"
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
We can trace the current Knights numbers imbalance to the period after the first revision to the ENY limiter.
Immediately after HTC introduced the ENY limiter into the game, the numbers remained fairly balanced but whining reached a fevered pitch. Subsequently, HiTech adjusted the ENY penalty such that it requires almost a 2:1 numbers advantage between the country with the largest numbers and the country with the smallest numbers before penalization begins. Prior to that, the limiter started kicking in at around 1.5:1, but it applied penalities more gradually. Now the system penalizes later, but the level of punishment increases at a far faster rate once the numbers imbalance reaches the minimum threshold. In addition, HTC increased the minimum number of players before the limiter kicks into effect.
Clearly the revision to the ENY limiter resulted in current imbalances rather than the failure of the ENY limiter itself. If anything, the limiter does not penalize early enough or harshly enough to dissuade arena behavior from falling back into the pre-ENY limiter days. Maybe it's time to firm up the ENY limiter thresholds again?
-- Todd/Leviathn
ditto
-
Just about every suggestion I've seen to help the MA situation seems to have one thing in commor: it attacks the problem locally instead of globally. That is, ENY and Perks are based on the total number of planes in the MA - but the problems really occur over one or two fields, or against one front.
So how about this for an abstraction ... if you've ever played a board wargame you're familiar with the concept of "zones of control." That is, if you're adjacent to an enemy unit you move slower or your supply can be interdicted or so on. Now, what if in AH we assume there's a land war raging around the airbases (I guess in the 4th dimension cuz we can't see it ... but anyway ...). Then we could say that a base that's "next to" an enemy base is a "forward base" and one that isn't is a "rearward base." Being "next to" a base is easy enough to tell usually - can you fly from this base to an enemy base without overflying another friendly base first?
OK ... so then lets make our rules:
- 4-engine bombers are only available at rearward bases.
- Rearward bases have unlimited launch capacity.
- Barracks at rearward bases can NOT be destroyed.
- CV's are considered rearward bases.
Now the weird part ...
- Forward fields have a base launch capacity sufficient for 12 planes of 5 ENY. (Lets express this as 12 x (45-5) or 480 ... assuming 45 is the worst ENY of a plane we'll ever care about).
- Just like with CV's, players can "take command" of a forward base and reset it's ENY to create more launch capacity. (So lets say you wanted to attack a base, you could go to the base you want to launch from and set the ENY higher to provide more launch capacity of lesser planes - or keep it low to launch fewer uber planes.)
- Fighter ordinance at forward fields is only available in the "attack mode" and lowers the ENY of the selected plane by 2 points. So if you're doing a base attack you can't lanch as many Jabo's at full ENY as the defender can launch to repel you. A P51 has an ENY of 6, a Jabo P51 has an ENY of 4 then - you can launch 11 "attack" P51's, or 12 in "fighter" mode.
- The forward base lift capacity for a team is also modified by the overall odds. So rather than say the country status ENY is now "10" you'd say the forward base capacity for a country is now "420".
How would this affect things? For the nominal case of like 12 guys attacking a base defended by 6 guys - only difference is no heavy bombers within a stone's throw lumbering in at 50 feet.
For the Horde case, it gets interesting. A side defending a base can raise their ENY bar to create more launch capacity. Say you raised it to 15 to allow Ki-84's. They could launch up to 16 Ki's then, or more if they mix in A-5's, La-5's, etc. ... but they're assured of more than 16 good defender type planes.
Lets say the Hording side has big numbers - so their lift is down to 420. That gives them 10 P51 Jabos at a fwd base. Even if thyey use 2 fwd bases, 20 semi-uber planes won't beat 16 Ki-84's and La-5's on defense. So the Horde will need to RAISE THEIR OWN ENY(!) at the forward bases in order to have enough numbers to press home the attack.
Heavy bombers with escort/jabo fighters will come more from rearward bases - where there are no restrictions.
If a team wants to get whacky on offense, though, they could do weird stuff - like crank the ENY of a fwd base to 30 and launch 32 P40E's or something in a raid.
Could be interesting - and then no one yells at HT anymore for "not letting them fly their P51" ... they can yell at their team mate. And a team which manages their fwd bases well will succeed over a team which just wants to fly the best planes all the time. Because ... numbers usually win ... so lets work with it.
-
I think that Levi hit it right on. It was the imediate neutering of the system after a huge number of people went knight that didnt work.
When it was first on, I recall being limited to > 30 eny with a 15% advantage or so. And that was on relitivley small numbers. Like 15 extra pilots total. Nothing like we have seen.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Taking bases no longer serves as a means to initiate air combat between opposing sides but instead becomes the end. The new means to that end becomes overwhelming, unstoppable numbers rapidly rolling over bases. Air combat serves as a hindrance to that end rather than its logical offspring.
The ENY limiter cannot fix that aspect of gameplay, though it can stall and frustrate it a bit.
-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]
Well put there Levi. The "hordes" tend to fly in too intimidating a mannor for most pilots to fight against, and thus have nothing to do but capture bases. Everyone else then has a harder time finding a good fight and either gets bored and quits early or participates in the land grab themselves. Some people are all about land grab, and that's cool, but until you've really started to learn the ropes the current MA style doesn't allow for other styles of flying. A sharper ENY limiter makes attacking the hordes a bit easier, and the better pilots can more easily get in and bounce the hordes for 5-10 kills without so much difficulty. The ENY limiter can work just fine, but it needs to work in symbiosis with good pilots. Want a successfully balanced MA? Train up the n00bs.
-pellik
-
Just about every suggestion I've seen to help the MA situation seems to have one thing in commor: it attacks the problem locally instead of globally. That is, ENY and Perks are based on the total number of planes in the MA - but the problems really occur over one or two fields, or against one front.
And that pretty much sums up why I don't care for most of the suggestions I have seen. Because they are trying to solve a non existing problem. Or just wanting to put the problem on someone else as in the case of midnights current suggestion. He just wan'ts to put the balance on ordance usage of field capture, it in no way address the fighter balance when countries are out of balance.
It is my view that local numbers superiorty is part of the game and a choice that all sides can make equaly. It realy isn't a problem.
-
That view isnt supported by what happens in your game.
The only choice is will you leave a whole area undefended or not. Is that what you meant? When you locked tight in a battle on any front and the signifiganlty supperior numbered side pulls out 40 guys to visit another area your choice is what will you abandon. They can still leave you out numbered localy and do that.
So there is no choice. The out numbered side doenst chose to be so. If they try the same tactic as you are I assume sugesting they must abandon some area to do so. And the other side can up 20 guys to meet your 40 and tie you up wich of course hurts your other fronts worse.
Its self evident.
Its just hillarios that having finally tried something you made it worse by tinkering with it too soon.
Everyone has ignored the thing on its new lower settings that were put in within days of the system being implemented.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or just wanting to put the problem on someone else as in the case of midnights current suggestion. He just wan'ts to put the balance on ordance usage of field capture, it in no way address the fighter balance when countries are out of balance.
I have also made the suggestion that each player is limited to the number of lives they get per hour, or the number of planes they can get in an hour. What I am asking for is limiters that are based on individual player performance and not some factor such as how many people are playing, which other players have zero control over.
The 412th has tried to just switch countries to get by, and even decided to make a long-term switch to knights (who were complaining about the numbers quite a lot) After being in knights for a week, we found that we had to switch to rooks again. There's no fun in the ENY limiter for those of us who want to fly the P-51D. If the P-51D wasn't effected by ENY so badly, I would probably not even care anymore. I think it's obvious that I don't fly the P-51D for perk points.
-
Originally posted by hitech
And that pretty much sums up why I don't care for most of the suggestions I have seen. Because they are trying to solve a non existing problem. Or just wanting to put the problem on someone else as in the case of midnights current suggestion. He just wan'ts to put the balance on ordance usage of field capture, it in no way address the fighter balance when countries are out of balance.
It is my view that local numbers superiorty is part of the game and a choice that all sides can make equaly. It realy isn't a problem.
It's the excessive local superiority that's the problem.
-
"After being in knights for a week, we found that we had to switch to rooks again. There's no fun in the ENY limiter for those of us who want to fly the P-51D."
Midnight--
I would venture to suggest that AH is no longer a game intended to appeal to people such as you and myself. We seem to have fallen through the cracks.
J_A_B
-
a small airfield with 3 hangers should be able to up 50 planes........
id all be one for each field having a "upping" limit, it wouldnt totaly address the problem of local superiority but it would mean the side wanting local superiority would need to plan....IE upping from more fields, linking up THEN flying to target etc.. Kinda like what they did in real life
i also think if hangers go down the upping limit should decrease. lets say 30 planes for a small airfield with 3 hangers, but with only 1 hanger it only has 10????? Just an example. or it could be a percentage of the whole side?
-
Overlag is playing some other game if he didnt see the routine 2 to 1 advantage the knights carried for over 2 weeks. Peaking often at 3 to 1. Now its settle down to a managable 20-30% advantage with peaks of 50%.
I imagine he is a knight. For some strange reason knights didnt see all that green. They blocked out the sun with green icons but never noticed or thought it mattered.
When the "result" of the eny system was a 2 to 1 numerical advantage for the knights IT HAD FAILED Now we are getting close to a normal ratio that the arena has ususally had (but drove the knights to whine so hard that ENY was implemented).
If there is a reasonable amount of activity between the three countries its a great game and the thing only goes out of kilter when the country with an extra 25 people makes perfect use of that advantage. But 20% is not enought to blanket domniate with dweeb tactics over the whole front. 50% makes that easy. By the time the numbers get to 2 to 1 this game has collapsed.
That was the effect of ENY for a few weeks there.
-
... continuing on ...
It's also the multiple instances of excessive local superiority which occur when one country has almost as many people as the other two combined. In the Horde Age, that usually means they throw most of their people against the smallest or closest-to-reset country (which are usually the same). The middle country usually follows suit because they'd rather pick on a small-fry than run into the Horde.
The end result is a whole lot of people log in and see no point in flying due to odds. Or a whole lot of people log into the biggest country and can't fly the plane they want.
The more I think about it the more I like the abstraction of "forward" and "rearward" bases. Rearward bases have heavy bombers, indestructable barracks, and all fighters available. Forward bases have strict ENY and/or launch restrictions (tied to the odds and number of bases held), and no heavies (or maybe just no formations available). That gets rid of a lot of NOE heavies, it throttles the conveyor belt without removing freedom of choice in what to fly. The current trick of porking troops 3 bases deep so that the map stagnates for hours also goes away.
It also introduces some strategy. Consider that an invasion from a CV only gains a foothold - you can't launch heavies (or formations thereof ... depending on how you break it down) until you expand the beachhead and have a rearward base. When The Horde is up, they'll need to coordinate between mutliple bases to affect a capture - which will likely disipate the Horde. As long as the forward fields ENY/lauch included bases held as well as odds in the calculation, then countries fighting back from a deficit wouldn't be penalized right away during their counterattack.
If you wanted to have the ENY/launch at forward bases tied to global odds ... fine ... I don't happen to agree ... but I ain't religious on it either.
I don't know ... maybe things finally are evening up. Last night was the first night all week that the odds didn't suck moose nads and it was worth flying. Lots of big attacks from all sides - Bish reset the Knits even. The big difference? All sides were within about 20% of each other's numbers. One side didn't have the excessive numbers advantage I mentioned at the outset.
-
I think the ENY thing needs to be STRENGTHENED! Widen the perk modifiers even further. And make the top 4 low cost perk planes. And add more expensive desireable perk planes. Give people a reason to switch countries or take a weaker plane.
g00b
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Overlag is playing some other game if he didnt see the routine 2 to 1 advantage the knights carried for over 2 weeks. Peaking often at 3 to 1. Now its settle down to a managable 20-30% advantage with peaks of 50%.
I imagine he is a knight. For some strange reason knights didnt see all that green. They blocked out the sun with green icons but never noticed or thought it mattered.
When the "result" of the eny system was a 2 to 1 numerical advantage for the knights IT HAD FAILED Now we are getting close to a normal ratio that the arena has ususally had (but drove the knights to whine so hard that ENY was implemented).
If there is a reasonable amount of activity between the three countries its a great game and the thing only goes out of kilter when the country with an extra 25 people makes perfect use of that advantage. But 20% is not enought to blanket domniate with dweeb tactics over the whole front. 50% makes that easy. By the time the numbers get to 2 to 1 this game has collapsed.
That was the effect of ENY for a few weeks there.
since when have knits had 2:1 or 3:1 advantage :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
ive been playing between (not non-stop) the hours of 11am till 6am (UKtime) during the last few months and ive seen nothing of the sort. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Overlag
since when have knits had 2:1 or 3:1 advantage :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I don't know about 2:1 or 3:1, but I can tell you that we (the 412th) had to switch back over to rooks (from knights) a couple times because the ENY was up over 10. This was on at least 2 occasions.
-
Ive allready said when.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Ive allready said when.
you must be playing a different game game then. ive yet to see sides like 300:100:100 or 200:100:100 which you imply
-
Originally posted by Overlag
you must be playing a different game game then. ive yet to see sides like 300:100:100 or 200:100:100 which you imply
I have seen odds like 90:160:80 .. a lot lately ... which is pretty close to 1:2:1.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
a small airfield with 3 hangers should be able to up 50 planes........
id all be one for each field having a "upping" limit, it wouldnt totaly address the problem of local superiority but it would mean the side wanting local superiority would need to plan....IE upping from more fields, linking up THEN flying to target etc.. Kinda like what they did in real life
i also think if hangers go down the upping limit should decrease. lets say 30 planes for a small airfield with 3 hangers, but with only 1 hanger it only has 10????? Just an example. or it could be a percentage of the whole side?
Overlag.. this is one of the best ideas, but I guess HTC doesn't think so. There have been MANY people who posted this similar idea tied to ordnance and supplies as well as aircraft.
fields at 100% can launch X fighters
25% of FHs destroyed, the field can only launch X*0.75 fighters
50% of FHs destroyed, X*0.50, etc.
100% ammo bunkers up, all types of ordnance available
25% of Ammo Bunkers destroyed - only bombs up to 500lbs available
50% - only bombs up to 250lbs
25% - only 100lb bombs
0% - none available
100% of barracks up, each goon can carry 10 troops
75% of barracks - each goon can carry 8 troops
50% - 5 troops
25% - 3
0% - no troops
stuff like that.
Also, things such as forced resupply of captured fields before they can be used for offensive operations. No more leap frog of kill town and instantly launch new raid to the next field.
I could retype all night what has been suggested countless times in the past. Oh well :confused:
-
just noticed:
a small airfield with 3 hangers should be able to up 50 planes........
should be
a small airfield with 3 hangers shouldnt be able to up 50 planes........
-
On the problem of long term local superiority facilitated by the same guys re-upping 6 times...
On the problem of continuous low level bomber runs to sink a CV....
On the problem of some players repeatedly killing their second account to pad score....
On the problem of PT boat respawns 20 times to launch torpedo salvos...
On the problem of continuos suicide dweebs...
On the problem of no reward for sucessful defense...
The answer is local pilot attrition.
I proposed this idea before, but it seems to me a lot of things get solved if the penalty for a death is that you cannot use the same field again until you've died twice more elsewhere. This doesn't stop anyone from flying, it doesn't limit what you plane can use. It doesn't encourage even larger hordes by making the field harder, requiring MORE folks just to succeed. You that have died just have to fly elsewhere for a while because you've died and can no longer contribute as a member of the never ending horde stream.
So you have to get 2 deaths elsewhere, hey you can even try another attack run with the gang by re-upping from the field next door, after all, the attack should have a little bit of reinforcement. If it's not porked already that is. But if you die again, now you might as well go fly the other front for your next death. A kamakazi run at this point ensures you won't be back. You can fly, just do it safely or else where you haven't lost lately.
But the defenders get farked with a setup like that!! Yeah they do, the way we defend today. We have to stop upping in the face of 20 guys inbound half a sector away. Or maybe you will get up and be able to exit for alt, remember the P-40s at Pearl? :), these attackers are going to be looking to put real damage on this first run and make it count because they might not return. Every plane you down now is that much closer to halting the attack. Defending from the field next door is where the real reward is..or dare I say, flying defensive cap and planning to meet that darbar with alt gives the biggest payoff. I can't count the number of times I've caught a flight of 4-8 heavy fighters inbound, killed a few and scatted the rest all to no effect. They're halfway back again when I turn to rtb. Now if you whack 2 or 3 or 4 heavy inbound planes, they won't have the eggs to finish the field and town, and they won't be back, attack halted, move on, defenders win, plan better next time. Defenders have to start reading the map and hearing those Alerts. Defensive cap gets rewarded and you dont have to worry about that same loser grabbing an LA-7 3 times trying to get even :) [pwned twice, go away] Attacks on the CVs have to be well planned, no more re-upping low lancs until you succeed, you only get one try, the boats are going to float longer and be useful to good planners.
This doesn't prevent a well planned local superiority attack. It allows the defender to stop the poorly planned (or rather unplanned) ones that never end with guys upping 6, 8, 15 times to help. If you get beat down, move on. Pilot attrition becomes a stopwatch for the horde. It may even be cause for additional planning. hey, we'll need 3 guys to cap the field next door from defenders. Undefended fields will still fall. But unrealistically vulching the same clown 15 times wont happen. Reupping again and again and again isn't an option anymore, work on staying alive in that attack.
There are those pilots that will just jump form horde 1 to horde 2, good for them, horde 2 is likely on the other front, have a great time, maybe even stay alive this time. Just don't come back to MY field or we'll send you back again, lol.
This will spread the never ending horde stream across the map, maybe even to other fronts for a while. Attacking a horde now has a payoff, you may just send them to fight the other enemy. But just making a field more durable (by hardening or removing ordinance) only encourages more hording, we're already playing the results of that from when the bigger cities were put into play.
Pilot attrition both makes the horde stream vulnerable and puts a limit on some of the gamey tricks we pull today.
fire away,
Boozer
-
Boozer
Yes, I agree this is another great idea. A prime example of this for me just happened the other day. I was defending a field in a Tiger and drove into the forest looking for a couple tanks that were shelling the town. After finding and killing them, the field was captured and I was all alone in the woods.
Now the guys I just killed new I was out there so they started coming after me in tanks and planes. I played cat and mouse under the trees as 4 or 5 players tried to kill me. I scored 17 victories on aircraft and GVs before I was finally killed by the same guy that I had already killed 5 or 6 times.
-
Yup the only kind of attrition modeled in AH is moral attrition. Which by definition is a bumer.
I have proposed a sorti rate system in the past which has met with resounding thuds. Basically a sorti rate for every kind of hanger so that as the hangers get hurt or killed the sorti rate for the field decreases. So really big raids would have to be launched from really big fields.
So a jabo run that dings a fighter hanger but doenst kill it still impacts the field.
So that if numbers are out of whack you can lower the sorti rate for a whole country to try and level thing.
So loading DTs or Bombs on fighters lowers the sorti rate.
Like all things put in place to enable a small country to impact a large country, it must be assured that you do not make the small country even more vulnerable.
That takes alot of thought.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Yup the only kind of attrition modeled in AH is moral attrition. Which by definition is a bumer.
I have proposed a sorti rate system in the past which has met with resounding thuds. Basically a sorti rate for every kind of hanger so that as the hangers get hurt or killed the sorti rate for the field decreases. So really big raids would have to be launched from really big fields.
So a jabo run that dings a fighter hanger but doenst kill it still impacts the field.
So that if numbers are out of whack you can lower the sorti rate for a whole country to try and level thing.
So loading DTs or Bombs on fighters lowers the sorti rate.
Like all things put in place to enable a small country to impact a large country, it must be assured that you do not make the small country even more vulnerable.
That takes alot of thought.
This is the best idea I've heard...for what my opinion is worth.
Makes the most sense in the context of war--fly a lot and takes lots of bombs, better supply a lot to keep the war effort going.
-
Biggest problem with tying sortie rates to hangars is the pork-n-auger crowd. You won't get organized attacks like you envision - you'll get more of the same lawn-dart Jabo's and NOE buff's than ever. If one person can PnA a hangar and take away the ability for several people to fly from a base, that's a good deal for him.
In theory it has merit, but you have to assume the worst possible behavior. Associating sortie rates with total numbers is another deal - that could work. And if the sortie rate (and type) at a base were tied to the number of runways, then you could get closer to what I think you want.
-
Boozer,
Great idea!
-
Boozer you're a genius! HiTech, listen up!
g00b
-
Boozer,
1) What is to stop someone from going to another front and just augering twice? Or are you assuming that "death" means "death by enemy action"?
2) One exploit for this I can already envision is using 2 or 3 "lives" worth of NOE B17 flights to inflict 4 or 6 casualties on an enemy field prior to starting the real attack. So maybe what you want is to say you can die 3 times before having to switch, and a formation of bombers counts as 3 "lives."
3) There are already those who complain about anyone who climbs over 10K, your proposal will foster more of that. What kind of tuning options would you want to prevent the MA from becoming too defensive in nature?
4) There are those who will complain that this will disrupt squad activities because of the different roles people have within a squad for field capture. Jabo guys will run through their lives quicker, for instance. What are your thought on this?
5) What is to stop a Horde from planned rotation through a base capture to ensure overwhelming odds. That is, you send 30 people in twice knowing they'll die, then once you've attrited the defender down the second group of 30 swings in more or less unopposed to finish the capture while the first group sets off to repeat the act elsewhere. Sure, it spreads the idiocy around - but the net effect may not change.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just looking for the holes which we both know Some People will use to advantage and continue ruining the MA for everyone else.
-
You die once you must fly from a different airfield once. You cannot die and fly from the same airfield you just upped from. Simple, easy, keeps the horde diminished. If someone wants to auger just they can get back quicker, fine, let em. It won't be that much of a problem.
g00b
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Boozer,
1) What is to stop someone from going to another front and just augering twice? Or are you assuming that "death" means "death by enemy action"?
my suggestion was simply to put the limit on a timer... if you die you can't re-up from that field for X minute regardless of what else you do. Doesn't matter how you die, maybe a ditch can be 1/2 the time, but just make a death a death
2) One exploit for this I can already envision is using 2 or 3 "lives" worth of NOE B17 flights to inflict 4 or 6 casualties on an enemy field prior to starting the real attack. So maybe what you want is to say you can die 3 times before having to switch, and a formation of bombers counts as 3 "lives."
My system woudl only give you one chance unless you upped the B17's from another location and then came back from another field with your second sortie (once you died). A good fighter sweep to clean out some enemies prior to the main attack would be an entirely valid tactic though, as it should be, unlike now where all it does is stir up a response of a guy who hopelessly defends 10 times until you run out of ammo and rtb.
3) There are already those who complain about anyone who climbs over 10K, your proposal will foster more of that. What kind of tuning options would you want to prevent the MA from becoming too defensive in nature?
Already happens, I doubt it would make much difference. It's not like we are limiting how many times you spawn, only where. I know HT says that "more ups means more targets" but it also negates any skills involved... 1 vs 10 is hopeless, especially when you know you could run up 5 of those as kills and get wacked by the first guy you shot down and effectively "lose". But that's just my opinion...
4) There are those who will complain that this will disrupt squad activities because of the different roles people have within a squad for field capture. Jabo guys will run through their lives quicker, for instance. What are your thought on this?
Yes and No, certainly Jabo is more dangerous (or GV attack) but mostly because you are trying to do that while also fending off fighters. If you had attrition, you could deal with the fighters and then use attack aircraft to deal out the jabo damage. Some aircraft that are "tougher" like the Mossie/A20/Il2 could be more effective attackers if the fighters could come through and clean up some of th enemy defenders beforehand, knowing that the overall number of defending fighters would be less... wouldn't that make it safer? Sure, suicide guys are going to be upset about something like this but I'm sure they'd learn to adapt just like everyone else.
5) What is to stop a Horde from planned rotation through a base capture to ensure overwhelming odds. That is, you send 30 people in twice knowing they'll die, then once you've attrited the defender down the second group of 30 swings in more or less unopposed to finish the capture while the first group sets off to repeat the act elsewhere. Sure, it spreads the idiocy around - but the net effect may not change.
Overwhelming numbers is simply smart, but if you want to concentrate your forces in this system (where a death means you have to move on to another fight) then you may get stopped cold by a smaller force and fail. As it is now, all you need to do is convince the superior numbers of players to continue to re-spawn until you eventually win... at least 90% of the time that's how it goes.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just looking for the holes which we both know Some People will use to advantage and continue ruining the MA for everyone else.
Maybe the idea is something for a different arena but it sure sounds to me like there is a large group of people waiting for this type of solution. How hard would it really be to try?
-Soda
-
then why doesn't this "large group" voluntarily enact such standards for themselves?
-
Originally posted by Shane
then why doesn't this "large group" voluntarily enact such standards for themselves?
for the same reason the Yankees don't limit their salary... wait, is that a good example? :lol
-
thats a great anology
-
sorry late response, I only get weekends...
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Boozer,
1) What is to stop someone from going to another front and just augering twice? Or are you assuming that "death" means "death by enemy action"?
Oh, any death will do, let em, they'll reailze how stupid it is to bother moving to two different fields to roll & auger just to get back into the horde, attack, and die yet again... rinse & repeat a few times, it'll get old fast. I really don't think the guys that would bother to do this are the ones who have much impact on the battle anyway. But lets leave them the option of learning the hard way. Probalby better & more fun to join another battle where you can help for the next 10-15 minutes and call the last effort a washout.
2) One exploit for this I can already envision is using 2 or 3 "lives" worth of NOE B17 flights to inflict 4 or 6 casualties on an enemy field prior to starting the real attack. So maybe what you want is to say you can die 3 times before having to switch, and a formation of bombers counts as 3 "lives."
You get one life at a field, if you die, you cannot up from that field again for two more sorties (that result in death). Any low level buffers have a big chance that they're making a one way, one time trip and they're out of the battle for a while. Take any B-17 home, you get to relaunch there. If your sortie ends in the tower, click another field pal. Maybe there's another close field not porked that you can use, maybe not. (strategic factor)
3) There are already those who complain about anyone who climbs over 10K, your proposal will foster more of that. What kind of tuning options would you want to prevent the MA from becoming too defensive in nature?.
I think it will foster more winging, and more planning regardless of alt. There's us alt monkeys and the rest of the dweebs, I'm not expecting that big a change of stripes from alot of players for this.
After a week of adjustment, everyone is back to flying where they are comfortable. (just elsewhere when ya kill em) heh. You can't waste too much time attacking or defending when that big bardar changes into your sector. Missions will become more precise, no upping 15 times to stop it, you'll need to actually knock down planes or the base falls easier. Run away climbing for a sector and you give the field away, it's self tuning. The stopwatch works both ways.
4) There are those who will complain that this will disrupt squad activities because of the different roles people have within a squad for field capture. Jabo guys will run through their lives quicker, for instance. What are your thought on this?
Yep, mebbe the better squad mates oughtta be doing the dangerous stuff and let the newer guys cover instead of just being bait lol
5) What is to stop a Horde from planned rotation through a base capture to ensure overwhelming odds. That is, you send 30 people in twice knowing they'll die, then once you've attrited the defender down the second group of 30 swings in more or less unopposed to finish the capture while the first group sets off to repeat the act elsewhere. Sure, it spreads the idiocy around - but the net effect may not change.
If it encourages better planning, more extensive assignments and better execution from the mission guys and planners, then I get what I want. Escort duty, screening, multi direction egress. Today, missions are nothing but the start of the never ending horde that DOESN'T END until 15 folks have reupped 3-5 times throwing themselves into the battle over and over and finally taking the field during the vulch frenzy, or else when the defenders finally manage to get a bigger horde on station. ONLY THEN does anyone even bother to plan another mission. This is what I want to see end. Effective missions with side assignments and one chance to pull it off are what we should be doing (those of us that play field capture) and I think it would be more exciting combat, requiring some skill, forethought, and awareness of the strategic situation.
Local superiority and precision strikes are a good thing. Anyone that puts together 60 for two seperate 2-phase missions, should win big, put stars on his icon. It's never happened before in Aces High. I think it would bring the hate back as defenders start sweeping for the darbar looking hungry instead of flying as far as possible from a horde like today.
It COULD even encourage defensive missions eh? The chance to go meet that darbar inbound with 3 or 4 guys knowing you can finally impact it, Darbar inbound! let's just wreck their mission man, join defense mission up now, leaves in 2!
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just looking for the holes which we both know Some People will use to advantage and continue ruining the MA for everyone else.
Yeah, it's just something to think about, plus it affords free curtailment of other gamey things like 2nd acct shooting, PT multispawns for torp launch, constant buff re-upping untill final success vs CVs, spawn camping a buddy (which I see hit the other board lately as a complaint) , etc
The ONE big problem that no one has pointed out is that the furballs can dwindle faster and many will complain if the fights dont appear. But maybe the tradeoff of having a positive impact on the hordes will finally encourage the furballers to actively go after all those juicy targets now.
-
I preferr always being outnumbered(Bish)...It's not hard to find a spot on the map where you can find an even fight regardless of #'s...and I can earn lots of nice perks.
That ENY limiter though,even though it usually doesn't effect me(or my fellow Bish's)...I don't like it(from memory it made me want to log off more than switch sides)
my 2cents
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
SNIP
Here's the problem I've seen the last two weeks:
Rooks: 89
Nits: 148
Bish 140
SNIP
Yeah, that shows ENY isnt doing anything NOW -- but you're missing something. When ENY first came out, it was much more aggressive. Those first weeks, these numbers would have shut off anything below 25, but now they're not doing anything.
That means HTC changed the formula.
It seems to me that says something about HTC's goals with ENY. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, HT.) Weakening ENY after a few weeks implies that his goal was to dismantle the overwhelming steamroller that the rooks had become. After that goal was accomplished, maybe he felt he should return to his general policy of leaving us alone to play. But, he left the ENY in place so he could quietly tweak the formula if the overall team balance again became a sustained problem.
In short, the tweaking implies that his goal was rebalancing the countries, not handicapping gameplay on a minute by minute basis. And, that now means that somebody can win a map. After all, handicapping of all kiinds really seeks to make a totally even playing field, and hundreds of evenly balanced players will almost always cancel each other out.
-
i think another problem simaril is those many months with rooks having sooooooo many numbers, bish and knits got used to fighting just rooks.... and its still stuck to this day...
hell i still up on rook front only....unless im defending a bish attack.