Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: skiz on October 25, 2005, 01:39:16 AM

Title: attrition revisited
Post by: skiz on October 25, 2005, 01:39:16 AM
I posted about this before how i felt that adding attrition would help with gameplay. But i was told the problem with it, and it was that if you had a attrition for instance tied to a  country or airfield and a newb crashes his plane 5 times in row you've lost all your airplanes.

And so i thought about how to get around it, and well i have'nt completed the idea but basically i think if you made it so each person has a limited number of planes based on how many people were in the country and how well the production are producing and how much natural resources a  country has .  but a country could only sustain prucing so many planes so if it was so lopsided in numbers the country with more people on its side but with same amount of factories and land would have less planes to go around per pilot, not that the dweebs take up all the planes but every person would have just the same amount of planes per say hour? so say 6 planes per hour is the norm that would give 10 minutes per sortie, so that would end all upping a millioin times to prevent a base capture and make planes a precious commodity, and oh yeah and maybe some planes should be cheaper than others so you have more of them to squander.

But if we make planes cheaper than others it should reflect gameplay and not reality. so no mass of 109's compared to a few 38's and 47's

But basically this idea was born out of suicide dweebs and the fact that numbers on one side rule. I am bish and right now bish is always seeming outnumbered and i just want things like team play and skill and just a different type of gameplay to prevail.

ducks and runs
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: eilif on October 25, 2005, 01:50:35 AM
sounds like a fine TOD element, it would never work in ma imho.
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: Westy on October 25, 2005, 07:47:56 AM
Agreed.   It would ruin the MA for the hundreds who pay-to-play there.  

 Look at a bigger picture.  Many players only have a few hours each week to play online and an attrition feature, of any sort in this type of pay-to-play game, would drive masses of casual customers away.
 Why should they pay the price for some unskilled dork who has 23 hours a day to play online or be at the mercy of "griefers" who get kicks from effectoing others gameplay?



"I posted about this before..."

Out of curiosity what was your Id then?
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: FBBone on October 25, 2005, 08:07:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Westy
Agreed.   It would ruin the MA for the hundreds who pay-to-play there.  

 Look at a bigger picture.  Many players only have a few hours each week to play online and an attrition feature, of any sort in this type of pay-to-play game, would drive masses of casual customers away.
 Why should they pay the price for some unskilled dork who has 23 hours a day to play online or be at the mercy of "griefers" who get kicks from effectoing others gameplay?



"I posted about this before..."

Out of curiosity what was your Id then?



What he said.
Title: Re: attrition revisited
Post by: dedalos on October 25, 2005, 08:32:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by skiz
if you made it so each person has a limited number of planes based on how many people were in the country and how well the production are producing and how much natural resources a  country has .  but a country could only sustain prucing so many planes so if it was so lopsided  . . . . . .  


The problem with anything like that in the MA is that those targets would always be porked.
Title: Attrition is modeled
Post by: Virage on October 25, 2005, 09:00:05 AM
By taking out the hangers at an airfield you create a localised attrition.  Each death means something because you can not reup.  Want attrition in your area?  Take out hangers and keep them down.  Want endless supply of enemies?  Keep the hangers up.
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: Morpheus on October 25, 2005, 09:14:18 AM
No.


WW2OL.
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: Stang on October 25, 2005, 09:18:16 AM
Endless waves of dweebing diving suicide buffs is all the attrition the MA needs, lol.
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: doc1kelley on October 25, 2005, 10:11:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Westy
Agreed.   It would ruin the MA for the hundreds who pay-to-play there.  

 Look at a bigger picture.  Many players only have a few hours each week to play online and an attrition feature, of any sort in this type of pay-to-play game, would drive masses of casual customers away.
 Why should they pay the price for some unskilled dork who has 23 hours a day to play online or be at the mercy of "griefers" who get kicks from effectoing others gameplay?



"I posted about this before..."

Out of curiosity what was your Id then?


Westy you are a wise man!  Nobody would pay for unlimited play if they couldn't play due to either their carelessness, skill, unforseen problem not within their control (boots), or just downright augering that would prevent them from flying more.  

All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
Title: Re: attrition revisited
Post by: Jackal1 on October 25, 2005, 10:18:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by skiz
I posted about this before how i felt that adding attrition would help with gameplay. But i was told the problem with it, and it was that if you had a attrition for instance tied to a  country or airfield and a newb crashes his plane 5 times in row you've lost all your airplanes.

And so i thought about how to get around it, and well i have'nt completed the idea but basically i think if you made it so each person has a limited number of planes based on how many people were in the country and how well the production are producing and how much natural resources a  country has .  but a country could only sustain prucing so many planes so if it was so lopsided in numbers the country with more people on its side but with same amount of factories and land would have less planes to go around per pilot, not that the dweebs take up all the planes but every person would have just the same amount of planes per say hour? so say 6 planes per hour is the norm that would give 10 minutes per sortie, so that would end all upping a millioin times to prevent a base capture and make planes a precious commodity, and oh yeah and maybe some planes should be cheaper than others so you have more of them to squander.

But if we make planes cheaper than others it should reflect gameplay and not reality. so no mass of 109's compared to a few 38's and 47's

But basically this idea was born out of suicide dweebs and the fact that numbers on one side rule. I am bish and right now bish is always seeming outnumbered and i just want things like team play and skill and just a different type of gameplay to prevail.

ducks and runs


Ever heard the term "game"?
Aces High is just that. One you pay to play for enjoyment, not hassles.
Title: attrition revisited
Post by: Flit on October 25, 2005, 10:50:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Morpheus
No.


WW2OL.

What he said
 Attrition is one of the reasons I dropped WW2OL