Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: TheBug on April 15, 2008, 07:58:25 PM
-
I've got a few things I've been considering mentioning for the next war as constructive criticisms. But thought I would start out with the side switching time limit. Partially this is selfish, I plan on flying both sides again in the next war. But it is also a concern I have for the health of this war idea, which I believe has good possibilities. I think we have to take the good with the bad and not lump the decent people that chose to switch sides to just keep things balanced with those that exploit that ability. I think restricting the side-balancing is a greater crime than anything some peeping-Tom could do. Please reconsider the time-limit when the next round comes along.
Also other can feel free to use this thread to post their observations, requests, ideas, etc.. they have for the next war. <S>
-
I agrea I like to switch sides also but the 24 hour time limit as killed that for me. I use to like to switch sides to try and balence the teams a little bit. ANy ways. I agea with the insect. :O
BT
-
I think I once had an idea on this. Oy. Nevermind. :)
-
Sinec there is no base capture in the next war I think the time limit should be an hour or two tops.
-
I like the no base capture idea and the lowering of the time limit to swap sides :aok , but I have to declare a fondness for JABO. I do like to mix it up in a furball now and then and try to improve my poor ACM skills.
what impact will the no base capture event have on those players who like to fly bomber missions? Will it be set up in a way that strategic bombing missions are still incorporated or will this lean more to a total dog fighting series?
Specifically, will there be any point in a buff or JABO attack on a field with the intent of destroying infrastructure such as hangars? Troop barracks would be pointless targets in this next event.
If you can work something into the event that will make those players feel that they can make a positive contribution and also have fun, then it should be a great event. Attacking a formation of buffs is always an interesting mission.
-
What would stop you from conducting strategic strikes on fields to drop their hangers for a day - potentially impacting your opponents ability to fight or defend? Especially if its their prized pick for the round?
We're listening on the side switching. I want to make sure we're hearing the majority / not the vocal minority on this issue. :)
-
biscuits ,,yep biscuits are good :aok
-
if there is a problem with some abusing the side switching then 1 or 2 hours may not help. If i switch sides and Im stuck for 4 hours no complaint. If I log off and the next day Im still stuck for 7 more hours complaint....
-
We're listening on the side switching. I want to make sure we're hearing the majority / not the vocal minority on this issue. :)
I would prefer a shorter switch time. I join the lowest side when I log in. If the numbers swing the other way, I would like to be able to switch to help even out.
-
Sinec there is no base capture in the next war I think the time limit should be an hour or two tops.
Thats sounds good to me . :rock
BT
-
We need to allow and encourage side switching. It's no fun when then numbers are way off. I think 1 hour is fine.
Venom
-
I have no trouble with there being no penalty to switch sides. Shouldn't matter. Maybe if the setup has cv's you could add a couple hours. I haven't flown allied yet but maybe next war I'll see if there is as big a difference in teams as I think I've seen.
-
biscuits ,,yep biscuits are good
Mmmmmmm...and gravy..have to have gravy too!! :rock on redrum
-
I hate that I can't switch sides. It was the most positive aspect of the old AvA and I'd hoped it could stay that way but the AvA staff has only two tools for balancing the game play in the arena, country switch wait time, or the hated arena cap.
The 24 hour wait time is preferable over arena caps and it's the minimum viable period. If you make it less, the guy who's going to log off in an hour can switch sides, grief the opposition, and be back on his chosen side the next morning to do it again that night. The more experienced players aren't going to tolerate this after investing their time in the new arena setup, and the arena needs all the old experienced players, including those that would like to switch sides for balance.
-
Here's one way to fix the problem if the development group wants to put some time into it.
Novalogic did this with one of their older MMO games. It works like this
You log into the AVA
A menu pops up allowing you 3 choices. Axis, Allies, or Either
The server keeps both sides balanced by doing the following:
IF you chose Axis it looks at the current balance. If Axis has less than 3 or 4 player advantage it lets you in.
If Axis has over 3 player advantage the server tells you how many people are in line in front of you. When the next slot opens it automatically loads you in. Same thing for Allies.
If you select Either, the server puts you in the side with the least players.
This way you can ensure a balance.
Using this method would remove the need for team switching to even up the sides. After that a long wait time shouldn't be a problem.
-
Four hours sounds about right. Looking forward to bombing and fighter escort missions.
biscuits ,,yep biscuits are good :aok
I keep telling people, biscuts are good, but Anne Hathaway's biscuts are the BOMB!
(was gonna attach a picture....but I'd rather not get banned)
-
Here's one way to fix the problem if the development group wants to put some time into it.
Novalogic did this with one of their older MMO games. It works like this
You log into the AVA
A menu pops up allowing you 3 choices. Axis, Allies, or Either
The server keeps both sides balanced by doing the following:
IF you chose Axis it looks at the current balance. If Axis has less than 3 or 4 player advantage it lets you in.
If Axis has over 3 player advantage the server tells you how many people are in line in front of you. When the next slot opens it automatically loads you in. Same thing for Allies.
If you select Either, the server puts you in the side with the least players.
This way you can ensure a balance.
Using this method would remove the need for team switching to even up the sides. After that a long wait time shouldn't be a problem.
Problem with this idea is what of Squads? They then become split. A fix to that issue would be to add a parameter which will allow squads to fly together.
-
I vote for 1/2 hour at most. I am certain for every twit that will switch sides to exploit any knowledge they have garnered or launch sabotage efforts there is a bare minimum of two players that will utilize the ability to switch sides to help keep the arena balanced. Bare minimum.
I left the arena last night due to the overwhelming numbers the allied side had (I am Allied for this war), it was squealing boring. Headed to the DA with the squad and shortly afterwards I did hear JG11 arrived to help balance the numbers, but at that point it was too late was having fun in the DA so I stayed. If there was the ability to switch sides more frequently I would of went Axis and stayed in the arena. When JG11 arrived I would of then went back to Allies and flown with my squad. If the time limit is longer then a 1/2 hour it has the ability to fracture squads between both sides, which can be a pain come squad night.
There really aren't too many secrets to be lost, gets a little carried away by the "vocal minority" if you ask me.
I also think if you do go back to the base capture 1 day downtimes are way too much.
But on a good note I really like the sound of a budget and having the COs purchase the rides. Keep the evolution going!
-
biscuits ,,yep biscuits are good :aok
With apple butter
-
Here's one way to fix the problem if the development group wants to put some time into it.
Great idea. Problem is that we don't have control over AH2's code, and this would require a programming change. Fact is, we don't have the ability to cap side numbers either.
Here's a question: How much griefing have we actually seen? Seems to me that over the past four months it's been less than a half-dozen times.
- oldman
-
Im all for 2-4 hours. bare minimum, 90 minutes
-
Great idea. Problem is that we don't have control over AH2's code, and this would require a programming change. Fact is, we don't have the ability to cap side numbers either.
Here's a question: How much griefing have we actually seen? Seems to me that over the past four months it's been less than a half-dozen times.
- oldman
Command of Fleets is the only area that stands as a sore point, and although it has occurred infrequently, it takes so long to undo. This tactic to me is the worse. It is like a little brat with a toy who grabs it and takes it home the minute someone else is having fun with it. :mad:
If anyone knows of any parameters already in the setup that disables control, or limits control to specific players, then I will say 98% in favor of allowing country change penalty to be reduced. ;) If we can only rely on rank and player etiquette I will say 80% in favor. (that 18% of folks you know who you are :cool: )
I noticed that once in a Saturday Scenario we had wind speed and direction, so fleet had to be properly positioned to allow for landings and takeoff. I don't remember who was the skipper, but it added a lot to the experience. :D
-
Wind is good, from a neutral direction.
The AvA bombsite calibration adjusts for it while the MA bombsite does not.
If LVTs are involved, you can't use sea level wind because they can't shift into gear while moving.
-
Command of Fleets is the only area that stands as a sore point, and although it has occurred infrequently, it takes so long to undo. This tactic to me is the worse. It is like a little brat with a toy who grabs it and takes it home the minute someone else is having fun with it. :mad:
If anyone knows of any parameters already in the setup that disables control, or limits control to specific players, then I will say 98% in favor of allowing country change penalty to be reduced. ;) If we can only rely on rank and player etiquette I will say 80% in favor. (that 18% of folks you know who you are :cool: )
I noticed that once in a Saturday Scenario we had wind speed and direction, so fleet had to be properly positioned to allow for landings and takeoff. I don't remember who was the skipper, but it added a lot to the experience. :D
There is a way to set it so only staff members can control CVs. But then what happens when you want to take it to another base or when bombers are coming in?
-
Great idea. Problem is that we don't have control over AH2's code, and this would require a programming change. Fact is, we don't have the ability to cap side numbers either.
Here's a question: How much griefing have we actually seen? Seems to me that over the past four months it's been less than a half-dozen times.
- oldman
I came up with a community controlled version of just that. The drawback is it's community controlled, though. Or is that a strength? I dunno. I'm still of the mind that manners and chivalry cannot be dictated, only exhibited and emulated. Guess same goes for dweebery and it's apparently a path of lesser resistance. .eject Dweeb69
-
There is a way to set it so only staff members can control CVs. But then what happens when you want to take it to another base or when bombers are coming in?
1. You don't.
2. Set hardness to nuke for fleets.
-
1. You don't.
2. Set hardness to nuke for fleets.
But then what happens when a B29 with a n00k comes along?
-
But then what happens when a B29 with a n00k comes along?
It wud b c00l.
-
But then what happens when a B29 with a n00k comes along?
That would be a certain sign that I stumbled into the wrong arena. ;)
-
I vote for 1/2 hour at most. I am certain for every twit that will switch sides to exploit any knowledge they have garnered or launch sabotage efforts there is a bare minimum of two players that will utilize the ability to switch sides to help keep the arena balanced. Bare minimum.
I think a 1/2 hour is plenty of time.
BT
-
Command of Fleets is the only area that stands as a sore point, and although it has occurred infrequently, it takes so long to undo. This tactic to me is the worse. It is like a little brat with a toy who grabs it and takes it home the minute someone else is having fun with it. :mad:
If anyone knows of any parameters already in the setup that disables control, or limits control to specific players, then I will say 98% in favor of allowing country change penalty to be reduced. ;) If we can only rely on rank and player etiquette I will say 80% in favor. (that 18% of folks you know who you are :cool: )
I noticed that once in a Saturday Scenario we had wind speed and direction, so fleet had to be properly positioned to allow for landings and takeoff. I don't remember who was the skipper, but it added a lot to the experience. :D
I would like to see some wind added to the map some weather for the whole arena. I think that would be really kewl :rock
BT
-
Problem with this idea is what of Squads? They then become split. A fix to that issue would be to add a parameter which will allow squads to fly together.
There were squads in Nova and it wasn't a problem. When a squad wanted to come in they simply would be allowed in as the slots opened. As long as the same side was picked they would be in the same line to get in.
-
Bluetop, there were some problems with CV's in Warbirds as well. In some cases it was clearly malign behavior such as taking control of the CV and steaming it hundreds of miles off the map. In other cases people would beach them on the shore. Eventually control of the CV's was limited to one of the three available maps. On two maps (Tunisia and Philippines) the CV's were scripted to run a predetermined route that resulted in opposing fleets merging. I never liked the scripted routes, they were poorly planned and the CV's would steam at low speed making it difficult to get a fully loaded plane off the deck. Wind over the deck for launch and recover was not factored in. Of course the CV's in warbirds were visible to all players on every map except the WW2 arena, so their tactical use was rather limited.
-
Lets drop the whole on-going war concept. This current "on-going" war became all base capture at the end with very few good fights to be found. There were excellent fights at the beginning of the war though. This 24 hour downtime was horrible and just made it far worse. There is no point in playing once all of the close fields are shut down. So how do we get more of the early part of the war and far less of the late part? Reset the map every night so everynight is like the early war. It would break it down into nightly combats. We could keep base capture then as some like the Jabo raids. We could switch sides each night as it won't matter the next day, the maps are reset. Alternatively, the staff could arrange a different base layout everynight on the same map rather than just resetting. This would allow us to fight over different parts of the map on different days. This would result in great fights, just like early in the war! Either way, drop the ongoing war.
This game is about the balanced fights, not about trying to be a war. I like having some kind of backdrop for the fights but deempasize the stragic on-going aspect and focus on the fight. Having winners and losers for a "war" is bringing out the worse in people. The real win is having good back and forth fights with respect for your opponents.
Venom