Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Traveler on November 25, 2008, 01:01:55 PM
-
I’d like to see a perk system that promotes more then just fur-balling. Currently the perk system is geared towards rewarding the individual. Perhaps it’s just a reflection of our modern society, but the population of each country appears to be more motivated towards self promotion rather then team oriented play or god forbid, country loyalty.
Unlike real war in AHII when one country wins the reset the other countries involved, the ones losing the reset face no down side. I’d like to suggest that during a period of war. Any perks earned are only paid out after the reset by the winning side. That the players in the countries that did not win the reset lose any perks awarded. That just like in real life “to the winner go the spoils”.
To prevent last minute side switching, only allow side changing once every 56 days. Promote country loyalty and team play.
-
Come on trav, you've been around a while, you know better than this.
Perk values are currently assigned to planes and vehicles whose merits lie in high individual performance. Why award perks on a team-based system just so that awardees can spend them on individually-focused crafts? It is a diametric opposition that is inherently illogical.
If your system was implemented, we'd have to instead perk great "team" planes and vehicles...110G's for town killing, m3's for troops and supplies.
And of course on top of all of that, some of us don't care about winning the war, some of us do, but the common denominator is that we all play an individual role in whatever it is we do (impossible not to, unless you play this game through some sort of spiritual sharing proxy). Therefore perks are awarded for individual performances because we all deserve to acquire them, and individual performance is the only common denominator we are all guaranteed to share.
-
I really don't think your "wish" is going to accomplish what you are suggesting that it will.
Reason is a good many people in game don't really care about winning the war. I can tell you I personally won't be changing my way of having fun for some perks because I rarely ever use them and when I do I expect to lose them because I don't usually live long.
I do think that this type of change will tend to promote the armchair general mentality though. I can here it now.
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: this country sucks and because of you guys I can't get any perks, I'm changing countries at end of tour
-
I'm not suggesting that anyone change their game play, I'm suggesting that only the players of the winning country retain the perks and the losers get nothing.
-
I'm not suggesting that anyone change their game play, I'm suggesting that only the players of the winning country retain the perks and the losers get nothing.
but you are saying that if we want to get the perks that we fought and deserve to have would have to change our game play to get them. I think that we would still have to endure more of barrating arm chair generals.
-
What if someone could care less about "the war", has no interest in who "wins" and doesn't equate mind numbing hordes of marginally skilled players as being good. I dont much care about perks regardless but from my perspective in AH...more often then not the "winners" are the biggest bunch of losers.
-
2/10 on the troll scale.
-
but you are saying that if we want to get the perks that we fought and deserve to have would have to change our game play to get them. I think that we would still have to endure more of barrating arm chair generals.
What I'm say is that even if you fought and deserve to get perks, that if your country loses , as in real war, you don't get the perks of war.
-
What if someone could care less about "the war", has no interest in who "wins" and doesn't equate mind numbing hordes of marginally skilled players as being good. I dont much care about perks regardless but from my perspective in AH...more often then not the "winners" are the biggest bunch of losers.
Because you could care less, any change has no effect on your game .
-
To prevent last minute side switching, only allow side changing once every 56 days. Promote country loyalty and team play.
Umm, yeah, it affects a lot of people.
-
Actually your wrong. IMO this type of system would just encourage even lamer game play then we have now.
-
There are lots of good ideas on implementing a viable perk economy. This isn't one of them.
-
There are lots of good ideas on implementing a viable perk economy. This isn't one of them.
I did do a search on Perk System prior to my post, didn't get anything.
-
What I'm say is that even if you fought and deserve to get perks, that if your country loses , as in real war, you don't get the perks of war.
and what I am saying is I should not have to lose my perks that I earned because I don't care whether the country I play on wins the war or not.
I also don't want the barating that this will start when some tard doesn't get the support that he thinks he should have because he wants to win the war.
-
LOL "real war" :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Here is one..
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,252538.0.html
With fighters, more perks for more higher end fighters and ords would also induce a economy where the current system is just meant to limit some aircraft.
Overall, the strat and perk system is rudimentary at best and has little bearing on game play. "Winning the war" has justifiably little meaning to most players therefore revolving the system around that one objective does little to improve the game for the vast majority of players. Improving game play is what builds a community and overcomes the pointless rat race of "winning the war". Game play is what makes the game worth coming back to not the war.
-
I'm gonna say this as nicely as possible...
That is the dumbest wish I have ever seen in my life!
-
:confused:
-
I’d like to see a perk system that promotes more then just fur-balling. Currently the perk system is geared towards rewarding the individual. Perhaps it’s just a reflection of our modern society, but the population of each country appears to be more motivated towards self promotion rather then team oriented play or god forbid, country loyalty.
Unlike real war in AHII when one country wins the reset the other countries involved, the ones losing the reset face no down side. I’d like to suggest that during a period of war. Any perks earned are only paid out after the reset by the winning side. That the players in the countries that did not win the reset lose any perks awarded. That just like in real life “to the winner go the spoils”.
To prevent last minute side switching, only allow side changing once every 56 days. Promote country loyalty and team play.
Perks reward killing things, whether it be a plane, ground vehicle or a building. Perks do not just promote furballing, that's a misconception usually held by the clueless.
As for your other ideas, not to be harsh but they suck, especially the side changing idea. Only change sides once almost every 2 months? Stupid. It won't promote 'team play' or some misconcieved notion of loyalty to a chess piece and will actually help with unbalancing the numbers for each side. You will remove pretty much any chance of someone or a squadron switching sides to help balance the arena numbers.
There is nothing wrong with perk system. The only issue with the perk system is the lack of things to spend them on in certain areas, like bombers. Hopefully, whenever the oft mentioned perk ordnance system is introduced, we'll have more options to blow our hard earned perks on.
ack-ack
-
LOL "real war" :rofl :rofl :rofl
That's just as funny as someone telling someone else to 'fly a real plane' in the MA.
ack-ack
-
Well, at least he had an idea, even if it was a bad one, and dared the wrath of the BBs to post it.
-
Currently the perk system rewards those who kill other players, destroy objects, resupply objects, and capture fields. Only one of the four rewards has anything to do with furballing, so the current system primarily promotes toolshedding, not furballing. The system also has greater rewards for those who fly for the side with fewer numbers, while lessening the rewards of those on the side with greater numbers. So, the system also rewards the underdog, and promotes a more balanced dispersion of players, at least among the players for whom perks are a motivating factor. This is, in all honesty, probably not the majority, as many players have accumulated hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of perks. But, regardless, the rewards are increased uniformly, whether the underdog is resupplying, blowing stuff up, taking fields, or killing players. Again, 75% of the rewards go to those who are not engaging other players. No bias toward furballing.
What you describe, Traveler, is just a way to ensure that the side with a numerical advantage, maintains that advantage, and attempts to penalize those who either don't fly for the side with numbers.
As an example, let us say that those of us posting against your idea are flying for country X, which has half the players of Y, and Z. In defending against your horde country (the one which will win the war- doesn't matter which one), we kill 2 of you for every one of our deaths. Every one of us captures a field, resupplies a field, and destroy 10 objects each in the course of each capture. Your team, due to the odds, can only manage a single kill every second sortie, and only half of you are able to get captures, resupply a field, and destroy only 5 objects during each capture. Despite the fact that we accomplish more per player, and do so against worse odds, we would receive nothing, while your country, which won only by overwhelming numbers, even though they accomplished less per player, in a situation that favors your countries, would be handsomely rewarded. What that would lead to, is more players changing to the country with the most numbers, creating a more difficult situation for us, and an easier win for you. That would, obviously, perpetuate itself, to the point that the game was not enjoyable to play, either by being without any challenge whatsoever, and slight rewards (due to the perk modifier, and the fact that your numbers mean fewer targets and opportunities for every single one of your teammates) for the "winnars", and by being an insurmountable challenge to the players on the lesser numbered countries.
In short, it's an ill-conceived, pointless, worthless, concept, lacking any traits which might promote anything other than severe imbalances in numbers, and terrible gameplay.
Sincerely,
-
Well, at least he had an idea, even if it was a bad one, and dared the wrath of the BBs to post it.
Fair enough. There is nothing wrong with presenting ideas, good or bad. That's how you find out if your idea fits under one category or another.
-
Actually I think the post high lights a deeper and more significant issue that has continued to evolve. That is the deemphasis of actual skills in favor of a defined result. An ever greater % of the player base continues to stagnate from a true skills perspective (not just ACM) and focuses on winning thru affiliation with a side or squad that relies on numbers to achieve a win. so instead of a test of skill we have an attrition based system that encourages players to find a time and place they can maximize numerical advantage. Sadly many of these squads are gaining a broad based reputation when the actual skill level is pitiful at best.
I'm not saying this to bash traveler simply recognizing that his very well intended post is based on this flawed view of whats important.
-
You know, I figure that I am average at best or perhaps somewhere below average when it comes to skill. That said, I have never ever had any problem earning perks the old fashioned way.
Granted, I don't fly perked planes very often. Only an occaisional 262 really. I will up a Firefly once in awhile also, if I am in a GV kind of mood (rare). All that said, I can't remember ever being unable to afford a perked ride when I wanted to use one.
It simply isn't that hard to build up a bank roll of perkies. If you are perk poor all the time, perhaps you need to spend more time in unperked planes. Quit trying to make up for poor abilities with a superior airframe. Get good in a 15-30 ENY plane, you won't have perkie problems anymore.
EDIT TO ADD: I fully support the concept of perked ordanance packages.
-
Comon guys and think for a moment. The only real war in recent history that used these planes, the victor rebuilt the losers country's and gave them each boo coo financial bailout perks. Traveler has a great idea about this "REAL WAR" thing. So the winning country has to divie out its collective perks to the two loosing country's. That happend in the real WWII.
Can you see guys deciding to jump to two sides and let the third roll over them to speed up the reset and get those war losers bail out perks?..... :D