Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Ghosth on May 08, 2009, 06:37:28 AM
-
Logged into Midwar last night, Bish 6, Knights 18, Rooks 8. So eventually rather than fight the ENY most of our squad switched. But it got me thinking.
Why not reward those who switch to help balance sides?
Have the server give them 10 perks an hour if they are actively flying, GV's, attacking, defending.
Let it last for 2 - 3 hours or until sides balance.
Heck make it attractive, give them 50 fighter perks for switching and another 5 perks for every sortie where they kill something. Instead of chess piece loyalty, give them a chance to make a difference, and feel good about it.
Then instead of hordes, poor game play, and whines you'd have more balanced area's, balanced sides, and happy people.
Just a thought.
-
Then we are going to have a lot of spy's and people who switch sides every day just for there own fun.
-
The only thing I'd change would be some kind of exception to discourage switching to sink CVs..
-
Then we are going to have a lot of spy's and people who switch sides every day just for there own fun.
Isn't that the idea of the game.... to have fun? :rolleyes:
-
The game already rewards those who fly for the side with lower numbers with more perks/kill.
-
Excuse me?
Heaven forbid we have people who switch sides just for their own fun.
Heaven forbid we have people who switch sides just so they are not ENY crippled.
Heaven forbid we have people who don't need a horde to have fun.
As to spy's, that in many cases is a direct result of a vastly outnumbered country trying even the playing field.
So if the sides were balanced, you'd see fewer spy's fewer people trying to sink Carriers and other lame tricks.
Then we are going to have a lot of spy's and people who switch sides every day just for there own fun.
-
I think this might provide an incentive for "newer" players to switch sides more frequently, which is a good thing in the long run.
-
Why not reward those who switch to help balance sides?
Have the server give them 10 perks an hour if they are actively flying, GV's, attacking, defending.
Let it last for 2 - 3 hours or until sides balance.
Heck make it attractive, give them 50 fighter perks for switching and another 5 perks for every sortie where they kill something. Instead of chess piece loyalty, give them a chance to make a difference, and feel good about it.
This would probably do more to even the sides than ENY ever could. Greed is a great motivator. Excellent idea!
-
This would probably do more to even the sides than ENY ever could. Greed is a great motivator. Excellent idea!
As someone pointed out there is already a system in place to reward those on the lower number side with more perks. That's what the perk modifier number you see in the hanger is for.
ack-ack
-
As someone pointed out there is already a system in place to reward those on the lower number side with more perks. That's what the perk modifier number you see in the hanger is for.
ack-ack
LyeEl doesn't get many kills..he wouldn't know :D
-
Logged into Midwar last night, Bish 6, Knights 18, Rooks 8. So eventually rather than fight the ENY most of our squad switched. But it got me thinking.
Why not reward those who switch to help balance sides?
Have the server give them 10 perks an hour if they are actively flying, GV's, attacking, defending.
Let it last for 2 - 3 hours or until sides balance.
Heck make it attractive, give them 50 fighter perks for switching and another 5 perks for every sortie where they kill something. Instead of chess piece loyalty, give them a chance to make a difference, and feel good about it.
Then instead of hordes, poor game play, and whines you'd have more balanced area's, balanced sides, and happy people.
Just a thought.
agreed,how about making the perk award same as a map win award,25 perks across the board but limit it to once a day per arena
:salute
-
Great idea!
-
agreed,how about making the perk award same as a map win award,25 perks across the board but limit it to once a day per arena
:salute
That would never be abused.
wrongway
-
There is nothing to stop people from switching sides, but I don't think there is a need to make an incentive to switch sides. The incentive is already stronger for the outnumbered side as it is. . .there is little need to change that imo. Its a shame there is a general perception that Knights are outnumbering on many TZs, I guess I don't fly in a TZ where it is a little better balanced (genrally speaking the U.S. prime-time Tzs are well balanced for the most part.)
-
This is a good idea Ghost. Believe me there are some people I would give perks for changing sides... :rofl
-
Not a bad idea at all, really. While the perk modifier is currently in place, lots of people don't understand it. An immediatly visible incentive for switching to the lowest numbered side would, IMHO, make switching much more inviting to a much larger portion of the population. As Baumer pointed out, this would be especially beneficial for newer players.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Bad idea and it WILL be abused through switching every chance someone gets just to get more and more perks.
-
dp
-
That's exactly what I was thinking.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
:D
wrongway
-
Bad idea and it WILL be abused through switching every chance someone gets just to get more and more perks.
How is it abuse if they're switching to the side with the lowest number? Also, I figured some form of time limit would still be in effect.
Regards,
Hammer
-
There are already people that change sides for the benefit of the perk modifier and there will be people that change sides every hour on the hour for the perks especially the people that cant get 25 perks in a week of flying. It doesnt take much imagination to figure that out.
-
There are already people that change sides for the benefit of the perk modifier and there will be people that change sides every hour on the hour for the perks especially the people that cant get 25 perks in a week of flying. It doesnt take much imagination to figure that out.
So? If it keeps the sides balanced, what's the harm in someone switching sides? There are a lot of abuses in the game that I would worry about before I get concerned about someone switching to the side with the lowest numbers too often.
Like I said earlier, I would presume some form of time limit would remain in effect. I could also see a need to make sure someone actually flew versus just switching and sitting in the tower. The need for some regulation, however, doesn't make the basic premise of the proposal invalid. OTOH, we can definitively say the current systems does not produce the desired results of balance within the arena. You can look at the numbers on any given night and see it is pretty much a failure. That makes the "system already in place" argument a wash.
Regards,
Hammer
-
In my opinion the top 20% good pilots don't need any incentive to change side because they all ready do it looking for good fights. This wish is really only targeted at encouraging those with the least experience (or no perk points) to change sides.
It might be interesting to have this kick as a function of total players in the arena vs the current ENY value. So that in a very low population arena it would kick in at a lower ENY (maybe the 5-10 ENY range) and a larger population would not trigger it until a higher ENY is reached (maybe when ENY > 15).
Chalenge,
How abusive is it to have a balanced arena? I can't imagine worrying about someone switching sides, especially if as you say, they couldn't get 25 perks in a week.
-
For precisely the reason hammer presented or in other words:
There are a lot of abuses in the game...
which is to say there are ENOUGH abuses already in the game. Perks are supposed to be reward for being succesful not given away willy-nilly to noobs and dweebs alike.
-
There's an ENY of 25 in one of the LW arenas right now.
-
For precisely the reason hammer presented or in other words:
which is to say there are ENOUGH abuses already in the game. Perks are supposed to be reward for being succesful not given away willy-nilly to noobs and dweebs alike.
You have skipped the basic question, which was
...
How abusive is it to have a balanced arena?
My saying there are already a lot of abuses in the game in no way makes changing sides to balance an arena abusive. I don't care how many perks someone has. I do care about extremely lopsided arenas. Anything that encourages balance is a good thing. An immediate reward for helping keep the arenas balanced is worth a try.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Chalenge,
I disagree with the position that perks are supposed to be a reward for being successful.
I believe they were instituted to be a limiting factor so that everyone isn't running around in 262's, Tempests, and Tigers, with the intent to foster better game play. This wish is attempting to create better game play by increasing the incentive to move to the low numbered side that's all.
-
How is it abuse if they're switching to the side with the lowest number? Also, I figured some form of time limit would still be in effect.
Regards,
Hammer
The abuse would have nothing to do with side balance or "spiez!!1!". the abuse would come by switching to the lower side at every opportunity for the free perks and only for the perks.
I mean come on. People have been know to vultch a shade or two to fly a 262 with impunity.
wrongway
-
I'd add,to stop some abuse if a player has over a set accumilated amount of perks that they are awarded a lesser amount or no perks.Say a player had 1000 fighter perks then award say 1 perk for side balancing,100 to 1000 maybe 5 perks 0 to 100, 25 perks.Then limit it to once a day.
The above perk awards are only examples and would pretty much eliminate any abuse or atleast reduce the amount of abuse a player could do.
This may not work perfectly but it would affect arena balancing form the moment of application!
:salute
-
The abuse would have nothing to do with side balance or "spiez!!1!". the abuse would come by switching to the lower side at every opportunity for the free perks and only for the perks.
I mean come on. People have been know to vultch a shade or two to fly a 262 with impunity.
wrongway
Again, if it keeps the sides balanced, why is it abuse? If done properly, I would think they couldn't switch to get points, then switch right back. The biggest potential abuse, I would think, would be people switching and then logging so they wouldn't have to fly for the wrong chess piece. I think that is something that could also be solved with come coading.
Regards,
Hammer
-
There are better ways of balancing sides. Perks are hard to come by and that makes them worth something. Lets keep it that way!
-
There are better ways of balancing sides. Perks are hard to come by and that makes them worth something. Lets keep it that way!
I'll bite. What's your suggestion of a better way to balance sides?
-
There are better ways of balancing sides. Perks are hard to come by and that makes them worth something. Lets keep it that way!
I'll bite. What's your suggestion of a better way to balance sides?
That's what he said:
Trying to brainstorm to come up with a better way of side balancing than ENY.
I think that you need to first consider squads and then individual players... Players in general resist changing sides but especially so with squads. I as a member of the 367th cant just switch sides on a whim. My squaddies woulnt appreciate me changing countries on them. Not as much of an issue for single players but many players are resistant to this idea... they consider people who change countries traitors.
So my suggestion is in several parts...
1. Remove the country names. Their would be the side your fighting on (good guys), an Enemy 1 (orange) and Enemy 2 (red) but those colors would only mean something to your country... ie the red guys to you might be orange to the people that are orange to you and you would be red to them.
2. When you log on as a non-squad player, you automatically go to the country with the lowest numbers online. If you've already been on and got discoed or just logged off for a short period of time (say up to 4 hours) you would go to the side you were initially fighting on.
3. For squads, same deal but treat the squad as an entity. ie, if you are logging in, you log into the side that your squaddies are already fighting on.
4. No arena caps for squad members trying to log onto an arena that has squaddies already logged on please.
5. No switching sides unless you are switching to the side with fewest numbers.
What do you guys think? Could something like this improve side balancing and reduce the need for ENY?
and no, i don't agree with that.
-
None of those are better than just giving perks for switching. Perks aren't a reward because perk planes aren't a reward so much as a means to keep gameplay balanced.
-
Bad idea and it WILL be abused through switching every chance someone gets just to get more and more perks.
\
THATS THE POINT!!
The point is to even out the numbers and through this it will motivate people to switch or "abuse" it...They still switch sides regardless to even out the numbers
-
There are better ways of balancing sides. Perks are hard to come by and that makes them worth something. Lets keep it that way!
All the more incentive for a person to switch to the low numbered side. And for some players, perks are not that hard to come by. But for the guys that perks mean something for, or the I wanna fly for the winning (high number) side it may swing their position.
As for the better ways of balancing sides.......that would be what? Perhaps being slotted to the low country when you log in? :devil
Getting more perks fighting for the low number side as it is now is somewhat esoteric. Little Jimmie knows he will get maybe a vague number more perks being on the low side. But tell him it's good for 25 solid, known, perks and he has something he can sink his teeth into.
Look at what happens when the map is won. "Ohooo, 25 perkies! " always comes up in the text buffer.
-
All the more incentive for a person to switch to the low numbered side. And for some players, perks are not that hard to come by. But for the guys that perks mean something for, or the I wanna fly for the winning (high number) side it may swing their position.
As for the better ways of balancing sides.......that would be what? Perhaps being slotted to the low country when you log in? :devil
Getting more perks fighting for the low number side as it is now is somewhat esoteric. Little Jimmie knows he will get maybe a vague number more perks being on the low side. But tell him it's good for 25 solid, known, perks and he has something he can sink his teeth into.
Look at what happens when the map is won. "Ohooo, 25 perkies! " always comes up in the text buffer.
:aok
the only thing I'd add to this is to stop some abuse make the perks awarded some kind of ratio based on the amount of perks a player might have banked.I for 1 wouldnt need 25 perks as an incentive but 2or 3 might make me think before just logging in to my favorite chess piece.
:salute
-
So long as HT can coad some sort of program that forces ROX to instantaneously switch to the same country I switch to - Im all for it! :aok