Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Lusche on November 25, 2010, 03:18:15 AM
-
Intention:
I want to ensure that maps are still rotating in reasonable time.
I want to give the "strategic players" a bigger carrot
I don't want to accomplish that at the expense of any other playing style
I don't want to dumb down anything, or to make captures easier again
I do want to create more hotspots for fights
My basic idea:
1. Maps are up for 2 weeks at most, then they are rotated out. This is to prevent continuous stale situations and to get players totally bored if there's a map up they totally dislike.
2. And another strategic victory level, so that we have two:
Crushing Victory: The old one. capture 40% of both countries. Get 25 perks per category. Will be very difficult to pull of. Players can be "proud"... if they care ;)
Marginal Victory: When the arena resets, determine a winner. Chesspiece with the most bases or points (see my "advanced" idea below) is declared to have won. Get 10 perks per category. Much easier, but smaller carrot.
Advantage: War winners have a reachable goal , but overall nothing much changes for everyone else. No need to downtune base captures or anything else. A Crushing Victory will be the ultimate, but very challenging & rare goal.
On top of that, my advanced idea:
Intention
- a means to determine the winning country at reset
- creating combat hotspots and adding some more strategy
Way to achieve that: All bases are assigned a point value, depending on their type and distance from HQ. Victory determination is no longer based on simple base count, but total point value.
Large airbases close to the capital are much more valuable than some remote (and easily sneakable) airfield. Strat players have the choice: get that easy Vbase that's worth 1 point for victory purposes... or try to get that important, but extremely well defended large airfield worth 8 points towards victory?
Blowing a breach deep into the enemy's heartland is much more rewarding, but also much more difficult. Maybe this could actually create actual offensives, fronts and true lines of attack reminiscent of the old "capture order" but without it's rigidness?
Example for possible values:
Base values: Vbase 1, port 2, small field 3, med field 4, large field 5
Range modifier (sectors from HQ): 0=2.0, 1=1.8, 2=1.6, 3=1.4, 4=1.2, 5=1.0, 6+=0.8
One could even go further and assign point value to the factories and the city, to make them more valuable as a target and thus increasing gameplay variety
If you do not care about the war, there will be almost no difference, except for a possible creation of more prolonged fights over more "important" targets.
-
Will you lose point if you lose a captured base?
-
Good ideas for the strategic players amongst us without making "easymode" which the pure combat types seem to mistakenly think is being requested.
Some good ideas being floated around amongst the recent mudslinging in general, the one posted about bomber types and field restrictions also made alot of sense and the possible look at strat, building downtimes.
All offer somthing for the Strategic player but should in effect actually increase good fights for those who purely want to look for air combat.
-
Will you lose point if you lose a captured base?
Of course. Would make no sense otherwise. You hold X points of rook bases only as long as you own them. Else a side would just grab & never defend, which is absolutely not what I had in mind.
Example: I made a calculation for Ndisles using the point values I gave above. It turned out a side had bases with a net worth of about 92 points.
40% of that would be about 37 points.
-
Of course. Would make no sense otherwise. You hold X points of rook bases only as long as you own them. Else a side would just grab & never defend.
Yea that was what i was thinking.
Do you start with 0 points or the amount of points that your own bases gives you?
Do you lose points if you lose one of your own bases?
-
Yea that was what i was thinking.
Do you start with 0 points or the amount of points that your own bases gives you?
Do you lose points if you lose one of your own bases?
Maybe the word "points" is confusing. Just think of the current system already working that way. It's just that currently every base is worth one point.
My proposed system is pretty much the same as the current one, it's just that different bases have different values now.
To get the "crushing" victory, you still need to hold 90% (points) of your own and 40% (points) of each enemy bases.
But this point system is just a additional layer I hope it could add some strategic gameplay and create more concentrated , longer fights. The core is still what I called the "basic" idea.
-
I like this idea, but maybe increase the "Crushing Victory" Points to 30 so teh war winnarz can say "We gotz to getz 3x as much perkz!1!!"
Or dare I say 50 perks? Incentive enough, right?
Nevermind, I don't like the second idea. :D
-
Great idea Lusche...
-
You have done enough :huh
-
I stopped after "I want to give the "strategic players" a bigger carrot" :huh
-
Nice work, Lusche.
Now, try to get some sleep tonight!
regards, T. E. Shaw
-
Now, try to get some sleep tonight!
I did sleep well last night, thank you ;)
-
i don't know how you can sleep after all thats happened :old:
-
HT should just hire you into the company ;) :aok
Me like this idea!
-
Intention:
I want to ensure that maps are still rotating in reasonable time.
I want to give the "strategic players" a bigger carrot
I don't want to accomplish that at the expense of any other playing style
I don't want to dumb down anything, or to make captures easier again
I do want to create more hotspots for fights
if it aint broke dont fix it
the more complex the plumbing, the easyer it is to clog a pipe
you can please half the people all the time ,or all the people half the time, but you cant please all the people all the time
we have plenty of hotspots.....we have plenty of action.....we have plenty of strat targets.
the biggest problem for HTC is finding a happy balance between furballers and base takers
-
Gee Snailman even my dumb arse understood that. Seems plausible. Might even draw me into the MA on a rare occasion.
-
HT I hope your listening!
Lusche I see a lot of idea's proposed here, but very very few of them are as well thought out as this one.
I think you really may be onto something.
And I agree with Latrobe that HT needs to put you on retainer.
-
Lusche.
Thanks for your hard work, I like it <S>.
R-105
-
I like both ideas. This is a way to keep the game the way it is right now and still keep the strategic minded players interested. I can't see any immediate major disadvantages.
I think it would be cool to have a scoreboard in the clipboard for the second idea. U could see each base, see who owns it and see it's point value.
I can see some future whines about why certain bases are assigned certain values and perhaps HTC may steer clear bc of that but I hope not.
Good ideas for a snail. :aok
-
Descent idea, I into it.
As far as the map rotation though. I would like to see Titanic Tuesday map stay for the month. Then the next month rotated out. Seeing we only get that map on tuesdays. Thats only really 4 days. I am digging the fact that whatever condition the map was in, stays, nice feature.
-
I think I can buy into these ideas. Though I admit I would likely prefer the maps to auto rotate more frequent than 2 weeks. But, it is certainly a good start. :aok
One other idea, that I picked up from other posts/threads, I would like to see a BASE ENY. That is to say that after a certain number of 'high-end' birds have taken off, you have maxed out the resources of that base and must resort to 2nd line planes, and continue likewise until 3rd line, etc.... Once the max has lifted off, you can't get a 1st line plane up again until one returns (or lands somewhere else) or is shot down.
This could be coupled with putting airplane factories around the map for which the destruction or partial destruction reduces the number of low ENY planes are available at each zone base. I honestly believe (though I have been wrong at least once before) that putting airplane factories around the map would give the bombers (escorts wanted) something worth while to hit and the fighters something worth while to defend. If that does not promote GREAT COMBAT, I am not sure what would.
:aok :aok :salute
-
Yep I like it. Also allow score tallies to be easily trackable at any time in the game from clipboard. There are still other problems in the game obviously, but this would definitely mend at least a couple and improve the game.
-
Lusche do you sleep & eat like the rest of us? :headscratch: You are the frikkin' Albert Einstein of AH! :aok The above ideas are great Sir. Hitech please take a read...
:salute
Way
-
I like it man! Wouldn't affect me in any way, since all I do is furball, so no loss there. It would affect the guys who go out for that sort of a thing positively. Sounds like all up and no down side to me.
-
From a furballers perspective, this seems like a great idea. :aok
-
My biggest concern, the one sided offensive. I hate when your country faces huge offensives on either side while countries B & C don't show a single flashing base between them. I don't have a solution but I worry this system will exacerbate the problem. There is no reason to fight two countries when you can focus all of your efforts on one side to reach the more valuable bases in the rear. I understand there is never a country wide consensus of which side that would be but as the scales slowly tip to one side, the fights will slowly slip to that side and eventually we could end up with a dead front. Eventually side B & C have almost everything but the uncapturables and they begin to fight each other at bases deep in A's territory, no reason to start the front up on small insignificant bases if we can fight over high value bases back in A's deep territory. This usually results in many of A players facing very difficult odds and leaving to go to the other arena (like it or not it's usually true).
Okay... prove me wrong. :D
However, if you can figure out a way to make strategic bombing actually count for something with this, then +1000!
-
Creating additional "hotspots" is a good idea. The maps seem to devolve into just a few large battles, while most of the fronts are untouched.
I think a simple way to spread out the fights would be to add additional vehicle spawns to different bases. The current bases only spawn to the next base over (mostly) but if they could spawn two three or four bases, that might be incentive for the base takers to try different routes.
I don't GV or take bases, but those actions promote fights for us all. Some of the maps have very few spawn options to break up the front. A pair of GVs at three more bases could start three more fights.
-
I hate when your country faces huge offensives on either side while countries B & C don't show a single flashing base between them. I don't have a solution but I worry this system will exacerbate the problem. There is no reason to fight two countries when you can focus all of your efforts on one side to reach the more valuable bases in the rear. This usually results in many of A players facing very difficult odds and leaving to go to the other arena (like it or not it's usually true).
Okay... prove me wrong. :D
However, if you can figure out a way to make strategic bombing actually count for something with this, then +1000!
Hmmm.... Very good point. Have to think about that one a while. :headscratch:
-
I hate when your country faces huge offensives on either side while countries B & C don't show a single flashing base between them. I don't have a solution but I worry this system will exacerbate the problem. There is no reason to fight two countries when you can focus all of your efforts on one side to reach the more valuable bases in the rear. This usually results in many of A players facing very difficult odds and leaving to go to the other arena (like it or not it's usually true).
Okay... prove me wrong. Big Grin
However, if you can figure out a way to make strategic bombing actually count for something with this, then +1000!
Hmmm.... Very good point. Have to think about that one a while. headscratch
Simple, make the hot spot bases worth more or less depending on the number of total bases the country has.
-
PBY please to rescue squadies :old:
-
Where shall I send my 14.95 snail sir?
-
Simple, make the hot spot bases worth more or less depending on the number of total bases the country has.
kind of like ENY, when a team is outnumbered badly or has the least amount of fields its bases are worth less to continue capturing them.
-
i like it, perhaps you even get points for how much of the strat is destroyed. Even though it eventually rebuilds, say you are near a victory, send out an attack force to hit the capital and get enough points to win.
-
the maps should be winnable within a couple hours for small maps, to couple days for large maps, if not won within a day or two it's rotated out. Couple that with snailman,s idea.....may well be what the "war" guys need.
-
I want
I want
I don't want
I don't want
I do want
...Lusche your getting to be high maintenance. ;)
-
Would have to counter mass side switching that may occur as a reset approaches.....
I like the idea that some "assets" are more "valuable" than others and count to a victory condition ......... if factories were capturable then they could have huge asset value to the point that a "war" winnning event is threatened whilst the minority country still has good player access to healthy airfields. A little like "capture the flag" but the flag only represents a high asset value instead of a singular goal.
You could go one step further and only count such assets at full value when it is whole and undamaged.....opening up a bomber war that is not based upon bombing airfields ( and limiting players access) but limiting an opposing countries asset value and thus threating either its victory or promoting its defeat. This moves us away from the age old "strat model" we have now.
-
The perk point system is broken, after 200 perks it is pretty useless.
The suggestion might have merit if perks reset to zero upon the day the account is billed. This way, not everyone will have 0 perks at the same time.
-
The perk point system is broken, after 200 perks it is pretty useless.
The suggestion might have merit if perks reset to zero upon the day the account is billed. This way, not everyone will have 0 perks at the same time.
Not exactly fair for those who only can play a couple hours a month, impossible for someone to get a perked ride.
-
The perk point system is broken, after 200 perks it is pretty useless.
There is an arguemtn for a more dynamic perk system............. a price for everything............. everything at a price..........
-
Good thoughts.
I will be glad to see (for us heavy bomber boys) a more meaningful strategic system than busting base strats/hangars, and going after the main strat complex that fully regenerates after you land from a long run on it. Makes it not worth anything more than the hamster-wheel fight itself.
-
why you all have to keep changing things? :bolt:
-
why you all have to keep changing things? :bolt:
Because
- other things have been changed in the first place
- how many would play the game anymore if it still were the same as AW 24 years ago? ;)
-
Where shall I send my 14.95 snail sir?
Be sure and send it by snail mail.
-
Good Idea
But as others noted, It could get ugly if it becomes a race to beat up the weakest country
-
Good Idea
But as others noted, It could get ugly if it becomes a race to beat up the weakest country
I do not intend to go back to that.
For the marginal victory, you simply would count only fields (or points if we ever would see the "advanced idea" implemented) up to the 40 % limit of a country.
I think I will submit the first part of my idea with some tweaks to the wishlist today.
-
I am for anything that once again, gives the lone player a team objective and missions become popular, even small ones. Put yourself in the spot of a new comer or an old veteran returning to AH finding most of his old friends were no where around. How long is someone going to fly around single minded, being ignored by countrymen, depending on a large red or green dar bar to point them in a direction to fly?
I don't necessarily disagree with Lusche that base capture shouldn't be made easier. I do feel strongly that base capture should be less frustrating. If you don't know what I mean by frustrating, don't bother to tell me what a whiner I am. You most likely haven't a clue of all of the different approaches to base capture that I have been involved in over the years. I would even go as far as to say that you really don't care that much for base capture period.
Basically, dangling a carrot (win the war) in front of a group of players (let's say off hours / Euro time zone players) without giving them the tools necessary to ever taste the carrot could be cruel.
:aok I want to see maps rotate more frequently. :rock If increased rotation is player generated.
-
Is there a post somewhere that details how the present strat system works?
In other words:
- What happens when the city complex is bombed?
- What happens when the aaa complex is bombed?
Etc etc...for fuel, troops,radar complexes..
Also...if you take out 50% of the troop complex for instance, does that mean it takes twice as long for a field barrack to regenerate?
And..what is the respawn time on a strat building? I guess it has to do with trains...
And lastly...I have never tried this...but can you blow up the train spawn building?
-
Where shall I send my 14.95 snail sir?
Just send it to Marietta, GA 30008 to Macland Station :D I'll gladly take it.
-
Is there a post somewhere that details how the present strat system works?
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/strategy/stratguide.htm (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/strategy/stratguide.htm)
and no you cant blow up the train or truck depots.
not convinced about this points system, seems a bit complicated. I'd rather see the old zone strat system back, it made the strat targets worth attacking and gave a more local focus for the base-takers.
-
It's easy for a lot of us to act as armchair commentators without adding any value to his idea isn't it?
Luch - it's brilliant. Heck, why not give points for flattening factories. I.e. bring a factory down to 90+% destroyed and get say... 3 points. You could technically win an entire war just by destroying factories - assuming there are enough of them to get enough points and not capture a single field.
Give points for capturing fields, destroying strat objects, especially the HQ. It's just like the old Axis and Allies board game. :)
-
Give points for capturing fields, destroying strat objects, especially the HQ. It's just like the old Axis and Allies board game. :)
I admit that point stuff is coming straight from my old consims days... (no young folks, that's nothing to do with cosplay :neener:)
-
Old zone bases were the best.
Made for some ferocious fighting for the zone bases. Also made the offensive team pay for taking a base connected to the zone without possesing the zone base itself. It made them work to keep it supplied.
Same concept I think should be with the strat factories. Spread them apart like the old time and keep the damage down for a longer period of time so if you have them hit ( ammo factories down to 50%) they stay that way until they are resupplied manualy. Although I love the eye candy in the new strat system, I can see where guys decide to take 1 hour flights to bomb them do so in vain because it basicly goes back to 100% before you even get a chance to land.
-
just seems to me like the guys that are into the ''war'' aspect of AH want it a bit more feasable, 65 foot dar is way to low, just change the dar to around 200 feet, not as easy to fly under as 500', but way easier then 65' ......again the guys who truly love the fight or furball should not care about the war....so lift the dar and give them the ability to at least get there and possably take some land........anyone who knows me knows i do not care about the war, and never have as a matter of fact I used to be of the mindset the ''war'' is stupid and landgrabbers where lame.....but I have come to realize that I may only like the fight of ''ariel combat'' someone else enjoys it differently and hell why not, this world would be quite borring if everyone was the same............so HTC lift the dar to a hight that even a noob can fly under.....200' stillt might be a bit hard for total noobs to stay under, but it is possable............K.I.S.S..
-
this world would be quite borring if everyone was the same
AMEN TO THAT!!! :aok
-
just seems to me like the guys that are into the ''war'' aspect of AH want it a bit more feasable, 65 foot dar is way to low, just change the dar to around 200 feet, not as easy to fly under as 500', but way easier then 65' ......again the guys who truly love the fight or furball should not care about the war....so lift the dar and give them the ability to at least get there and possably take some land........anyone who knows me knows i do not care about the war, and never have as a matter of fact I used to be of the mindset the ''war'' is stupid and landgrabbers where lame.....but I have come to realize that I may only like the fight of ''ariel combat'' someone else enjoys it differently and hell why not, this world would be quite borring if everyone was the same............so HTC lift the dar to a hight that even a noob can fly under.....200' stillt might be a bit hard for total noobs to stay under, but it is possable............K.I.S.S..
100 ft. for NOE would suffice. I like the zone base idea again. Adding to that, instead of a town have a city. More targets for the bombers, and the gver's would finally get to play in there.
-
just seems to me like the guys that are into the ''war'' aspect of AH want it a bit more feasable, 65 foot dar is way to low, just change the dar to around 200 feet, not as easy to fly under as 500', but way easier then 65' ......again the guys who truly love the fight or furball should not care about the war....so lift the dar and give them the ability to at least get there and possably take some land........anyone who knows me knows i do not care about the war, and never have as a matter of fact I used to be of the mindset the ''war'' is stupid and landgrabbers where lame.....but I have come to realize that I may only like the fight of ''ariel combat'' someone else enjoys it differently and hell why not, this world would be quite borring if everyone was the same............so HTC lift the dar to a hight that even a noob can fly under.....200' stillt might be a bit hard for total noobs to stay under, but it is possable............K.I.S.S..
200ft. is a great middle-ground..
-
200ft. is a great middle-ground..
From my NOE day some said 500ft. but we flew at 200ft. always, just make 100ft. :aok
-
200ft. is a great middle-ground..
Agreed
Even then we almost always had at least one DAR popper in NOE missions.
200 ft. is good
-
200 ft. is good
And some COAD such that terrain can shadow holes in the dar
-
VOTE Lusche for VP! :aok
Great idea sir, hopefully it will ge some attention from the upper levels :pray
-
And some COAD such that terrain can shadow holes in the dar
If we had true terrain shadows for radar, we could even let the NOE alt down at 65 feet. An ambitious mission planner could then try to find a route that is not exposing his forces to enemy dar, which could be almost impossible for island bases, but difficult yet possible for bases further inland, in broken terrain.
-
Sorry I didn't read the full OP post.
What if we just had maps shaped like the wednesday babe.... would folks get bored then??? :neener:
-
My basic idea:
1. Maps are up for 2 weeks at most, then they are rotated out. This is to prevent continuous stale situations and to get players totally bored if there's a map up they totally dislike.
2. And another strategic victory level, so that we have two:
Crushing Victory: The old one. capture 40% of both countries. Get 25 perks per category. Will be very difficult to pull of. Players can be "proud"... if they care ;)
Marginal Victory: When the arena resets, determine a winner. Chesspiece with the most bases or points (see my "advanced" idea below) is declared to have won. Get 10 perks per category. Much easier, but smaller carrot.
Advantage: War winners have a reachable goal , but overall nothing much changes for everyone else. No need to downtune base captures or anything else. A Crushing Victory will be the ultimate, but very challenging & rare goal.
If you do not care about the war, there will be almost no difference, except for a possible creation of more prolonged fights over more "important" targets.
Thie only thing that would have to be worked out is what determines what side you're on for the perk points. This could promote people switching sides to the the winning side for the purpose of cashing in on perkies. You would need to address that.
-
Thie only thing that would have to be worked out is what determines what side you're on for the perk points. This could promote people switching sides to the the winning side for the purpose of cashing in on perkies. You would need to address that.
There would be no change necessary in this regard, as we already have the rule that you do not get any war perks if you were part of the winning team for less than 12 hours.
-
There would be no change necessary in this regard, as we already have the rule that you do not get any war perks if you were part of the winning team for less than 12 hours.
Hmmm. Do you think 12 hours in enough? If one side starts to get momentum, then may folks might switch to that side to cash in, rather than fight in a losing effort. This incentive could force many lopsided contests with folks switching early to the side with an edge, and then it becoming a tidal wave.
Do you think a modification to the rules determining side are in order? Perhaps a is a side has a sertain lead based on your point system, folks who switch to it don't qualify for perk points. I think some modification will be necessary. but I like the idea.
-
Hmmm. Do you think 12 hours in enough? If one side starts to get momentum
Yes I do. Because you absolutely can't predict what happens over a time as long as this. No side is able to sustain any momentum for such a long time in AH.
-
I like Luche's idea and I'd like to add an additional thought that may put to rest some of the heartburn about one country getting "Hoarded".
What if the outnumbered Country was able to hold the other two off until the end of the "war"? Couldn't that be considered a fight to a Draw and be worth at least...say 15 perks per category? Fighting to a draw doesn't win the "war", but I think it may be an incentive to keep fighting when outnumbered.
It's just a thought that needs developing if anyone thinks it worthy.
-
Yes I do. Because you absolutely can't predict what happens over a time as long as this. No side is able to sustain any momentum for such a long time in AH.
This is true under the current rules, but you are introducing a new dynamic with perks for winning. The purpose of which is to change folks behavior to wanting to win and get the points. But I would say to your point, that it is worth implementing and watching behavior to see what happens. Switching probelms could be easily corrected a number of ways, so perhaps it's not required to guess what the problems will be up-front, but react to what happens after.
-
I like Lushe's idea. :aok
One vote from me!
-
This is true under the current rules, but you are introducing a new dynamic with perks for winning. The purpose of which is to change folks behavior to wanting to win and get the points.
I do not see any new dynamic in this. We already have perks awarded for a won war. It's just that with the recent changes in town layouts and arena setup, the chance to actually win the war (particularly in the peak arenas) has been greatly reduced. That's one reason why I propose an additional victory level, which is easier to achive and being awarded with much less perks than a classic victory.(Second reason is the reintroduction of regular manual map resets to prevent the game from getting stale over extended periods)