Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Lusche on July 31, 2011, 07:35:22 AM
-
Intention:
Balance the different perk risk levels taken by attackers and defenders, making it more "fair" and thus increasing the willingness to attack.
Situation:
Right now the risks someone takes when rolling a perked tank are very much different depending on if he is a defender or an attacker. Unlike with perked airplanes, a perked tank driver can hardly hope to get his perks back when spawning to an enemy base for a fight. While theoretically possible, it's rare for a Tiger or Tiger II driver to get the needed separation from enemy forces for a successful landing, especially as sooner or later aircraft will arive. The defender has all advantages: He can sit on pavement all the time, being able to land his perk ride even when turret, engine or tracks are gone. He may even ditch at a discount anywhere near his base when he's about to die (falling bombs), which the attacker can not. The defender also has potentially quicker access to supplies.
All this together means a defender doesn't risks his perks as much as a attacker who basically has to write his perks off the moment he spawns in. That's why highly perked tanks (Sherman, Panther, Tigers) are very likely to be concrete sitters, waiting for inferior unperked tanks to show up. The attacker however is more willing to grab bombs for enemy King Tigers as rolling an KT himself, has his own perk loss is almost guaranteed. Again, in comparison to that a perked plane has much higher hopes to make it back home when bringing the fight to the enemy.
Proposed change:
A reduction in perk costs when spawning into enemy territory. Depending on amount of reduction, some players may even start to up Panthers or Fireflys in an attempt to break a spawn being camped by Tigers.
-
big +1
50% off the perk cost, and 100% perk bonus for vehicles spawning into enemy territory :aok
the current system favours defence, it should reward attack.
edit:
also GV supply repair delay and tower out delay would help too.
-
I like it. +1
-
Personally as an infrequent tanker (low amounts of perks), even that wouldn't enough for me to think twice about upping a perked tank. I just don't have the perks to chance wasting them on a "1 shot kill" at a spawn.
I'd like to see a "safe zone" around a spawn where you can spawn in and move out toward the fight. If the spawn point was in the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile that would give you over a 6 mile circumference where the battle "could" be fought. You can't shoot from inside the "safe zone" nor can you be hit in it. It would give you a chance to spawn in and maneuver around to try and get into a position to fight back instead of dieing before you could get out of 1st gear.
-
+1 Snail....
Since GV ranges have reduced a bit thanks to the sight modeling, maybe a course of action is to change the ditch/land range to 1.5-2k ish.
-
I like the general Idea. Why not decrease the perk costs of vehicles instead. That way it is easier to save up for them.
-
If this were to happen, I'd want a moat around the airfields.
Otherwise, two players can bomb the ords and VH and then a horde of TigerIIs swarm the runway.
-
If this were to happen, I'd want a moat around the airfields.
Otherwise, two players can bomb the ords and VH and then a horde of TigerIIs swarm the runway.
Well, I had a reduction of perks for offensive purposes in mind, not elimination. ;)
Even with a 33% reduction (just to throw in a number), the T2 would still be far too heavily perked (66) to see hordes of it. The huge majority of players do not have that much perks at all.
I'd like to see a "safe zone" around a spawn where you can spawn in and move out toward the fight.
Yes, I have seen several "safe zone" requests recently, but I'm not sure if that may lead to "safe zone sitters" vs "on base sitters" situation. :headscratch:
But I certainly would welcome more of the ultimate "safe zone" setups:
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2908/exampleyu.jpg)
-
-1
Risk versus reward.
Are you willing to take the risk? If not, then stay home.
It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a fight.
wrongway
-
-1
Risk versus reward.
Are you willing to take the risk? If not, then stay home.
It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a fight.
wrongway
It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to generate more fights. Risks & "rewards" should be balanced. Defender sitting on concrete in a perk tank has almost no risk. Attacker spawning in a perked tank has basically already lost his perks, no matter what.
That's why you have a Tiger mostly sitting on the base facing only Panzer IVs and M4's rolling in
-
Well, I had a reduction of perks for offensive purposes in mind, not elimination. ;)
Even with a 33% reduction (just to throw in a number), the T2 would still be far too heavily perked (66) to see hordes of it. The huge majority of players do not have that much perks at all.
Yes, I have seen several "safe zone" requests recently, but I'm not sure if that may lead to "safe zone sitters" vs "on base sitters" situation. :headscratch:
But I certainly would welcome more of the ultimate "safe zone" setups:
That's why I said your safe in the zone, but you can't shoot from the zone either. What would be the point of parking in the safe zone? Might as well sit in the tower.
The safe zone would only be so you would have a chance to move into a position to attach/defend an area. If the attack is coming from the northern edge of the safe zone, you might spawn in, and run out to the east then turn north to engage, or go father east then turn north to flank the position.
I think it would promote more organized battles with players working together to cover the flanks and such.
-
Again... I ask if the "coad" can be made to accommodate such a request. So far, there are no variations of scoring, ENY, OBJ scoring, points, etc, in terms of localized anomalies. Localized being the key word. It is eather server wide or it doesnt happen.
-
Again... I ask if the "coad" can be made to accommodate such a request. So far, there are no variations of scoring, ENY, OBJ scoring, points, etc, in terms of localized anomalies. Localized being the key word. It is eather server wide or it doesnt happen.
It would be much easier than any kind of localized eny or score. When spawning, there would be a simple check "enemy territory?", just like the current perk modifier is already being checked.. That's all.
-
I like the general Idea. Why not decrease the perk costs of vehicles instead. That way it is easier to save up for them.
Its pretty easy to build perks in a tank.
-
I like the general Idea. Why not decrease the perk costs of vehicles instead. That way it is easier to save up for them.
because we'd have Tiger I's and panthers that are as prevelent as the M4's are now. You should remember what it was like when we had 4 perk fireflys. 4 Perk Tige...... errr, fireflys, is unhealthy for the game, as are any perk tanks that are TOO cheap.
-
Its pretty easy to build perks in a tank.
One of these days I'm going to have to hook up with you and you can show me how to do that. I'm great at burning them off :D
-
i think someone mentioned a low loss of perks if killed by an air craft verses a GV I kinda like that Idea. Not sure if there are unforseen ramifications but hey might be worth thinking about.
I like the ops perk modification wish.
-
One of these days I'm going to have to hook up with you and you can show me how to do that. I'm great at burning them off :D
Theres a simple formula:
Find spawn
get behind spawn
camp spawn
rinse and repeat
-
Intention:
Balance the different perk risk levels taken by attackers and defenders, making it more "fair" and thus increasing the willingness to attack.
Situation:
Right now the risks someone takes when rolling a perked tank are very much different depending on if he is a defender or an attacker. Unlike with perked airplanes, a perked tank driver can hardly hope to get his perks back when spawning to an enemy base for a fight. While theoretically possible, it's rare for a Tiger or Tiger II driver to get the needed separation from enemy forces for a successful landing, especially as sooner or later aircraft will arive. The defender has all advantages: He can sit on pavement all the time, being able to land his perk ride even when turret, engine or tracks are gone. He may even ditch at a discount anywhere near his base when he's about to die (falling bombs), which the attacker can not. The defender also has potentially quicker access to supplies.
All this together means a defender doesn't risks his perks as much as a attacker who basically has to write his perks off the moment he spawns in. That's why highly perked tanks (Sherman, Panther, Tigers) are very likely to be concrete sitters, waiting for inferior unperked tanks to show up. The attacker however is more willing to grab bombs for enemy King Tigers as rolling an KT himself, has his own perk loss is almost guaranteed. Again, in comparison to that a perked plane has much higher hopes to make it back home when bringing the fight to the enemy.
Proposed change:
A reduction in perk costs when spawning into enemy territory. Depending on amount of reduction, some players may even start to up Panthers or Fireflys in an attempt to break a spawn being camped by Tigers.
+1 and include the changes to the spawn routine covered in the other thread to end camping.
Not sure what kind of discount would be the correct one though. Also how do you propose to display what the Attack vs Defend perks prior to spawning?
-
Intention:
Balance the different perk risk levels taken by attackers and defenders, making it more "fair" and thus increasing the willingness to attack.
Proposed change:
A reduction in perk costs when spawning into enemy territory. Depending on amount of reduction, some players may even start to up Panthers or Fireflys in an attempt to break a spawn being camped by Tigers.
What if the only runways at a vbase were inside the hangers, so none of the roads would give a landed successfully message? The maproom could be placed such that a tanker could not sit inside a hanger and cover it.
This would still be gamed if the only objective of the defender is to rack up low risk kills, but at least it would encourage him to move off the pavement. It might be an alternative to changing the perk system.
-
What if the only runways at a vbase were inside the hangers, so none of the roads would give a landed successfully message? The maproom could be placed such that a tanker could not sit inside a hanger and cover it.
This would still be gamed if the only objective of the defender is to rack up low risk kills, but at least it would encourage him to move off the pavement. It might be an alternative to changing the perk system.
I think Lusche's original post was intended as a way to increase the use of high cost perked rides in an offensive role. As it is now, when they spawn into enemy territory, their perks are pretty much gone. Odds of getting enough kills to make up the loss of perks and/or landing are really slim(how many m4's and panzers would have to be killed to earn enough perks to pay for a tiger 2?).
Someone suggested a "safe zone" ...I think buffs' guns are disabled when they are on the ground (?)...would the tanks guns be disabled if they were in range of a spawn? Would stop spawn camping...except for the bombers.
+1 for the perk cost mod
-
What if the only runways at a vbase were inside the hangers, so none of the roads would give a landed successfully message? The maproom could be placed such that a tanker could not sit inside a hanger and cover it.
This would still be gamed if the only objective of the defender is to rack up low risk kills, but at least it would encourage him to move off the pavement. It might be an alternative to changing the perk system.
how about giving a discount if you up a GV at a spawn. It wouldn't be a perfect fix (some would up from a spawn and drive to a friendly base to defend, and at a couple multispawn bases), but it would really promote offensive use of tanks.
-
+1 lusche perhaps the spawn risk should be the same as takeing a ditch in friendlt territory. as for the safe zone -1 i forsee a20s circleing said zone :noid
-
+1 lusche perhaps the spawn risk should be the same as takeing a ditch in friendlt territory. as for the safe zone -1 i forsee a20s circleing said zone :noid
as apposed to circling spawn points now?
-
:aok
-
I like this idea... To reward attack and promote the use of perked GVs in offensive actions is a good step toward better combats.
Add multi-spawn, dinamic spawns and no-perk points for bomb****s and there could be something really interesting brewing... besides the tanks, of course...
Cheers,
-
This idea gets a huge +1 from me! Been on rook lately and have been pretty outnumbered so perk bonus has been high and perk costs have been low so I've rolled a few KT's to enemy bases. But I can't rely on lopsided numbers and a 75% off perk sale forever and as soon as KT goes back to full price it'll be a concrete sitter for me.
-
Proposed change:
A reduction in perk costs when spawning into enemy territory. Depending on amount of reduction, some players may even start to up Panthers or Fireflys in an attempt to break a spawn being camped by Tigers.
Good idea.
Try it for a ToD or two and see how it works out?
+1
:salute
-
Lusche does prove there is a problem with risk/reward here.
I think it would be better to come up with a more practical way to retreat and secure a successful land even when behind enemy lines and balance it that way as opposed to changing the perk prices.
-
come up with one that you can't sit on, and shoot at the enemy from then fine. I suggested we place tall hills around it with an opening facing away from the enemy, so that you have to be either inside of it or infront of it, but then people started whining about "oh god forbid we shoot at you while you land".
That would be a side-effect, yes. But if you honestly rather have a King Tiger shooting at you from the defacto concrete, then more power to you.
-
I don't GV much so, me playing devils advocate here wont mean a whole lot. The way I see it, attackers where at the logistical disadvantage. They had to get supplies/ammo/fuel/personell to the advancing tanks to support them and keep them running. Defenders had to hold their ground and often times had a better logistic situation than the attackers because they would have had time to build defences and establish supply routes, repair depots, etc (unless they where surrounded or otherwise cut off). This leads me to believe that defenders would be better able to keep their GVs operational and suffer less in material loss during an even battle (which the MAs are since rides don't take time to manufacture and one country can't destroy another countries ability to produce fighting men and machines) and I see perks (or loss of) as a way to simulate in a small way the very real logistics problems experienced by both sides during WWII. So defender GVs get a break in the form of ease of ending sorties with little or no loss of perks to help simulate all the logistical support they would have had on hand that the attackers normally didn't have as readily available.
To sum up my above ramblings, defenders have "home field advantage" in the form of ease of ending sorties without perk loss. If anybody can figure a better way to balance the GV part of the game but still be able to give some "home field advantage" to the defenders then lay it out properly and in detail so we can try to get it implemented in game. :cheers:
-
Why has this never been an issue with the Tiger I or Panther? Because they are not as impossible to kill?
wrongway
-
problem is no one will order us to attack. There is no reason people should attack if they have no reasonable chance of heavy tank support for the attack. In real life, you couldn't just 'tower out'. If you got damaged, you were stuck there till someone recovered you or you were able to fix your tank.
And yes Awwrgwy. Panthers have been killed by M8's even. Its possible to engage Tiger I's and panthers out to 1800yds or so (theoreticly) with a free or cheaply perked tank. Both have been killed at those ranges before. Its hard to do, it doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.
-
problem is no one will order us to attack. There is no reason people should attack if they have no reasonable chance of heavy tank support for the attack. In real life, you couldn't just 'tower out'. If you got damaged, you were stuck there till someone recovered you or you were able to fix your tank.
That is part of the point I was making. In real life of course you can't just tower out, but you also can't just teleport a brand new tank and crew into the battle, so we play the game with the tools we are given. In a real life battle the defenders have a better chance of recovering/repairing damaged tanks than the attackers do. If an attacker is damaged or disabled beyond the crew's ability to quickly repair then that GV is normally abandoned to be completely destroyed or captured. In the MAs players attacking an enemy base are in enemy territory until that base is captured (and the defenders are defending; not retreating, untill the base is captured), of course the defenders would have an advantage if that where a real life situation. This advantage is represented in game by the defenders ablility to end sorties easier without perk loss. I say again; home field advantage.
-
actually, the attackers have a better chance at recovering vehicles because they're moving forward, not back. In real life, attacks very rarely were stopped by the first enemy units encountered. Attacks were slowed and then eventually stopped as the attackers ran out of resources. The ease of defense is blown WAY out of proportion in Aces High.
And the frontline starts halfway between the spawn and the base IMO. Area between two spawns or two bases is just no man's land. Get behind the base and your behind enemy lines, get even with the base, and you're in the middle of their defensive line.
Look at the Battle of Kursk. It had the most dense and powerful (for its technology period) defenses of any possition in modern history. It was the only place where the anti-tank gun to attacking tanks ratio was 3:1. The mine fields had 1.5 mines for every square meter of ground. Even with all this, the Germans still went forward untill they ran out of steam. They weren't stopped by the inital defense, they overwhelmed those.
-
I thought the main problem here was defenders using friendly concrete to land their perked GVs? In no mans land everybody suffers from loss of perks when trying to find a good place to land their perked rides. If you are close enough to an enemy base to cause them to have to up from the V-hangar and they can land hits on you without having to leave friendly concrete then I would consider that behind enemy lines, because your nearest spawn point (or source of supplies) has been left far behind in what you call no mans land. Transpose this situation into real life and the defenders are on a friendly base with supplies readily available and you have advanced far past your own supply depot (advanced spawn point) and the attackers would have the logistical problems that come with that. So unless you have far supperior tech and equipment, or numbers on your side; (keep in mind that in game each side has the same amount of access to fighting men and machines) the defenders would have an easier time at this hypothetical real life battle than the attackers. In game this done by letting the defenders have an easier time of landing their perked rides. People might not like the way this is done but it is what we have to work with until HTC comes up with or hears a better solution.
-
I thought the main problem here was defenders using friendly concrete to land their perked GVs? In no mans land everybody suffers from loss of perks when trying to find a good place to land their perked rides.
Technically, there is no no mans land, it's either friendly or hostile territory. And the attacker loses full perks in enemy presence, while defender only loses half when out in the field.
-
If HTC could place a patch of cement near the spawn point... would that work??? yeah, I know it would be a beacon for camper fire, but it is a simple fix (if the code can support it).
-
If HTC could place a patch of cement near the spawn point... would that work???
No, because it's still enemy territory.
-
Technically, there is no no mans land, it's either friendly or hostile territory. And the attacker loses full perks in enemy presence, while defender only loses half when out in the field.
And to me this seems fair because the attacker is not in friendly territory when he ends sortie. In real life if a tank is disabled behind enemy lines then it is lost untill such time that it is no longer behind enemy lines if ever, if a tank is disabled behind friendly lines then it would still be recoverable. However HTC denotes friendly from enemy soil is their choice that we have to work with, so in game you are a defender as long as you are on friendly soil, cross into enemy soil and the penalty for losing your GV becomes appropriately worse.
Just an FYI, I personaly don't like the way the perk loss system for GVs is right now for several situations (not liking something and thinking that same something is fair are two different things to me). One of them is the situation with the GV defenders and the other is the loss of perks when bombed by airplanes. But I enjoy debating the flipside of a coin to help me better understand all sides of a problem.
-
If an attack breaks the enemy lines, and forms a sailent, they are behind enemy lines, but only in the sense that they have gotten behind the main enemy defense line. Bit they're not IN enemy territory, because the attack dislodged the enemy from that particular possition.
And I think the spawn placment is more for gameplay than because HTC wanted to represent being behind enemy lines. They're close enough that you don't have to drive 40 minutes to get to a fight, but they're far enough that the defenders have a fair chance to scrable and up tanks or aircraft.
Lusche is right though, TECHNICALLY, the ground is either friendly or hostile. But its just that, a technicallity.
-
No, because it's still enemy territory.
But if that patch of cement is tied with the spawn point.. why not? Again, an answer for the Coading Gawds to answer. :)