Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Devil 505 on September 15, 2011, 04:12:37 PM
-
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/sidebalance.png)
Last night in the MA.
Can we please get a more reasonable time between switches?
-
See Rule #4
-
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/sidebalance.png)
Last night in the MA.
Can we please get a more reasonable time between switches?
Perhaps about 20 players changed chess piece to "winz the war" and get perkies.<sarcasm> I know they did, but yes 3-4 hours just seems more reasonable. I also notice your'e taking off with or was with the conga line. :devil Lastly, I did roll my eyes sometimes at players who used the 1 hr rule to manipulate,or dictate their style of game play<cough> sometimes.
-
that must have been right before the map was won last night, alot of people change last minute thinking there going to get perks. Ive seen this the last two times knights have won the map, The people you were fighting against are now flying with you.
-
That was at least an hour before the map was won.
-
That was at least an hour before the map was won.
oh i wouldn't doubt that a bit, once the numbers get to around 17 percent of the enemy's countries taken the country switch begins, it's cheesy that's for sure. They think their getting perks but if I'm not mistaken you have to have a certain amount of time playing for that country to collect the perks, i could be wrong.
-
When I logged in yesterday, early afternoon (as a knit) bish and rooks were outnbr'd... I almost switched to bish, but decided not to as I knew bish nbrs would climb and with the 12 hr change... as the afternoon/evening progressed, bish #'s did indeed rise, before falling again as the war wrapped up.
12 hrs too long... 2-3 hrs tolerable, 1 hr preferred.
-
I'd like it to be 4-6, myself. But then again, I never change countries.
-
I've been playing AH too much, I found myself clicking on close to get the page out my way :o
-
I've been playing AH too much, I found myself clicking on close to get the page out my way :o
:rofl :rofl
-
So, staying "on-topic", I'll say that I've been playing on the Knights side since I started last month and yesterday noticed several names that I had not seen before, and several who I seem to remember even having shot me down on an occasion or two. However, since I haven't been playing too long compared to others, everyone can take my observation for whatever it's worth. That is to say, worthless, I'm sure...
Now, a little "off-topic", I notice that your Knights Icons are a very pleasant blue color, while mine are an eye-destroying fluorescent lime-greenish color. Can anyone explain how do I go about making that change? (No attempt to hijack intended)
Thank you, in advance...
Disregard...I jumped into the game and figured it out. Sorry, this new computing machine thingy isn't so hard to figure out afterall...
-
bandit look under options > preferences > gui...click on the down arrow and choose what you want to change colors.
-
bandit look under options > preferences > gui...click on the down arrow and choose what you want to change colors.
Got it! Thanks anyway.
-
So, staying "on-topic", I'll say that I've been playing on the Knights side since I started last month and yesterday noticed several names that I had not seen before, and several who I seem to remember even having shot me down on an occasion or two. However, since I haven't been playing too long compared to others, everyone can take my observation for whatever it's worth. That is to say, worthless, I'm sure...
Now, a little "off-topic", I notice that your Knights Icons are a very pleasant blue color, while mine are an eye-destroying fluorescent lime-greenish color. Can anyone explain how do I go about making that change? (No attempt to hijack intended)
Thank you, in advance...
Disregard...I jumped into the game and figured it out. Sorry, this new computing machine thingy isn't so hard to figure out afterall...
What you see is correct to a point. There are players that value the almighty perk point over anything else in this game. That exagurates the problem to make the sides really unbalanced.
-
If you only play once a day (at the same particular time each day), the delay shouldn't be an issue. Otherwise, it only discourages you from switching at all.
-
Goodness. If I only had a game concession for hankies and tissues.
-
oh i wouldn't doubt that a bit, once the numbers get to around 17 percent of the enemy's countries taken the country switch begins, it's cheesy that's for sure. They think their getting perks but if I'm not mistaken you have to have a certain amount of time playing for that country to collect the perks, i could be wrong.
It's 12 hours on the winning side to get the win-the-war perks. Coincidentally that's the side-switch time delay...and from what I've heard [and read from HTC] it's the way it used to be when there was a single LW arena and how it is supposed to be.
-
Since the side switch change, I've probably only logged 5 or 6 hrs. I liked going to where the fight were. For me at least its put a damper on AH. Leaving AH totally has even crossed my mind. Maybe it will change again, maybe it won't.
Sure some enjoy the rule, I'd rather see it lowered by 75%. Oh well.
-
You talking about the "win-teh-war" perk-hungry dudes.
If someone needs to switch sides to get those 25 perks, thats the lowest of the low. Anyway, this "problem" could be solved in an other way, for example who switches in less that one hour before the map is won, wont get perks. That ways at least wouldnt ruin everyone elses fun.
Theres an other reason why the admin decided this step. Spyes? zomg, sillyness. In my former squad, it was usual that we werent on the same side, sometimes we got each other. Yes, there was an active communication between us, but noone ever tryed to mention if "giant NOE mission inb 123" or "bishs have a cv right north from 71". Still, we were often called "slimebag spies". <insert random paranoid face here>
Then what? I cant think about anything else but the "be loyal to your damn chess piece" mentality. lol. If it would only ruin my fun, i would never say a word, but im not alone damnit. Anyway, ty for the awsomest awsome rule change.
<S>
-
Last I heard was you had to be on the winning team for 24 hours to be awarded the perks for winning the war. So those that switch in the last hour or two before the map is won don't get anything.
-
On my days off I have been playing mainly morning and evening. I recently have been switching to play for the low numbered country but as you can guess thats not always the same at those differing times of day, so it gets annoying when I log on later to find my country that I changed to that morning now is the highest numbered country.
-
Is the imbalance due to people switching sides for perks they're never going to receive, or is it a function of people on the losing sides logging out?
Also, if everyone's switching to the "winning" side due to some erroneous belief that they'll gain perks for it, then one hour side switching won't really change a thing.
-
Main problem I see is this:
Just before the war is won, huge amounts of people switch sides to the winning team. The other day, it happened to be Bish. The war is won, perks divided, map reset. Upon login, the two teams who usually lost the last war immediately team up on the previous winner. I don't mind this at all, but what ends up happening is all the sticks who switched sides for the quick perks do not want to be teamed up on. They switched sides to be a part of a horde, and part of the 'winning' team. They now no longer have the ability to switch back to a side where they can win, so they log. This ends up with 120 Knights, 130 Rooks, and 67 Bishop after a reset.
Again, I'm not complaining, cheep 262s, you can get more perks in a single 38G or B17 run than you would waiting for the map to reset a second time, and there's no lack of targets. But then you get the 200 crowd complaining that the low #'s team is being poor losers, when in reality it's a few bad apples who are being Poor Winners (from the previous map).
I think a maximum number of switches per Day or per Map might be a better way of going as opposed to time based.
-
If you only play once a day (at the same particular time each day), the delay shouldn't be an issue. Otherwise, it only discourages you from switching at all.
While ENY is there to ENcourage side switching... :headscratch:
-
While ENY is there to ENcourage side switching... :headscratch:
It is?
-
It is?
Have you been away too long or are you being intentionally obtuse?
ENY restrictions are, in theory, designed to get players to go to a country with higher numbers or make them suffer plane restrictions for staying on the side with higher numbers.
-
ENY restrictions are, in theory, designed to get players to go to a country with higher numbers or make them suffer plane restrictions for staying on the side with higher numbers.
They're meant to encourage plane diversity and provide players on the lower-numbered sides with the means to counter being outnumbered by using lower cost perked planes. At least in theory.
ENY has been around forever and was introduced back when the side switch timer was still twelve hours. If you do a search for it, you'll find discussions about it from 2002, and none of it talks about balancing sides. Instead it focuses on promoting plane diversity and empowering sides with lower numbers. A side effect of that might be to encourage players to hop countries, but that doesn't appear to have been the primary motivation for its creation, nor would it have made sense for it to be given the time restrictions on side switching when it was introduced.
-
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/sidebalance.png)
Last night in the MA.
Can we please get a more reasonable time between switches?
so people switched to join the horde then they should suffer a big eny penalty. allowing to go back in less than 12 wont give them eny penalty. perhaps next time they will think better before they switch to join the horde.
semp
-
They're meant to encourage plane diversity and provide players on the lower-numbered sides with the means to counter being outnumbered by using lower cost perked planes. At least in theory.
ENY has been around forever and was introduced back when the side switch timer was still twelve hours. If you do a search for it, you'll find discussions about it from 2002, and none of it talks about balancing sides. Instead it focuses on promoting plane diversity and empowering sides with lower numbers. A side effect of that might be to encourage players to hop countries, but that doesn't appear to have been the primary motivation for its creation, nor would it have made sense for it to be given the time restrictions on side switching when it was introduced.
There wasn't much diversity in the plane set in 2002.
If that was the case, it is still not working.
5 Tempests, etc are still no match against a horde of 20 others regardless of what plane they are flying.
-
There wasn't much diversity in the plane set in 2002.
There was even less than you think. Back before ENY, F4U-1Cs ruled the skies. They were literally everywhere and constituted a ridiculous proportion of the overall arena kills. ENY (and perks) alleviated that problem pretty significantly, so it did do a pretty good job at diversifying things.
-
There was even less than you think. Back before ENY, F4U-1Cs ruled the skies. They were literally everywhere and constituted a ridiculous proportion of the overall arena kills. ENY (and perks) alleviated that problem pretty significantly, so it did do a pretty good job at diversifying things.
If memory serves it wasn't ENY that alleviated the F4U-1C scourge, but the 8 perk price tag that was attached to them. I thought ENY came later.
That's my recollection at least which admittedly is a little fuzzy after all the years in AH.
-
There was even less than you think. Back before ENY, F4U-1Cs ruled the skies. They were literally everywhere and constituted a ridiculous proportion of the overall arena kills. ENY (and perks) alleviated that problem pretty significantly, so it did do a pretty good job at diversifying things.
Did it really makes things more diverse or did it just level the playing field more?
There is a difference...
-
If memory serves it wasn't ENY that alleviated the F4U-1C scourge, but the 8 perk price tag that was attached to them. I thought ENY came later.
My recollection is a bit fuzzy too. Wasn't ENY the method for determining the perk value of planes relative to one another (i.e. how many perks you got for killing a Spit I in a P-51 versus killing a P-51 in a Spit I)? And thus the introduction of perk points and ENY coincided.
We're getting into some ancient history now. :)
-
Did it really makes things more diverse or did it just level the playing field more?
It made it more diverse. Those players got out of F4U-1Cs and flew other planes. They didn't all hop into the same plane, since there was no longer any overpowering plane in the set. Hence, diversity.
-
My recollection is a bit fuzzy too. Wasn't ENY the method for determining the perk value of planes relative to one another (i.e. how many perks you got for killing a Spit I in a P-51 versus killing a P-51 in a Spit I)? And thus the introduction of perk points and ENY coincided.
We're getting into some ancient history now. :)
I always forget that ENY plays into how perk points themselves are awarded. :)
-
Is the imbalance due to people switching sides for perks they're never going to receive, or is it a function of people on the losing sides logging out?
Sometimes it's the result of people just wanting to get the war over with and the map changed.
Also, if everyone's switching to the "winning" side due to some erroneous belief that they'll gain perks for it, then one hour side switching won't really change a thing.
It would allow them to switch back once the war is over so the imbalance doesn't linger all night.
Perhaps a better option would be this: if a war is won, everyone's time remaining before they can change sides is reset to zero. A new map is a clean slate as far as what side anyone wants to fight for.
-
Is the imbalance due to people switching sides for perks they're never going to receive, or is it a function of people on the losing sides logging out?
Also, if everyone's switching to the "winning" side due to some erroneous belief that they'll gain perks for it, then one hour side switching won't really change a thing.
I know that for me, the status of the "war" is the last thing on my list to worry about. The only important thing about the "war" fopr me is if it is active and precipitating some good action.
My opinion of hordes is as follows: I would rather fight 20 red things to avoid getting killed than to fight 20 green things to get a kill.
The ability to switch to the low numbers side, yet switch back to fly with my squaddies if they happened to log on within an hour or less was nice.