Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on September 10, 2013, 07:05:25 PM
-
What if there was some sort of *large* perk point bonus if you were outnumbered in an air-to-air fight. Suppose you have a horde of attackers and you up from under them. Suppose when you died, there were 20 enemy icons in range (6K) and only 3 friendly icons in range. The definition of "in range" would also require approximately the same altitude, so no more than 1K below and 3K above, or something like that. So the final calculation made when you died would go something like 20 - 3 = 17 X 3 = 51 perks?
This also provides a minor disincentive to hording.
MH
-
Better yet, we could just separate the arenas for perks, and ramp up the perk multiplier when out numbered. Say you've got 50 on, and everyone else has 75, then your perk multiplier would be something like 2. Or hell, maybe even 3. We could play around with the numbers, see where the right balance is.
Would just encourage the perk seekers to fight, or even switch countries. Perk prices also need to drop faster when you're on the lower side. If together the enemy has more than twice your numbers, you need to be looking at 100 perk 262's in the hanger, 50 perk King Tigers and B-29's.
-
Better yet, we could just separate the arenas for perks, and ramp up the perk multiplier when out numbered. Say you've got 50 on, and everyone else has 75, then your perk multiplier would be something like 2. Or hell, maybe even 3. We could play around with the numbers, see where the right balance is.
Would just encourage the perk seekers to fight, or even switch countries. Perk prices also need to drop faster when you're on the lower side. If together the enemy has more than twice your numbers, you need to be looking at 100 perk 262's in the hanger, 50 perk King Tigers and B-29's.
No offense, TA, but yours is a completely separate idea, and may divert discussion off-topic. The OP pertains to a specific air combat space, and is intended to encourage people to fight outnumbered. It has nothing to do with overall numbers imbalance over the entire map (and in any case I would argue that the perk multiplier concept is inherently flawed with respect to controlling side imbalance). You should start a separate topic for this.
MH
-
Fine then, I won't offer a superior alternative, and keep discussion focused on the TOPIC, even if its not just lauding your idea.
No, your idea is actually one of the worst we've seen in a while. It would just encourage a bunch of lemmings to up, die, rinse, repeat, and would actually have the opposite effect.
-
isn't there already an incentive for fighting when outnumbered? :headscratch: some of us do it just for kicks...
-
up an airplane ho anybody get a kill, die,rinse and repeat. easiest perks ever made.
or dive in from 20k into a mission get 1 or 2 kills hit a tree, hey why bother getting more 50 perks is good enough.
semp
-
I think an additional perk bonus based on local population is a great idea.
but in the mean time, htc could make the current perk bonus formula a bit more aggressive, and reward the low # sides better / earlier.
....and reduce the side switch time. :neener:
-
Fine then, I won't offer a superior alternative, and keep discussion focused on the TOPIC, even if its not just lauding your idea.
No, your idea is actually one of the worst we've seen in a while. It would just encourage a bunch of lemmings to up, die, rinse, repeat, and would actually have the opposite effect.
TA, if somebody asked you how to fry an egg, and they answered with a description of how to fix a flat tire, what would you say to that? Of course you would say that the tire stuff is useful to know, but you were asking a cooking question. If the person then had a temper tantrum, wouldn't you consider this response to be unreasonable???
With respect to the "lemmings" comment, that's what the idea is *supposed to* do. It's supposed to encourage the average player to wade into a fight under unfavorable circumstances. It's supposed to be an antidote to complaints that people will only engage when they have alt, numbers or a better plane. People were complaining in another thread that players no longer want to *fight*. Many threads complain about hording. Oh well, I tried. I don't have a personal axe to grind on this one.. ignore the idea, HTC.
MH
-
I do approve of the motivation behind this Wish...
Personally though, I don't really care whatsoever about perks...and, not being one of the uber-skilled Godlike dogfighters of Aces High, I generally don't enjoy getting :ahand when outnumbered.
I imagine there are probably a lot of 'regular Joe' type players in Aces High that feel the same way.
-
+1 :aok
-
What if there was some sort of *large* perk point bonus if you were outnumbered in an air-to-air fight. Suppose you have a horde of attackers and you up from under them. Suppose when you died, there were 20 enemy icons in range (6K) and only 3 friendly icons in range. The definition of "in range" would also require approximately the same altitude, so no more than 1K below and 3K above, or something like that. So the final calculation made when you died would go something like 20 - 3 = 17 X 3 = 51 perks?
This also provides a minor disincentive to hording.
MH
I like the idea, but so many perks would make the perked planes too easy to get. Some would probably up for the perks only, without any intent of fighting the horde. Maybe the currently obtainable perk points for the large group should be lowered and at the same time increased by the same amount for the outnumbered defenders.
-
I do approve of the motivation behind this Wish...
Personally though, I don't really care whatsoever about perks...and, not being one of the uber-skilled Godlike dogfighters of Aces High, I generally don't enjoy getting :ahand when outnumbered.
I imagine there are probably a lot of 'regular Joe' type players in Aces High that feel the same way.
Us gods grant you thy power. ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!
-
I like the idea, but so many perks would make the perked planes too easy to get. Some would probably up for the perks only, without any intent of fighting the horde. Maybe the currently obtainable perk points for the large group should be lowered and at the same time increased by the same amount for the outnumbered defenders.
The formula was just to illustrate the principle. I figured if HTC liked the idea, they would come up with a better adjusted formula. Still, whatever the details, the ultimate goal was to get people to fight outnumbered, and so inherent to this idea they would in part be "up for the perks". At the same time, I assume that they would try to take at least one of the horde with them; in fact this could be a requirement, or at least to inflict some minimum amount of damage on an opponent before dieing.
MH
-
The formula was just to illustrate the principle. I figured if HTC liked the idea, they would come up with a better adjusted formula. Still, whatever the details, the ultimate goal was to get people to fight outnumbered, and so inherent to this idea they would in part be "up for the perks". At the same time, I assume that they would try to take at least one of the horde with them; in fact this could be a requirement, or at least to inflict some minimum amount of damage on an opponent before dieing.
MH
i'm curious...it's been a few weeks since i flew but, where are you seeing people not flying against the hordes? or is it just that you don't want to see people using field guns and gv's for base defense?
-
i'm curious...it's been a few weeks since i flew but, where are you seeing people not flying against the hordes? or is it just that you don't want to see people using field guns and gv's for base defense?
As stated above (perhaps you overlooked it) my post was motivated by statements in other threads such as Fugitive's quoted below. Such statements by vets are quite common in the Forums. Thus, my Wishlist suggestion was not backed by personal experience (unlike most of my other Wishlist suggestions). So I guess the way I see it is this. HTC sees this thread. They decide first if they think people are unduely avoiding hordes. Then they decide if they think that something needs to be done to change this. Then they decide if anything in my OP is worth implementing as part of the solution. As I said above, I don't really have a personal interest in this. Just trying to be helpful. :)
<quote by Fugitive>
The gv issue isn't getting worst as lusche has said. The problom is that there are less planes in the air and the gvs are a conveniant excuse. The numbers are dropping and the fights are drying up. More and more people look to avoid a fight so they can grab one more base for the win the wars.
Until there is a reason to defend most won't and so will avoid any foghting. The game USE to be about fighting, now not so much.
<unquote>
MH
-
fugitive was talking out the side of his head... :lol for at leat the last 3 years the fight has been "grab moar base we winz de warz"...
-
fugitive was talking out the side of his head... :lol for at leat the last 3 years the fight has been "grab moar base we winz de warz"...
And what works best for grabbing moar base is hording undefended enemy bases. It takes less manpower, time, and effort to retake an undefended base after it's been taken by the enemy than it does to defend the base from the initial base take. Fun be damned.
If someone can figure out how to change the game so that's no longer the case and get players to realize that's how it works now, the game will improve significantly.
Wiley.
-
And what works best for grabbing moar base is hording undefended enemy bases.
And one of the bigger reasons for that is that all bases count the same towards victory.
Real battles most often happen when the attacker is trying as much as he can to get to a certain 'strategically' important point... capital, production center and so on. While the defender has every reason to do his utmost to prevent that from happening.
Almost no such thing in AH. If you meet resistance, just strike somewhere else, in the end it's only the number of bases that matter. Heck, you don't even really need to defend as long as you grab random bases faster than your enemy. The biggest travesty in this context are the zone bases which trigger the strats retreat - instead of fighting for them nobody really wants to capture them in the first place :bhead
-
And one of the bigger reasons for that is that all bases count the same towards victory.
Real battles most often happen when the attacker is trying as much as he can to get to a certain 'strategically' important point... capital, production center and so on. While the defender has every reason to do his utmost to prevent that from happening.
Almost no such thing in AH. If you meet resistance, just strike somewhere else, in the end it's only the number of bases that matter. Heck, you don't even really need to defend as long as you grab random bases faster than your enemy. The biggest travesty in this context are the zone bases which trigger the strats retreat - instead of fighting for them nobody really wants to capture them in the first place :bhead
Nailed it.
Like i've said in other posts. Would love to see factories, railyards, (trains that were scattered across the map but meant something to bases that they passed by). Etc etc
Not sure on the outnumbered perk in the sense of a fight being 5 to 1. However, for overall country being outnumbered, I agree higher perk multiplers would be nice. Gives an incentive to 'level the playing field'. Also, this pesky 12 hour rule keeps coming up :D
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
Nailed it.
Like i've said in other posts. Would love to see factories, railyards, (trains that were scattered across the map but meant something to bases that they passed by). Etc etc
Not sure on the outnumbered perk in the sense of a fight being 5 to 1. However, for overall country being outnumbered, I agree higher perk multiplers would be nice. Gives an incentive to 'level the playing field'. Also, this pesky 12 hour rule keeps coming up :D
Tinkles
<<S>>
I think perks are greatly overrated as a motivational tool by many including myself. The vast majority are country loyal. They just won't switch no matter what it seems.
Wiley.
-
Re: Mechanism to encourage fighting outnumbered
There is already one in game... YOU DON'T REALLY DIE :lol
In reality if I saw a sworn of 109 over a single Hurricane I would try to run for the life and not try to shoot as many as I can till they get you.
Also I wouldn't pop a I-16 or Zero off the base with 15 enemy mustangs and thunderbolts flying over it.
-
There is already one in game... YOU DON'T REALLY DIE :lol
In reality if I saw a sworn of 109 over a single Hurricane I would try to run for the life and not try to shoot as many as I can till they get you.
Also I wouldn't pop a I-16 or Zero off the base with 15 enemy mustangs and thunderbolts flying over it.
But does it work adequately? Remember, theory is good, but then you always have to test it. You are overlooking the second step, a common failing. (After all, we humans aren't really very logical, are we...).
MH
-
I like any idea that promotes combat. Additionally how about a zone between each field that multiplies perk gain. Perhaps also a reduced perk gain around enemy or frindly bases alike. Then the fights would possibly be more likely to occur in neutral territory rather than around the bases. I think this would do a lot to encourage better furballs.
-
change the criteria for win the war and make it impossible for gv's to attack the critical points...you will get your air battles.
thing is, there aren't many people who enjoy flying for 30 minutes only to get picked by a 262 or ho'd by a bunch of spixteen noobs...repeatedly. as much as i enjoy fighting regardless of the outcome, getting picked by the hero in the 262 or ho'd by the hispano noob repeatedly just makes it easier to log off and watch the boob tube.
-
TA, if somebody asked you how to fry an egg, and they answered with a description of how to fix a flat tire, what would you say to that? Of course you would say that the tire stuff is useful to know, but you were asking a cooking question. If the person then had a temper tantrum, wouldn't you consider this response to be unreasonable???
TD, Your analogy is about as terrible as your original idea. Really, its about like you asking how best to fry 12 eggs at once, and me telling you to just fill your pan, and make them in more than one batch.
With respect to the "lemmings" comment, that's what the idea is *supposed to* do. It's supposed to encourage the average player to wade into a fight under unfavorable circumstances. It's supposed to be an antidote to complaints that people will only engage when they have alt, numbers or a better plane. People were complaining in another thread that players no longer want to *fight*. Many threads complain about hording. Oh well, I tried. I don't have a personal axe to grind on this one.. ignore the idea, HTC.
MH
So your idea is SUPPOSED to result in people upping with the intent to be shot down? Its more beneficial for them to up without killing a single person, since it yields more perks.
Frankly, your idea is complete crap. Good intent, but you did not think this through at all.
Now I'm sorry you're not open to alternatives, but per the rules, its perfectly valid for me to post an alternative to your proposed idea. Its still germane to the topic (mechanism(s) to encourage fighting). Really nobody else gets so upset when alternatives are posted in their threads; just keep that in mind.
-
TD, Your analogy is about as terrible as your original idea. Really, its about like you asking how best to fry 12 eggs at once, and me telling you to just fill your pan, and make them in more than one batch.
So your idea is SUPPOSED to result in people upping with the intent to be shot down? Its more beneficial for them to up without killing a single person, since it yields more perks.
Frankly, your idea is complete crap. Good intent, but you did not think this through at all.
Now I'm sorry you're not open to alternatives, but per the rules, its perfectly valid for me to post an alternative to your proposed idea. Its still germane to the topic (mechanism(s) to encourage fighting). Really nobody else gets so upset when alternatives are posted in their threads; just keep that in mind.
I can't make people carefully read the OP, nor can I force them to be logical, nor can I prevent them from using insulting language in responses... So post away. Given what you just posted above, however, it is amusing to see that you are accusing me of being "upset"... :aok
MH
-
Don't base it on when you die, but on when you kill. So whenever you get a kill the FE tots up all the red and green icons in view and applies a multiplier to your score for that kill. Lots of red and few green gives a better score for that kill than lots of green and few red. This would give score monkeys a reason to fight hordes rather than joining them and help balance out fights.
-
Don't base it on when you die, but on when you kill. So whenever you get a kill the FE tots up all the red and green icons in view and applies a multiplier to your score for that kill. Lots of red and few green gives a better score for that kill than lots of green and few red. This would give score monkeys a reason to fight hordes rather than joining them and help balance out fights.
No we can't do that Greebo; its not on topic, even if it is intelligent.
-
Don't base it on when you die, but on when you kill. So whenever you get a kill the FE tots up all the red and green icons in view and applies a multiplier to your score for that kill. Lots of red and few green gives a better score for that kill than lots of green and few red. This would give score monkeys a reason to fight hordes rather than joining them and help balance out fights.
you will Get nothing but la7s going for 1 kill auger then repeat. easiest way to perk farm and won't do anything to defend.
semp
-
A lone La-7 diving through a horde is more of a defence than nothing, which is what we are more likely to have at the moment. However I don't think that is what is likely to happen. The type of player who flies for score/rank currently tends to play the percentage game. Attack with an energy or plane advantage, preferably with numbers and run if the situation entails any sort of risk. He has no incentive to up from a threatened base while outnumbered or come in from a nearby field. This would give him a reason to do that. It would also mean that players like me who fly for the fight would be a lot more likely to get one, something other than a 1v4 gangbang that is. You'd probably just get more of the better players coming in with alt from a nearby field in a fast ride to fight the horde.
If a score system is to have any worth it should reward what is difficult and not what is easy. Currently it rewards using a worse plane to shoot down a better one. However killing while outnumbered is often a lot more challenging than killing a better plane, so why not reward it?
-
If a score system is to have any worth it should reward what is difficult and not what is easy. Currently it rewards using a worse plane to shoot down a better one.
I think you have that backwards, the current score system effectively rewards flying late war hotrods :old:
-
Don't base it on when you die, but on when you kill. So whenever you get a kill the FE tots up all the red and green icons in view and applies a multiplier to your score for that kill. Lots of red and few green gives a better score for that kill than lots of green and few red. This would give score monkeys a reason to fight hordes rather than joining them and help balance out fights.
I like it. :aok
There should still be some sort of altitude band (below/above) though. Something to define when the icons are / are not within striking distance. You wouldn't want to count something 5K yards below.
MH
-
You could have the FE tot up the numbers of red and green icons and also their ranges. It then adds the two sets of ranges and divides by the number of icons to get an average range. So you might have three green icons at an average of 2.7K and eight red at an average of 5.8K. In this case the shorter range of the green icons would reduce the beneficial score effect of the fewer numbers. All the info needed is already transmitted to everyone's FEs by the host, so all that is needed is a slightly more complex score algorithm.
Lusche I meant that you get a better score for killing say a 262 in a 202 than vice versa, or maybe that's just perks.
-
You could have the FE tot up the numbers of red and green icons and also their ranges. It then adds the two sets of ranges and divides by the number of icons to get an average range. So you might have three green icons at an average of 2.7K and eight red at an average of 5.8K. In this case the shorter range of the green icons would reduce the beneficial score effect of the fewer numbers. All the info needed is already transmitted to everyone's FEs by the host, so all that is needed is a slightly more complex score algorithm.
<snip>
OK, but I still think that you need to treat the vertical element of distance separately from the horizontal. The program could define some sort of box in space. Reason is, suppose you engaged a single opponent over a capped base, but you and your single opponent were at 17K. All the other hostiles capping the base were at 2-5K. Since they are no threat to you at 17K, they should be excluded from the calculation, don't you think?
MH
-
I don't think it matters really. The enemy has the option of diving to his friends if things go bad, whereas you could get sucked down into the horde if the fight gets tight. This is the sort of thing the smarter guys will do, come in with alt over the horde and work their way down through them. The point is we will get more fighting per player hour than we do now, which has to be a good thing.
-
I don't think it matters really. The enemy has the option of diving to his friends if things go bad, whereas you could get sucked down into the horde if the fight gets tight. This is the sort of thing the smarter guys will do, come in with alt over the horde and work their way down through them. The point is we will get more fighting per player hour than we do now, which has to be a good thing.
You would still achieve the same thing with the box (or more logically a disk shape in space). As the fight moved down (if it did), the low cons would be taken into account. If instead of a disk you defined a sphere in space as you suggest, it might encourage altitude wars, since by being up there you could arrange to get the extra perks with little extra risk. Still, I suppose HTC could try your idea, and see how it worked. It could always be refined later.
MH
-
Lusche I meant that you get a better score for killing say a 262 in a 202 than vice versa, or maybe that's just perks.
Just perks. Score doesn't care if you are the 202 or the 262.
-
I like this idea +1
-
Just perks. Score doesn't care if you are the 202 or the 262.
My bad then. But the point is essentially the same, the game rewards you with perks for taking a worse plane so why not reward you in some way for taking on a more numerous enemy?
Score systems are always going to be manipulated by players to their own ends. However with this score mod in place an alt monkey above a horde gains nothing from being there unless he kills stuff, so it still encourages fights to take place. The thing is once you have one or two guys up high above the horde, the horde's own high guys have something to worry about and will likely back away and climb. That then allows others in to fight the horde at lower alt with less chance of being picked and the fight balances out. The score alteration just gives an incentive for individual players to get the defence ball rolling, as currently many players are reluctant to be first into a fight and this hurts gameplay.
-
My bad then. But the point is essentially the same, the game rewards you with perks for taking a worse plane so why not reward you in some way for taking on a more numerous enemy?
Score systems are always going to be manipulated by players to their own ends. However with this score mod in place an alt monkey above a horde gains nothing from being there unless he kills stuff, so it still encourages fights to take place. The thing is once you have one or two guys up high above the horde, the horde's own high guys have something to worry about and will likely back away and climb. That then allows others in to fight the horde at lower alt with less chance of being picked and the fight balances out. The score alteration just gives an incentive for individual players to get the defence ball rolling, as currently many players are reluctant to be first into a fight and this hurts gameplay.
Exactly my original issue with the idea. Unless it simply ramps up the perk multiplier, it will not encourage FIGHTING.
-
Exactly my original issue with the idea. Unless it simply ramps up the perk multiplier, it will not encourage FIGHTING.
Tank-Ace:
1) I don't think Greebo intends to describe an issue with the idea here, but instead intends to describe a benefit of it. BTW, in case you didn't notice, we are talking about Greebo's improved version of the idea, and not my original one.
2) Any idea which "simply ramps up the perk multiplier" (over the entire arena) is completely different than what is being discussed here. That is because what is being discussed here is *localized in space* (i.e. a sphere, disk, or whatever, surrounding the position of the player getting the kill).
3) Any idea applied over the entire arena (such as yours), as opposed one which is localized in space (this idea), will *not* encourage fighting, but instead will encourage side switching. That's because we decide to engage, or not, based on our plane's local spatial environment, and not based on the numbers associated with the 3 chess pieces.
MH
-
If you want to fight outnumbered, simply read the dar bars correctly and up at the base where you see them creeping.
You will be alone vs 8 to 14 enemy until the vulch cap has been established and then you will have 13 wirbs you can fly over........but still the only friendly plane in the air.
-
If you want to fight outnumbered, simply read the dar bars correctly and up at the base where you see them creeping.
You will be alone vs 8 to 14 enemy until the vulch cap has been established and then you will have 13 wirbs you can fly over........but still the only friendly plane in the air.
We already know that. The point of the (modified) OP is to reward people who fight (and kill) outnumbered, so that more of them will be willing to do so, and perhaps the (localized in space) numbers disparity you refer to above will tend to be reduced.
MH
-
Better yet, we could just separate the arenas for perks, and ramp up the perk multiplier when out numbered.
Who's we?