Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on September 13, 2013, 05:29:09 PM
-
I don't think the perk system is working to balance numbers between Knight/Rook/Bishop, for whatever reason. Here is a good suggestion posted by the ever-argumentative Tank-Ace, from another thread, which actually needed its own thread.
<quote>
<snip> ... 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.
<unquote>
Although I have no idea what the exact adjustments should be, I think the principle definately needs to be considered, given current side imbalances that I've seen recently.
-
I don't think the perk system is working to balance numbers between Knight/Rook/Bishop, for whatever reason. Here is a good suggestion posted by the ever-argumentative Tank-Ace, from another thread, which actually needed its own thread.
<quote>
<snip> ... 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.
<unquote>
Although I have no idea what the exact adjustments should be, I think the principle definately needs to be considered, given current side imbalances that I've seen recently.
I think the current side imbalances have to do with chess piece loyalty and the 12 hour side switch rule.
I think if this idea were to be implemented that it would be beneficial, if nothing else it gives more perks to those who are being out numbered, who should be rewarded for the willingness to stand up and fighting against a more numerous force. I think if the 12 hour rule was shortened to 1-2 hours, that you would see more even sides. Heck, even I would switch sides!
The issue now is, if you switch sides now, you are stuck on that side. Sure, it's "ONLY" for 12 hours, but that's the rest of your gameplay for that day.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
There are already perk modifiers in place. The more your team is out numbered the more perks you get. Also, perks have nothing to do with side imbalances. The rewards differ due to number imbalances true, but they don't make you switch sides to balance out the teams. Nor does emu. Eny tho does work to handycap the side with the number superiority, but again doesn't make anyone switch sides to even up the teams.
-
There are already perk modifiers in place. The more your team is out numbered the more perks you get. Also, perks have nothing to do with side imbalances. The rewards differ due to number imbalances true, but they don't make you switch sides to balance out the teams. Nor does emu. Eny tho does work to handycap the side with the number superiority, but again doesn't make anyone switch sides to even up the teams.
The OP recognizes that the perk system / ENY are in place, but claims they aren't working well enough (getting people to change sides) at current values. In fact, you seem to be admitting as much above.
MH
-
While its true that it is the purpose of neither to incentivise side switching, it is undeniable that they do have a limited effect towards that end.
If it were up to me, I'd make three changes. Even if they don't necessarily incentivise side switching, they would certainly make things more "fair" when fighting against large numbers.
1) The upper ENY limit would be changed to 40 (i.e., you have to work even when hording). ENY 40 would kick in at 20% above current ENY cap numbers, and adjusted from that point.
What this does is make it near impossible to effectively steamroller bases with sheer weight of numbers, and ensures that when one side has overwhelming numbers, it will never have the advantage in quality of aircraft.
2) Drastically increase perk multiplier as numbers increase. The reason for this is two fold; when there is small but still noticeable disparity in numbers, the lower number side is more heavily rewarded for their work. Fighting 2 v1 is harder than fighting 2 separate 1v1 fights, and should be rewarded as such. Second, it will help counter the increasingly high ENY aircraft encountered as numbers increase, so that the low number side is still netting a reasonable amount of perks per kill.
3) increase the price drop on perk units as enemy numbers increase. While true that the low numbers side is already at a qualitative advantage, by the point the perk prices make a significant impact, they are already at an overwhelming quantitative disadvantage. 10 T-34/76's can swarm a Tiger II easily enough. A 262 can only cover so much ground, and only has so much ammunition; eventually, the C-47's and M3's will overwhelm even a group of defenders.
What this does is make the use of high perk units sustainable when at an extreme numbers disadvantage. If you're outnumbered by, say, 3:1 in total, you should be looking at around 50 perks for a Tiger II.
-
The majority of palyers will not switch teams just because the ENY limits are more severe or becasue the dangling perk carrot is bigger and bigger. Most folks are team loyal (even though they may switch every few months or so). When the limits and obstacles become too severe (subjectively), they will, at some point, simply log off in disgust instead of switching sides. And I do not think it's good for the game if that would happen too often.
Perk modifier is only an incentive. ENY limits are only a handicap. None of these mechanisms was ever thougt of being able to balance the numbers.
The Condottieri, willing to go where the enemy and the perks are, have always been a minority. You can not change that.
-
12 hour for side switching limit does not help either. The limit could be much shorter - 1 or 2 hours are enough.
-
I forget; what exactly was the reasoning behind the change?
-
12 hour for side switching limit does not help either. The limit could be much shorter - 1 or 2 hours are enough.
1 or 2 hours wont help either so what is the point.
semp
-
1 or 2 hours wont help either so what is the point.
semp
I hate flying for the side that significantly out number the opposition - just not enough targets. I do not switch because I will get stuck on the other country when my squadies log on and if some of us switched we may find ourselves scattered over the 3 countries.
If I could switch back withing a time scale of a (long) session of playing I would jump more often. I know others furballers types will too, but this will not be a big effect over all.
-
I hate flying for the side that significantly out number the opposition - just not enough targets. I do not switch because I will get stuck on the other country when my squadies log on and if some of us switched we may find ourselves scattered over the 3 countries.
If I could switch back withing a time scale of a (long) session of playing I would jump more often. I know others furballers types will too, but this will not be a big effect over all.
:aok