Originally posted by Virage
You bring up many issues...
Oh yes I do... :D what I am talking about is a balance here. It needs to be addressed from all sides possible.
Originally posted by Virage
Direct Strat effects.
I believe HTC's strat philosophy is NOT to limit plane types. A few pilots denying others the ability to play the way they want is not good business.
Right, I do understand that this is a concern. What is suggested here is a temporary disabling of the planes, not permanent. So, as a gameplay, it is a feasible addition IMHO.
My suggestions can live without it, though.
Originally posted by Virage
Current Strat
I think the current strat system has value. The increased down time multiplies the effectiveness of any damage your team inflicts.
Is the system abstract? Yes. Is it difficult to assess the direct result of destroying a strat obj? Yes. Listing a 'downtime multiplier' next to the '% damaged' list on the Strat Page might help communicate the effects.
Although the current strat model is functioning, everything in AH is evolving.
Yes, I agree that it has value and I understand how it works. This is more the reason why there should be more incentive to attack these targets. As you mentioned in your other post, it is rarely used, at least not often enough. HTC really worked hard to get this going, I would like to see it targetted more.
Originally posted by Virage
Incentive.
Publishing and lowering the OBJ values for strat targets would increase the perk points awarded.
Yes, it would. To provide the incentive to attack the strat targets more, I would like to see a marked difference between attacking a base and attacking a strat target.
Also, for the defense team, there should be a clear incentive to prevent such an attack. The defense team should feel the pain if it is destroyed.
As you mentioned, it is difficult to assess the direct result of an attack to a strat target. Incentive-wise, this is a problem for both the offense and the defense. Both sides will ask, "is it worth attacking?" or "is it worth preventing?"
Originally posted by Virage
Landgrabbing.
Meaning = mob gangbang base attacks? Will always be in the game. I think this has more to do with the players then the system. There is plenty of warning for the defending team to mount a large defense to stop any gang bang. The problem is most players are not willing to stop what they are doing/leave the flock to meet the new threat.
Numbers always win.
Will always be in the game. Again this is a player issue. The percentage of players that jump on the bandwagon is large enough to inflate the winning team.
Here I beg to differ. This is the case because the objective in the MA is the reset, which stems from land grabbing. Providing an alternative objective will change this.
From my point of view, this is what happened to AH. I started AH from v1.06. At about that time resets happened but certainly not as often as now. So, it was more up to the players to decide if they want to furball or participate in landgrabs. Resets won't happen that often anyway, so your country is not in danger, mainly due to the smaller population base of the players.
Right now, resets can happen within 12hours of each other, mainly because of the larger population base that we have now. Landgrabbing has become more of the norm of what to do in the MA.
So, it is like a viscious cycle. Yes, it is partly the players attitude. But it's a game. The objective fuels more gangbangs because the players want to feel the sense of achievement in the game.
Originally posted by Virage
Perk points for picking the lowest population team and increased team switch times would be fine by me, but might piss off a large part of HTC's player base.
Kindly allow me to clarify this point a little bit more.
1. The current objective of the reset remains unchanged. There is just a time limit for it.
2. My point C. is designed to put any team, regardless of the size, on equal footing. For example, if Team B clocks 200 hours of playing time of all players total and earns 200 perk points in total, this is 1 perk point per player-hour. If Team K clocks 100 hours and earns 100 perk points, this is also 1 perk point per player-hour. Of course the team with a bigger population has to do more as a team and they are expected to do so anyway. But that will not change the share of achievement requested from each individivual, regardless of the size of the team. As a team, you have to do well and strive for more so the average will get better. Cooperation in the team is a must.
Changing sides will not matter, because the player-hour is logged and stays with the country that player was flying in. So does the perk point.
So this will not encourage people to switch sides in either direction nor does it penalize a team with a larger population.
[Post edit]
Please also keep in mind point E. The perk point per player-hour is ranked by category of Fighter, Attacker, Bomber, and Vehicle/Boat categories, and the overall rank will be used just like the Pilot ranking that we see on the web-site for HTC. The reason for this thought is because I fear that one team may do ridiculously better in one category than the rest, when I want to encourage a well-rounded play. The fear I have is that there is only three countries... ties are likely and so I need a contingent... perhaps the average of the perk-point per player-hour by may do...
As for the scoreboard a dot command (let's say .score countries) with a text display will be fine...
Fighter Attack Bomber Vehicle/Boat Overall Rank
Bishops xxx.xx (1) aaa.aa (3) xxx.xx (2) xxx.xx (2) (2)
Knights yyy.yy (2) bbb.bb (2) xxx.xx (1) xxx.xx (3) (1)
Rooks zzz.zz (3) ccc.cc (1) xxx.xx (3) xxx.xx (1) (3)
To repeat myself, as I stated in 1. this is considered if a reset was not achieved by the time limit.