Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Sabre on January 09, 2003, 11:03:12 AM
-
Release v1.11 gave us the ability to limited lives per unit time, e.g. x-number of lives per hour. In my next set up, which goes up on 17 January, I was toying with the idea of trying this out, and wanted to get CT community input. The idea would be to try it for the first two days of the run, just to introduce a more intense and (dare I say it) realistic attitude in players regarding flying to live. I also plan to ask Skuzzy to reset all stats for the CT, in order to track both attition and bomb tonnage on target, as a way of assessing a "victor" at the end of the week.
Two questions, then:
1) Are you for or against trying this in the CT?
2) How many lives-per-hour (LPH) would you suggest we use?
Thanks.
Sabre
CT Staff
-
1) I'm for trying anything once
2) I'd have no idea -- does that mean if you said 12 you'd only be able to re-plane in 5 minutes after dying? If that's the case, I'd say 30 (a two minute death penalty :)) Or does it mean, if set to 12 and you die 12 times in 30 minutes you can't fly for another 30 minutes? Dunno then...
I think it'd be neat for a change but would expect it to kill the numbers in CT - but I'm still for trying it :)
-
Willing to try it.
6 LPH seems reasonable to me.
-
Good idea. 6 LPH seems like a good round number to me too. Not sure how it would work, but I'd really love the idea for those times MA goes down.
:D
-
bleah.
i pays my money, i fly what, when, how, and how often i please.
leave this stuff for events where it belongs.
why try and force a particular "style" ?
-
To clarify lives-per-hour, if the LPH is set to 6, you can launch 6 times every sixty minutes. If you took off from a vultced field and died six times in the first 10 minutes, you would have to wait another 50 minutes before you could launch again. Also, and unfortunately, those six lives would include drone bombers, which makes driving bombers pretty hairy. So don't lift off with a formation without escort. On the other hand, bomber missions last considerably longer than fighter missions, as a rule, so perhaps that balances it out some. BTW, ground ack lethality would be at 70% of MA, so attacking ground targets would be somewhat less hazardous than in the MA.
Sabre
CT Staff
-
1. PASS. Sounds like something better suited to the upcoming "Mission Arena" or the SEA.
2. 6 LPH sounds about right - that would give a 10 minute period between deaths. Would defanately make one fly a little more cautiously and cut down on the "Furballing."
NOTE: They had a week long event over in WB's once in one of the Special Arena's were you only got one life A DAY. You could fly as much as you wanted till you were killed or shot down and then you were through. (You couldn't switch sides either after a death and fly again.) At the end of the week they decided who won the battle by a/c losses and damage to each side. Why not try something like that Sabre.
-
Provided the # of lives per hour isn't ridiculously high (or low), this sounds like it's definitely worth a try.:)
Cheers
-
Sabre, Set it to ONE LIFE per 24hrs or dont do it at all :) :) :)
Really, 6 lives per hour sounds fine. Give it a shot.
-
I would like to see that... but that is my choice. I am not sure all would want that.
If you try this be ready for lower numbers in the CT depending on the number of deaths/time you allow.
I would suggest 2-4 per hour. If you choose 4 then the buff pilots will get a second chance if there formation is wiped out. Anything less than that will end it for the buff pilots unless they did not take a formation.
Better check on discos sabre. If the CM's don't baby sit that would also be an issue for some.
-
6 sounds good..
I'll be able to get some stuff done around the house during my dead time :)
-
I'd be for trying it out once. 6 lives seems pretry reasonable. Don't think we will see too many bomber runs though, and I think the numbers, which have been on the up side lately will suffer.
Definitely will cut down on the furballing, and require you to get your plane home, rather than augering.
question: I'd like to see friendly collision's also turned on...anyway to turn it on say like 5 mins after takeoff??
-
4 sounds good to me least if all your bombers get shot down you can still up a fighter for 1 sortie.
I would think you wont see many climb up a bombers six and get wasted stuff.As a buffer I always enjoy a good attack on my bombers I have had a couple in the last few days very enjoyable was lucky to return home too.
I all for friendly collisions too.
-
1 I'd like to try it
2 Ill go with 6 ( 3-4 maybe better )
I dont mind being a guinnea pig for stuff that may help the Mission Theater. The friendly collision would be a new twist too.
-
I dont beleave we canturn the coloshion on after a certain time it is on or it's not, which means if spawn onto a runway whear your buddy is you and he die.
-
1) For. Would help test for mission theater and cap events
2) 4 lives per hour. Gives buff formations a 2nd chance.
3) For "midair" friendly collisions turned on. I'm under the illusion midair means you've already taken off.. but I don't know we've never tested it.. If not you have to announce on vox when and what runway you want to launch. Adds to immushin'
-
Suggest you leave the vehicle spots not applicable to this if you can. Figure a whole bunch of us will find ourselves without much to do and a ride across the countryside might be a way out.
-
This will be an interesting experiment. I'm looking forward to it. If it works out it may represent a new standard for the CT. If not, well we tried it and know for sure. What's to lose? Give it a shot!
-
So... if you fly a formation and all three die, it's three lives.
Sounds like six is two low. Maybe ten would do it.
-
I'd be willing to give it a try once. It wouldn't really change my style that much, because I always fly to live, anyway. (Not nearly as successful as I would like to be, however.)
I think the CT is an appropriate venue for the experiment.
But I think 6 LPH would be a bare minimum, particularly in light of the buff issue and the frequent need to up gvs for base defense due to the lack of mannable field guns on so many CT maps. I'd like to see the number more in the 8-9 range -- limiting, but not too constricting.
Splash1
-
Sabre,
I usually think your ideas are great. This, however, I think is a bad one.
The goal, to make other players fly more realistically, as if their lives depended on it.
The consequences;
Experienced players are more likely to not be affected by the implementation of limited lives. Many experienced players would be able fly as they normally do and not be affected by death limiter. Newbies on the other hand, will be out of luck. Their only chance to make it through an hour with out hitting the death limit will be to play it VERY safe, choose a fast plane, get high, and run from all. Most newbies will hit the limit soon, leave the arena, and not come back.
So a few newbies leave, numbers in the CT go down, and even fewer players log in because they see small numbers. Hard to get the old snowball rolling if you essentially kick players out. I think the CT numbers would be very low for this one.
Then there’s lopsided country numbers. 90% of the time (or more) I fly for the country with the lesser numbers. I do this to even things out, and also because I know I will have to spend less time looking for someone to fight. While I certainly can find more action per hour fighting for the underdog, I am more often at a disadvantage because the enemy has greater numbers. With a death limit, I would expect even more players less willing to fight for the underdogs. Balance will be an issue.
The underdog side often has the slower planes. Couple this with lesser numbers, AND a death penalty that will have a greater impact on the underdogs (because most will be flying more timidly… for the uberdogs) and you may see a very uneven side balance. With it being so hard to find a fight, players will likely log off.
Base defense. Why do it with a death limit? At times, I love doing base defense. It can be, however, the most dangerous duty around. There are a lot of CT players that are very good at holding a base against any odds or situation. This would put those players out of action and perhaps make base capture much like delivering the daily milk…
Personally, I die in the CT anywhere from less that once an hour to more than 10 times an hour. Sometimes I play to live, sometimes I play to kill. One thing is for sure, I still having a lot of fun when I die 10+ times an hour. Sometimes that’s the most fun that the CT has to offer {Like when one of the airbases gets captured on Malta Island, 4 miles from the other bases. Everyone’s getting 20+ kills AND deaths per hour.}. If I use up my, say 6 lives in 20 minutes, what am I to do? Well, what I typically do when the CT is “down” is go to the MA (yet to go there this month). Once I’m in the MA, if I latch on to something fun, say a good furball, vulch, or tank fight, I’ll likely stay.
Want to make players fly more realistically? Please think of another way. But don’t kill the CT in the process, even a week.
eskimo
-
I dont beleave we canturn the coloshion on after a certain time it is on or it's not, which means if spawn onto a runway whear your buddy is you and he die.
Your right, you can't. It is on or off.
-
Thanks daddog I suspected that but was not 100% shure.
-
Had to think on this one, sounds real interesting, and think it would be fun, but I have to agree with Esk on this one. Not that he ever gets killed, (not by me anyway) but Im afraid it would take players away from the CT and we really dont want to do that. Right now we have a pretty good turnout on certain nights and i think there might be some more squads coming soon (we can use them) and I thinki something like this will turn some away. To use CTers that fly it almost exclusively it probably wouldnt matter but I would hate to see some players shy away from the CT because of a tryout thing. All we really need are 2 or 3 more squads and the CT will be really fantastic arena. (Not that it isnt now, just sometimes there is a shortage of numbers). So I have to vote no on this one Sabre, think it is a great idea, but at the wrong time.
-
CT deaths per hour (Bails + Captureds + Deaths)
Bradys5 Tour 9 = 3.8 Tour 10 = 2.7
eskimo Tour 9 = 1.4 Tour 10 = 2.5
Fester Tour 9 = 1.6 Tour 10 = 2.2
Keyapaha Tour 9 = 2.8 Tour 10 = 4.7
P6EHawk Tour 9 = 3.3 Tour 10 = 4.5
Sabre Tour 9 = 3.1 Tour 10 = 3.8
Sehob Tour 9 = 3.4 Tour 10 = 3.8
Shane Tour 9 = 4.0 Tour 10 = 4.2
tack Tour 9 = 2.4 Tour 10 = 3.8
Widewing Tour 9 = 0.8 Tour 10 = 1.0
I wonder how 10 newbies would stack up?
eskimo
-
Hey, it's only a cupla days to start the week, as Sabre said in his original post. I doubt that's going to kill the CT.
Splash1
-
ENABLE IT
Maybe then we'll see some really cool, and survivable tactics showing in the CT hehee Ya know, folks flying smart versus spray and pray?
Who knows, ya ight even start a trend AND a new arena to use it in.:cool:
-
Its a neat idea, but like Eskimo I see some flaws. Eskimo ran through most of them, but he left this one out.
If you establish a high death penalty in the game you must come up with something that gives the player a real reason to fight now rather than once they are in a hugely favorable position. Without a real reason to engage, fights will be timid and far between. There is no real reason to defend a base. There is no real loyalty to a country or concern that it will lose.
What this will do is play into the "Speed is king" method of combat, and it will increase the imbalance against the side that hasn't got it.
-
We'll never know unless we try. If it doesn't work then just pull the plug.
-
This is an absolutely MUST try.
Eskimo, you have some interesting points. I'll try to respond tonight when I get home. I REALLY hope we do this.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Its a neat idea, but like Eskimo I see some flaws. Eskimo ran through most of them, but he left this one out.
If you establish a high death penalty in the game you must come up with something that gives the player a real reason to fight now rather than once they are in a hugely favorable position. Without a real reason to engage, fights will be timid and far between. There is no real reason to defend a base. There is no real loyalty to a country or concern that it will lose.
What this will do is play into the "Speed is king" method of combat, and it will increase the imbalance against the side that hasn't got it.
This is an excellent point. What's the payoff?
-
I think it's worth trying for a few days, then assess the results. 6 per hour sounds good.
Would captures and/or ditches count as deaths? If not then this will encourage bailing out.
....Mmmmmm, more chutes to kill, mmmmmmmmm........
Oh sorry, was just fantasizing there for a moment.
-
if the room has nothin but t&b planes the "speed is king" worry would not exist
anything is worth trying once, especially if its j for a couple of days
proper promotion should bring in the curious
-
Regarding Karnak's salient point (i.e. incentive to engage the enemy), my thought is to try this in the BoB set up. I would ask Skuzzy to reset the stats to zero (i.e. a new CT tour would coincide with the first day of this set up), and track both attrition and bomb-tonnage on target to determine who is "winning" the war. The formula I'm toying with would count fighters and Ju-87's as as one kill each, and multiengine bombers and fighters as two kills each. At the end of the week, I would tally up the fighter and bomber losses for both sides, as well as the total points for bombs on target, and see who "won" the Battle of Britain as follows:
a) RAF losses lower than LW, LW drops fewer bombs on target than RAF = RAF win
b) RAF losses higher than LW, LW drops more bombs on target than RAF = draw
c) RAF losses higher than LW, LW drops more bombs on target than RAF = LW win
Or something like that. I have to verify that the stats page includes some indicator of bombs successfully dropped.
Sabre
CT Staff
-
The only thing that I need is to read shanes/lazs response and I am all for it.
besides, I have never hit 6 lives per hour and I suck. Course I think eagler and i had a little vulch exchange last week that would have exceeded that....
last tour I was 2.9 and this one I am running near 4.6
All power to ya. If only to piss of people that make statements like "i pays my money, i fly what, when, how, and how often i please. "
erg
-
Okay, just checked and the stats page doesn't have a function to show object damage by country or a/c model. I believe the arena log function does, but I'm not sure leaving them open for 48 hours would be appreciated by HTC. I'll have to ask Skuzzy about that. If worse comes to worse, we could open them only during peak times, but it would be better if I could just open them for the whole 48 hour test period. I'll investigate this.
Sabre
CT Staff
-
First, I would advise 4 lives per hour.
Now Eskimo's objections:
The veteran players will prosper, the newbies will be out of luck: Unless the newbies fly with established squadrons or players (as they always should). Emphasize in the MOTD that this it is important in this setup to fly as part of a mission, with wingmen. It is up to us veteran players to get the newbies organized.
Balance will be an issue: Balance is almost always an issue, and it should be. I know that I am in a minority here, but I accept the fact that MOST historical situations were unbalanced and that it is equally interesting to fly for the outnumbered as for the outnumberers (for different reasons, obviously).
Slower planes for the underdogs, and all that: That is only an issue if everyone flies to furball. I think Sabre's idea of keeping a weeklong score (or turning on logging in primetime) will take care of this nicely. It will mean that people will actually want to fly realistic mission profiles in order to help their side win the week. If the side with the numbers and the faster planes wants to accomplish anything significant, they will have to commit somewhere at some time. If the underdogs fly smart, husband their resources, and hit at the right time, they can inflict some severe casualties on the uberdogs. The key here is (for both sides) to fly with a strategic goal in mind.
Base defence will be impossible: And about bloody time, too! Pick a setup in which there is no such thing as "base defence". Sabre mentions BoB and that would be perfect. The score at the end of the week would be straight Tonnage on Target - LW losses. The higher the score, the bigger the LW victory. Just like the old SPI (TSR) BoB game (board).
I think this absolutely MUST be tried. Get people to fly with a strategic purpose. Notice that when lives are limited, AND there is a clear goal for each side, sacrifice becomes meaningful. Risk becomes real, as always happens when there are stakes to be had. That creates tension, which for many (most?) of us = a great time.
Now this kind of setup would require a bit more investment than usual on the part of both the CT team and the major CT squads. Lets agree to turn on the logging for Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday prime time. Lets plan missions, lets try to get things done and win the game!
I am very excited at the prospect of a BoB setup which does not degenerate into a Dover Calais furball. This might just be it. I am also looking forward to a setup in which a flight leader decides to abort a mission because of unexpectedly strong oppostion. I have never seen that outside of S3.
But Sabre!! Be sure to give bombing the lion's share of scoring. No bombing, no score.
I'm sure I'll think of more to say later:D
-
If it could be set up so that the death limit only applied to fighter and attack aircraft, I think that the death limit wouldn't have as much of a negative impact on the CT numbers. Especially if it the war war was won by bomber tonage delivered. The fighter war would revolve around escorting friendly bombers, and killing enemy bombers... Now that would be realistic!
In fact, would you even need a death limit if the war was totally based on bomb tonage delivered? Players interested in "winning the war" would want to fly and escort bombers.
The big question would be, would winning the war be enough of an incentive to get players to... play to win the war?
eskimo
-
Maybe if there was a webpage which tallied the score and announced a winning side at the end of the week? Along with some individual scores for top bombers, escort, and interceptor (vs bomber only) and CAP (vs escorts only) pilots?
That's what I meant when I said it would require a bit more investment.
Another good idea would be to get major squads to commit to a side and specific plane for the week. I can't speak for 880, but in a BoB, I am sure I could talk the guys into flying Hurris for the week :) Britain stands alone and all that.
-
In fact, if you're flying proper missions, 4 lives per hour is VERY generous. But given the bomber formation = 3 deaths constraints, it would work.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Okay, just checked and the stats page doesn't have a function to show object damage by country or a/c model. I believe the arena log function does, but I'm not sure leaving them open for 48 hours would be appreciated by HTC. I'll have to ask Skuzzy about that. If worse comes to worse, we could open them only during peak times, but it would be better if I could just open them for the whole 48 hour test period. I'll investigate this.
Sabre
CT Staff
Sabre's right about the stats pages not having any kind of object damage by country or a/c model. I don't know what the "arena log function" is.
An alternative would be to make all object down times 24 or 48 hours. Damage to each side could be counted by hand by someone... such as... Sabre? :)
A realistic effect to this would be that bombers would end up flying deeper strikes as the war went on.
The one thing that would suck about this is that once the front line bases were destroyed, players would have to fly further and further to get to the action, and enemy objects. Unless individual objects such as hangers were hardend to the point that they were unkillable, then players could always get a fighter with 25% gas...
Here how I would suggest scoring the war: ( a twist to Sabre's)
LW aircraft (engines) lost . . . . . . German objects lost
---------------------------- X --------------------------
RAF aircraft (engines) lost . . . . . . British objects lost
This way there could not (likely) be a draw. There would be a fraction to represent aircraft loss, and another to represent objects lost.
If one side had an aircraft K/D of 2.0, but lost 3X as many objects, they would lose to war.
Both elements would be just as critical to winning the war!
eskimo
-
BTW,
It looks as if there are 2 ellements to the death limit thingy:
DeathTimeMin... Range of 0 - 1440
&
DeathTimeMult... Range of 0.001 - 200
What exactly does each one do?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
BTW,
It looks as if there are 2 ellements to the death limit thingy:
DeathTimeMin... Range of 0 - 1440
&
DeathTimeMult... Range of 0.001 - 200
What exactly does each one do?
eskimo
you misread... you have deathtimeMIn = 1,440 max = 24 hrs
and deathmaxcount = 100 max = 100 deaths...
so you could set it to be deathtimemin=60
and deathmaxcount= 6
which would be 6 deaths per hour.
alternatively, you could say 1440 and 100 which would be 100 deaths in 24 hrs which works out to slightly less than 4 deaths per hour if one played a continuous 24 hrs. variations on this could be say 4 deaths per hr for a whopping 10 hrs of play = deathcountmax 40 and deathtimemin= 600
you get the idea? no idea how the "clock" would work.
the deathtimemult, is actually DownTimeMult which is the thing that got some of you all torqued a few days ago.
one thing for sure, i could see no effects of setting it at 6/60 in offline mode.. i could t/o after a 6th death for my 7th flight.
maybe works online only?
-
Was out of town, just now getting to this thread.
I appreciate Eskimo's reservations. I have them myself. There can be little doubt that the Oldman will end up spending most of his time in the MA this week, simply because he'll run through his lives really quickly (yeah, you all know who you are, you dogs).
Having said that, I like to think that the CT should be the first place to try out new ideas. This is an idea that has been talked about for a long time, in a lot of different contexts. Let's give it a go for a couple of days (please....not for the whole week...?) and see what happens. We aren't going to reverse the long-term fortunes of the CT in that short a time span.
- oldman
-
I am not entering so many times in CT as I have been used in the past, but I guess we can give it a try.
I promise to spent all my lifes in CT every time i log, and then wait the time limit expire in Main.
A question, the life limit apply to the gunner role?
Maybe the "exausted" pilot can use the waiting time to have the 2 seat planes at full strenght (where present)
(I remember very funny flights with gunner on board or as gunner in me110s, or il2s)
-
As far as I know, the life limit applies to gunners as well, but to be honest I'm just not sure. I know it applies to bomber drones, and vehicles as well. I don't know about gunners though. Personnaly, I'd love it if there were separate live counters for fighter/attack, bombers, gv's, and gunners (or simply exclude gunners entirely). How about that, HiTech?:)
Sabre
CT Staff