Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: maxtor on January 24, 2003, 08:59:52 AM
-
While replying to another thread I had Maxtor stupid idea #7:
We have perks tied to player population on each team, and it's sort of working - sort of not. Still ending up with a team in the bucket - just they are being given perkie point morphine to dull the pain. How about tying object and strat strength and regeneration times to population as well?
i.e the poor bishops are getting gangbanged like crazy - but wait, their fuel cells aaa everything take more stuff to kill now, and if killed regenerate faster. So the gangers have to work harder to accomplish their evil deeds, but it gives the defenders a chance - even if overwhelmed.
I dunno, I think this has possibilities?
-
Bish getting gangbanged? Talk about your hypothetical(spell?) situations.
-
Cost of airplanes is one thing - but if HT changes the lbs required to flatten a FH, for example based on country population - think of the whines on the BBS. I think we should just accept the fact that no one wants to be a Rook and stop silly measures to make the fight "fair." :D If we want it to be fair, we have 2 countries - or 4 countries.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I think we should just accept the fact that no one wants to be a Rook.
I find myself surrounded by fellow rooks that could not disagree more.
-
Any guess as to which team Mazz flys for? :)
The effect could be subtle or as severe as need be - but I always never thought predictable target strength was very realistic. I don't even know if it is possible anyway - but it would not effect any furballer's vulching, and it puts a leash on lazs "building battlers".
The only people this would adversely effect would be the milkrunners, but I have not thought this through beyond that. I dunno, just an idea.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I find myself surrounded by fellow rooks that could not disagree more.
Oh please... we know HTC is paying you...
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Oh please... we know HTC is paying you...
Shssh... Ya know that price increase for development of AH2? It's actually going to be used to pay the rooks. :D
-
How about adding a dozen or so quad 20mm manned ack positions on the rear fields? It would give the vultchees some fun just before the reset.
-
just get rid of field capture, so that we can focus on the non-ending senseless violence that we all pay our monthly fee for anyway.
-
non-ending senseless violence
sweet talker!
-
Maxtor ...
The problem that I see with this idea and some of the others that are presented, is that if HT implemented all of them, then the war might NEVER END, and we would end up on the same map possibly for a longer period of time than anybody would want to.
There has to be a point at which the more powerfull and agressive country wins and we get a new map and some fresh scenary.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Bish getting gangbanged? Talk about your hypothetical(spell?) situations.
LOL, was just thinking that...
Safety is in numbers..Bish need it evidently.
How about just plain old FREE PERKS FOR COUNTRY WITH FEWEST NUMBER?
-
step on up to stupid idea #8.
making the buildings magically increase and decrease in strength would be just plain silly. this would do nothing to ballance numbers.
it's a war. one of the teams have to lose. it could be bish everytime for all i care.
cheeze is cheeze.
F.
-
we don't need this..
can you imagine? never a reset ?!?!?
-
I think a team is suppose to Win the war.
-
I am of the belief that gangbanging on a colossal scale is not good game play. I am sure some will disagree with that premise, they will hate this idea totally.
I was thinking this would encourage more or less equal teams, and the side with the best teamwork (not just the most warm bodies suciding into buildings) would win the war. The wars would end normally, but not in the 1 or 2 hours time as can happen now when the numbers are ludicrously out of balance. If the numbers were pretty close to even, there would be little or no impact.
What I like about this concept is it is a carrot and no stick as it has nothing to do with perks or scoring, encourages good honest conflict based on skill and teamwork, but doesn’t spoil anyone’s fun in the process. Nobody’s furball gets ruined, people can vulch all they want, heck bombers get even more stuff to blow up.
I am sure hitech thought of this one before, like I said I don’t even know if it is possible anyway.
-
Originally posted by maxtor
What I like about this concept is it is a carrot and no stick as it has nothing to do with perks or scoring, encourages good honest conflict based on skill and teamwork, but doesn’t spoil anyone’s fun in the process. Nobody’s furball gets ruined, people can vulch all they want, heck bombers get even more stuff to blow up.
Yes, and if you add this idea, you might as well just delete all the bomber aircraft in the game. It's bad enough an entire factory or other strat can be rebuilt faster with just a few supply drops, if stuff is harder to kill, and rebuilds faster (based on numbers), then why even bother bombing anything at all?
No, the loosing side needs to have their supplies and infrastructure crippled, not artifically and magically rebuilt just because they are loosing.
A supply and resource model built into the game would stop the gangbanging hordes. A single airfield should not be able to support endless waves of fighters and bombers taking off.
The MA is Quake, and it always will be. I just HOPE that AHII will utilize some real strat elements to make things more of a simulation of war.
-
I am a Rook and happy to be one. The best part is that we are always outnumbered. It keeps you on your toes to be constantly aware of all the enemy around you. Only people that dont like it are the kids that whine over being killed. In my opinion, some of the senior Rooks are indeed really good players and know how to work their aircraft in an outnumbered environment and still able to get kills.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I am a Rook and happy to be one. The best part is that we are always outnumbered. It keeps you on your toes to be constantly aware of all the enemy around you. Only people that dont like it are the kids that whine over being killed. In my opinion, some of the senior Rooks are indeed really good players and know how to work their aircraft in an outnumbered environment and still able to get kills.
yeah ... yeah ... yeah ... such is not the case anymore or lately. I have seen many nights where the rooks do have the numbers and lots of them, so please end the "rooks are always outnumbered" line of thought.
If you were around 6 months ago, it was the Knights that were in the barrel and I have to agree that being outnumbered does speed up the learning curve and does make for a better pilot in the long run, so with that said, and using your logic, the Knights do have ...
"really good players and know how to work their aircraft in an outnumbered environment and still able to get kills."
and so do the Bish !!!
Maxtor .. NOBODY likes the gangbanging.
I have come to the conclusion that the true key to country balance is mainly due to the "accepted" leaders within each country. "Accepted" leaders are those individuals who ask and get responses. When one of these leaders gets the ball rollin', people flock to their missions and the wave is almost impossible to stop. If this happens on a continual basis, I believe that the majority of that countrys population are happy and have no need to move to another country. When that doesn't happen, that when you get gangbanged and the fun stops and migration occurs for those who can't take it anymore. Their choice.
Right now, the Knights only have a few of these "accepted" leaders ... No 1 leader being GrimCO/USgrim, but more are on the rise. I would expect and have heard that the Bish have many of these leaders and the Rooks have gained some good ones as of late with some of the squad moves ... here I am thinking of the 367th ... loved these guys when they flew Knights ... these guys know what they are doing.
So the more "accpeted" leaders that each country has, and the more that they are spread out across the playing time line, will result in happy players. Conversely for a country who only has a few.
Constantly trying to tweak the game parameters, I don't believe, will ever completely solve the problem.
-
To long to quote but
hit the nail.
-
The problem is tied to the three country paradigm.
Each of the three countries look at the roster to determine which country is weakest. The factor that this determination usually rests upon is the number of players. As of late, the Knights have had far fewer players that the other countries. This sets up the conditions necessary for a gangbang.
So the Bish have 130 players
And the Rooks have 135 players
and the Knights have 86 players.
Who should the Bish attack?
Who should the Rooks attack?
Where should the Knights defend?
The calculus that each of these 'countries' employs invariably leads to each reaching the conclusion that they should attack the Knights as they are the weakest path to a potential reset. So they BOTH attack the weakest: the Knights in this example.
Short of auto assigning players to a country as they log on and ruining squad unity, the only solution is to ditch the 3 country model and go with an axis v. allies scheme.
Only a 1 vs 1 contest can correct this pattern: a pattern that makes roughly one-third of the subscriber base miserable while playing the game. This game has become a 2 vs. 1 contest that is an exercise in futility for the country in the dumper. The fact that a clear and predictable pattern of 'no contest' contests has surfaced should be ringing alarm bells at HTC HQ.
From a business point of view, anything that alienates a large number of my subscriber base is something I would want to aggressively address. Ignoring it just weakens subscriber satisfaction with the product and risks a reduction in renewals and lost subscribers. After all, if you subscribe to a game for fun and it only causes you frustration, how long would you bother to pay for it?
And before you respond with the predictable banter that I'm only posting this because I'm a Knight remember this. The same phenomenon occurred with the Rooks. The result...pity at their 'hopeless' position. A pity that resulted in defections to the Rook ranks. If a country can elicit 'pity' over a period of months because they are widely perceived to 'have no chance' then something's obviously going on that should be examined in more depth.
Food for hungry minds...
David
-
Originally posted by StracCop
[Only a 1 vs 1 contest can correct this pattern: a pattern that makes roughly one-third of the subscriber base miserable while playing the game.
As opposed to just about half of the subscriber base being miserable under your plan, right?
1v1 doesn't correct this problem, it merely consolidates it. Rather than two countries outnumbering one, you have one country outnumbering one. One need only look at the "success" of the old Air Warrior Axis v. Allies arena to see that things rarely even out in a 1v1 situation. If anything, the solution would be to create even more countries, not fewer.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The CT is axis vs allies, and it is mostly empty. When it isn't completely empty, it is often 2:1, or worse.
-
Todd,
I played Fighter Ace for two years under an axis vs. allies paradigm and found it to be an engaging contest. Sometimes you lost and sometimes you won. But the outcome was unpredictable and depended on coordination of effort between countries to effect a victory.
The current situation is not unpredicatble and is therefore an exercise in futility. The game, as currently engineered, encourages gangbanging which I regard as an inherent flaw with the 3 country system.
Maybe a two sided contest would not work here.
I'm all for a six country battle: England - USA - Germany - Italy - Japan - Russia all with restricted plane sets. Yea, I would like more countries. ;)
Or...how about this idea.
How about delayed respawns for countries with say a 15% numerical advantage over the weakest adversary. How does that sound? If your country has a 15% numerical advantage over the weakest country and you 'expire' you must wait 5 minutes in the tower before you can respawn.
Thoughts?
-
Originally posted by popeye
The CT is axis vs allies, and it is mostly empty. When it isn't completely empty, it is often 2:1, or worse.
Is it still a fun contest?
-
I have lived the axis v. allies thing too - it sounds great. Trouble is it sounds a whole heck of a lot better than it is.
-
Originally posted by maxtor
I am of the belief that gangbanging on a colossal scale is not good game play.
Well, here's another perspective.
Last nite, about 1AM, I went to A19 and joined a few Rooks there trying to "hold the beach head" as a player put it over Channel 2. At first, we were seeing a few Bish at a time coming in small waves, and had some nice, fairly even fights.
Then the waves started growing. Within 30 or 45 minutes, we were being fairly well overwhelmed. At about 2AM, it was down to just 3 Rooks there, with the field so porked and CAPped/vulched that we weren't able to launch planes, only Ostys. However, we scratched and scrambled, shooting troops from the goons as they dropped, shooting the planes strafing our vehicles. We felt overwhelmed, but since we were giving back as good as we got, we were also having great fun!
By 2:30AM, we'd eked out a little sky and had a fighter hangar come back up. Only 25% fuel and no ordnance, and a few vulchers trying to suppress, but we clawed our way back up. A few more Rooks joined us, and for about an hour or so 6-8 Rooks held back a furious attack by the Bish, who always seemed to keep about an equal number of planes over our field no matter how many we killed!
Finally, close to 4AM, they made a successful mass attack that left both the fighter hangars and vehicle hangars dead, and 10-12 vulchers low over the field. This proved to be Check Mate, and they soon gooned the field successfully.
That was about the most fun 3 hours I have had since beginning to fly AH online. Gangbanged practically the entire time, overwhelmed in the end, I was so sweaty when they captured 19 I decided to log, take a shower, and go to sleep happy. Action that intense, shared with comrades who are working desperately with you against long odds, is IMO a great experience.
Just saying, one man's poison is another's pleasure, sometimes :)
culero
-
I like the reverse...
The more fields and assets a country has the longer they take to rebuild (just simply based on distance from HQ)
Think my suggestion thread is still in my sig
SKurj
-
First Exact words from Hitech, "This game will never be 2 sided or rolling plane set".
Only time I've seen gangbang is when 2 teams racing for win. Now Bishops smart they will pull of if not in lead or don't think they can win. Meanwhile Rook and Knights will pound each other no matter who's in lead. That's why bishops win most resets. last pizza map I have flim of knights taking last base for bishops win, 15 bishops gvs letting knight c47 drop troops. Also seen last map bishops down to 4 fields and knights had 15 field lead,, 40 rooks asking 10 rooks to stop taking bishops bases. We begged and begged them to stop, They didn't so 4 of us went bishops to help them with rooks.
played axies allied crap at WARBIRDS you want to talk about gangbang lol would be 150 to 30 alot. depended on time of war . Early war most flew Axies. Then allied when 51's came out.
Now I do argee 2 sided could maybe work, But not rolling plane set or axies allied. Then Perk system would work real well. Guys changing to get extra perks or cheap rides. But you would have to have 2 new names.
-
I like the reverse...
The more fields and assets a country has the longer they take to rebuild (just simply based on distance from HQ)
Think my suggestion thread is still in my sig
SKurj
I'm all for that idea.
I had a simular suggestion while back, which was based on attrition according to usage, rather than attrition based on destruction.
More pilots a country has(drastic odds like 150:80:80), or, humongous numbers of ppl upping from 1~2 field or so(those prolonged furballs...), it begins to take toll and resources start counting down. More assets, more pilots, more power,and more fields...should also mean more need for player-run supplies, more need for maintenance, and more difficulty in logistics.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
First Exact words from Hitech, "This game will never be 2 sided or rolling plane set".
AH2 will have a two sided war (axis-allied), with a plane set that progresses with time, aka rps.
;)
-
Originally posted by ccvi
AH2 will have a two sided war (axis-allied), with a plane set that progresses with time, aka rps.
;)
good point.
Seems to me judging by what you can see every time we get close to a reset is that:
There is a huge contingent of players who merely wish to be on the winning side.
They will change countries either to gain the extra perks for the win or simply to have more chances of easy fights.
You can see this happen when your country starts to lose.Suddenly your numbers dwindle and the other country,usually those closest to a win, start to increase in number.
So HTC need a way of stopping this 'side switching' mentality without making it impossible to change.
MY SUGGESTIONS:
either:
a) When a player changes country It COSTS them perks.(would prevent frequent switchers but not squads who switch for the benefit of the game.They would be willing to pay i think if they are indeed doing it to 'even th numbers')
b) For a short period a player who has just joined a country cannot earn perk points.(this would make switching in the final stages of the war totally profitless).
c) Give benefits to players who remain with ONE country longer.Perhaps a perk modifier that very slowly increases the longer you remain LOYAL to one country.
basically before you start raving about how its not right to stop players switching consider what switching in the numbers we see (ie 40 or 50 people at a time) causes.Pretty much misery for the players who stick it out and fight to the end of the war for the losing country.Extra perk points for players who switch but have done nothing to really help win the war.Who benefits from the late stage switching?.I think HTC has already made it impossible to gain the war win perk bonus if you switch over within the last (30?) minutes of the war but it doesnt seem to be discouraging anyone.
Lets make it unappealing to switch sides and rewarding to stay loyal.
Players who have been on one country (for years in some cases)would have a slightly better perk earning potential.
Players who constantly switch sides earn LESS.
Some will say the perk points mean nothing to them but after seeing this last minute switching pattern over and over as the war ends. I would say they actually do care, or at least enough do to reduce the trend significantly if it became profitless to switch.
My personal opinion of these players who quickly leave as soon as it gets a bit tough is that they are 'rats leaving the sinking ship'.
Lets treat them as such :D
once you have a more stable population you can then possibly use a system where HTC invites (with an incentive of some kind) a certain number to change countries to even up the numbers.If once people settle in to their respective countries and one side has less consistanly HTC could give that country score modifiers or even perhaps a special weapon?
If we had a V2 or V1 flying bomb it would be cool if only the country that has very few members is allowed to use it. Anyway i digress, I hope HTC considers this.
-
If you switch sides to the 'winning' side, you don't get perks for the win unless you have been on that side for 12 hours...
Used to be at least
SKurj
-
Originally posted by Midnight
if you add this idea, you might as well just delete all the bomber aircraft in the game
That's not a bad idea. I joined this game to fly bombers, but find myself doing it less and less. I like the new bomb site but don't like not being part of the game. The furball dudes won this battle. Not only is there no strategic point to flying a bomber but they're so easy to kill it's just silly to take them up.
Here's an idea for a new feature, when someone gets into a bomber, blow up the whole formation as soon as they start their engines. You'll save the player anywhere from 1/2 to 1 hour flight time to get to the same result.
-
zipity u must be a real bad shot, have landed 7 kills in b17's 4 were 163's lol
-
Originally posted by SKurj
If you switch sides to the 'winning' side, you don't get perks for the win unless you have been on that side for 12 hours...
Used to be at least
SKurj
I think thats still the case.
Besides, I don't think that many of the new players even have an idea of what perk points are or that members of the country winning a reset gets them.
My belief is that many players just jump on the pig pile and join in the frenzy when its obvious that the handle has been pulled and one country is swirling the tank. Maybe locking a player to a specific country for 7 days would stop this nonsense?
David
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Shssh... Ya know that price increase for development of AH2? It's actually going to be used to pay the rooks. :D
YIPPEEEE!