New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Toad
HT and Pyro, I'm sure you've considered this but I'm putting it out there for some in the thread that might not have thought about it.

Generally, resets come from the numbers advantage.

If you sufficiently inhibit the "numbers" side, they won't be able to achieve the reset. It leads to stalemate. The "low numbers" side doesn't have the troops to gang their way to glory. The "numbers" side is artificially restricted from ganging their way to glory.

If you insufficiently inhibits the "numbers" side, you merely drag out the inevitable, extending the agony of the "low numbers" side.

My main thought on this is you are treating a symptom rather than the disease.

But, hey, I'll find a place to play on any map most nights.

I'm not sure a stable arena is a bad thing.  After all, we change maps weekly.  A stable arena leads to interesting fights.

Both Hitech & Pyro have mentioned that perk modification has been insufficient to induce movement among the countries.  Well, if you make the modification more severe, it would have an effect.  If the country numbers are 300:100:80 and tempests cost 5 points while 262s are 10 points (along with similar changes to enemy values,) I do believe it would have an effect.

curly
curly

[SlapShot]

I have to agree with some who have noted that it appears that the decision has been made to implement, and what is left is what the level of consequence should be.

[rabbidrabbit]

Pyro,

I'm willing to bet the reason for perk points not being effective is more due to the low demand for the current perk plane set than a systemic faliure of the policy itself.  If people had more of a reason to want perks they would be willing to do more to get them.  You could do this by adding minor perks to the top 10 planes for example.  You could magnify its effect by increasing the perkmodifier but you need a stronger reason for folks to want the reward in the first place.

You will find it quite tough to balance the sides on the short term thanks to queing theory but I bet this will help just as well as a timer in the long run plus there is no extra code. and associated complications.

Originally posted by Pyro
Nice discussion.  I would like to add a few points for people to weigh.

In reading this thread, I see people asking for a perk adjustment as a counter proposal.  I get the feeling that people don't realize that there is already a perk adjustment in the current system.  Perk prices and perk point awards are modified by relative country numbers.  This is not enough and we don't feel that further increases it will be the answer and will only cause perk point inflation.

Respawn timers are successfully used in many online FPS games.  I have a hard time believing that FPS players have a longer attention span than flight simmers and that they can flourish with a respawn delay and we can't.

To those who object to this, I'd like you to consider whether your objection is to the system or the degree.  If you  say that this would cause you not to play, would that be the case if delay were 10 seconds?  If not, then you object to the degree the system may used and not really to the system itself.

[daddog]

To those who object to this, I'd like you to consider whether your objection is to the system or the degree. If you say that this would cause you not to play, would that be the case if delay were 10 seconds? If not, then you object to the degree the system may used and not really to the system itself.

Your right then. For me it would not be the system, but the degree. Though since I can't determine the degree I would rather see you go in a different direction. A aid to the underdog or some kind of restriction to the + numbers side.

[dtango]

We do need to do something about the numbers imbalance.

However I don't like the suggested time limiter solution mainly because it negatively impacts squadron-based players and team cohesion.

I would buy-in to it if there was a way to switch countries as an entire squadron vs. just individual players - e.g. if one player in a squadron switched all the other squad members switch automatically.  For squad members in the air at the time, they would switch automatically at the next sortie.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[AKFokerFoder+]

From what I have read , it sounds like this time thing is a done deal.

Since the AK's only fly Bish, I doubt if this time wait will effect me very much, other than to relieve some of the  pressure on us.

I really think more non-intrusive things such as keeping the dar up for the badly outnumbered side/s should be tried first.  I don't mind the being badly outnumbered if we can still see.  And dar allows a side to plan counter attacks, co-ordinate defense etc.  Once the dar is down all that goes out the window, and some players log off, some switch sides, and the situation gets worse.

Keeping the dar up for the badly outnumbered side should be considered even if a time constraint is applied.

[dtango]

I agree with Toad's assessment, HT's solution addresses the symptom, not the problem.  Of course it appears that addressing the issue needs to have the right cost/benefit ratio for HTC meaning that there's only so much it is worth for them to try and code something to address the issue.  Not sure where that intersection is but I venture to guess that the simpler the solution the easier it is to implement.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[HUN]

Since the numbers imbalance is something that affects the entire user base of AH the solution should be something that all of the user base contributes to.   There are some interesting ideas here but I really don’t see any of them really bringing a level of balance (numbers) to the arena.  If action is required then it should be drastic and restrictive.

What if the entire user base was arbitrarily assigned to a random country?  If you are a member of a squadron then whatever country your CO was assigned that’s where you would be too.  The system would assign one 30 member squad to Knights, then another 30 member squad to Rooks and etc.  If you wanted to “switch” countries than there would be a way to try to trade with another squad from that country.  If I had a squad of 20 members I would have to find a squad willing to trade me from the other country and had a membership of 19-21 pilots.

Individual pilots would have to find other non-aligned pilots to trade with as well.  The numbers would be artificially maintained by some HTC database/web page interface to accomplish all this.  If numbers were starting to fall out of line the system would compensate by putting all new accounts into the smallest nation and/or halting all other trades until a balance of sorts has been achieved.

Something as harsh as this is the only way I see of controlling numbers.

[Mak333]

Originally posted by flakbait
Good idea, but I don't think it'll pan out. As others have said before, limiting a person's ability to fly will cause some to log out. Whether its a few seconds or a few minutes, if you're on the side with greatest numbers you still want to wing up and pound targets. Having a message say "System: You can not fly for 15 seconds" would really annoy some folks. Limiting (some would say punishing) the individual would merely slow down the Mongolian Horde based on loss rate. The more Rooks shot down, the slower the Horde can wing up again because nobody can fly for the next 30 seconds. Once that 30 seconds is up, though, you've got a large group that suddenly took to the air. Right now it's a flowing system where you've got aircraft constantly taking off, landing, or transiting to or from a target. With this proposal in place you'd wind up with clumps of planes instead of a stream.

Instead of putting a traffic cop on the runway to limit re-up time, limit troops and ord. The supply system we have now allows for unlimited bombs, rockets, fuel, and troops to take fields. The strat system produces these unlimited numbers regardless of country size. It's a factor that hasn't changed since Warbirds. Here's a few ideas along these lines that would slow down the land-grab.

1) Ramp up the number of troops required to take a field based on distance from your troop training facility.
2) Change the number of troops needed to invade a field based on field size. It's logical, the bigger the field the more people required to take it and run it.
3) The farther you get from your supply lines, the less replacements and ord you receive.
4) Implement dynamic supply ships as more of an incentive to take ports. If Bishops take P22, supply ships would steam from the closest Bish port to P22. This would eliminate, or reduce, the supply line problem above. It would also give subs and aircraft a more target-rich environment. Want to slow down the enemy advance into your territory? Blow some supply ships.

Without enough bombs and rockets, you can't pound fields flat enough to take them. And with troops in short supply, there's no way to actually take the place. Which results in the largest country slowing down as they over-extend their supply lines. Once they take a port or two, that lack of supplies isn't such a concern. Though to avoid saturating the only two ports each country has, a supply port might warrant creation. Aside from taking the hefty burden off the limited number of ports, it would also provide a hugely tempting target of stockpiled supplies.

I really like flakbait's idea.  The proposal of limiting resources would be a great way to even things up a bit.  More people would start taking ord from their base for the better.  About 2% of all the rooks take ord up ON THEIR OWN on an average flight.  Most of em just up spits, la7's n1ks, 51s and 109's with no ord.  By limiting ord it would force planes to take more up because they wouldnt necessarily be able to...say.. 15 minutes later.  All missions will have ord reserved at that airbase however they can not go over the maximum allowed limit within that mission.

I also like the idea of the number of troops to take a certain sized base.

[Mak333]

Originally posted by Canaris
Only problem with limiting time is people wont want to pay 15 dollars a month to not play.  People are paying the 15 to play, they're not paying to not being able to play.

If people are kicked to even numbers people will get fed up and not play anymore.

They ARE paying to play.  And that is apart of the gameplay HT has proposed.  Just because you can't fly doesnt mean you aren't playing the game.

And I do not recall anyone being kicked because their country had more numbers than the other..?

[Grimm]

Originally posted by DipStick
Build their player base? A few squads and lone wolfs from Bish and Knits changed to Rooks to help even the numbers. That's great! That's the only reason Rook numbers are up.

Now the Rook numbers are too high and some Rook squads and lone wolfs need to change to Bish and Knit to even things up again. Is this rocket science?

Well,  I can agree and disagree.   If some squads did switch along with a bunch of lone wolves,  it would help balance.  Naw, its not rocket science.  

Your comment about squad switch is the only reason, is not entirerly accurate.   I can see why you would say that.  Thats all you saw.   You were not part of the hundereds of emails and things that helped to build our player base.  How could you credit something you didnt experience.

Anyway, its not really important,  but it was a combination of things.    

Lets agree with this,  the players can help improve this situation. Its probably is redudant at this point since forced balance appears to be on the way.

[Grimm]

Using the current proposal,  consider this situation.

A Large push to reset the arena is going on.   Rooks have 320 pilots up,  the Knights are getting ganged and are down to about 3-4 fields.   Many Knights log because the reset seems to be on the way,  only about 50 hang tuff.  

In that scenario,  if you got shot down as a Rook your going to have to wait 25mins or more to fly.  

It appears the best tatic to prevent a reset for the smallest country would be to log and delay the others as long as possible.

It does appear that this will hamper resets.


Perhaps there should be a Cap on the maxium flight delay??  maybe not?  

I suppose if you have to wait a half hour to fly,  it would really push some folks to switch.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Grizzly
Why have a system that encourages players to take over the arena by ruining game play for others?...

Perhaps you can still have a reset system, but based upon something else, like the extend of destruction of a country's resources....

The land grab initiative is not only destructive of game play, it promotes and sustains unbalanced countries as players migrate to the winning side...

Grizzly does have some pretty valid points here.  

Do we ever think of doing away with the current reset/land grab system?

[bustr]

I'm not sure if this compliment has been submitted. The Rooks have impressed me as to their ability to fly as a country in the manner squads would like to fly as small groups.

I fly for Knight land. I decided to test this by attempting to work on the hoard starting at 30k. As a group those lower than me would move lower or extend away. If I did cut out someone from the group, very soon there after a concerted effort showed up to chase/kill me and I had to run.

I repeated these incursions at 20k, 15k, and 8k. In all cases if I could not press my kill in the first pass, the Rook would not engage but lead me to several higher freinds or down to a lower group. I watched from 10k, Knight feild defenders up and at low alt run out to meet groups of Rooks who would lead them around, string them out, and start picking them off. But not engage in the traditional Furball. When Rooks did engage, it was with wingman tactics.

I watched this all over the map where Rooks flew always in groups.

It seems they are aware of how much has been acomplished in their country cohesiveness, and I cannot balme them that they do not want to give up all of that hard work.

My hat is off to the Rooks for doing a good job.

Maybe the real solution is to work on our own countries cohesiveness.

[Grits]

The Perk system would work as it was originally intended if you could use the perk rides without the neon tag. The only perk rides who's performance is worth the tag is the 262 and Tiger. Everything else, like the Spit 14, Ta152 and the F4U-4 would get used a lot more if your enemy didnt know what version they were. You dont know when you first see a 109 if its an E-4 or a G-10, or a Spit if its a Mk I or a  Mk 9, accordingly, you should not know that a person is flying an F4U-4 or a Spit 14 until you get really close.

If that was done, perks (and the modifier) would have a meaningful effect and you wouldn't have to have a respawn timer.