Author Topic: New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.  (Read 20566 times)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2004, 03:01:14 PM »
Saw the spreadsheet.

 I think the basic 'standards' on calculating the 'percentage' seems simple and easy to understand.


 So the Bish are -8.43
 Knits are -2.71
 Rooks are 0.14

 Bish and Knits are at minus values, so no restrictions to them.

 Rooks are at "0.14".

 What really needs consideration IMO, would be what to do with that value "0.14"...

 What do you do with it?

 Do you use it to create a time limitation? Or to make a perk slap? Or maybe transform that value into some other type of restriction?

 ...

 How about making the "Minutes per Percent Over" into a basis value for somehow making a "perks for percent over"?

 Something like...

 Rooks are 50% of total MA, and 13% over

 {{(13% over)x2} - 5 ENY} / 2 = 10.5

 10.5 perks applied to a previously unperked 5 ENY plane..

 ...
 


 Sorry if I keep drifting too much into perk issues, but I think dabbling in perks would be indirect and much less infuriating, but still subtley more effective means to persuade people to jump countries, than directly limiting flight time.

Offline SunKing

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2004, 03:02:17 PM »
Just increase perk costs on late war rides as a country gains more players versus the other 2. Keep it even and the costs stay zero.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12314
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2004, 03:06:06 PM »
Nopoop.

Giving rewards to the lower number side, while some what helping out the getting screwed feeling does not seem to provide a large enough force to move people across countrys.

Had considered new players to the lower side, but this does nothing to help out short term balance, and allso provides a force for people to want to go to the higher number side. I.E. If your on the high side, you have lots of dweebs to kill.

Limiting plane selection on the high side could possibly work. But im not sure there would be any less complaints than for the time limit. Can hear all thow , how come "Insert fav plane here" is limited and not the "Insert fav dweeb complaint plane here" is not.


HiTech

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2004, 03:08:20 PM »
Just allow fuel to be porked down to 25% for the country with the most numbers.  This will then give the defending countries the opportunity on whether they want to limit the larger countries flying time or not.  If you want to make the effort of preventing them fly then you should be rewarded; it lets you make the decision, not some auto-setup feature.  If you can't be bothered to hit their fuel then put up and shut up.  It would also allow the larger country to have to defend and perhaps take their attention away from attacking the lower numbered countries.

Of course if numbers balance out then fuel goes up to 75% or 100%.

I'm not too keen on the original idea of there being a time delay especially during certain times when there are only about 20 - 30 players each side.  Literally just a few extra players on one side would then activate this time delay relaunch.

Limiting certain plane types is going to do diddly-squat.  They'll just get into another plane, simple as that.  If you're facing 10, 20 Fw190A5s or Spit Vs then you're still basically going to be outnumbered which ever way you look at it.  It's irrelevent what plane type they're flying imo because they're are plenty of capable aircraft in AH and they'll just move onto the next 'best' aircraft.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 03:18:58 PM by Replicant »
NEXX

Offline Vipermann

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2004, 03:09:34 PM »
I agree with the perk modifier or even a plane selection modifier(set by year) instead of a time limit.

That way anyone can fly whenever they want, just a matter of having enough perks or flying something slightly inferior.
Get Busy Living Or Get Busy Dieing

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2004, 03:12:43 PM »
I agree, although I'm a Bish I don't think limiting or delaying flight time for paying customers is a good idea.
I like the idea of limiting the planeset and/or making previously unperked planes, perkies to the highest side.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Muddie

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2004, 03:14:30 PM »
I fly with my squad.  I wouldn't switch countries, even with the imposed wait, if my squad didn't switch.  

    I'm glad you guys are addressing the issue, but I'm thinking this will just, ahem, irritate the folks that, like me, fly with their squads.  

     Now if most of your customer base is made up of lone wolf types, then I guess the squad thing isn't an issue.

     As an alternative (and this may be where your going here), is there some way you can alleviate or ameliorate the advantages of the numbers (maybe at least harden DAR or limit the impact of the HQ raid on DAR.  Numbers is bad enuff (course you don't have to fly far to find a fight), but being on the down side of a numbers deficit and continually blind (for days), well that's just plain miserable.   Can't understand why I keep coming back into that sort of environment.   :D  
 
    P.S.  after reading the rest of the thread, I really like the taking away the popular rides (not perking them, but eliminating them, although I sure do enjoy hunting down the LaLas.).

   Also I've seen some other threads where a Time to Live timer is set at some arbitrary point, i.e. one side gets down to, say, four bases, they have to retake a base in the next, say 2 hrs or it's a reset.   That idea might have some merit.  Keeps one side from being  kept blind and vulched for 2 days on end.

Quote
Originally posted by hitech
To begin with I think side imbalencing has not been that much of a problem over the years. Only on a few occasions has things gotten out of wack.

But there have been times when the numbers have gotten far out of wack.  We typicly resist any change that forces people to different sides.We typicly are more inclined to giving incentives to changing sides to the lower number country, but so far it has not been a strong enough force to always keep the sides  close to balance.


Our current thought is that a country with substantialy more numbers, say in the realm of 20% more will have a time limit imposed between flights. This time would vary with the side balance.

This would have a few effects.

1. No one realy wants to wait to fly another fight, wrather than wait some will either change sides, or log off. Either has the effect of balancing the numbers.

2. The wait time will also have the effect of fewer people acctualy in the air at one time. Hence also balancing the fighting numbers.


Your thoughts?


HiTech
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 03:27:56 PM by Muddie »

Offline JB73

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2004, 03:17:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hitech
Here is a spread sheet of what I am thinking adjust the
Player counts, and the Base
Percentage and mins per percentage values to play with effects.




HiTech

Spread Sheet
HT could you clarify what i am reading here?

cell E5 i read as a percentage of a minute, meaning it would actually be 23.33~~~ seconds wait time in that scenario?

i see that as a little harsh in the given scenario.

what if you added a multiplier of some sort, where if the whole arena is less than say 350 there would be no effect. then the closer odds like in both my numbers and yours would not be effected, only when the "horde's" come and the arena has 400-600 people in it. with numbers like:

knights 140
bishop  175
rooks    195

in that example the numbers are more unbalanced, and the "need" to even out is greater.

also change E3,4,5 to xxxxxxx*50 instead of 100

i dont know how you could "void" the formula if the arena only had 200 online or whatever but thats just my thought


what you think?


thank very much for the kind words HiTech, im only trying sir
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 03:24:45 PM by JB73 »
I don't know what to put here yet.

Offline 68DevilM

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2004, 03:25:59 PM »
why the hell not. lets do it:D :aok

Offline JB35

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 548
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2004, 03:29:35 PM »
Maby if we all looked deeper into what HT is trying to do is get everyone set up for ToD , so that when ToD does come out in 2 weeks we will all be set in that frame of flying time and as such ,
so no one does get flustered and log , but instead accepts the fact that what is coming around the corner for everyone .

 Besides IMO the Country with the Lower numbers as it is these days,  needs  to get organised and go on the offencive and start setting up mission after mission , and not just to go straight for Rook HQ as it seems is being done regularly , all we do is resupply and where good to go .
Just get together and work together.
 
Now as for the Perk the Ride thing, as in the 109G10 , go ahead it will mean that im flying a perk ride , and the more kills I land with this puppy the better , doesnt matter to me in the least , perk everything , ill still fly and ill still land kills with my Squad .

 Why not make the MA like CT with only 1 front  allies and axis, then lets see who complains.

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2004, 03:31:02 PM »
JB73 ...

I read it as ...

For every 1% over 0% you get 1 minute time out.

Rooks are %0.142857143 over, which would result in a 1 minute time out for the Rooks.
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #56 on: August 10, 2004, 03:32:06 PM »
Oscillations and standing waves.  Think of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge.  

Example:
Rooks have a 2 min. delay.  Myself and everyone else that just died move to bish.  Now knits have the delay and enmasse they come bish.  Now bish have the delay and 70 of us are chasing our tails trying to be on a team with no delay.

Offline Mak333

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #57 on: August 10, 2004, 03:32:42 PM »
All these idea's seem great, however I believe the time limit between fights would surely do the job.  Its more realistic that way.
Mak

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #58 on: August 10, 2004, 03:37:50 PM »
I think that your solution would help because of one very important characteristic of the steam roled country, they seem to allways kill more then they are killed. So you will be introducing a quality of attrition into the game. Also big missions run by the more powerful country will take a while to form up. This is just realistic.

I think you should take the idea farther and put sorti rates into the fundimental game engine. Set established sorti rates that can be maintained by a fighter or bomber hanger thus establishing the sorti rate for a field. Huge for huge fields, respectable but vulnerable for small fields.  As hangers are taken down the sorit rate for that field is taken down. Then you can adjust the sorti rate as you desire with your side ballancing algorithm.

But I have thought that for a few years and your idea is at least a move in that direction.

Need to bring some scense of attrition to the game so that undermaned but competent countries can develop some hope of blunting a steam roller attack.

Offline flakbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
      • http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6
New idea what do you ladies and gentlemen think.
« Reply #59 on: August 10, 2004, 03:39:04 PM »
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.

Perks could also be used as I've suggested before. The under-dog country would have perk costs reduced based on number disparity and the amount of fields still in friendly hands. The more people you have in a country, the higher the perk cost. Say the Bish have 200 people, while everyone else has ~80 or so. What's stopping the Bish from upping several dozen Tempests to maul everybody? Nothing currently. Double the perk cost (and reward) though and it would keep rare planes rare. Meanwhile, the Knights and Rooks are at a disadvantage numbers-wise. So their perk costs drop a bit to level the playing field.


Thoughts? Flames?



-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High