Who broke the three Country model ? Why doesn't it work?

[xBarrelx]

Originally posted by Nilsen
every player should have their own country

its called ffa nilsen....go to h2h and play it some time. its a blast cause most of em suck so bad. when ya land 21 kills in a yak on a regular basis...

[NoBaddy]

IMO, the flaw is in the reset system and not the country setup. Take away the perk bonus for a reset and you might see some normal fluctuation in odds. As it is set up now, what is the incentive for the player base to balance the odds? In the past, people would eventually get bored with having overwhelming odds and move on. With the bonus for a reset, why bother?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by xBarrelx
its called ffa nilsen....go to h2h and play it some time. its a blast cause most of em suck so bad. when ya land 21 kills in a yak on a regular basis...

really?

[culero]

Originally posted by 4510
I doubt that will happen.  Too many folks like the mudmoving and land grabbing.  I am with you on doing away with it.... but don't see it happening.

Heyas SOUP

Thing is, mudmoving and landgrabbing don't need the reset thing to exist. All the reset is is a way to have "winning the war" as a component of MA play.

Removing the reset concept would still allow the same kind of gameplay we have now, with the exception of the very end game.

I give you the argument that its the end game (arena reset) that is the cause of the anguish now associated with one country having disproportionate numbers. Think about it.....

Lets say Country X has time and a half the numbers of either the other two. If it chooses, it can proceed to roll up either country's fields.

But, if when it gets that country down to a few fields it hits the wall of uncapturable fields, because reset has been eliminated, it won't stay where it is long before it turns on the other smaller country.

The result is that there will be constant battle, with both larger and smaller countries having fields to fly from, and no reason for anyone to switch sides to gain an advantage (no reset bonus).

Instead of reacting to whines about numbers imbalance, why not examine what it is about numbers imbalance that causes a problem. I believe there's good reason to believe that if reset weren't a part of the equation, local area imbalance (gangbanging gone too far) would never have a reason to persist long enough to be as big a deal as it is now.

culero

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by culero
Heyas SOUP

Thing is, mudmoving and landgrabbing don't need the reset thing to exist. All the reset is is a way to have "winning the war" as a component of MA play.

Removing the reset concept would still allow the same kind of gameplay we have now, with the exception of the very end game.

I give you the argument that its the end game (arena reset) that is the cause of the anguish now associated with one country having disproportionate numbers. Think about it.....

Lets say Country X has time and a half the numbers of either the other two. If it chooses, it can proceed to roll up either country's fields.

But, if when it gets that country down to a few fields it hits the wall of uncapturable fields, because reset has been eliminated, it won't stay where it is long before it turns on the other smaller country.

The result is that there will be constant battle, with both larger and smaller countries having fields to fly from, and no reason for anyone to switch sides to gain an advantage (no reset bonus).

Instead of reacting to whines about numbers imbalance, why not examine what it is about numbers imbalance that causes a problem. I believe there's good reason to believe that if reset weren't a part of the equation, local area imbalance (gangbanging gone too far) would never have a reason to persist long enough to be as big a deal as it is now.

culero

Definately makes good sense.  Seems kinda simple don't it?

Dan/Slack

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by 4510
Mugzee,

  I don't fly as often as you... or apparently as long.  I just don't recall seeing 15-18 hours a day Rooks outnumbering both countries combined.  Not to say it wasn't so.. but I don't remember it.  

Sunday nights... that is an abberation.... and one night a week....  (shrug)

I havent  logged Near as many hours in the last 2 or 3  months as i used to. But yes..I fly a LOT. And i spread my time out over the period of the day.  I have averaged over 98.75 hours per tour in the last 18 tours. 2 Tours i was away from AH. (Tour 41 and 42) from 05/02/03 to 07/01/03.
You can take my word for it or you can dispell it if you wish.
Either way i am very correct in my assesment.

[4510]

Originally posted by culero


Instead of reacting to whines about numbers imbalance, why not examine what it is about numbers imbalance that causes a problem. I believe there's good reason to believe that if reset weren't a part of the equation, local area imbalance (gangbanging gone too far) would never have a reason to persist long enough to be as big a deal as it is now.

culero

I am with you culero.  I don't particularly like the landgrabbing or the reset model.  Never have.  But that is the way it was designed.  From a commercial standpoint I guess it makes sense as it certainly is very popular.  

In an air to air mentality folks often switch to even the sides (you see this in the CT all the time) to keep things even and more fun.  But in a land grab... numbers equate success.  Of course organization and proficiency in tactics apply... but going for a reset... rarely does the country with the fewest flyers accomplish a reset.  (has that ever happened?)

So... as several folks have said... we are treating a symptom here and not the cause. But I don't know how you fix the cause.  It is the raison d'etre (did I spell that right?) for a HUGE number of people and they won't take kindly to it if it is changed.

[4510]

Originally posted by Balsy
Culero has it right,  I logged on and Played AW for years and always had great fites etc... with uncapturable homeland fields.

 

Careful Balsy... mentioning AW around here is often taken poorly...

[culero]

Originally posted by 4510

Originally posted by culero

So... as several folks have said... we are treating a symptom here and not the cause. But I don't know how you fix the cause.  It is the raison d'etre (did I spell that right?) for a HUGE number of people and they won't take kindly to it if it is changed.

Thing is, SOUP, eliminating the reset goal and establishing an uncaptureable stronghold for each country doesn't really deprive the mudmoving/landgrabbing crowd of anything. The nature of "victory" just changes.

Think about it. Things go the same as they do now, Country X getting numbers and crapping down Country Y's neck. Only difference is, when they take everything they can, Country Y still has a viable chance to fly and fight.

In this situation, Country X can beat up on Country Y, have its "victory celebration" ("YAY WE TOOK ALL THEIR STUPH LOOKIE LOOKIE THEY ONLY HAVE THEIR INVULNERABLE FIELDS LEFT!") but will now have a reason to stop beating up on Country Y ("OK LETS GO GET THOSE Z BASTIDS NOW!")

Simply put, the difference in the nature of the end game tends to alleviate the numbers imbalance problem because at some point, there's no point in further gangbanging for that crowd....rather, an incentive to re-focus (availability of new targets is now OVER THERE>>>)

Perk bonuses could even remain as a "reward", just awarded based on which country executes the most captures or some such stat.

I know this challenges one of the basic philosophies inherent in the game's MA design, but I do believe the idea deserves consideration.

culero

[culero]

Originally posted by 4510
Careful Balsy... mentioning AW around here is often taken poorly...

Keep a civil tongue in your mouth when discussing officers in public, sergeant.

culero (~glares~)

[Balsy]

Hehe culero.  

Still remember one fight with you in AW, I was F4U you were spit, and we danced in circles above you base for what seemed like forever.

Of course,  I only remember the ones I won in .

SOUP is a salty old dog, he can  feel free to give "advice" to this young buck Capt at his pleasure .

[GScholz]

Originally posted by 4510
So we have a three country model.  The idea being, if one country starts to get too much of a numbers edge, the other two countries look at the numbers, map, etc... and go....hmmmmm.  They stop fighting each other as much and focus on the country with the larger numbers.  When numbers once again start to level (as numbers ebb and flow all evening) they readjust once again to meet their needs.

That's how it works in theory. In practice the two larger countries gangs up on the weak one ... they're easier to overwhelm and kill. The same thing gets played out at every elementary school in the world. It's human nature to ally yourself with the strong and pick on the weak.

Perhaps HTC should acquire the assistance of a psychiatrist specializing in human group behaviour and redo the entire strat system.

Edit: Who broke the three Country model ? Why doesn't it work? My guess is no one broke it because it didn't work in the first place. Perhaps it could work if everybody were conscientious about it and tries to make it work, but when the AH population gets filled with people barely in puberty, any "honour system" will fail.

[culero]

Originally posted by GScholz
That's how it works in theory. In practice the two larger countries gangs up on the weak one ... they're easier to overwhelm and kill.
snip

In the current model, yes.

But if the possibility of the "kill" is removed, at some point one of the two larger countries will inevitably glance sideways at the tasty looking flank of the other, and take a bite.

Then the focus of the fight shifts.

Think about it.

culero

[TDeacon]

Sounds good to me Culero.  Has Hitech commented on this idea yet?

[B17Skull12]

culero that would work,  you would get a 24/7 vulch on all the fields left, no dar, and no bombs, manned guns, etc.  i would call it the 24/7 vulchfest.