Game needs a Death Penalty.. please!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tilt]

Originally posted by DropW
In Air Warrior they made it so that if there were so many friendly planes in a sector, you wouldn't be able to take off from a base in that sector.  -DropW

AW's zone limit balanced game play through out an arena....it was not a "death penalty".....certainly not if the field number  was not filled.

(Basically each field was limited to 15 or 20 players spawned from it at any time.....it did not stop 40 players attacking an enemy field from two equidistant ones)

I am afraid the concept of a death penalty is not for the MA.......

even the zone limit is not accepted here.....

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Tilt
AW's zone limit balanced game play through out an arena....it was not a "death penalty".....certainly not if the field number  was not filled.

(Basically each field was limited to 15 or 20 players spawned from it at any time.....it did not stop 40 players attacking an enemy field from two equidistant ones)

I am afraid the concept of a death penalty is not for the MA.......

even the zone limit is not accepted here.....

Yup, I actually loved the zone limiter AW, it encouraged more realistic operations as 100 guys couldn't just 'appear at a small airfield for example. While not really punishing death per se. It could mean if you were re-planed in AH you simply couldn't just up an La7, hit the warp speed button and be back in the furball 10 seconds after your demise. This had the de facto effect of an in-flight 'time-out' whereby you would have to fly a sector or so from a nearby field to re-enter the fight, but not actually  prevented from flying. It could add to the realism factor and help with lag in some situations as well as subtley penalize what I call 'overly promiscuous flying' (air sluts).

Zazen

[DropW]

Hi fellas. I agree with you Zazen and Tilt. The death penalty sure isn't going over well at all with everyone. I would be very happy if AH implemented a zone limiter like in AW. You are right, that is all that is really needed to even some things out. I just want something to change so that offensive attacks have a little more chance of succeeding.

Morale in the game suffers greatly when it takes hours upon hours to take a field even though a grand force is being cooridanted. Team mates start to get vicious and turn on each other. You got my vote for Zone Limiter . Thank you all for submitting your feelings about this. If you guys had any other ideas of what could be done, please post them. My death penalty fell through hard, but maybe someone has an idea that could work and most importantly, be something that a majority could agree to.

So, turning this post in that direction--> What do you all think about the Zone Limiter idea? Also, feel free to add any ideas of your own. Hehe, please respond soon... I'm running out of funds! Ack-Ack's hitman service and Storch's ankle biting are really putting a hole in my pocket! Cya guys in the air. -DropW

[Zazen13]

I've always liked a zone limiter based on the sector's controlling country's field like this...

Small Airfield = 15
Medium = 25
Large = 40
CV TG's = 30

This would add strategic significance to the varying field sizes. As it is now with only town and usually VH needing to be dropped for field captures, which are the same for all fields, there is no real difference strategically between the field sizes. This would curtail the size of force able to be launched from a small field to attack a large one. The large field would have an advantage in numbers, as it should, assuming both fields were manned to their maximum. As it is now a small field can launch an infinite number of planes instantly the same as a large field, not terribly realistic.

This would also be GREAT for the HUGE maps which grind to a stalemate quickly and drag on indefinately. Imagine Trinity with zone limiters based on field sizes. Now instead of each and every field allowing 50+ people to up and defend instantly only a fraction of that could from that field. The rest would have to come from supporting fields making vulching less important than interdicting re-enforcements. This would make captures easier to a point. But, then imagine you are the attacking country, you have taken some small airfields, but now can't launch enough planes from them to sustain an attack especially against a large airfield. Then a country would need to plan out which fields they must take in order to sustain their offensive, instead of the mindless steamrolling land-grab we have now.

This would also help the porkers and bomber guys in that instead of just the total destruction of the primary target for the offensive, the 'porking' of supporting fields will be much more important to hinder re-enforcements. A good portion of the attackers and the defenders would have to come from adjacent fields. Overall this would add a strategic element to the game that is lacking and do it with the existing infrastructure already in place.

Zazen

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by DropW
Hi fellas. I agree with you Zazen and Tilt. The death penalty sure isn't going over well at all with everyone. I would be very happy if AH implemented a zone limiter like in AW.

Zone limiter is in no way a death penalty and will absolutely do nothing to deter one from having their suicide Jabo death wish.  All the zone limiter did in AW was limit how many take take off from a base.  The Zone Limiter was a crowd control measure meant to help combat some of the hordes.  Whether it worked or not is still up for debate.


ack-ack

[TDeacon]

DropW, another idea to re-inject purpose into your AH play is to try and learn to dogfight better.  Almost infinite options for variation/improvement there, and they differ with each plane matchup.  Base capture isn't the only thing in AH.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Zone limiter is in no way a death penalty and will absolutely do nothing to deter one from having their suicide Jabo death wish.  All the zone limiter did in AW was limit how many take take off from a base.  The Zone Limiter was a crowd control measure meant to help combat some of the hordes.  Whether it worked or not is still up for debate.


ack-ack

It's a death penalty in that if you die you will have to invest at least an extra 7 minutes flying back to the front in a new plane from an adjacent field. As it is now flying and dying is the most efficient way to approach the game from an effort to result per unit time perspective. In my opinion, while a direct penalty for dying would not promote good gameplay as noted in the above posts, negating the incidental reward (instant rebirth moments from the fight you just died in with a fresh plane) would enhance gameplay. As far as the suicide porkers go, well there is nothing one can do to stop someone with no regard for their virtual life from doing that. The same can be said for the suicide CV killers, the suicide La7 goon hunters, the suicide HO'ers etc. , the list goes on. Like the kamikaze's in WW2 if someone is willing to die to accomplish something it's virtually impossible to stop them.

What is clear is gameplay would be enhanced if people were less inclined to view deliberate and repeated death as the most efficient way to contribute to a fight and hamper the enemy. In my opinion, a zone limiter based on field size would not only accomplish this with minimal negative impact, but also greatly enhance the strategic depth of the MA and the playability of the HUGE maps especially. Not only that but it would minimize the relative impact of a numerical advantage. If only so much force could be allocated over a finite geographic area without incurring burdensome flight times the horde would in effect be forced to operate on more equal terms with those being horded. That would in and of itself promote better fights and lessen the gang-vulching, horde-mongering that characterizes the MA currently.



Zazen

[beet1e]

Originally posted by DropW
Hi all. I have noticed that the game is really starting to lose its thrill. I've played for quite a while and it is no longer exciting to try and take a base or fight in the air. I truly believe the remedy for this is to get rid of instant respawn time when killed. Think carefully about this now... If there was a 1 minute wait time after you actually died before you could re-up your plane, the entire gameplay would completely change. There would no longer be people that you just killed a few seconds ago reupping and killing you.

  Also, fear would now come in to play. Not a single soul in Aces High has fear of dying. They know that they can just re-up instantly.. no big deal... Well, if they had to wait a solid minute, that would all change! It would be soo much more realistic. People would actually be afraid to HO another person!! just think about that! lol. I'm drooling with excitement just thinking about it! Please oh please creators of Aces High, hear my words!!

  I honestly think this would spice the game up 100 fold. Something has got to be done, I'm getting bored outa my mind lately with dead end base capturing and furballing with ghosts that you just killed. Its so unrealistic right now. Its like each country has unlimited resources to man power, its pointless. In Air Warrior they made it so that if there were so many friendly planes in a sector, you wouldn't be able to take off from a base in that sector. At least that was an attempt to control the insaneness of instant respawn time. I think my idea about 1 minute wait is better though . Well, hope this gets noticed and implemented into the programming. -DropW

DropW - reading this, it sounds like the actions is all at the bases, instead of being between the bases. That "1 minute waiting time" you speak of, which would make it more realistic, could be achieved if the bases were slightly further apart. From your description, it sounds like the bases are so close together they're actually touching, or even overlapping!

When the whole "move the bases closer together" mantra began to be chanted, way back when, I warned how it would all end up. Looks like I was right.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I've always liked a zone limiter based on the sector's controlling country's field like this...

Small Airfield = 15
Medium = 25
Large = 40
CV TG's = 30

I am going to call it Field Limit as we have zones in AH

Actually I think those numbers are about right........

GV fields and ports = 25?

One problem occurrs however as a country nears defeat.... we could find that eg Rooks have 70 players but FL only allows 65 of them to play.

 there are work arounds

1) is to come up with a simple formulae that modifies the FL when the ratio of fields to side numbers drops below a certain level.

2) Make present Zone masters limitless (above could still ocurr)


3) would be a combination of 1 & 2

Another mechanism to over come the "you are stopping me playing where I want" complaint is the introduction of a perk price for players who really want to fly from a "full field". Infact linking FLwith the perk system could be the foundation of a different approach to the FL. When the ratio above ( 70 Rooks) is incurred then the perk price is waved toatally.

Another problem is the integration of Missions. Missions can be fun. I do not have a problem with missions forced to use rear fields when a battle front is heavy. I do not have a problem with missions being forced to use two fields because of their size.

However it would be really poor if the first time a mission finds it has hit  the FL is when it tries to launch.

It would be equally poor if a mission created for an "empty field" finds as launch approaches that the spare slots are depleting below the mission numbers.

Hence not only would the FL need to be shown in the tower (on the chalk board?) but missions need some way to protect them selves from  a "depleting" FL.

Hence I would advocate that missions be permitted to reserve upto a %  (60) of a fields FL upon their creation or with 5 mins to go which ever is the shortest.


But it has been talked to death before.......the only new thing I have added above is a link between perk cost and the FL.

Presently perks are calculated "nationally"

If they could be "modified" by a field addition then the only thing that occurs when FL is reached is that x perks are added to each ride at that field.

This could even be used to replace the ENY limiter as FL has a similar (but more localised) effect and allows folk who really want to fly from there to do so by buying (risking perks for) extra slots.

You may decide to make M3's C47's and LVT2's exempt from this.



The next discussion is that of formations. Presently AH counts a formation as 1 launch and upto 3 deaths. If FL would consider a formation as 1 player then he would only be depleted from the count once he was back in a tower or off the roster. It could not count deaths/ditches/bails  or else the numbers would not balance.

[Zazen13]

You could even just simplify the near reset situation to the point that once any country is down to 10% of the total fields the field limiter is doubled for the 'compressed' team. So, for the huge maps that would be 25 fields, for the small maps 8 fields. This would basically mean when a team gets down to just its mainland its concentration of force capacity can be as much as double that of its attackers'. You could call the point a team reaches this 'critical mass',  'crunch time'.

Zazen