proposal: remove amount_of_planes parameter from arena.

Discussion in 'TabaHost General Discussion' started by -exec-, Sep 26, 2007.

?

?

  1. yes

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. principally yes, proposal should be changed in details

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. leave it status quo forever

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. i have another vision on this matter (explained here)

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. exec is woodpecker

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  1. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    proposal:

    remove amount_of_planes parameter from arena.

    drawbacks: "hard constant" such as amount_of_planes is not enough dynamical. it may be "never exceeding" for 16 players/arena and "tough deficit" for 80 players/arena.

    why?

    because a natural limit restrict_time (after player killed at this field) already exists

    idea modification:

    currently we have restrict_time = 3min.

    having industry_status defined at this airfield, restrict_time can be varying from 3min to 6min proportionally. i.e.:
    industry_status = 1.0 (100% ), restrict_time = 3min
    industry_status = 0.0 ( 0% ), restrict_time = 7min

    restrict_time = 7min - 3min*industry_status

    industry_status is already programmed parameter, as reported by franz.
    ___________________________

    discussed with ppedott, looks like he agrees.
     
  2. ppedott_vibora

    ppedott_vibora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil
    Im not sure about this... becouse with .mov command, the time restriction lose some of its effectiveness... the main goal of our early definition of amount of planes is to allow the use a more flexible and real RPS (example: use ME 262 since middle of 1944 (like RL) but in so few numbers that it will not unbalance war... (at least untill reds put their bloody hands on that babies) as well manage the "run for the last model" that occours at every RPS evolution day at FH.
    But as well, it wasnt tested yet, due lack of "flying time" of TH with reasonable number of pilotsflying togheter.
    It can change with the time... as well friendly fire wich I know you disagree, and number and behavior of captured planes (that was remains at captured hangar ad infinitum and hangs was getting overpopullating if the field change its owners in frequency... in this case, we learn that captured planes m,ust have a shortest period of life, IE, they can be use by new owner just untill next replacement, when the planes of new owner came to field...
    :)

    So, in short I vote to maintain the amount of planes untill this concept can be tested properly.
     
  3. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    multiple me262 is better than alone (but both options are bad anyway) because when sky is filled en-mass, red players are aware of wistles flying around. when there is only one 262, it becomes a poacher.

    i won't play game where am definitely a pray.
    i play for two reasons: teamwork and equal chances to win or to loose.
    i don't play when dices are in the game kernel (except mahjong and winmine)