Suggestion: Fairness despite Numerical Superiority

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by HoHun, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi everyone,

    To improve gameplay fairness when one side outnumbers the other, I've come up with a new and different suggestion:

    - Limit the number of aircraft that can be supported by each airfield!

    Lets assume 60 players are online.

    Which player numbers can be "supported" by each of the different airfields?

    - Small field: 6 players
    - Medium field: 12 players
    - Big field: No limit

    What does "supported" mean?

    - It means that take-off is impossible once the specified number of players has taken off from the field until one of them ends his flight.

    What will the effect be?

    + Airfields will have more or less offensive and defensive power depending on their size.

    + To successfully attack a medium field using the common "human wave" tactics, the attacker will need to own two adjacent small fields, for example (defender: strength 12 players, attacker: strength 2 x 6 players).

    + To successfully attack a big field, the attacker will typically need two adjacent medium fields. For example: 60 players in the arena, 40 players Gold, 20 players Red. Gold attack Red big field from 2 medium fields: 2 x 12 players versus 20 players.

    + Of course, the numerically superior side can always bring in more reinforcements from airfields farther away. If they're Jabos, they will be less efficient in terms of time per target than the planes taking off from the adjacent field, though, so that the numerically inferior defender has some breathing space.

    + If the attacker brings in bombers from farther fields, that will add greatly to his offensive strength, making bombers more worthwhile than they are today.

    + Since the number of aircraft immediately available at any stretch of the frontline is more or less equal for both sides regardless of the force ratio, the fight will be better balanced.

    + Good tactics will become much more important than they are now :)

    Additional Rules:

    1) The supported limits are based on number of players online:

    - Small field: 10% of the total player number
    - Medium field: 20% of the total player number
    - Big field: No limit

    (If less than 30 players online: No limits anywhere.)

    + Advantage: The rule adapts to the game situation.

    2) If a side loses all big fields, it is considered to have lost the war regardless of the number of smaller fields held.

    + Advantage: There's less repetitive "mopping up" of inferior enemy forces, and bold strikes against the enemy's centre of power are rewarded by quick victories - if successful :)

    3) If airfield installations (hangars, towers) are bombed, the capacity of the airfield drops.

    - Small field: 10% maximum, -2.5% hangar, -2.5% tower, 5% minimum
    - Medium field: 20% maximum, 3 x -2.5% hangar, -2.5% tower, 10% minimum

    + Advantage: It's possible to reduce either the enemy's offensive or defensive strength by damaging the field. All hits count, it's not like the current game where only closing the base has any influence at all.

    4) With a streak of 3 or more, the player becomes a "wildcard" and is not counted towards the limit.

    Advantage:

    + It encourages to try and survive so that one has better chances to achieve success by local numerical superiority.

    + It encourages to help others to survive because with a streak, they also improve one's chances to achieve local numerical superiority. (Clear tails and give six calls, and you'll have the numbers on your side :)

    Please let me know what you think of this suggestion! :)

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  2. Glas

    Glas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,928
    Location:
    Scotland
    My first thought is can the program handle changes like this?

    Assuming it can, it seems like a good idea. Im all for fairness and anything that makes the arena balance out in terms of numbers.

    -glas-
     
  3. illo

    illo FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,168
    Location:
    Helsinki, Suomi (finland)
    I can see outnumbered side being overwhelmed by high cons (who have been forced to smartly take off from rear field). :) j/k

    More numerous side is virtually forced to use better tactics. ;)
     
  4. Malino

    Malino Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    UK
    I still think that fixing the bugs/correcting the FM's and DM's is more important before embarking on something like this.


    Mal
     
  5. manoce

    manoce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Czech republic
    omg.. pls not more fascism... let it free

    you can'T operate against ppl will; if they would like to have it balanced.. they would solve the system of big SQ side changing and thus this problem
     
  6. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    I like the idea... pretty logical :)
    but I don't know about it's realisation and I don't know if the lion share of the arena flying people will see this as an improvement or a drag on their fun...

    <Z>
     
  7. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Malino,

    >I still think that fixing the bugs/correcting the FM's and DM's is more important before embarking on something like this.

    This is a new frontier thread, not a pea counter thread :)

    If you think you'd make a great pea counter and are so enthusiastic about it that you go keep going off-topic uninvitedly whenever I post something, I'd even offer to suggest you as a beta tester just to see you put constructive effort where your mouth is now :)

    So send me a private message if you're willing to become a beta tester - not that I have any say on whether the team is going to accept you - and spend hours and hours on correcting flight models LIKE I ALREADY DID.

    This thread is reserved for new frontiers, though :)

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  8. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Zembla,

    >I like the idea...

    Thanks! :) As you usually have a different perspective than I, that's really appreciated as it means the idea looks good even from different angles :)

    >but I don't know about it's realisation and I don't know if the lion share of the arena flying people will see this as an improvement or a drag on their fun...

    Well, I've already outlined the many advantages, and a system that enables the numerically inferior side to fight from a position of equal strength will have many friends, so there's no need to elaborate on the good sides of the idea.

    To have a look at the flipside: Where do you see the dangers for people's fun? Recognized dangers might be avoidable.
    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  9. Comet-

    Comet- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Messages:
    142
    Location:
    Prague, CZ
    Greatest danger = people and their behavior in arena. Only few people respect each other, most often they just throw insults at everything...
    Nothing you can solve by any system, I am afraid :(
     
  10. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    I could've also been rude and said: "The dweebs in the arena won't like it"

    ;)

    <Z>
     
  11. lepper

    lepper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Poland
    I like this idea
     
  12. manoce

    manoce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Czech republic
    this is fucking truth!

    look at the laws - should they force you to certain behaviour? or should they serve you by supporting what you do?

    they should they create conditions for improving your behaviour... but they cant do it by ordering you to do things you dont want to do... because then you will find other ways to do it the same way
     
  13. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Manoce,

    >... but they cant do it by ordering you to do things you dont want to do... because then you will find other ways to do it the same way

    If that's meant to suggest that my rule suggestion will fail to establish local balance of numbers even when there's a global imbalance the arena, I have to disagree.

    There are still ways to bring numerical superiority to bear, but they involve planning, cooperation and generally good tactics.

    That's a great advance game-play wise, even if the outnumbered side might still lose in the end.

    (If they use planning, cooperation and good tactics, they might actually keep winning for as long as they can keep it up.)

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  14. manoce

    manoce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Czech republic
    i salute your idealism. ho - hun
    i feel pity for your idealism too

    but i don't agree with your ways to improve the system; in my point of view .. the balance caused by that ppl are forced by something to equal is no good
     
  15. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Manoce,

    >the balance caused by that ppl are forced by something to equal is no good

    Every game is entirely made from rules that enforce something.

    It's the quantity and quality of the opportunities that result from the rules that determine the quality of the game.

    More rules can mean more and better opportunities. That's something you apparently fail to appreciate :)

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  16. manoce

    manoce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Czech republic
    the old fight of order and chaos

    where is the balance... ;)