Well the problem is Gunnerzz is that we have no idea what zuperman has in his mind for the format of Squadron Wars.. which is why we need more information from him in order to provide intelligent thoughts & ideas about this subject.

I agree that a simple Won/Lost format would be easiest.. but if that is all it was going to be then why would he be even bringing up squadron size as a factor? If each squadron could only have 'X' amount of pilots in a pre-planned/scheduled mission against another then what would it matter the size of the squadrons?

And btw, capture the carrier missions would also work.. as would dogfight missions with each team blue/red & if you get shot down your out.. last team with a pilot still in the air wins. And if he added a 2nd zep going in the opposite direction at the same time from the german base to the allied base, that would work as well..

But I think zuperman is a very creative person and might very well have brand new missions coming soon.

.

Nice Stuart. Mine goes back about that time too (what I can find). I found out my family were the rulers of a town in England and came to the colonies in the 1600s (so happy my family was aristocracy ). I think you should be able to expand the size of your squad to 100 from normal 50 with points. Also in a squad wars battle will 2 allied squads be able to be on one team against another squad and/or its ally? So 2v1 or 2v2? (Even amount of players though)

{£}ZebraUp wrote: Well the problem is Gunnerzz is that we have no idea what zuperman has in his mind for the format of Squadron Wars.. which is why we need more information from him in order to provide intelligent thoughts & ideas about this subject.

I agree that a simple Won/Lost format would be easiest.. but if that is all it was going to be then why would he be even bringing up squadron size as a factor? If each squadron could only have 'X' amount of pilots in a pre-planned/scheduled mission against another then what would it matter the size of the squadrons?

And btw, capture the carrier missions would also work.. as would dogfight missions with each team blue/red & if you get shot down your out.. last team with a pilot still in the air wins. And if he added a 2nd zep going in the opposite direction at the same time from the german base to the allied base, that would work as well..

But I think zuperman is a very creative person and might very well have brand new missions coming soon.

I like the idea of a last man standing game, maybe when you get shot down you can continue on foot either back to your base or in tank effectively giving you another chance. Would be fun being last plane tracking down lone soldier.

I feel strange saying this but I agree with Zebra we have no idea the format so if we had more info, we would be able to ask the questions we need to determine their impact. If the scoring system is such that it's the sum of wins, those squads with tons of active players will have a huge advantage and I think that is what Joker and Psycho are trying to say. 100 players will have more wins in a month than 20 but if it's scaled by numbers of pilots or a win/lose ratio in a squad battle game then any squad can be at the top. Even if you only had say 10 players, if they won every time they played they should win over all shouldn't they. I guess you would have to have a minimum amount of games played to stop everyone from taking the title with 1/0 but that seems the fairest and it may encourage more stringent screening of players you let in?

I think one of the best solutions is why not have a rep team for each squad? Say there is a cap of say 75 there is a rep squad that you put your 75 best into that squad and the rest practice to try and make it in the next season or whatever you want to call it. Buck I don't think forcing a number of squads to have to play together does anything other than serve M.O.M. goal of no split, so upsetting a whole number of squads to save the biggest? The biggest issue with that is your new squad's success would be then a result of players you didn't bring into your squad. They may also have different culture and style than your original so great problems for all smaller squads. If they had to force the large ones to split, I agree that is bad too but at least the 2 or 3 resulting squads have been in the same squad the whole time, same culture and habits.

So can we have more details please?

Buckgeo wrote: Smaller squadrons should be disbanded and reformed into unified squadrons of 50, 75, or 100 members.
This will make the sizing for matches balanced.
for example, Gunnerzz Inc could amalgamate with Legends to get their numbers up to completion levels.
misfits could kick a couple over to mom to top up mom and bring their number down to 75.

we shouldnt have to alter our squadrons to accommodate these squad wars...these squad wars are being added for all squads and there for they should accommodate all squadrons big and small squads alike thats why there has to be a magic number that all squads can agree on? 15v15 sounds like its able to be done by all squads.youve got to consider that there gonna be members who cant show.plus would be a incentive for player to get better within there squad to be selected by member to compete in the squad war...

When i say wins. I say. One specific mission at one specific tone between two specific squads in one specific server. As long as there are same number of pilots within each squadron who are fighting in a specific war. He may do it like best of 7 missions between 2 squadrons in a war. The squadrons will make sure there are enough on each side for those particular times for each mission.

I

Stuart wumper. Im humbled and honored to obtain ur contact information. I would love to chat in more detail some of the brainstorms we have between you and i.

Your one awesome guy and a fabulous falcon. Ill contact you very soon

Btw. I have a major interview for a banking position. Its a good one too. I hope and pray that this position works out or God may have something better for me. Great to see a fellow banker in dogfight.

Buckgeo wrote: Smaller squadrons should be disbanded and reformed into unified squadrons of 50, 75, or 100 members.
This will make the sizing for matches balanced.
for example, Gunnerzz Inc could amalgamate with Legends to get their numbers up to completion levels.
misfits could kick a couple over to mom to top up mom and bring their number down to 75.

Lafayette will NOT be disbanded NOR will we amalgamate with other squadrons to be a large unified fighting force to appease the larger squadrons who are bemoaning reducing their numbers..
nor do I blame them for not wanting to do such a thing to begin with!

I believe that zuperman needs to come up with a satisfactory format that accommodates all squadrons large or small...

But without more information about the format of Squadron Wars we all are just using conjecture to try and figure out whats best.. we need more info.. i.e. will the format of Squadron Wars be like sports teams battling against each other for Wins & Losses? or will it be a format based on Won missions &/or hangars bombed &/or Kill/Death ratios &/or points earned similar to Whips tournament??

Without knowing what the basic format of Squadron Wars will be we're really just clueless here!

.

Puedes arreglar las cosas de tal modo que derrotar a un escuadron con muchos miembros sea más gratificante en trofeos y dinero que derrotar a uno con pocos pilotos. O incluso ajustar el precio de declarar la guerra de forma que puedas equilibrar las cosas.

I would like to see added the oldest game format in multiplayer battle history: Team deathmatch.
5 blues, 5 reds, first team to 250 kills wins.

Instead of German or Allied we can go for the plane we want ..tht will be more gud and abt missions like Zep where chances of German side (not German plane) will be more ..so there should be 2 Zep instead of 1 and the team(Squad)who destroy zep first will win i think this idea will also be gud
And abt number of players..Zup already said abt it....

zuperman wrote: Hi

From the stats that I've looked at, 50 members should be more than enough, but I'm willing to go to 70 or even 100 if absolutely mandatory. What are your thoughts?

I think 50 is more than enough..

Yup u r right ..
But if Squads like Mom n Misfit who hav more than 50 cant hav 2rounds ...

I can bet this squad war thing is going to be the biggest ever source of debate of this entire forum...
Zup, hope you save yourself from an epic headache... Good luck! (You will need it)

Why not have a squadron made up of three or four Flights (as in real life) like a, b, c, d, flight of xxxxx squ. Each flight would be made up of 25 - 30 pilots each with a flight leader, all assigned under the one squadron xxxxx. This would allow the large squads from circumvent having to cut pilots and precluding bad feelings and resentment.
Smaller squadrons have room to grow or may negotiate with another small squad to join forces on what ever terms may be agreed on. Any way you look at it if we want squad wars some major changes in reorganization are in df's future at some point.

Any who those are my suggestions in trying to help. However, like Zeb and others have pointed out we are going to need further direction from Zup before really tying this thing together.
Mach2

Seems easy to me... Obviously there are not going to be 100 planes flying around in one game. Set up a system where say 6 moms and 6 misfits, or 6 whichever squad can check into and out of a game. The game would be theirs until it's over, or everyone leaves. If all of one side leaves, let another squad check in. If one pilot leaves, allow any other from the same squad to join. Once 2 squads pick a room, make the room visible on a menu. Show if it's full, or has remaining open spots.

For the competition of it all, post a leaderboard with a few stats (kills, hangars, etc) and rank each squad according to its average in game performance.

Couldnt agree more jack......

jacklpe wrote: Seems easy to me... Obviously there are not going to be 100 planes flying around in one game. Set up a system where say 6 moms and 6 misfits, or 6 whichever squad can check into and out of a game. The game would be theirs until it's over, or everyone leaves. If all of one side leaves, let another squad check in. If one pilot leaves, allow any other from the same squad to join. Once 2 squads pick a room, make the room visible on a menu. Show if it's full, or has remaining open spots.

For the competition of it all, post a leaderboard with a few stats (kills, hangars, etc) and rank each squad according to its average in game performance.

Jup, that would be great.

I am all for making 100 players the max amount a squad can have. For now I would like to suggest for the sake of M.O.M who has more than 100 players that they may keep all there members but not get to add more. Give them the 100 limit but let them keep the extra guys they have. If these extra guys leave then they could not get back in. That should keep that squad from being divided.

Zuperman. I love that you are pursuing squadron war. I know you support strongly, by having 4 different missions and all the different ways to obtain kills and win the different missions, the strategy of your fabulous game. Is it possible that the squadron war be mission oriented as opposed to number of kills and etc? Is it possible that strategy and team play be the focus as opposed solely on number of kills? That way you can utilize all aspects of the game that you designed beyond the fabulous plane on plane activity alone. Its my observation that "team play" is the most important aspect in having squadron war. That way tank, bombing and etc would have just as much focus as the other aspects thereby making the squadron war have way more strategy than otherwise.

Just trying to help the best game designer i know for the best squadron war in game history.

what if we had like timed bombing matches where where the hangers never really went way but it would be the first squad to have the most hangers bombed in the allotted amount of time or a dogfight match where the total kills of one squad would be what decides who wins after the allotted amount of time. Just a thought adding a timed squad war seems like it would push pilots to try to fufill the mission. does one squad may have totaled 550 kills in the other squad member only counted 200 kills but still completed the mission first I kind of think one squad might think they won because they had a higher kill count (more saying thier sqaud is deadlier)but I guess that would be decided in the parameters of the mission itself. cuz I believe the goal is to find out what squads are the top squads or the most deadliest squad so to say and compete for that kinda rank, I mean are we trying to talk having our entire squad in the air in the same server at the same time is having a whole other squad in there at the same time or we just trying to put 4 of our best players against four of their best players in which case I don't think we would need to change or limit the size of the squadron itself.

Winning the mission is the most important. Anything else diminishes the strategy of the team aspect of the squadron war. As ling as teams have equal number of pilots. Then it will be a success. I think we shouldn't understate the importance of winning the mission and thereby dininishing the team aspect and strategy of the squadron war.

I got about a quarter of the way through this thread and tried to drown myself in a bucket of ibuprofen. There's at least one person in here whose head we could rent out as a pink noise generator. (not you, Dave. Thanks for the beacon of simplicity in a tsunami of WTF?)

There's a server. It assigns four people per side. (in a perfect world ca. early 2012) It has a database of players' squad affiliations. It'll assign four players from each of two squads drawn from whichever players representing those two squads happen to be online at the time. Finis.

The previous dramatization is based entirely on what exists in the Dogfight server realm today. Anything more elaborate is icing on the...

----

M.O.M has 172 members on our roster, of which 131 are active. On the server we have 130 active players registered for Squad Wars. Thank you for your concern. Now; who's the one slacker who hasn't registered?

Joaquin, if you set the limit at 100, and if your "cooperative sub-squads" concept works, we would simply divide the M.O.Ms on the server into two groups who could then play as a sort of alliance, as you say here. I see no problem with that.

As squads grow beyond the limit, and they will, they can be redivided into more than two sub-squads, yes? Members would have to drop out of one group to be reassigned, just like leaving one squad to join another. No big deal.

Nothing changes about the club, the forum, nobody is any less a member than he or she was previously. There isn't even a need to make more than the slightest adjustment to the name of the partitioned groups so the server can differentiate between them. M.O.M and M*O*M and M-O-M. DFC and Dogfight Clan and DogfightClan.

As for Venn diagrams of pie charts of projected percentages of relative victories as measured against overall games played on a bell curve of probabilities as determined by a descending scale of the inverse hypotenuse of hangars hit versus hangars hit on days that end in "-day" within the primary sets of A) stuff and 2) other stuff as filtered through a pair of pantyhose and smoked in a baby giraffe skull bong, I couldn't agree more.

And here I was thinking it'd be one squad wins, the other squad loses, CAKE.

Wigbomb wrote: I got about a quarter of the way through this thread and tried to drown myself in a bucket of ibuprofen. There's at least one person in here whose head we could rent out as a pink noise generator. (not you, Dave. Thanks for the beacon of simplicity in a tsunami of WTF?)

There's a server. It assigns four people per side. (in a perfect world ca. early 2012) It has a database of players' squad affiliations. It'll assign four players from each of two squads drawn from whichever players representing those two squads happen to be online at the time. Finis.

The previous dramatization is based entirely on what exists in the Dogfight server realm today. Anything more elaborate is icing on the...

----

M.O.M has 172 members on our roster, of which 131 are active. On the server we have 130 active players registered for Squad Wars. Thank you for your concern. Now; who's the one slacker who hasn't registered?

Joaquin, if you set the limit at 100, and if your "cooperative sub-squads" concept works, we would simply divide the M.O.Ms on the server into two groups who could then play as a sort of alliance, as you say here. I see no problem with that.

As squads grow beyond the limit, and they will, they can be redivided into more than two sub-squads, yes? Members would have to drop out of one group to be reassigned, just like leaving one squad to join another. No big deal.

Nothing changes about the club, the forum, nobody is any less a member than he or she was previously. There isn't even a need to make more than the slightest adjustment to the name of the partitioned groups so the server can differentiate between them. M.O.M and M*O*M and M-O-M. DFC and Dogfight Clan and DogfightClan.

As for Venn diagrams of pie charts of projected percentages of relative victories as measured against overall games played on a bell curve of probabilities as determined by a descending scale of the inverse hypotenuse of hangars hit versus hangars hit on days that end in "-day" within the primary sets of A) stuff and 2) other stuff as filtered through a pair of pantyhose and smoked in a baby giraffe skull bong, I couldn't agree more.

And here I was thinking it'd be one squad wins, the other squad loses, CAKE.

. Wig!.....why arnt u president yet? Run for office!!!!! Ill vote!!!!!!! XD

Hi there!

Hasn't the wheel already been invented in real life?
I don't know how things were managed in during the First World War, when they díd have to invent it, but after an hour or so of Wikipedeing I came up with this: (probably not absolutely correct,so feel free to shoot at it!)




A brigade (up to 192 planes) is two wings,
a wing (or a group) is two squadrons,
a squadron (12 to 24 planes) is four flights,
a flight is 3 to 6 planes.

So it's the understanding of a 'Squadron' that is a bit lost in the game.
Each Dogfight 'Squadron' should consist of smaller units.

Wouldn't it be an idea to be able to apply for a spot in an upcoming "Squadron War'game.....and when it's full, it's full. and your place and role in the game is according to rank.

Or we could split the 'Squadrons' up in historically correct smaller units, and call them M.O.M brigade, Misfits Brigade, Dragons Whatever Brigade etc.

1st. and 2nd. Group (or Wing) of that Brigade,

Alpha and Bravo Squadron of that Group (or Wing) of that Brigade,

...and then some nitty-gritty about the four Flights of each Squadron of that Group (or Wing) of that Brigade.

Wouldn'd that be cool if you could make them out on the marking of the planes......or didn't they have that in WW1?

(But we all know it is highly unlikely that any of the Flights, Squadrons, or any of those units will ever see action together in full strength, because we are all playing at different times of the day and in different timezones.)

So wouldn't the signing up idea be something to take into consideration?

Well, just a thought.

"Adventure is úp there!"

Ed

Rudolf Rednose wrote: Hi there!

Hasn't the wheel already been invented in real life?
I don't know how things were managed in during the First World War, when they díd have to invent it, but after an hour or so of Wikipedeing I came up with this: (probably not absolutely correct,so feel free to shoot at it!)

A brigade (up to 192 planes) is two wings,
a wing (or a group) is two squadrons,
a squadron (12 to 24 planes) is four flights,
a flight is 3 to 6 planes.

So it's the understanding of a 'Squadron' that is a bit lost in the game.
Each Dogfight 'Squadron' should consist of smaller units.

Wouldn't it be an idea to be able to apply for a spot in an upcoming "Squadron War'game.....and when it's full, it's full. and your place and role in the game is according to rank.

Or we could split the 'Squadrons' up in historically correct smaller units, and call the M.O.M brigade, Misfits Brigade, Dragons Whatever Brigade etc.

1st. and 2nd. Group (or Wing) of that Brigade,

Alpha and Bravo Squadron of that Group (or Wing)of that Brigade,

...and then some nitty-gritty about the four Flights of each Squadron of that Group (or Wing) of that Brigade.

(But we all know it is highly unlikely that any of the Flights, Squadrons, or any of those units will ever see action together in full strength, because we are all playing at different times of the day and in different timezones.)

So wouldn't the signing up idea be something to take into consideration?

Well, just a thought.

"Adventure is úp there!"

Ed

absolutely brilliant!!!!!!!!

Rudolf Rednose wrote: Hi there!

Hasn't the wheel already been invented in real life?
I don't know how things were managed in during the First World War, when they díd have to invent it, but after an hour or so of Wikipedeing I came up with this: (probably not absolutely correct,so feel free to shoot at it!)

A brigade (up to 192 planes) is two wings,
a wing (or a group) is two squadrons,
a squadron (12 to 24 planes) is four flights,
a flight is 3 to 6 planes.

So it's the understanding of a 'Squadron' that is a bit lost in the game.
Each Dogfight 'Squadron' should consist of smaller units.

Wouldn't it be an idea to be able to apply for a spot in an upcoming "Squadron War'game.....and when it's full, it's full. and your place and role in the game is according to rank.

Or we could split the 'Squadrons' up in historically correct smaller units, and call the M.O.M brigade, Misfits Brigade, Dragons Whatever Brigade etc.

1st. and 2nd. Group (or Wing) of that Brigade,

Alpha and Bravo Squadron of that Group (or Wing)of that Brigade,

...and then some nitty-gritty about the four Flights of each Squadron of that Group (or Wing) of that Brigade.

(But we all know it is highly unlikely that any of the Flights, Squadrons, or any of those units will ever see action together in full strength, because we are all playing at different times of the day and in different timezones.)

So wouldn't the signing up idea be something to take into consideration?

Well, just a thought.

"Adventure is úp there!"

Ed

That would fit well into what I posted earlier. It's obvious that you are not going to have all MOMs playing at the same time, or generally any other squad either. Use those numbers you just posted to set up the game, then allow X number of pilots from the same "squadron" to join in each side.

Royal Flush dizzy now!
Swop hurt poor Flushy's head with all that techie talk!