Is this what Hitech wants?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Limiting something or encouraging its opposite. If you wait for complaints to fix something you're probably late.

I agree.

You'd have players paying for other players excesses.

In fact this is what we have now, the target of the horde pays for the hordelings excess. Only difference is that the hordeling gets no negative returns for his behaviour and the ones that suffer, suffer the more they try to defend usually. Que negative returns.

I know my suggestion is far from perfect, just an idea among others.

[mechanic]

i find it hilarious that people complain about there being too many 'real life human people' flying against them in something that I find to be quite incredible.......a game with 'huge amounts of real life human players' flying against me. It's freakin awesome what we have here yet people still complain.  Amazing how much we take for granted in threads like this.

[SectorNine50]

I agree.

In fact this is what we have now, the target of the horde pays for the hordelings excess. Only difference is that the hordeling gets no negative returns for his behaviour and the ones that suffer, suffer the more they try to defend usually. Que negative returns.

I know my suggestion is far from perfect, just an idea among others.

That's because the "hordlings" aren't doing anything that should be punished.  They are playing an online game and happen to be working together and getting the reward.  In EVERY GAME you play online, those with their numbers focused on one goal USUALLY win.

People need to stop expecting online player verses player video games to always be fair.  They are not.

Usually the horde is too dumb to defend the base they are upping from.  Up bombers, drop their hangers.  The horde is so easily combated it's ridiculous that this many seasoned players still complain about it.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

That's because the "hordlings" aren't doing anything that should be punished.  They are playing an online game and happen to be working together and getting the reward.  In EVERY GAME you play online, those with their numbers focused on one goal USUALLY win.

People need to stop expecting online player verses player video games to always be fair.  They are not.

Usually the horde is too dumb to defend the base they are upping from.  Up bombers, drop their hangers.  The horde is so easily combated it's ridiculous that this many seasoned players still complain about it.

By the time you get a bomber and drop 1-2 of hangers they already took the field attacked with overwhelming numbers and moved on. You might aswell tell the African farmers to attack the locust larvae while the parents are eating the crops, that'll teach them!

[SectorNine50]

By the time you get a bomber and drop 1-2 of hangers they already took the field attacked with overwhelming numbers and moved on. You might aswell tell the African farmers to attack the locust larvae while the parents are eating the crops, that'll teach them!

I watched a horde attack a base for 2 hours two nights ago, no one did anything but complain about it.  Two people could have upped bombers 1 base back, and taken out all the fighter hangers in one pass in a total of probably 20-30 minutes.

The horde complaints piss me off.  "You fix it HiTech, we can't be bothered to do anything about it."

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I watched a horde attack a base for 2 hours, no one did anything but complain about it.

Obviously it was not a horde then or they'd succeed in taking it.

[SectorNine50]

Obviously it was not a horde then or they'd succeed in taking it.

Not the case, most hordes are just swarms of fighters.  No one attacking the town, just vulching.

Eventually a squad takes advantage of the situation and coordinates the taking of the airfield.  THAT is when the horde starts rolling bases, now that squad will continue to do it to base after base using the horde as a protective device.

If you take the hangers away at the nearest base to the fight, most of the horde can't be bothered to up further back.

[moot]

In fact this is what we have now, the target of the horde pays for the hordelings excess. Only difference is that the hordeling gets no negative returns for his behaviour and the ones that suffer, suffer the more they try to defend usually. Que negative returns.

But right now you can switch sides; that's the relief valve. Then again you could switch sides in your scheme too. 
The marginal worseness of the scheme you propose over the current scheme is that whereas in the current scheme things go back to normal as soon as enough players switch sides and rebalance sides, in the scheme you propose you still have those attrited vehicle models.  A player who logs on right after the imbalance and rebalance events will find himself in a country without the vehicle he wants to play, and either gets pissed off about it (logs off, complains, etc) or does something about it: switches sides.  Which initiates another unbalancing trend.
So all things considered the above scheme is not that different from current ENY scheme but adds some marginally worse elements.  Off the top of my head I can't think of any fixes that'd make it better than the current scheme.

The word is cue (no need to thank me, hehe). Homonym's queue, apparently it was changed to cue from queue in english for billiard sticks, and queue is used in any situation where youve got a waiting line of some sort.

I know my suggestion is far from perfect, just an idea among others.

Yes and poking holes in it is how it'll be perfected   You know the drill.

Not the case, most hordes are just swarms of fighters.  No one attacking the town, just vulching.

Eventually a squad takes advantage of the situation and coordinates the taking of the airfield.  THAT is when the horde starts rolling bases, now that squad will continue to do it to base after base using the horde as a protective device.

If you take the hangers away at the nearest base to the fight, most of the horde can't be bothered to up further back.

Unless things have changed in the last couple of years, a fair share of hording is started by base taking squads.  The word horde usually meaning disproportionate strike force.  Disproportionate as if I invited you to spar a bit in Aces High and then vulched you repeatedly. You wouldn't get your 15$'s worth.

[SNIPER30]

Zinc Member



Reg: Nov 2007

Posts: 65
 Online

      Re: the "WARBEAST Kill Club"
« Reply #99 on: Today at 02:01:37 PM » Quote Modify  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW now I've seen it all!

Now if I'm not mistaken, Warbeast you are always in a 5in gun or other manned gun on the bases am i right? (thought so)

Warbeast,when your in the 5in on the ships don't you routinely call out the location of the CV"S YOUR ON on channel 200 for everyone to see.(thought so)

So now i ask Hitech,what is the difference between this behavior and the one that you muted DMGOD for?(both are doing the same thing)

Sound like a double standard to me!

Thank you

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Not the case, most hordes are just swarms of fighters.  No one attacking the town, just vulching.

Eventually a squad takes advantage of the situation and coordinates the taking of the airfield.  THAT is when the horde starts rolling bases, now that squad will continue to do it to base after base using the horde as a protective device.

I saw 70 plane B24 formations just recently. Carpet bombing the field down in one pass. This leaves no defence. No recourse. Just watch the mob roll over.

It's online bullying. And it fits all the social implications, too.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

But right now you can switch sides; that's the relief valve.

In reality it's not. Switching sides would only further lopside the balance and amounts up to boring gameplay - where's the fun being number 10 vulcher chasing that one poor bastage on the deck?

A player who logs on right after the imbalance and rebalance events will find himself in a country without the vehicle he wants to play, and either gets pissed off about it (logs off, complains, etc) or does something about it: switches sides.  Which initiates another unbalancing trend.

On the contrary, in that case the arena would be MORE balanced with every sideswitcher. Your model makes balance worse, mine better. See the difference? The attrition hurts only the side that uses too much resources.

[SectorNine50]

I saw 70 plane B24 formations just recently. Carpet bombing the field down in one pass. This leaves no defence. No recourse. Just watch the mob roll over.

It's online bullying. And it fits all the social implications, too.

Every online game has bullies, just like the playground.

In EVE Online, there are people that would literally fly 5 tiny $100,000 ships up to your $30,000,000 industrial ship and all fire at once.  That did enough damage to lose your industrial ship before the "game police" (named Concord) would come and blow up their ships for shooting someone in "High Security Space."

Fair?  Nope.

No matter what you do, there is always someone out to smash your ice cream cone.

In reality it's not. Switching sides would only further lopside the balance and amounts up to boring gameplay - where's the fun being number 10 vulcher chasing that one poor bastage on the deck?

Exactly.  Go to a different base or leave the arena, the horde will get bored and dissipate.

[moot]

Not the case, most hordes are just swarms of fighters.  No one attacking the town, just vulching.

Eventually a squad takes advantage of the situation and coordinates the taking of the airfield.  THAT is when the horde starts rolling bases, now that squad will continue to do it to base after base using the horde as a protective device.

I saw 70 plane B24 formations just recently. Carpet bombing the field down in one pass. This leaves no defence. No recourse. Just watch the mob roll over.

DoS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

In reality it's not. Switching sides would only further lopside the balance and amounts up to boring gameplay - where's the fun being number 10 vulcher chasing that one poor bastage on the deck?

I mean if you're getting ENY'd, you switch sides.  Switch sides to rebalance, not to abandon losing side and increase imbalance.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I mean if you're getting ENY'd, you switch sides.  Switch sides to rebalance, not to abandon losing side and increase imbalance.

Yep that's exactly what I was looking for with the attrition. When a locust storm eats up the resources, the locust storm in nature dies of hunger. Here it has infinite resources to roll over.

[Ardy123]

My only beef with the monster hordes, such as the 50+ bomber raids (50+ because 2/3s are drones), or the 40 guys attacking a base is that if the horde is too big, I can't get anywhere near the horde without my frame rate taking a dump.

Thats the worst too, it makes it impossible to fight them, and it ruins the game. I have a decent computer too .  This why I wish that there was a limit on the number of planes that can up from a given field, or a local eny system or something to curb the mega-computer bogging hordes. That being said the usually vguy horde isn't large enough to cause the issue.