A different system for base capture.

[guncrasher]

thanks fugitive.

I still say that once the troops go into the maproom then it technically doesnt belong to anybody so nobody should be able to spawn planes/gvs out of it until the 20 min timer has expired and whoever got the last troops in wins it.

also in order for a "captured" base to be recapture before the timer expires then 10 troops must go into the map-room if less than 10 then no "recapture".


semp

[Chilli]

I love the concept, as stated before, but I will add what I see as flaws, and allow others to comment on possible fixes.

1.  I wish to game the new system so I grab my troops from the defending field and hide close by, have my teamates to defend and instantly recapture the field before it changes hands - this becomes the norm for any base defense and the map becomes STAGNANT.

2.  I have many friends that wish to take a base, so we know to run missions every 5 minutes or so to keep the maproom capped after capture.  Sure it gives defenders more time to get there but how many will for a lost cause (when no troops can make it to the maproom)?

3.  #2 above has reinforced that I need a horde to capture a base.

4.  #3 above a horde is a horde whether or not is has a purpose.

5.  #1 -4 above has done nothing to give small groups of players incentives to spread across the map to give a variety of alternatives for game play.

[Tank-Ace]

+1 chilli, hordes need to go. Or at the very least disperse to smaller, more managable hordes.

[Lusche]

+1 chilli, hordes need to go. Or at the very least disperse to smaller, more managable hordes.

If that was the sole and true intention, I would massively oppose it.

[Tank-Ace]

Why? Asside from the fact that they generate fights, they're either useless, or actively harmfull to the overall health of the arena.

If we can generate fights through other means, I think those other means would be the best way HTC could invest their time and resources at the moment.

[Lusche]

Why? Asside from the fact that they generate fights, they're either useless, or actively harmfull to the overall health of the arena.

If we can generate fights through other means, I think those other means would be the best way HTC could invest their time and resources at the moment.

"Aside from the fact they generate fight..." I think that tells it all.

Useless? They provide ample targets and a dynamic gameplay. I really think a lot of you want to "balance" the arena until it's a sterile and utterly boring environment. I support all measures to provide a rich gameplay environment, where strategy, surprise, prolonged battles, noe's, sneaks and "hordes" (=numerical superiority.... ever heard of "Schwerpunkt"?) have all their place.

I don't ever want to play in a AH many "horde" opponents seem to envision.

[Tank-Ace]

Lusche, theres a difference between a large fight or use of strategy and tactics and the hordes we see in game.


Most of the hordes are nothing more than everyone flocking to the largest darbar they see, with none of the strategy and tactics you seem to think are being used. At best its usually just some armchair generals yelling out orders with most people ignoring them.

Very few missions out there that don't just try to round up as many people as possible, and then throw them against a base, and trying to shut it down so as to avoid combat.


You wanna talk about strategy? Try capturing a defended base with only 7 guys, by knocking out the radar, having someone fly in the overlapping radar from another base, while making use of a large dar-bar a sector adjacent to the base you're trying to take to draw attention. I had to taxi my goon a full 4 miles along the beach to the town so I wouldn't be spotted.


A horde is (by my defenition) a large mass of players that attempt to do through weight of numbers what could be done through use of tactics, strategy, or a liberal application of skill. And thats 99% of what you saw back in September.

If the game play has changed that drasticly since then, please let me know, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Chilli]

Lusche,

As Tank Ace elaborated " a more manageable" horde I would think should be the target.  What JUGler is targeting is a way to deplete the effects of the horde on the map.  What he, and possibly you, are not considering are the effects of the horde on the loss of variety of game play left on a map.

For example a large horde rolls bases and changes the physical number of bases of operation for their opponent(s).  A large number of defenders are drawn in to unsuccessfully stop the hemmorhagic effects on their resources.  Whatever is left in terms of players on the "ropes" either are:
1. Not interested in capture or defense
2. More interested in finding / instigating single dogfights
3. Liable to change sides in hopes of a different fight
4. Content in jumping into bombers and climbing to an altitude where they will have almost nil enemy contact
5. Reluctantly dismayed and log off

Anything other than something that allows smaller groups of players to impact the outcome of the action on the map, will fall short of giving AH2 the balance in gaming experience that it should offer.

Lusche, theres a difference between a large fight or use of strategy and tactics and the hordes we see in game.

  +1000

[JUGgler]

Lusche,

. What JUGler is targeting is a way to deplete the effects of the horde on the map.  What he, and possibly you, are not considering are the effects of the horde on the loss of variety of game play left on a map.

 This is not accurate, I agree with Lusche trying to limit horde thru some kind of game change is not good.
We want more horde, or "large fights where all manner of AH diversity can flourish!

This is how I see the capture system: as it is now all the cards are in the attacking mission hands, they have suprise, organization, momentum and a goal. The defenders have none of these cause the system allows NO counter to the mission.

Just like in real war, say an army lost a bridge or town that was strategically important. It is imperative that the leaders of the vanquished army find a way to immediately counter attack. The very sound logic for this is the new owners have not yet consolidated or reinforced their gains so hence even though they just won this real estate they are technically at their weakest and most vulnerable at this moment. So any army that could muster a reasonable force is compelled to try , hell history shows the counter attacking force doesn't even have to be equal to their foe it is merely the best opportunity to gain back what you have lost. If they wait then they will never get it back! Take Stalingrad in WW2 If paulus had immediately counter attacked to the west ( even though his army had suffered a great defeat and was surounded), it is widely believed he could have broke out and saved his army hence turning a potential tragedy into a victory.

like Ah these counter attacks were against territory that was already destroyed If the counter attack was attempted quick enough then virtually no rebuilding could have taken place. This is where I believe the AH system of capture fails miserably, as soon as the tenth drunk gets in, the town ack and base ack comes up fully, and the base is immediately usable (IF the hangars) are left up which usualy the BH is) and if not some hangar is sure to pop within a few minutes

The other goal I think I was trying to get was get the fight for the base spread out a bit instead of just the patch of air and ground between base and town!

And I also think IF a few folks want to fly 6 sectors NOE to try and gallantly capture a base then they should be able to. Changing the radar alt was a mistake IMHO for one very imprtant reason. Anytime you take freadom of choice from folks things get worse!  even in a silly game  

My ultimate goal is to try and create desperate situations where the battles feed on themselves drawing heroic warriors in to try and make a difference! <--- this is a good thing

JUGgler

[PuppetZ]

I like your reasoning Juggler. No need for big change. Like Luschs suggested. Just that small change could greatly affect gameplay dynamic.

We cannot and dont want to "control" hordes. Just to shift the odds a bit back to the defenders. Leaving the destroyed building down until they'd pop back up "naturally" sound like it could accomplish that goal. Worth some thoughts IMO.

 

[Tank-Ace]

Juggler, I'll say say it again: Hordes = bad

However: big fights = good


If a fight starts out small, and slowly builds into a large fight, yes, that's good. If 2 missions happen to stumble across eachother, yes, that's good. If one side decides to get 30 planes and then bludgeon the other side who's already bogged down in heavy fighting on their other flank, no that's terrible with a capitol "T".


We want to promote fights. What we DON'T want to promote, however, is massive groups of people flying against the side that is weakest in a spot where they're unable to effectively defend themselves. Do you know why? Because the primary goal of that style of attack is to AVOID combat as entirely as possible.

That's the entire goal of a horde, to make the fighting as one sided as possible, so that theres an absolute minimum of combat.


This is where you and lusche fail. You're not making the distinction between a big fight, which is fun, and a horde. The two are worlds apart as far as the gameplay they create is concerned.

[JUGgler]

Juggler, I'll say say it again: Hordes = bad

However: big fights = good


If a fight starts out small, and slowly builds into a large fight, yes, that's good. If 2 missions happen to stumble across eachother, yes, that's good. If one side decides to get 30 planes and then bludgeon the other side who's already bogged down in heavy fighting on their other flank, no that's terrible with a capitol "T".


We want to promote fights. What we DON'T want to promote, however, is massive groups of people flying against the side that is weakest in a spot where they're unable to effectively defend themselves. Do you know why? Because the primary goal of that style of attack is to AVOID combat as entirely as possible.That's the entire goal of a horde, to make the fighting as one sided as possible, so that theres an absolute minimum of combat.


This is where you and lusche fail. You're not making the distinction between a big fight, which is fun, and a horde. The two are worlds apart as far as the gameplay they create is concerned.

Well whether you like it or not, there IS a strategic (lets say WAR aspect) of the game. The very nature of war is to attack where your enemy is not, where he is weak, make him react to you. My idea would allow the opportunity to react! horde or no horde!

Hordes are here to stay in ALL of their silly glory! better to find a way to incorporate them without restricting them.

I actually believe, most captures would still go for the most part "UNCHALLENGED" but those that were contested---> wow could be truely epic in scale and action!


I disagree, I think the primary goal of hordes is to achieve a goal, usually to capture a field. I believe folks get a sense of (TEAM) and unity that humans crave, why restrict them from this? You could choose NOT to fight the horde and avoid it. You cannot make people play the way you see fit, but you can alter things to bring the different styles of play together in a slightly more balanced (CHOICE FILLED) endeavor!


The game would be much more dull and boring, much more robotic without the ability for folks to CHOOSE to horde if they like!

I mean what would you do to restrict it, demand only 10-15 slots available in any mission? you would have no missions then!


I have already agreed that the radar alt should be raised, thereby allowing smaller groups to try and capture fields by their lonesome if they desire, this alone will help spread out the horde as some squads would go back to doing their own type of captures for themselves!




JUGgler

[Chilli]

I simply see why HTC has done nothing to correct it.  The answer is clear and already tried and tested.  50% town = easier base capture.  I was there.  Where the heck were all of you horde protectors, when every map had many multiple fights, some large and some not so large, and maps were even reset during the off hours servers.  Yet, too many prophets have told the impending doom of the game system if base capture was again tilted slightly less in favor of the defenders. 

Really Lusche? 

If only we had a reliable stat that told of the average # of players involved in base capture, the number of active fights, the variety in targets per hour, a pie chart would show without prejudice how successful the easier base capture system was for generating ACTION.  So, if you don't think AH2 should be providing action, then continue with your claim that large hordes rolling maps is good for game play.
 
Talk about SIMPLE.  More bases captured with lesser number of players needed.  It is insane to say we have that now, those that respond in that way truly are not in touch with the base capture or purely just feed off the few kills it generates for them.

HTC, good luck with trying to please everyone.  Sometimes you have to do what is right and not worry about the fallout from decisions.  As it is now, I appreciate the growth and development in the way the game looks and the addition of new items.  That along with my sense of loyalty to this unique community will have me hooked on my subscription off and on.  But a system that is so frustrating that it brings out the absolute worst in manners, I have to give pause to every once in a while.

[guncrasher]

Lusche, theres a difference between a large fight or use of strategy and tactics and the hordes we see in game.


Most of the hordes are nothing more than everyone flocking to the largest darbar they see, with none of the strategy and tactics you seem to think are being used. At best its usually just some armchair generals yelling out orders with most people ignoring them.

Very few missions out there that don't just try to round up as many people as possible, and then throw them against a base, and trying to shut it down so as to avoid combat.


You wanna talk about strategy? Try capturing a defended base with only 7 guys, by knocking out the radar, having someone fly in the overlapping radar from another base, while making use of a large dar-bar a sector adjacent to the base you're trying to take to draw attention. I had to taxi my goon a full 4 miles along the beach to the town so I wouldn't be spotted.


A horde is (by my defenition) a large mass of players that attempt to do through weight of numbers what could be done through use of tactics, strategy, or a liberal application of skill. And thats 99% of what you saw back in September.

If the game play has changed that drasticly since then, please let me know, but I'm not holding my breath.

but that is the exception not the rule.  may of us have taken bases with just a handful of people.  and before the new 75% town rule it wasnt uncommon for 1 or 2 people to take a base.


semp

[Chilli]

but that is the exception not the rule.  may of us have taken bases with just a handful of people.  and before the new 75% town rule it wasnt uncommon for 1 or 2 people to take a base.


semp

Face Palm