Game Play question.

[FALCONWING]

As someone who has been gone for a while:

1.  It got to a point where who cared???  You have a bazillion bases so who cares if you lose one?  Back when maps were smaller then it mattered if you lost/won bases...now it really doesn't.
2.  It's easier to kill when you are on the attack (alt/e/coordination)....thats why folks play...success etc
3.  When there is no country loyalty you can just jump to whatever side gives you the best opportunity to do what you want....so again why care what state one country is in???  I understand folks will flame and go on about chesspiece loyalty blah blah blah...but most mmo's....and our population is more mmo'ish then fps'ish don't allow rapid transitions from side to side....encouraging formation of relationships and cooperation.

But the bottom line is "base taking" at its most basic is "something to do"....while base defense is "something to get annoyed over" (read most posts/qq threads/"horde" threads) and ask yourself which pathway is more likely to be pursued.

gluck all
falc

[Chilli]

Slower is harder.

I have tried to convince my wife that 

SNIP
One motivation for preferring the attack missing  so far in this thread (or maybe it's just me who missed it, please ignore me in this case):
Players love to have the initiative. As attacker you can choose when and where you strike, you can abort the mission when it doesn't run well with less impact on combat morale than a defender can. Most players get quickly tired after a number of base defenses, constantly reacting to enemy activity is apparently very frustrating for many. (I might point out that the most renowned defenders are for the most part players of significantly above average skill level) Even when the defense is successful, you will start to read a lot of "I'm tired of defending... let's grab a base!".
After all these years of heavy gaming, I have yet to read the opposite expression on any country channel.

Players love to attack for the sake of attacking. Snip

Lushce, I agree but was trying to stay on the topic of what would help the defense.  Now that you opened the door,  I have been saying THIS, and there is a simple solution:

• Compact sized base captures
  • One or two large hordes could not keep up with the success of multiple captures by "Compact" sized attack missions
  • Eventually the hordes would loose players to those conceding the horde's inefficiency and willing to defend against smaller numbers
  • More areas of activity spread across the map
  • Air combat improves
  • Organized strikes would more likely be squad based
  • Large missions are still available, but no longer the prevailing base capture
  
  Easily achieved and easily tweaked.  Simply roll the town percentage back to 50% or reduce it to the appropriate percentage that yields the above results.   
  
  Simple, explain the change as experimental, with the above desired results.  Explain that the percentages may need to be adjusted again and tested until HTC has determined that the it fully realized the best balance for all level of players.  Of course there will be those who will throw tantrums and panties will knot, but seriously what was the harm in allowing smaller compact groups to capture bases in the first place?

[The Fugitive]

How about a system message that announces only to the opposing teams when a mission with more than say.... 25  players launches. As an added twist put in a randomizer that blocks the message 1 out of 5, or maybe 10 times. This way defenders get an alert simulating intel that a mission is launching. The only info is "where" the destination is unknown. It gives defenders time to get organized to defend, and with the randomizer the attackers get a surprise attack now and then.

I have tried to convince my wife that 

Lushce, I agree but was trying to stay on the topic of what would help the defense.  Now that you opened the door,  I have been saying THIS, and there is a simple solution:

• Compact sized base captures
  • One or two large hordes could not keep up with the success of multiple captures by "Compact" sized attack missions
  • Eventually the hordes would loose players to those conceding the horde's inefficiency and willing to defend against smaller numbers
  • More areas of activity spread across the map
  • Air combat improves
  • Organized strikes would more likely be squad based
  • Large missions are still available, but no longer the prevailing base capture
  
  Easily achieved and easily tweaked.  Simply roll the town percentage back to 50% or reduce it to the appropriate percentage that yields the above results.   
  
  Simple, explain the change as experimental, with the above desired results.  Explain that the percentages may need to be adjusted again and tested until HTC has determined that the it fully realized the best balance for all level of players.  Of course there will be those who will throw tantrums and panties will knot, but seriously what was the harm in allowing smaller compact groups to capture bases in the first place?

zHordes don't care how easy things are, thats why you see 30-50 guys hitting a V base.

[PFactorDave]

How about a system message that announces only to the opposing teams when a mission with more than say.... 25  players launches. As an added twist put in a randomizer that blocks the message 1 out of 5, or maybe 10 times. This way defenders get an alert simulating intel that a mission is launching. The only info is "where" the destination is unknown. It gives defenders time to get organized to defend, and with the randomizer the attackers get a surprise attack now and then.
 

Interesting idea, and if the NOE mission was still standard procedure, it might be helpful.  But would a message really give much more lead time?  As it stands right now, the giant red dar bar gives the mission's launch point away within a couple minutes of launching. 

The dar bar warning doesn't prompt much defense now.  I'm not convinced that a system message would be any more effective.

That said, it might be worth trying anyway.  What do I know?

[Chilli]

Fugi,

With what I am suggesting, it is okay for them to horde.  Those 35 or so guys will have one base captured and a handful of kills to divide amoung the horde. 

Meanwhile, folks (that think like me) take up 5 guys and coordinate with another 5 guys and take 2 of their bases.  Give it a couple of weeks and the dust will settle, you will have far more groups of 5 guys taking bases successfully, while the horde is concentrated in one area, equal and greater numbers from both opposing countries will be consuming their turf where they are not.

So horde away folks......  just don't  when the numbers turn against you.  It is plain and simple, the right balance and the right attitudes, and AH2 gold can be had by players of all levels.

On the flip side, the vDevils get a lot of publicity for hording (possibly because it is easier to spot their Vnames), are actually a tight group of guys that enjoy flying together.  My bet is that if these types of changes did occur, they would adjust and become more noted for the positive things that they bring to the game.

[Tilt]

I think I would speed capture up or keep it where it is      ........... but slow town rejuvination down so there is an ebb and flow across a battle for a town. The win line is too clear and too irreversable.

I like the ideas of take and hold so there is a #minute ticker before the whole thing flips over to a fully ai defended town and base owned by which ever team pushed the last 10 troops in the map room. If  numbers of troops cause FR problems then a) remove their icons b) simplify their graphics at short range+, c) don't render them at all at medium range+.

If a side has massive numbers advantage they will roll the map (and win?) but permit a game play model where this does not prevent (defenders?) access to the combat zone due to massive base cap.

First we had airfields. AW
Then we had airfields that can be porked AW
Then we had airfields that could be captured AW/AH
Then we had airfields with towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH
Then we had airfields with bigger towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH

The model has developed (straight line) from the original rather than look to a parallel (land grab) alternative that finally pushes combat away from the field. There will be some other game play balances required (gv spawns local to towns not airfields ?) but I am sure that if we tried a terrain with more remote towns, harder fields and a balanced game play layout of gv spawns it would be worth further development.

[BaldEagl]

Even though I suggested the perk carrot it wouldn't motivate me.  I always have several thousand perks banked in each category although I currently have less in GV's.  I once lost around 60 AR234's one camp trying to find a bug in my system that would cause me to disco every time I dropped bombs on a city.  234's got me there faster so I kept using and losing them.

Regardless, I think most of us posting are in the "perks to lose" category.  Many in the MA play for their 25 perks for winning the war.  Besides that what I proposed would not only be a carrot for the defenders but a stick for the hordes and anything that helps spread the combat around has to be a good thing.

[RealDeal]

Even though I suggested the perk carrot it wouldn't motivate me.  I always have several thousand perks banked in each category although I currently have less in GV's.  I once lost around 60 AR234's one camp trying to find a bug in my system that would cause me to disco every time I dropped bombs on a city.  234's got me there faster so I kept using and losing them.

Regardless, I think most of us posting are in the "perks to lose" category.  Many in the MA play for their 25 perks for winning the war.  Besides that what I proposed would not only be a carrot for the defenders but a stick for the hordes and anything that helps spread the combat around has to be a good thing.

My idea of the "local" ENY to allow defenders to earn more perks is not aimed at the relatively few players that have "thousands" of perks, but more at the hundreds of players that have less then 2000 perks in any one category (99% of them have never even been to the forumns). There's very little you can do to motivate veterian players that have amassed thousands of perks over the years. They will continue to play the way they always have for better or worse. Again, IMO I think you need some way to positivitly motivate players to defend when all the odds are against them especially when loosing a base doesnt usually mean anything. I mean really, don't you just fall back to a base that has all the same planes and tanks. The only difference is there's no enemy horde over head and its not full of holes. Geeze when you put it that way, why defend at all? Just fall back. Or the game could be setup to reward defenders for making the effort.

[BaldEagl]

My idea of the "local" ENY to allow defenders to earn more perks is not aimed at the relatively few players that have "thousands" of perks, but more at the hundreds of players that have less then 2000 perks in any one category (99% of them have never even been to the forumns). There's very little you can do to motivate veterian players that have amassed thousands of perks over the years. They will continue to play the way they always have for better or worse. Again, IMO I think you need some way to positivitly motivate players to defend when all the odds are against them especially when loosing a base doesnt usually mean anything. I mean really, don't you just fall back to a base that has all the same planes and tanks. The only difference is there's no enemy horde over head and its not full of holes. Geeze when you put it that way, why defend at all? Just fall back. Or the game could be setup to reward defenders for making the effort.

Huh?  Maybe you should read the thread before responding.

Here's an idea.  In addition to the country perk multiplyer have a sector multiplyer or maybe just get rid of the country multiplyer altogether.  At the moment of a kill the friendlies vs enemies in the sector are counted and the ratio applies an additional perk multiplyer for that specific kill.  That way the horde's get few perks and the few defenders get many.  Likewise a lone attacker against a heavily defended field would also benefit.

Successfully defending in lower ENY planes would be HUGE perk gainers and even the horde's might try higher ENY planes to offset the loss of perks from the horde itself.  You might even be able to do a little perk farming flying late war monsters in defense.  All the guys who dive into the swarm anywhere on the map would be beneficiaries.  Maybe more would be willing to try it knowing there's something to gain and not just everything to lose.   If the incentive were great enough maybe it would spread the fights out over more the map as people would seek more red and less green.

This is actually a variation of the old zone ENY idea.  It seems like a relatively easy implementation since AH tracks all the planes and puts up dar bars in each sector already.  The data needed is already there.

[RealDeal]

Huh?  Maybe you should read the thread before responding.

Sorry bout that amago didn't see that. Well it looks like we both have similar ideas.

[FALCONWING]

I think I would speed capture up or keep it where it is      ........... but slow town rejuvination down so there is an ebb and flow across a battle for a town. The win line is too clear and too irreversable.

I like the ideas of take and hold so there is a #minute ticker before the whole thing flips over to a fully ai defended town and base owned by which ever team pushed the last 10 troops in the map room. If  numbers of troops cause FR problems then a) remove their icons b) simplify their graphics at short range+, c) don't render them at all at medium range+.

If a side has massive numbers advantage they will roll the map (and win?) but permit a game play model where this does not prevent (defenders?) access to the combat zone due to massive base cap.

First we had airfields. AW
Then we had airfields that can be porked AW
Then we had airfields that could be captured AW/AH
Then we had airfields with towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH
Then we had airfields with bigger towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH

The model has developed (straight line) from the original rather than look to a parallel (land grab) alternative that finally pushes combat away from the field. There will be some other game play balances required (gv spawns local to towns not airfields ?) but I am sure that if we tried a terrain with more remote towns, harder fields and a balanced game play layout of gv spawns it would be worth further development.

I found this interesting.  The game was more fun imho when you could noe with 5 guys and take a town.  I know some hated it but it allowed low number countries to sneak bases.  Witht the ever larger fields and numerous acks it required a large force to take a base.  Also quick building respawns made it useless to go back if the first attempt failed. 

Maybe a combination of "sneakable" bases and other zone bases with larger towns that are not close to the airfield (we had a map like that once) and a slower respawn on buildings would create more emphasis on "combat".

The question is what the remaining player base will support...by this I mean most "vet" pilots only want to fight and not capture bases...so will changing base structure/capture requirements  really accomplish desired goal??? 

[dedalos]

For the most part EVERYONE wants to be on the attack. Part of the team to grab that next base. Part of the team to "WIN THE WAR!"

Here's the question, what would it take for you to DEFEND?

As the game is played now defenders are few and far between. Sure sometimes you get a dozen guys to up, but as soon as the numbers get overwhelming like they "sometimes" do  most head off looking for something else to do. More often than not it's to join their local "horde" for the next attack on a base that very few will defend against.

So what would it take? We know players JOIN the hordes to be part of the "success" of the mission, the comradary of flying with their squad. So if there was a system message that said "Bishops have successfully defended against a capture attempt at A22", would that get more people to defend? Maybe points/perks for defending?

What would it take for you to defend more? 

Up the perk multiplier when the flag is white maybe?  Also give GV perks to the guys in the field guns?  Maybe give perks in all categories?  The only issue is that it would probably be easy to game it.

[Chilli]

I found this interesting.  The game was more fun imho when you could noe with 5 guys and take a town.  I know some hated it but it allowed low number countries to sneak bases.  Witht the ever larger fields and numerous acks it required a large force to take a base.  Also quick building respawns made it useless to go back if the first attempt failed. 

Maybe a combination of "sneakable" bases and other zone bases with larger towns that are not close to the airfield (we had a map like that once) and a slower respawn on buildings would create more emphasis on "combat".

The question is what the remaining player base will support...by this I mean most "vet" pilots only want to fight and not capture bases...so will changing base structure/capture requirements  really accomplish desired goal??? 

Bullseye my friend! 

Taking bases is a fun "cartoon" addition to the game.  It was implemented to motivate air combat IIRC.  That combat comes from the challenge of stopping the base capture.  How many challengers go against the horde?  I believe that is the meat of Fugitive's question, and Lushe's answer was it is more fun to attack.  I say that when we had smaller groups attacking multiple targets, we had more challengers having fun defending.

Who are these folks that hated easier captures?  Do they hate hordes more or less?  Or are they not willing to concede that they may have plugged the leaking dike with their finger and now the rise of the horde is on the other side and they are franctic, looking for more fingers to plug the cracks that are springing up?  Do some of them suggest to let the flood of the horde just roll over the dike and leave whatever resistance the dike offered to wither below the current?  Shall we just have a sea hordes pushing back and forth across map after map?

Would changing base capture requirements make defending more fun?  There is a SIMPLE way to find out, and it is already coded and ready to implement.  But beyond that, I am willing to see what HTC has planned.  They have always come up with improvements  and changes that we were not aware of.  I would be in favor of something entirely different, as long as it was friendly enough for me and a couple of other close friends to have success engineering a better existence for our current chesspiece.

[The Fugitive]

I found this interesting.  The game was more fun imho when you could noe with 5 guys and take a town.  I know some hated it but it allowed low number countries to sneak bases.  Witht the ever larger fields and numerous acks it required a large force to take a base.  Also quick building respawns made it useless to go back if the first attempt failed. 

Maybe a combination of "sneakable" bases and other zone bases with larger towns that are not close to the airfield (we had a map like that once) and a slower respawn on buildings would create more emphasis on "combat".

The question is what the remaining player base will support...by this I mean most "vet" pilots only want to fight and not capture bases...so will changing base structure/capture requirements  really accomplish desired goal??? 

As a "vet", I'm for anything that brings more fights to the game and less hordes if that is possible. I would even be ok WITH hordes if any one could come up with a way to defend against them. Right now there isn't any way to stop a horde other than spending the night porking ord and troops along a front. With the bigger maps that's a LOT of bases. NOBODY wants to spend their "free time" doing that. So that leaves us with hordes rolling bases and very few defending against them.

Helping the defenders defend using game mechanics is about the only option left. We all know that the public will not adjust things themselves. Look at the NOE issues. Once it became rampant, and it was the "only" real mission any one was running HTC stepped in and adjusted things to make that more difficult. The only time you see a lot of NOEs now is on the maps with a lot of water. Maybe that's why "Trinity" hangs around so long, there are very few bases that you can now get to easily in an NOW.... hmmmm

[CAV]

How about moving the fights away from the bases most of the time?  Have a road/supply/network on the map. Along the road are spawn points, 5-8ks apart, enough room to maneuver, but not so far apart that you would be bored driving it.  At the Spawn points have the map room bunkers and a AT gun and an AAA gun.  To get to the bases you have fight your way down the roads. Also we would have to limit the number of bases with C-47 with troops. Very few Goons with troops = very few NOE hordes . But... still do able with planning.

Next tie supply to the roads to your base....... no open road to your base... NO supply convoys, longer down times. We would need other rules for Task Force attacks from the sea... maybe the the bases is only in supply if the TF stays nearby... something like.







I don't if this is even do able or not.

But the base captures would be at the end of a long hard road of battle.

GV'ers would something better to do than spawn camping or TT.

With any luck larger furballs out away from bases and base ack!

Slow the hordes down but not good planned missions.


Cavalry