Game Play question.

[caldera]

The majority of players may only have been here for a year or two - who knows.  If that is the case, they almost need to fly the late war planes to survive.
Especially against all the vets that still fly the late war rides.  Losing a 262 is easy if you don't have experience in it.  I lost a bunch of B-29s just trying to get them to descend on the trip home.  And Tigers are just another target for an inexperienced tanker.  Perks may be easy for teh experten to come by, but much easier for the average player to lose.  The win the war crowd seems to like the measly 25 perks they get.

[Wiley]

I agree.  I think perk incentivized ideas would work.

If that were the case, wouldn't more people switch sides to the outnumbered side to take advantage of the perk multiplier?  History seems to me to show that's not the case.  There's a vocal minority who want to do it but can't very often due to the 12 hour rule, but I'd estimate based on the number of people in the forums that post about it that group is roughly the same size as the "chesspiece 4 lyfe and anyone who thinks different is a spiez" contingent.

Wiley.

[Baumer]

Personally a perk bonus for defending wouldn't interest me, however I think it would be a good incentive for some percentage of players (especially among new players).

What I think would really increase the chances of more people defending (and I know this is complete heresy) would be for each field to have an air spawn. It would be a fighter only spawn, directly over the field, at about 6,000 feet agl.   

[RTHolmes]

the guys who horde roll bases dont hardly earn perks, so perks clearly arent an incentive for them.

they may pick up a couple for killing some buildings, but with 10:1 numbers flying late war low-ENY planes the chances of earning perks for aircraft kills are almost non-existant.

[caldera]

About a dozen quad Bofor mounts at every field would let the defenders get airborne at least.

[The Fugitive]

The majority of players may only have been here for a year or two - who knows.  If that is the case, they almost need to fly the late war planes to survive.
Especially against all the vets that still fly the late war rides.  Losing a 262 is easy if you don't have experience in it.  I lost a bunch of B-29s just trying to get them to descend on the trip home.  And Tigers are just another target for an inexperienced tanker.  Perks may be easy for teh experten to come by, but much easier for the average player to lose.  The win the war crowd seems to like the measly 25 perks they get.

So your saying that if it was easier to earn perk points defending, more people might do it? 

If that were the case, wouldn't more people switch sides to the outnumbered side to take advantage of the perk multiplier?  History seems to me to show that's not the case.  There's a vocal minority who want to do it but can't very often due to the 12 hour rule, but I'd estimate based on the number of people in the forums that post about it that group is roughly the same size as the "chesspiece 4 lyfe and anyone who thinks different is a spiez" contingent.

Wiley.

No the chess piece loyalty is much to strong to break with points/perks.

Personally a perk bonus for defending wouldn't interest me, however I think it would be a good incentive for some percentage of players (especially among new players).

What I think would really increase the chances of more people defending (and I know this is complete heresy) would be for each field to have an air spawn. It would be a fighter only spawn, directly over the field, at about 6,000 feet agl.   

But again, your one of those guys with a bunch of perks, and no real "need" to spend them. A new player still like that idea of FINALLY getting the perks to try a 262 in the mains.

No I think air spawns would hurt more than help. Think of what it would do to your SA. Quick scan and there is noone in icon range, 3 seconds later you look again and you have 4 guys diving on you.

the guys who horde roll bases dont hardly earn perks, so perks clearly arent an incentive for them.

they may pick up a couple for killing some buildings, but with 10:1 numbers flying late war low-ENY planes the chances of earning perks for aircraft kills are almost non-existant.

True, and they know that. They also accept the idea that they suck enough on there own that they couldn't earn them anyway.  If they shot down one guy in the horde mission they earn .25 perks. If they shoot down one guys defending against a horde they earn 2 perks.  You think some may try defending some times?

[bustr]

Create a new class of airfeild that only ups fighters and attackers. A dirt strip and place them half a sector away.

No troops available, just the ability to attack or defend larger feilds. They can be disabled but, rebuild in half the time of other fields. Think of how fast forward strips were repaired in the pacific and russia. Let them serve 2-4 bases from a centralised spot only changing hands when all of the bases they serve are captured. Even tie that to winning the war. Not just 20% but, the dirt strips serveing those 20%

The idea: if you want to march through Gerogia, there's gonna be a redneck with a shotgun behind every tree making you earn your ground.

[Ack-Ack]

I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective.  Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks.  I never even think about them.  Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.

I've got 12 years of perks stored up, a perk incentive would not motivate me in the slightest.

ack-ack

[Baumer]

No I think air spawns would hurt more than help. Think of what it would do to your SA. Quick scan and there is noone in icon range, 3 seconds later you look again and you have 4 guys diving on you.

It's just my opinion, but you asked for ways to increase the likelihood of players upping to defend a base. The reason I recommended a low spawn altitude was to minimize what you are talking about, AND give the defender a little altitude and speed to work with. If you spawn most fighters at 6000 feet they will drop several hundred just getting the engine started and gear up, then drop more to get some speed, so the only ones that would really be surprised would be the vulchers going for the easy runway kills.

However, it's a moot point because I seriously doubt HTC would allow air spawns in the MA.

[Tilt]

over 10,000 fighter perks and I'm a very average player.................. nothing to spend them on that attracts me.............

[The Fugitive]

over 10,000 fighter perks and I'm a very average player.................. nothing to spend them on that attracts me.............

but your another one who has no problem upping and defending a field. You don't need any enticement.

[Lusche]

True, and they know that. They also accept the idea that they suck enough on there own that they couldn't earn them anyway.  If they shot down one guy in the horde mission they earn .25 perks. If they shoot down one guys defending against a horde they earn 2 perks.  You think some may try defending some times?

Some would.
But in my opinion the overwhelming majority would not. Perk motivation only goes so far, and that is not a long distance. We could notice that with the unwillingness of balancing sides despite having an enormous perk gain advantage, and the very high usage of low eny birds, which hardly earn you perks at all.

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. They endure much more losses as long as they still have the impression it's them who dictates the action.

And this not entirely a bad thing, as this game lives from the attack. It depends on players running into enemy defenses again and again. Attack creates combat.
There have been quite a few proposals for getting more players to defend. Some are not bad in my opinion, some won't work well.... but in the end, it's preferable that the gameplay is not totally balanced between attack and defense, and it's very important that the defense doesn't get stronger or just more attractive than the offense. This would stall the game quickly - we could see the effect when the new towns had to be 100% down with no flag being there at all.
Once a huge number of players have the impression that "it's useless to attack at all", AH will run into trouble, unless there is a total and radical change in MA gameplay mechanisms.

Now we can bewail that many players give up far too easily, are demotivated to quickly and so on... but that doesn't matter. In the end it is what it is, and AH has to accept the players for what they are.

[PFactorDave]

You can't earn perks if the horde won't allow you to take off.  The problem, in my opinion, is that it is virtually impossible to defend a field once the horde has the vulch going.  If the base capture still happens lightning fast, and it isn't worthwhile to fly in from another field, a perk multiplier for defense will have little to no effect in my opinion.

I'll say it again, the key to it all is to slow the base capture process down (not necessarily harder, just slower) making flying in from an adjacent base more useful.

Which takes me back to the idea of there being a period of time between when the last troop goes into the maproom and when the capture actually occurs X number of minutes later.   During this period of time, neither side can launch from the field in question.  And during this period, the defenders can attempt to get troops into the maproom.

[Lusche]

I'll say it again, the key to it all is to slow the base capture process down (not necessarily harder, just slower) making flying in from an adjacent base more useful.

Slower is harder.

[PFactorDave]

Slower is harder.

Point taken.  But isn't the point of this thread to come up with fresh ideas on how to entice people to fight against the hordes?  Slowing the horde down seems like the only really viable option to me.

But what do I know?