Why horde?

[The Fugitive]

What prevents the enemy from upping to defend against the "hoard" 

Organization. It is very rare that a squad, or another horde ups to defend against an in coming horde. Many times its just 4 or 5 people trying to slow the horde. it gets as boring as flying with the horde.

[Wiley]

Organization. It is very rare that a squad, or another horde ups to defend against an in coming horde. Many times its just 4 or 5 people trying to slow the horde. it gets as boring as flying with the horde.

That is one thing that just confuses the heck out of me.  I've seen people call out a large bardar developing a sector or two away from a field, headed toward it.  Multiple people call out on country 'large bardar inbound 199' or whatever.  5, 10, 15 minutes before they even enter the dar ring people have called it out, and then once the giant blob of enemy appears, suddenly the channel comes alive with 'Where did this horde come from?!'  At that point, people launch and proceed to get frustrated with being vulched and move somewhere else.

It makes perfect sense that people aren't sitting in tower waiting for something like that to happen so they can up to defend.  People are probably in flight when the call goes out.  I can see why people may not be able to up there to defend, but to be surprised when it gets there?  That makes no sense to me.

Perhaps that's one of the core issues to why there's rarely defense.  Most people log in and don't sit around for more than a couple minutes to find a fight.  They find one and up, and reup pretty much as quickly as possible.  When a call goes out that a base is coming under attack, it's not like half the people on your country are going to auger immediately to get there to climb and form an effective defense, they're doing something else.

Wiley.

[JUGgler]

That is one thing that just confuses the heck out of me.  I've seen people call out a large bardar developing a sector or two away from a field, headed toward it.  Multiple people call out on country 'large bardar inbound 199' or whatever.  5, 10, 15 minutes before they even enter the dar ring people have called it out, and then once the giant blob of enemy appears, suddenly the channel comes alive with 'Where did this horde come from?!'  At that point, people launch and proceed to get frustrated with being vulched and move somewhere else.

It makes perfect sense that people aren't sitting in tower waiting for something like that to happen so they can up to defend.  People are probably in flight when the call goes out.  I can see why people may not be able to up there to defend, but to be surprised when it gets there?  That makes no sense to me.

Perhaps that's one of the core issues to why there's rarely defense.  Most people log in and don't sit around for more than a couple minutes to find a fight.  They find one and up, and reup pretty much as quickly as possible.  When a call goes out that a base is coming under attack, it's not like half the people on your country are going to auger immediately to get there to climb and form an effective defense, they're doing something else.

Wiley.

I agree wiley, and with the idea I've proposed there would be "time" for folks to land, join a counter attack mission etc etc.


I think most folks pay attention to their score (this is not bad) but for me it explanes why most will not just "bail" to go somewhere else and get gangraped (defend against horde mission). But I think most or many would land and try to be part of a counter attack, whether it be in a mission or just tagging along to try and retake a base IF it was possible without having to re-drop town and ack etc etc.




JUGgler

[Wiley]

I agree wiley, and with the idea I've proposed there would be "time" for folks to land, join a counter attack mission etc etc.


I think most folks pay attention to their score (this is not bad) but for me it explanes why most will not just "bail" to go somewhere else and get gangraped (defend against horde mission). But I think most or many would land and try to be part of a counter attack, whether it be in a mission or just tagging along to try and retake a base IF it was possible without having to re-drop town and ack etc etc.




JUGgler

Of the anti-steamrolling proposals, I can find the least fault with yours.  I'd be curious to see how it would work, I'm just not sure it would catch on.  Kind of like how tank town never left the game but it never gets used now because nobody uses it, you know?

I don't think it's necessarily watching score.  For myself, I just feel it's terribly cheesy to intentionally auger a perfectly good plane so you can go do something else.  Regardless of what you're doing at the time, I just feel it's no different from bomb and bailing, or bombing and augering or getting shot down by ack intentionally to get back to target faster.  It's not good for the game IMO and not something I'd want to see more of.

Wiley.

[Tank-Ace]

...Through the 40 planes that moved on.  Ok.

so the force thats capping is actually the 40 planes that allegedly moved on? You're jumping around a bit, might want to get your story strait.

Again we're back to the number of troops it requires to take the base being effectively random.

random to a certian degree, yes. But its not like you can only say "well, its somewhere between 1 and 200 troops needed". You can get a rough estimate based on the numbers you have. And past that..... if it works, no better reason than that to include it.

What IS the magic number of attackers that makes it fun for all?

IDK, you tell me what the magic number is when a raid transforms into a horde.

Theres rarely an exact answer for those types of questions. It stops being fun when one side has a very large advantage over the other, and effective resistance becomes impossible.

...You say this, and then you go on immediately to say

Which is how it is now in a horde.

If people tended to avoid areas where they are ineffective, hordes wouldn't exist now.  People in a horde at present are just along to look at the scenery/get in a vulch if their timing is right because they're competing with 30 others.

Obviously the first statement is wrong, and that's kind of what your plan hinges on, so...  I'm kind of having trouble seeing how it would work with that first statement being clearly false.

They can be effective as individuals or as a group. Nobody is effective as an individual in a horde regardless of the system. My idea would limit the effetivness of the group, so that they can be either
A) ineffective as individuas but all together be just as effective as a smaller group of 15
B) be effective as individuals AND be effective as a group.

Again, what is the number of attackers that makes everything swell?

again, no hard set number, as you should be well aware of if you ever played the game. 20 seems to be about the point where the fun starts to drop off.

Wait, what?  Ok, until I hear different, let's assume 30 is your magic number since we've already mentioned it.  Hordes of 20 to 30 are routine in the arena now, and roll unopposed and are whined about.  That many planes already creates many one sided fights.

*facepalm*
1) horders gain air superiority
2) horders fail to take base, and grow frustrated. Defenders laugh at them.
3) attackers get low-fuel and have to egress
4) defenders come back and punch the low-fuel twit-tards in their collective face.
5) I laugh my arse off as I rack up kills on the twits that lack the sense to RTB.

Defenders with a chance to defend = pretty fair fight

[Wiley]

so the force thats capping is actually the 40 planes that allegedly moved on? You're jumping around a bit, might want to get your story strait.

You do understand that they would have to fly from the base they just flattened to the next base over, right?  They're flying away from it, and toward the base you probably just upped from.  You do realize you'll have to go through them to get there, right?

IDK, you tell me what the magic number is when a raid transforms into a horde.

This isn't my idea.  You say this will cure all the hording, yet you can't define what a horde is.  Here's a hint.  You can't tell a computer program to 'limit it when there are too many of them'.  You need to define what "too many" is.

Theres rarely an exact answer for those types of questions. It stops being fun when one side has a very large advantage over the other, and effective resistance becomes impossible.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but boy you want them to do something about those evil hordes.  Gotcha.

They can be effective as individuals or as a group. Nobody is effective as an individual in a horde regardless of the system. My idea would limit the effetivness of the group, so that they can be either
A) ineffective as individuas but all together be just as effective as a smaller group of 15
B) be effective as individuals AND be effective as a group.
 again, no hard set number, as you should be well aware of if you ever played the game. 20 seems to be about the point where the fun starts to drop off.

Well, which is it?  'No hard set number' or 20?  If 20 is the magic number, you could've said that in the first place.  So above 20 it gets prohibitively hard?

A force of 20 hits a base.  10 guys that don't suck, but don't care about dying particularly up to defend.  They can fend that off in their sleep.  The map stagnates utterly.

*facepalm*
1) horders gain air superiority
2) horders fail to take base, and grow frustrated. Defenders laugh at them.
3) attackers get low-fuel and have to egress
4) defenders come back and punch the low-fuel twit-tards in their collective face.
5) I laugh my arse off as I rack up kills on the twits that lack the sense to RTB.

Defenders with a chance to defend = pretty fair fight

Yes, yes.  Through means you can't define, you always get a fair fight and everything is happy.  Hooray.

There is nothing here beyond wishful thinking.  Pretty much what I expected from zone number control.  Just saying 'limit the number of attackers so they can't horde!' sounds swell, but actually defining how it would work brings us around to the reason why it has not been implemented.   

Wiley.

[Tank-Ace]

You do understand that they would have to fly from the base they just flattened to the next base over, right?  They're flying away from it, and toward the base you probably just upped from.  You do realize you'll have to go through them to get there, right?

you do realize that AH doesn't have a linear world, right?

This isn't my idea.  You say this will cure all the hording, yet you can't define what a horde is.  Here's a hint.  You can't tell a computer program to 'limit it when there are too many of them'.  You need to define what "too many" is.

no, but you're asking for something that can't be given. General ranges can be given, but no specific number. If you can't understand the point I was making with that, then don't bother responding to it.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but boy you want them to do something about those evil hordes.  Gotcha.

no, 20 isn't nessicarily a horde. If theres clearly defined groups, like 10 stukas, with a close escort of 109's, then I wouldn't call that a horde. Theres a fine line between hordes and teamwork. You can't just define a horde by a number and expect it to be even remotely free of exceptions and shady areas. Case by case, I could point out the hordes easily enough.

Well, which is it?  'No hard set number' or 20?  If 20 is the magic number, you could've said that in the first place.  So above 20 it gets prohibitively hard?

'about 20' isn't a hard set number, genius. And thats just a very rough average. At times I've seen groups of 10 that I would call a horde, and then I've seen groups of 25 that I wouldn't.

A force of 20 hits a base.  10 guys that don't suck, but don't care about dying particularly up to defend.  They can fend that off in their sleep.  The map stagnates utterly.

after we get rid of the hordeing problem, then we'll work on how to get the maps moving without the hordes. You don't seem to realize that AH doesn't have to be a 'One or the other' situation.

Yes, yes.  Through means you can't define, you always get a fair fight and everything is happy.  Hooray.

wow you're incredibly dense at times. Couldn't you call a horde a large group that is attempting to either overpower more skilled opponents, or swamp a larger group of less skilled defenders with numbers? The entire purpose of a horde is to make the fight as unfair as possible so you can win while still doing as little as possible.



There is nothing here but pesmistic worrying over something that will be leave the game relatively unchanged at worst, and could greatly releave the hording problem at best. "Nothing can be done about it, so just let it happen" may sound like a good plan untill you actuall examine the details, and see that its a complete fallacy  .

Jager

[Rob52240]

Why are you so concerned with the way other people choose to play?  You're not a manager, you're not an assistant manager so what gives???  OCD maybe?

[Wiley]

after we get rid of the hordeing problem,

Which you can't define...

then we'll work on how to get the maps moving without the hordes. You don't seem to realize that AH doesn't have to be a 'One or the other' situation.

There is nothing here.  Your entire 'idea' is 'hordes are bad'.  Wow.  Profound.

wow you're incredibly dense at times. Couldn't you call a horde a large group that is attempting to either overpower more skilled opponents, or swamp a larger group of less skilled defenders with numbers? The entire purpose of a horde is to make the fight as unfair as possible so you can win while still doing as little as possible.

Yep.  You can call a horde a lot of things.  You haven't explained how your 'zone ENY' will even be implemented, much less how it would work to stop hording, or even what a 'horde' is.  You have no idea.  You are whining and throwing around buzzwords trying to sound like it is a simple thing to fix and you've got the answer, even though you can't explain what it is you're trying to fix.

There is nothing here but pesmistic worrying over something that will be leave the game relatively unchanged at worst, and could greatly releave the hording problem at best.

...I'm sorry, you haven't explained what you're even trying to relieve.

"Nothing can be done about it, so just let it happen" may sound like a good plan untill you actuall examine the details, and see that its a complete fallacy  .

Jager

You are actually saying 'examine the details'?  Really?  Here, let me type this slowly so it might sink in... You have not provided any details to examine.

Wiley.

[SectorNine50]

Tank-Ace, Wiley is right, unless you have concrete numbers, it's going to be impossible to program.

One thing I don't quite understand, and can never seem to get a satisfying answer to, is why do the people who don't care if the war is won or lost, care about losing bases to the hordes?  In reality, all hordes do is change the map faster, and that shouldn't bother many people.  Let the hordes fight the hordes, and the rest can go fight elsewhere as they please...

[The Fugitive]

Tank-Ace, Wiley is right, unless you have concrete numbers, it's going to be impossible to program.

One thing I don't quite understand, and can never seem to get a satisfying answer to, is why do the people who don't care if the war is won or lost, care about losing bases to the hordes?  In reality, all hordes do is change the map faster, and that shouldn't bother many people.  Let the hordes fight the hordes, and the rest can go fight elsewhere as they please...

To me, the action of capturing a base or defending a base are the two most likely places that you will have combat. If the combat is limited to fighting for or against the horde it takes the fun out of it as you are either being ganged, or spend your time picking lemmings.

[SectorNine50]

To me, the action of capturing a base or defending a base are the two most likely places that you will have combat. If the combat is limited to fighting for or against the horde it takes the fun out of it as you are either being ganged, or spend your time picking lemmings.

Sure, but there is always more than one spot to fight.  If for whatever reason there isn't, grab a plane head to an enemy base and poke 'em with a stick until someone ups.  I don't know that I've ever had a hard time finding another fight, even when there is a horde attacking another base.

I've seen counter-attacks often dissolve a horde rather quickly as well, and those counter-attacks are a blast.  Our squad used to do those from time to time; up a few heavy fighters, climb up, drop the horde's ord or hangers, and battle the horde as they take off.  They quickly forget what they were doing and focus on you at their own base...    Soon, the tides start turning (thanks to the distraction you created) and a huge furball in between the bases ensues as the battle front starts shifting, and that right there is where I think I have the most fun.  Those huge furballs are awesome.

I guess basically what's being asked for, is an always-even or close-to-even battle, which in a large sandbox environment like AH, is not always going to happen without potentially crippling and/or vague restrictions.  It's kind of something that there isn't a solution to on a programming level without adverse effects on gameplay, and I think that's the biggest reason we haven't seen HTC implement something already.

[Wiley]

I'm also one of the guys that really likes it when two large forces clash.  About even second-best for me is either going into a horde with alt and E in something fast or finding a decent 1v1.  I find sometimes the 1v1 happens on the way to the horde.

Maybe I haven't reached the point in my development where 'picking lemmings' loses its fun, but it still makes me smile every time.  Maybe I'm just a simple creature.

I believe I've finally wrapped my head somewhat around guys like Fugi's frustration, in that they get more enjoyment out of 1v1s but also enjoy some unpredictability in the area as far as friendlies and bandits ebbing and flowing.  Unfortunately, it's a hard thing to find on a consistent basis, you usually wind up either with friendlies helping you when you don't want it, or getting gangbanged.

When either of those things happen to me, I either take enjoyment out of trying to survive the gangbang and egress successfully, maybe dragging the enemy under inbound friendlies, or pushing on toward enemy territory with the friendlies that came along.  I view it as side vs side first, and a happy circumstance that the bandit and I happened to get a couple minutes alone before the other people came along.  Guys like Fugi seem to place more value on the 1v1 time, and the side vs side encroaching on that frustrates them.

It's a taste in play that's somewhat rare, Fugi is well documented in his belief it used to be much more common than it is now.  I can't say, I haven't been around that long.  I've been simming for ~6 years, and I wouldn't say when I started it was ever common, but I will agree it's less common now than it was when I started.

It's another problem that I think has no codable solution.  My opinion on it is, the MA is a free for all, side based arena.  "If it's red, it's dead" should always be what you expect from your enemies.  What you do is your choice, whether to HO or not, whether to horde or not, whether to gang or not, etc.  That is the nature of the arena.

To me, it seems the only way to get gameplay like Fugi desires is to get people together who are of like mind basically in their own arena.  I've seen that attitude somewhat more prevalent in AvA, for example.

Btw, Fugi I'm not saying 'If you don't like it, go somewhere else, nyah.'  I'm just saying I believe that is what it would take to solve your problem.  Honestly I feel bad that guys like you can't find the gameplay you like as often as you'd like it.  I just don't agree with trying to ice skate uphill to make the MA fit that playstyle.

Wiley.

[Debrody]

Wiley,
you were wondering earlyer if there are so many "horde inb" calls, why only a handful of players show up to defend.
You cant except everyone to bail out from his GV/bomber/jabo mission, or interrupt a turnfight just becouse there is a horde inbound to xy field, right?
Only those go there to defend who are just finishing their sortie, right? Also noone wanna up when the horde is right over the field, for obvious reasons.
You also mentioned a 3-4-5 minutes "window" til the horde arrives. Getting 5-6 people together isnt as a bad achievement then..

I hope it helps.

[Wiley]

Wiley,
you were wondering earlyer if there are so many "horde inb" calls, why only a handful of players show up to defend.
You cant except everyone to bail out from his GV/bomber/jabo mission, or interrupt a turnfight just becouse there is a horde inbound to xy field, right?
Only those go there to defend who are just finishing their sortie, right? Also noone wanna up when the horde is right over the field, for obvious reasons.
You also mentioned a 3-4-5 minutes "window" til the horde arrives. Getting 5-6 people together isnt as a bad achievement then..

I hope it helps.

Oh, it doesn't surprise me nobody ups to defend, as I said in that post, I think we're both on the same page why it happens.  People are up to stuff.

I just was expressing a bit of confusion why people don't seem to watch the map, or notice the country channel call outs.  They seem genuinely surprised when the bardar that I've watched march across 3 sectors over a period of 20 minutes arrives at its destination.

Maybe I'm unusually watching the map more than most, I don't know.

Wiley.