Why horde?

[coombz]

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.

Sadly, it seems that the mentality of most AH players is to whine endlessly rather than doing something pro-active such as you describe

An organised squad/wing of half decent pilots can easily combat the sort of 'horde of clueless dweebs' that is always being complained about. The thing is, despite the type of game that AH is, a very large proportion of the player base seems to be of the 'lone wolf' type  

Since beginning to fly AH in Feb of 2011 I have always thought that there isn't enough squad action in the game - possibly due to established squads not wanting to take on and train new pilots? I don't know...but I really do think it's strange for what is after all, an MMOG where teamwork = success

[Crash Orange]

increases the percentage of town that needs to be destroyed, and raises the total troop count.

So what you're saying is the game needs bigger hordes?

Or do you imagine that making captures harder will somehow motivate people to bring fewer helpers to get it done?

[Tank-Ace]

So what you're saying is the game needs bigger hordes?

Or do you imagine that making captures harder will somehow motivate people to bring fewer helpers to get it done?

I'm still toying with the idea, but either small groups will have the current numbers or reduced ones, and hordes will get brutally beaten with town down percentages and troop requirments. The goal would be to make about 30 people the realistic max that you can make a horde and still take a base. 30 would be EQULLY effective as 10 or 15 people, but if you go above the limit (30-35 or so) then you need more goons to capture, and each goon raises the troop requirment by more than 10 (so you can't go past 30-35 people, since you would have to ditch the fighter cover to take the base).

[Tank-Ace]

Wiley, you like hordes fighting? Local ENY wouldn't affect the fighters available. No reason for furballers not to be able to get a big furball going. And even if you end up being right about the base taking  hordes (the main target of this idea)..... well at least it puts the smaller groups on an even footing, so you can still make a med-small mission and have a reasonable chance at success.

[SectorNine50]

Tank, that sounds terribly complicated.

Numbers are too dynamic in this game.  Think about how that can be gamed; as the troops are running, everyone would just bail/ditch/auger except for the number needed to capture with 10 troops.

[Tank-Ace]

Thats why I talked about a delay in the ENY update. 5 minutes delay between bailing/death of pilot and ENY update, or ENY is updated only every 5 minutes.

[SectorNine50]

Thats why I talked about a delay in the ENY update. 5 minutes delay between bailing/death of pilot and ENY update, or ENY is updated only every 5 minutes.

So you start the horde, get a cap and down the base with the horde, the horde leaves the maximum behind and the goon/M3 waits for 5 minutes.

This is the problem with trying to control gameplay, you are endlessly going to have to keep adding parameters.  Humans are VERY good at finding loopholes, particularly when we feel we are being restricted (ie. the Tor network vs censorship).  You need to stop looking so much at how to control players; instead look for ways of rewarding a certain type of gameplay.

You have to make the players want to play a certain way.

[Wiley]

You have to make the players want to play a certain way.

That's the million dollar question.  Little seems to motivate the people who enjoy the unopposed horde.  They get few perks, they get few kills per person.  The only motivating factor visible from the outside seems to be to take enough bases to win the war.  Maybe the motivation is they feel pride because they think they are known and looked up to for taking bases and winning the war?

It seems to me an intractable problem from an 'add something to the gameplay mechanics' standpoint, because their motivation seems to me to exist outside of the game mechanics.

Wiley.

[The Fugitive]

<snip> for space....

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.

Yes I like the 1 vs 1, but the reason I don't spend time in the DA and such is I like the side vs side just as much. I know I'll never be one of the "hot sticks", I just don't have the time for that. So with that being said, 5 and more against 1 gets old after a while. As for picking.... where is the challenge in that? So I look for fights where I have a chance. I like the challenge of a good fight, it makes the "winning" that much more fun. I look at the "war" the same way. If there is no challenge whats the point? Of course there is the other extreme as well. If the challenge is too high, there isn't much fun there either.

I argue against hordes because I see them as a waste. With all these people here there could be so much fun and challenge to be had, instead we have people being happy with mediocrity. Afraid to step out of that "comfort zone" and try to push the envelope.  As I've said before, I could even live with the hordes if there was a way to defend against them. This is where HTC COULD do something to encourage defenders to want to defend.

Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I hope to see the days of squad vs squad battles crop up again and hammer at each other all night for the sake of one base. The days where combat is the order of the day, not roll another base.

[Butcher]

Yes I like the 1 vs 1, but the reason I don't spend time in the DA and such is I like the side vs side just as much. I know I'll never be one of the "hot sticks", I just don't have the time for that. So with that being said, 5 and more against 1 gets old after a while. As for picking.... where is the challenge in that? So I look for fights where I have a chance. I like the challenge of a good fight, it makes the "winning" that much more fun. I look at the "war" the same way. If there is no challenge whats the point? Of course there is the other extreme as well. If the challenge is too high, there isn't much fun there either.

I argue against hordes because I see them as a waste. With all these people here there could be so much fun and challenge to be had, instead we have people being happy with mediocrity. Afraid to step out of that "comfort zone" and try to push the envelope.  As I've said before, I could even live with the hordes if there was a way to defend against them. This is where HTC COULD do something to encourage defenders to want to defend.

Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I hope to see the days of squad vs squad battles crop up again and hammer at each other all night for the sake of one base. The days where combat is the order of the day, not roll another base.

I agree much with this, I think this comfort zone allows newbies to grab a kill and survive longer then they would if they stepped out of this comfort box.

Then again I routinely prefer the hard method of facing the horde with an inferior plane for the challenge. I probably won't win a 1vs1 in the DA - because I find the Main Arena equally or even more challenging trying to defend yourself against numbers. However its helped me thrive in the Main arena and FSO events.

I wish the muppets or someone would bring back the 20vs20 duels over water again, those were some fun times - each side gets a mission and a certain ride, we all meet in the middle and have a huge furball.

Now a days 15x P51s that drop all the hangers then kill anyone who manages to up before the horde arrives, just really isn't fun..

If they bother to advertise it, it might be one thing - that and not killing all the hangers either.. Then again what used to be small squad NOE's now turned into giant raids..

[Tank-Ace]

Thats actually pretty perceptive wiley. you and sector have convinced me, maybe limiting hording (at least alone) isn't the way to go.

But you are right, I think they draw their pleasure from sources outside of the game paramaters. That feeling of invulnerability people can sometimes draw by being part of a horde that sweeps all before them is something that can only be matched by being good enough to do the same on your own, and is something we can't coad into the game.

Personally, I play for the fights themselves. The results of the fight are meaningless for me in most instances. But I so rarely get to have a very good 1v1, one that makes your heart start pounding and gets the adrenaline flowing. IMO, thats about as real as it gets in a game; when the fight is so even, so perfectly matched, .... and so intense, you forget for that brief second that you're playing a game, and you're just glad to come away from it 'alive'.

[Wiley]

I personally have a bit of a different attitude about what makes it feel 'real' and what makes it fun.

I look at whatever fight I'm headed into as side vs side.  When I'm headed toward the enemy, I'm assessing what the enemy appears to be doing, what the friendlies around me appear to be doing, how I think the two will interact, and what role I can play.

My goal most times is to attempt to push the enemy force around either by killing them, or secondarily moving them into a place where they are either easier to kill for others, or less effective to attack the friendlies coming behind me.  Pushing them down if I know medium alt buffs are coming behind me, things of that nature.

The point is, when I'm able, I'm looking at the battle as a whole.  Of course, when I start engaging a bandit or two, that's where my concentration is mostly focused, but I'm still trying to be aware of how many reds and greens are in the distance headed toward us and what that means to my current fight.  Setting them up for the incoming friendly, avoiding them doing the same to me, possibly going for the incoming enemy goon, etc.

At any given moment, I'm using everything I currently have at my disposal to try to kill the red guys and get home.  Sometimes that means picking, sometimes that means dragging, sometimes that means 1v1ing a guy.  Sometimes that means getting the fast plane to break so the guys trying to run him down can catch up, or pushing him down so the guys with less alt have access to him, etc etc.

I personally avoid large groups of friendlies unless they're being met by a large group of enemies.  That's where I find the most fun, but it's quite rare on a lot of nights, so I settle for finding an enemy crowd to work.

Tank-Ace: I was maybe a teeny bit abrupt with you when you brought up limiting the hordes programmatically.  It's an idea I've seen thrown around in vague terms in the past, and nobody ever seems to be able to put together concrete terms to how it would work.  IMO that's the biggest hurdle with that idea.  It's something that's kind of been rubbing me wrong for a while, and you popped your head up and I kind of took it off.  I still fundamentally disagree with the idea, but the browbeating might've been a bit much, and I apologize.

It sounds great when mentioned in broad terms, but when you actually start looking at implementing it, it produces a system that either is ineffective, or makes offense nearly impossible.

The two biggest flaws I see are:

1)  Have you ever seen a Junior Admiral trying to be slick with a CV and sneak it up to a base without firing on it or upping any planes to give it away?  Have you ever seen the amount of vitriol that gets spewed at the newb that goes to take off from the CV?

It would seem to me a system like you proposed would produce opportunities for these kinds of rants with practically every base take attempt.  People who are only trying to help would be getting screamed at on range or country regularly, quite possibly not understanding what they're doing wrong.

2)  I had missed your first post where you had thrown up some numbers, but 20-30 can still be a horde, still roll unopposed.  Limit it to be lower than that, and it's too easy to defend.

I remember one night a couple weeks ago, some squaddies and I were knocking about and started headed over an enemy base.  There were 4 or 5 of us, maybe no more than 5 or 6 other friendlies headed in the same direction, a couple of them probably to pork the base.  I was thinking, 'Nice bite size furball is probably going to develop here.'

Then the red bar took a Viagra.  Within a 1-2 minute period, suddenly there are 20+ red icons coming up.  I assume they thought we were a sweep for an incoming raid.  We could've run but figured we'd stick it out, friendly force was obliterated, red bar disappeared.

An isolated incident for me for sure, but it got me thinking about how it seems likely that if a small enemy force comes to a base, defensive hording can occur quite possibly because people see that it's not too big to oppose, so they figure 'Let's go stop them!'  Between that possibility, and the fact that defenders can keep reupping at death, attacking forces need to be of a reasonable size to have a reasonable chance.

Unfortunately, a small to medium sized attacking force can either be a horde if no significant opposition shows up, or stopped cold if close to equivalent or greater numbers show up.  Code just can't tell the difference.

Wiley.

[Zoney]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And all of that is why Wiley is a great wingman and a hell-of-a-lot-a fun to fly with.

<S> Miss ya bud

[Wiley]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And all of that is why Wiley is a great wingman and a hell-of-a-lot-a fun to fly with.

<S> Miss ya bud

Ditto, dude.

Wiley.

[Tank-Ace]

Appology accepted Wiley, no hard feelings.

I used to be a bit like you, I used to try and influence the fights. But then I got to thinking: Why bother? 9/10 times, the other players don't take advantage of it, even when I announce what I'm trying to do for them. I can't fight the horde on my own. And if we don't play smart, we'll get beaten by numbers.

I guess what really gets my goat is that here numbers can often trump skill in AH. I can be the best pilot in the game, and still get killed by some group of players that I would beat in a 1v1 inside of 15 seconds, and all because he had 27 other people with him. This is also when I switched to GV'ing, where skill and guile can beat numbers far more often than in the air.

I can count on both hands the number of times that I've been part of a small group that succesfully out-fought an aerial horde. I couldn't even begin to guess the number of times I've seen and helped that happen in a GV.