Why horde?

[PFactorDave]

What would be the motivation to defend instead of rolling another undefended base to keep their number higher than the other team's?

Wiley.

How about, once the Win timer starts, they are unable to capture additional bases.  They either hold the winning number after 60 minutes (or whatever time is determined appropriate), or the other sides capture enough back to prevent the win.  In which case everything goes back to normal play, until somebody reaches the WIN#+5 (or whatever the margin is determined appropriate).

The only option wouldbe to defend or attempt to cap enemy bases, or keep hangars down so that no effective counter attacks could be mounted.

[Wiley]

Might work.  The numbers would definitely require playing with.  It would be very difficult to balance the possibility to hold WIN# against a two front war where the other two countries happened to be motivated to both attack in a committed fashion, and making it reasonably possible to stop the win if both the losing sides weren't firing on all 8.

I have a feeling the majority might just wind up grumpy that they had to wait an additional (x amount of time) before the map switch because stopping the victory requires too much effort.

Wiley.

[ScottyK]

 General Forums / Wishlist / Re: Bring back the Zone Strat.... please!    on: December 31, 2011, 06:16:46 PM
  Just an idea, change the % of bases taken to win the war and decrease it by say 5-10% and add strat destruction to 20-30% down in order to win the war.   Bring back the zone system but add zones for fuel, ammo, radar etc.     Flame  on.

[Tank-Ace]

I feel like if all 3 countries had common targets, the horde complaints would stop.  The issue now is that there are a LOT of targets to pick from, and when the "horde" gets together, they pick on just one.

Make taking bases a strategic move, instead of a game-winning move.

I think a big problem is that one side is usually getting ganged up on. There needs to be something to balance that out. Either give the side getting jumped SEVERLY reduced perk prices (as in 50 perk KT's  ) or wail the crap out of the two attaking sides with the ENY-stick. Spit V's, P-40's, and 109G2's.


But I wouldn't mind base taking being strategic rather than the end goal of the game. Only problem is how do you detirmine when the war ends? It would be kind of nice if we could have a major strategic goal (say capture the enemy's capital city) and that wins the war for you. But the issue is that we don't suffer from starting populations and attrition rates that would limit the action we could take. We also have no worries about logistics or any of the issues that woule keep us from launching a counter-offensive on the flanks.

[Crash Orange]

Not really Orange, playing to 'hone your skills' as you put it, still gives you some measure of your accomplishment and tells you just how good you are.

Right. How good you are at playing a game that is completely meaningless.

The point is that all goals in this game are equally meaningless, and therefore equally meaningful. It's just something you do for fun. You aren't a better human being because you can shoot down cartoon planes very skillfully, it's just something you do for fun.

[Rob52240]

A lot of these posts seem to be typical whines about people who feel like they're losing yet still want to feel like a winner.

Most of the comments aren't requests to make something more difficult as much as they're begging for htc to make it harder for them to lose while doing what they do, which seems to be losing.  

It's already harder to attack than defend so what more could you possibly want besides 1st place trophies for participation?   Do you guys really feel that because you're flying alone, and a group flying together has some sort of unfair advantage?  I think there's a reason you're flying alone, and it's not my problem if not very many people, and in some cases no people want to squad up with you,  or even wing up with you.  Nobody ever flies with that kill club guy and you don't see him on here complaining about it being too easy for people to kill him and capture his bases.  

Shame on you for using the forum to attack the likeable people who's friends are willing to fly into combat along side them just because the same isn't true of you. Although you think you're better and deserve to win because obviously if you lose it's because you've been cheated and not because you lost fair and square like you actually did.  

The way I see it is that the people who are crying unfair on the forum and demanding rule changes to make things more favorable to themselves are real cheaters.  I'd like my job a lot more if it paid a million bucks a year but you don't see me crying to the boss about how it's unfair that someone else gets that and I don't, and that because of this they have ruined my career.

The forum isn't here for you to try and generate sympathy for your lack of whatever you're lacking.  So don't try to hijack it so you can turn it into group therapy so you can have some self-esteem.

ps.
I've decided to double the number of your bases that we'll be taking.  And while you're on the forum crying about it we'll quadruple our consumption of your bases.

[68ZooM]

Rob its easier to attack a base then defend it, if it was harder then the hordes wouldnt roll bases now would they.

[The Fugitive]

Well it is harder for most of them to take a base due to the lack of skill these days. Most of the players in these hordes have a hard time hitting the ground with their bombs, planes yes, bombs no.  Thats why they need to have such superior numbers for an attack. They won't admit it even to themselves, but thats how it works. They call it team work.... 4 guys dive bombing the same FH.

[SectorNine50]

I think a big problem is that one side is usually getting ganged up on. There needs to be something to balance that out. Either give the side getting jumped SEVERLY reduced perk prices (as in 50 perk KT's  ) or wail the crap out of the two attaking sides with the ENY-stick. Spit V's, P-40's, and 109G2's.


But I wouldn't mind base taking being strategic rather than the end goal of the game. Only problem is how do you detirmine when the war ends? It would be kind of nice if we could have a major strategic goal (say capture the enemy's capital city) and that wins the war for you. But the issue is that we don't suffer from starting populations and attrition rates that would limit the action we could take. We also have no worries about logistics or any of the issues that woule keep us from launching a counter-offensive on the flanks.

Ganging is probably a problem that cannot be fixed with three countries in play.  I've seen countries get ganged even with fairly even numbers, so I don't think ENY would fix that either, it's just a matter of which country each side decided to attack.

The long and short of this comes down to human nature.  You're not going to get rid of large mobs of planes flying together, because that's why people play this game in the MA.  Those that want small (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc.) fights fly in the DA.  The spontaneous teamwork is very appealing; it really doesn't take a lot of effort to band together in this game.

You can't forcibly deter hordes either, because then people will feel like their ability to play the game is limited (which is true).  Something that naturally causes both sides to group up and fight each other is probably the best solution.  But then the three countries thing comes into play, and ganging is once again possible.

I don't really see an obvious solution.

However, if we dropped down to two countries, a lot could be done, in my opinion.  You'd immediately rid of ganging (ENY would control unbalance, for the most part), and you could create a series of capture points inside each country's boundaries that must be taken in order to win the war.  This would give a common attack and defense point, while still creating a reason to tread into enemy territory.

However, I seem to recall that HTC stated they would never get rid of the three country set-up, so that might be a dream.

[shiv]

A lot of these posts seem to be typical whines about people who feel like they're losing yet still want to feel like a winner.

Most of the comments aren't requests to make something more difficult as much as they're begging for htc to make it harder for them to lose while doing what they do, which seems to be losing.  

It's already harder to attack than defend so what more could you possibly want besides 1st place trophies for participation?   Do you guys really feel that because you're flying alone, and a group flying together has some sort of unfair advantage?  I think there's a reason you're flying alone, and it's not my problem if not very many people, and in some cases no people want to squad up with you,  or even wing up with you.  Nobody ever flies with that kill club guy and you don't see him on here complaining about it being too easy for people to kill him and capture his bases.  

Shame on you for using the forum to attack the likeable people who's friends are willing to fly into combat along side them just because the same isn't true of you. Although you think you're better and deserve to win because obviously if you lose it's because you've been cheated and not because you lost fair and square like you actually did.  

The way I see it is that the people who are crying unfair on the forum and demanding rule changes to make things more favorable to themselves are real cheaters.  I'd like my job a lot more if it paid a million bucks a year but you don't see me crying to the boss about how it's unfair that someone else gets that and I don't, and that because of this they have ruined my career.

The forum isn't here for you to try and generate sympathy for your lack of whatever you're lacking.  So don't try to hijack it so you can turn it into group therapy so you can have some self-esteem.

ps.
I've decided to double the number of your bases that we'll be taking.  And while you're on the forum crying about it we'll quadruple our consumption of your bases.

"Likeable", eh. Wouldn't have been the word to sprang to mind to describe a gang of 20-30 guys steamrolling bases.

[Shuffler]

The other night I took off at a base that was under attack. We fought them off and pushed the stragglers back. After awhile we had pushed them back to their base. Someone upping at said base then started in about how we were hording them.

My point is this.... sometimes a horde just happens. It is not necessarily from a large group that took off to hit a base. I was in what could be considered a horde. All I did was keep upping to fight. Someone that had not been in the area to see how that battle was going down would obviously assume it was a planned raid.


While I am against hordes I do keep an open mind regarding them. That does not keep me from pushing buttons sometimes. All in fun.

[DrBone1]

The other night I took off at a base that was under attack. We fought them off and pushed the stragglers back. After awhile we had pushed them back to their base. Someone upping at said base then started in about how we were hording them.

My point is this.... sometimes a horde just happens. It is not necessarily from a large group that took off to hit a base. I was in what could be considered a horde. All I did was keep upping to fight. Someone that had not been in the area to see how that battle was going down would obviously assume it was a planned raid.


While I am against hordes I do keep an open mind regarding them. That does not keep me from pushing buttons sometimes. All in fun.

Some great fights last night shuffler   

[Shuffler]

Some great fights last night shuffler    

Yes was great fun... but some bonehead kept killing me..........  

    

[prowl3r]

http://armorgames.com/play/12823/hordes-of-hordes

[Tumor]

There is no problem hording.  The problem is, there are typically 3 hordes... and those 3 hordes do their best to NEVER get anywhere near each other. 

HTC could fix this problem... they won't.  To many "path of least resistance" types payin the bills.

Tumor