Field & Town Ack Down - Wish revisited

[Kingpin]

I believe this has been discussed before, but I think it is still a worthy suggestion:

Wish: When a base gets captured, keep all the ack (both town and field) down for another 10-15 minutes.

Why? I see this as having many positives: 1) it extends fights at bases being captured 2) it is more realistic 3) it could encourage more defenders from adjacent bases and 4) it would make GV play in defense of airfields more fun and useful.

As it is, when a field is captured and all the ack magically pops, the fight is essentially over.  Any GVs on the field are usually killed by their "own" guns.  Defending aircraft are often killed by their “own” ack when this happens.  Meanwhile, the attacking force suddenly has the cover of guns they killed only minutes before which they can use to land safely.  Usually this means the attackers quickly disappear into the tower and move on to the next target elsewhere on the map.  (The common “whack a mole” game-play complaint).  

Instead, if the ack were to stay down at the town and field for a short time, the fight would be extended.  Fighters already in the air would need to conclude their fights, instead of the ack being the deciding factor.  

As it is now, upping from an adjacent field to defend also tends to be a complete waste of time, as you arrive after the field is captured and the "fight is over".  But with field and town ack down for a short while, the battle wouldn’t necessarily be over.  Newly captured bases would  need to be guarded against a quick recapture.  Even the largest horde of attackers would need some consideration of defense, or risk losing their gains quickly.  Some attackers might need to stay airborne or re-up to defend the field, instead of just disappearing into the tower.   Even the “late arrival” who upped from an adjacent field could still be in a position to be useful at a newly captured field (both on the attacking AND defending side).

Having the ack not “insta switch” would also eliminate the very gamey situation where your own ack suddenly starts shooting you.  I think there are few things more annoying than launching to defend your field and being shot down by your own ack.  This is especially annoying in a GV.  As it is, defending a field in a GV is pointless, unless you can get to the maproom.  A GV that is not near the maproom can essentially be ignored by the attackers as it can't stop the capture.  However, if the “insta magic ack” didn’t pop, even a single wirble sitting on a captured field could keep the field in contention for a short time.  This could make defending fields in GV’s much more fun and viable.

I realize this could result in some M3/C47 races to recapture fields, but even in that scenario, all you have is a prolonged battle over a single field, which is far more interesting than the “smash and grab” attack vs. “whack a mole” defense where little real fighting goes on in contention for the fields themselves.

[Melvin]

+1

[kvuo75]

+1 absolutely

it was like this for about a week after the new towns came out, because there wasn't even any ack in the towns at all, remember!

someone would have to actually watch the town until buildings started popping to insure it was actually captured.

could be carnage, so many goons/m3's trying to race to maprooms, but, the horde would have to leave someone on station, to kill goons/m3's/lvt's.. real difficult!

[ImADot]

Shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the ack reset routine in the coad to have it remain down the normal time from when it was destroyed - regardless of field capture status. No need to have it stay down "another 10 minutes after capture"...just have it stay down however long it normally would.

[RTHolmes]

Shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the ack reset routine in the coad to have it remain down the normal time from when it was destroyed - regardless of field capture status. No need to have it stay down "another 10 minutes after capture"...just have it stay down however long it normally would.

+1

[Noir]

+1 the attackers would have to defend too, and give more options of counter attack

[Big Rat]

Agreed, would make the base takers actually have to stay and defend for a bit rather then just run off to another base.

+1

 
BigRat

[10thmd]

I like this idea +1

[Kingpin]

Shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the ack reset routine in the coad to have it remain down the normal time from when it was destroyed - regardless of field capture status. No need to have it stay down "another 10 minutes after capture"...just have it stay down however long it normally would.

Hello ImADot,

Thanks for the feedback.  My thinking was to have a solid 10 min period (a time frame both sides are sure about) where the base is in "limbo", so it will need to be defended.  The problem with having the ack come up in its normal rebuild time is that it would likely pop too soon after the take for this to be an effective period of time.  I thought 10 minutes from the time of the capture would be a good amount of time.

In fact, I think all ack should go down upon capture (even guns at the field that were up).  The idea is a period of no ack at a newly captured field during which the field needs to be defended or fought over, instead of having the "insta magic popping ack" to hide in and effectively end the fight.

Thinking this idea through a bit further, though, the ack down-time frame might need to be shorter at ports and v-bases, where the ack is more critical in defense.  Perhaps 5 minutes of no ack at a newly captured port or v-base? And 10 minutes of no ack at newly captured airfields/towns.  

If you need a logical, realistic way of thinking of this, consider it the time the new occupiers need to repair, rearm, man or set up their own ack gun emplacements and personnel at their newly captured field.

What I also like about this is that it doesn't change the dynamics of actually capturing a base.  It only adds an element where use and defense of a newly captured field need to be considered.  The whole concept being to extend the fight over a field, instead of the "land and move on" approach we have now.

Personally I think this could promote more combat.  Not player v. building combat, or player v. ack-gun combat, but actual player versus player combat.  Isn't that what the game is supposed to be about?

Thanks again for the feedback on this.  I sincerely hope HTC takes note of the idea.

<S> all

[kvuo75]

Thanks again for the feedback on this.  I sincerely hope HTC takes note of the idea.

unfortunately, he has commented on the idea in the past, and IIRC, he didn't seem to like the idea of the defenders being able to just hide a goon or m3 somewhere to steal a base back real quick... i, like you, don't see the problem, but ohwell..

[Kingpin]

unfortunately, he has commented on the idea in the past, and IIRC, he didn't seem to like the idea of the defenders being able to just hide a goon or m3 somewhere to steal a base back real quick... i, like you, don't see the problem, but ohwell..

Yes, I don't really see the problem with this either.  With such a narrow window of opportunity (5-10 minutes) I doubt you'd be able to sneak a goon or M3 in without it being noticed.  I'm thinking to successfully retake it, you'd at least need some kind of air cover first.  And if the people capturing the base don't want it quickly retaken by some sneaky goon or M3, they only need to guard it for a few minutes.  Surely this will promote more fighting, both in the air and on the ground, even after the field is captured.  Wouldn't a protracted fight like that be more fun than one that is essentially over as soon as the capture happens?

I think there are a lot of wasted sorties and bored players with the way it works now.  Players fly to fields all the time, on both the attacking and defending side, only to arrive just as it is captured.  I think that is why we see so few players actually trying to defend bases by flying from adjacent bases.  Keeping a field "in limbo" for a short while could change that, as even the "late arrivals" could be a factor. 

I really think this would be a change for the betterment of the game, especially compared to the way it is now where the attackers simply smash the base, land and move on to another field elsewhere.  I honestly don't see how trying it could make game play worse in any way.  Can anyone explain a serious downside to this idea?

Thanks again for the replies.

<S>

[kvuo75]

i found the previous thread:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,324549.msg4245208.html#msg4245208

[Rob52240]

Why not just use the same timer that works when the base doesn't change hands instead? 

Each autogun stays down for 45 mins and each manned ack would be down for 15.

[haggerty]

+1 for keeping normal respawn time as if base didnt change hands...just like hangers.
If the new owners want guns up faster, resupply the base.

[Hap]

I prefer the ack just as it is.