But it works even better in the other way: A blob falling onto a base for a capture will very quickly and effectively kill of ANY resistance without even having to kill the hangars. Remember, that in such a situation it's usually the defender that's having the highest losses by far.
Sounds contradicting but I'm not even sure how the applies to what I said or to the OPs comment.
What is "it" and how does it work better than "the other way"? If you are talking about the "win" all I can say is look at my last post. If you're refering to base restrictions....
The even bigger problem is something not directly related to "basegrabbing" or the war, it's taking place on a higher level: It's changing all combat dynamics. Regardless if it's being seen as a prolonged base capture attempt or just being called a 'furball'
What is this problem you imply is taking place? I can't agree with you if you don't identify "it".
such a fight between two bases would be much more difficult to sustain, as soon the participants would have to come back from bases far away, sometimes even several sectors away.
So it's killing the action. It's hampering longer lasting ('epic') battles in favor of suprise 'horde' attacks. I'm not convinced that this is a good thing for the game, no matter what our individual gameplay style may be.
Correct! If you took the simple undeveloped idea I just threw out there, that is exactly what would happen. If you took time to develop this idea you could find a "better way" that did not have the effect you described.
Judging from the many posts of yours I have read, you are by far one of the most rational and open minded people on these boards, so I have complete confidence that your lack of foresight was a brain fart and you can understand that I am STILL not trying to provide a fully developed idea here. But how's this for a little more detail?
--Spawn's are automatic every
5 minutes? per base, but are not synchronized with other bases
of the same country.
--Spawns ARE synchronized with the opposing enemy base to put up an identical force.
--Spawns are nearly constant, occurring at staggered times along front line bases.
--A limited number of combatants are spawned each cycle. Say
20 fighters
20 bombers etc.
--If a player does not want to wait for a spawn at his current location, they may take the next spawn available which would be only seconds away but at a different base. (Odds are the impetuous will choose this method resulting in 20 v 20 engagements that meet loosely over a less inhabited part of the front line.)
--Spawns
could be strategically prioritized by players to affect different parts of the combat front using strategic movements or "placement of forces."
--Spawn "wild cards" may be provided to each country. Wild cards may a one per hour vote that allows players to alter the spawn of a particular base to allow for more combatants to spawn for a specified time period. Defenders could possibly use this to break an overwhelming assault, attackers to break a defense.
--Once spawned players can go wherever they want or can work as a team. They can even rendezvous with a spawn from an adjacent base for a larger attack.
--A limited number of UNRESTRICTED spawning may be allowed in certain parts of the map to allow for some random fights.
In effect what you have are mini assaults on enemy territory, but no restrictions after spawn.
This method does not prevent large fights. It does help restrict a never ending stream of players from a country with a lopsided advantage.
Arguments like "I can't fly with my squad" are not defensible because we all know any joint venture results in players sitting in the tower waiting to roll and this would be no different. All other instances where a squad chooses to fly together, results in each member taking off at will so in effect they "are not" flying with their squad, they are intermittently flying
near their squadron.
Of course there are still holes in this idea, that's what development is about.
