solution for hordeing

[bentnail]

I think if you would limit the amount of each plain type at each field,(like large field 10 spits of each type, and so on down the list. small fields, smaller numbers)As well as how many plains that can lift at once. This way The hordes would have to lift in waves, or from different fields at the same time. Eather way it would be more realistic.

[BluBerry]

-1

Its already hard enough to find a fight sometimes when hordes are not around or you play in off peak times. Limiting planes at an airfield would be even worse.

[ink]

bentnail...complaining about hordes......


holyhell that is funny right there.

[Rino]

     The problem with this solution is that the defenders at already at a numbers disadvantage.  By
limiting the number of defending aircraft <who already usually start with a position and energy
deficit>, it would just make the horde job that much easier.

[Tinkles]

     The problem with this solution is that the defenders at already at a numbers disadvantage.  By
limiting the number of defending aircraft <who already usually start with a position and energy
deficit>, it would just make the horde job that much easier.

Then perhaps have this setup for those sides who have higher numbers?

[LCADolby]

Solution to incoming horde;

Gather a bigger horde to intercept

[Randy1]

Although difficult to program, I would think lowering perk cost at a base being pommeled by a horde and or raising eny value would work better.

[Tank-Ace]

Solution to incoming horde:

Mass ISP bans from HTC

I fixed some typos for you  .

[Tank-Ace]

Although difficult to program, I would think lowering perk cost at a base being pommeled by a horde and or raising eny value would work better.

In all seriousness, I've been a big fan of excessively harsh ENY limits. Basically, if your side has 40 more players than the side with the lowest number, I want you to be restricted to flying ENY 40 aircraft for your horde.

[Ack-Ack]

Solution to incoming horde;

Gather a bigger horde to intercept

But that would mean players like Tank-Ace would *gasp* actually have to fight instead of cruising around strats looking for C-47s.

ack-ack

[PFactorDave]

I honestly don't have a huge problem with the concept of the horde...

What I would like to see is auto-ack at airfields that is as brutal as ack protecting a CV.  I believe that it should be suicidal to attempt to vulch. 

I also think that it should be impossible to close all of the hangars on an airfield.  I would rather see three hangars for each vehicle type...  Three fighter hangars, three bomber hangars, three vehicle hangars... 

Then, link the available aircraft at that field to the number of hangars that are currently open.

Kill one fighter hangar and fighter with an eny of 10 or less cannot be launched from that field...  Kill two hangars and nothing with an eny less than 20...  Kill all three and only eny 30+ fighters are available.  Similar restrictions for bombers and GVs...

Then, if needed, re-assess all aircraft/vehicle eny assignments and adjust as necessary.  Also, re-assess field capture requirements, lowering them if necessary.

So, we have fields where aircraft can always be launched and should be able to get airborn.  The attackers can still horde, shut down hangars (thus limiting the opposition, but never stopping it entirely).  The horde can cap a town and try to control that airspace while completing the capture requirements.  There can always be a fight.

Plus, new players can get airborne and into action without the frustration of being vulched repeatedly.  Then, when they get easily killed, they aren't wasting the time of flying from a field 25 miles away, only to be killed after one turn.  It will actually be more fun for new players.

Experienced players will still have the option of launching from the next field and gaining the altitude just as we have now.  Or, if they want, they can be challenged by launching from the attacked field in a potentially high eny plane.

The key though, is more possibilities for actual combat and it would be harder for hordes to avoid combat.

Just my opinions, based upon my own experiences.

[Tinkles]

I honestly don't have a huge problem with the concept of the horde...

What I would like to see is auto-ack at airfields that is as brutal as ack protecting a CV.  I believe that it should be suicidal to attempt to vulch. 

I also think that it should be impossible to close all of the hangars on an airfield.  I would rather see three hangars for each vehicle type...  Three fighter hangars, three bomber hangars, three vehicle hangars... 

Then, link the available aircraft at that field to the number of hangars that are currently open.

Kill one fighter hangar and fighter with an eny of 10 or less cannot be launched from that field...  Kill two hangars and nothing with an eny less than 20...  Kill all three and only eny 30+ fighters are available.  Similar restrictions for bombers and GVs...

Then, if needed, re-assess all aircraft/vehicle eny assignments and adjust as necessary.  Also, re-assess field capture requirements, lowering them if necessary.

So, we have fields where aircraft can always be launched and should be able to get airborn.  The attackers can still horde, shut down hangars (thus limiting the opposition, but never stopping it entirely).  The horde can cap a town and try to control that airspace while completing the capture requirements.  There can always be a fight.

Plus, new players can get airborne and into action without the frustration of being vulched repeatedly.  Then, when they get easily killed, they aren't wasting the time of flying from a field 25 miles away, only to be killed after one turn.  It will actually be more fun for new players.

Experienced players will still have the option of launching from the next field and gaining the altitude just as we have now.  Or, if they want, they can be challenged by launching from the attacked field in a potentially high eny plane.

The key though, is more possibilities for actual combat and it would be harder for hordes to avoid combat.

Just my opinions, based upon my own experiences.

I kind of like it.  I disagree on the ack part though, because then players would run to it more, knowing that it's 80%+ more effective (making it do all the work for them, and not promoting combat).  The rest, I think deserves a look (at least) from HTC.  Perhaps, make it's own topic?   

[PFactorDave]

I kind of like it.  I disagree on the ack part though, because then players would run to it more, knowing that it's 80%+ more effective (making it do all the work for them, and not promoting combat).  The rest, I think deserves a look (at least) from HTC.  Perhaps, make it's own topic?  

Make the ack guns indestructible then.  It's long been my opinion that it is far far too easy to neutralize an airfield by de-acking and vulching.  I also believe that game play like vulching is really bad for new player retention.

[Tinkles]

Make the ack guns indestructible then.  It's long been my opinion that it is far far too easy to neutralize an airfield by de-acking and vulching.  I also believe that game play like vulching is really bad for new player retention.

Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but I'm just looking at it from my POV.

Making ack guns indestructible would really unbalance the game. While I understand your point of the base being easy to de-ack and vulch.  Making the guns indestructible or more accurate won't do anything but make many more people upset.

The 'random' ack that gets a pilot or engine oil all the time.  That pesky 88 gunner who can't be killed( ).

I'm not really sure how to make vulching more challenging for the attackers, but making it possible to de-ack a field.  I have seen many posts here where accuracy for anti-aircraft guns were horrible (in some cases), but in other cases they were fairly accurate.

Accuracy for the guns is fine as it is now. Perhaps, it's something else, but I can't put my finger on it.

 

[Lusche]

 I also believe that game play like vulching is really bad for new player retention.

Why wasn't it that way years ago, when it was far easier to vulch (less ack, no wirbels)?