That's the first time...

[BaldEagl]

Besides, knights have some great sticks amongst them, unlike bishes that rely pretty much on horde tactics.

I respectfully disagree.  All sides have some great sticks amongst them.

As a Bish I've flown alongside Shane, Skyrock, Steve, TonyJoey and a host of others.

On second thought, what a ridiculous comment.

[matt]

Anyone else completely clueless as to what SirLoin is attempting to say or is it just me

 

ya ghi missions took the island next to the hq and its was his idea to grab the zone base
hoping it would put rook strats in our lap all in fun and it worked, who wouldnt try that?
i had nothing to do with it

[GhostCDB]

Snailman for President.

 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

ya ghi missions took the island next to the hq and its was his idea to grab the zone base
hoping it would put rook strats in our lap all in fun and it worked, who wouldnt try that?
i had nothing to do with it

Yep you worked to horde your way through a few more lost accounts. WTG while it lasts!

[Kingpin]

So you're suggesting that THE HORDE should be divided into smaller groups?

YES.  

And it would only take one simple game mechanic to do that: Aircraft Basing Limits. Once the number of aircraft in flight from a base hits the limit, additional aircraft can't launch from that field.

It could be scale-able based on arena pop, so that it isn't quite as limiting when large numbers are in the arena.  It could vary by the size of the field, making large airfields more valuable/useful (something that doesn't matter strategically now).   It could have a timer before the loss of a plane is deducted from the "in flight number", meaning the first lemmings to die can't just re-up immediately.  This might make survival more important and give an incentive to defenders to try to attrit the attackers.  (Make this exclusive of bails without damage, to avoid abuse.)

There are lots of advantages to this as I see it: spreading out the fight, giving defenders a viable chance at defense, and most importantly placing importance on staying alive instead of augering into a hanger, as losing an aircraft has an impact on your operations.

Implementing something like this would spread out the fights some and incentivize surviving vs. suicide/kamikaze/bombnbail type play.

<S>

[Lusche]

I deeply regret having started this thread. Doing a light hearted comment on a very extraordinarily rare event, and getting so much BS, exaggerations, made up stuff and utterly hypocritial posts in return that I almost want to throw up. I tried to reply on some of them in particular, but I felt I would get an instant PNG for every one of them, so I leave it at that for the moment.

[matt]

YES.  

And it would only take one simple game mechanic to do that: Aircraft Basing Limits. Once the number of aircraft in flight from a base hits the limit, additional aircraft can't launch from that field.

It could be scale-able based on arena pop, so that it isn't quite as limiting when large numbers are in the arena.  It could vary by the size of the field, making large airfields more valuable/useful (something that doesn't matter strategically now).   It could have a timer before the loss of a plane is deducted from the "in flight number", meaning the first lemmings to die can't just re-up immediately.  This might make survival more important and give an incentive to defenders to try to attrit the attackers.  (Make this exclusive of bails without damage, to avoid abuse.)

There are lots of advantages to this as I see it: spreading out the fight, giving defenders a viable chance at defense, and most importantly placing importance on staying alive instead of augering into a hanger, as losing an aircraft has an impact on your operations.

Implementing something like this would spread out the fights some and incentivize surviving vs. suicide/kamikaze/bombnbail type play.

<S>

Wow

[MrGeezer]

HAVE to double team to survive. That's some funny arse koolaid they servin ova der. Take the furball away from the Knights and Rooks for one day, Bish will get pounded, even 3v1 odds in your favor. Your side doesn't bring the horde because everyone has so much skill. I can only name a handful of Bish pilots that over the past 18months I have grown a respect for the ACM/skill. Respectively a couple dozen on each of the other two sides.  I know, I know, this is my perspective, as is yours above. 

Good luck with that.

[matt]

There is a price to pay only for playing the game itself. As a rook I certainly had fun. Great defensive fights we had against knight of the north. Bishes had their "fun" in the east of the map while our little finnish group had great fun with knight trying to capture some of our shore fields. <S!> guys, had a great time

[MrGeezer]

If it was me, YES and forcefully and with out prejudice !!!  On the other hand I'm smart enough to know that the horde is a function of the game and is a place where most players start out....safety in numbers and all that. Whats needed is a way to make those players move on to bigger and better things BEFORE they get bored and quit. Whats better for game play, 50 lemmings who know only how to lawndart, or 50 players who know how to bomb, fight, and survive to "win the day!"?

I think smaller battles would make game play better in that it would help teach players to get better at ALL aspects of the game instead of doing the same old thing time after time. It would also have the added effect of increasing the number of fights. And on top of that, as the players learn more and more then the quality of the fights would get better. Defenders would have a chance to beat back an attack and so more people would defend. Capturing a base would be a hard won battle and so I think more enjoyable for the accomplishment.

If I had 1 100th of one cent for every post you make wishing to force your ideal of gameplay against the ideals of those who pay their own 15 Bucks to play the way THEY want to play their 15 bucks I'd own the Bahamas.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

Other players are entitled to their own opinion.

You are entitled to your idea of game play.

Other subscribing players are entitled to their idea of gameplay, weather you like that, comprehend that, or understand that.

All of your whining, crying, bawling, squalling, bellyaching, complaining, whining, will NEVER EVER in a BILLION YEARS change the fact that they pay their own sub to play how THEY WANT to ...not yours.

[The Fugitive]

If I had 1 100th of one cent for every post you make wishing to force your ideal of gameplay against the ideals of those who pay their own 15 Bucks to play the way THEY want to play their 15 bucks I'd own the Bahamas.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

Other players are entitled to their own opinion.

You are entitled to your idea of game play.

Other subscribing players are entitled to their idea of gameplay, weather you like that, comprehend that, or understand that.

All of your whining, crying, bawling, squalling, bellyaching, complaining, whining, will NEVER EVER in a BILLION YEARS change the fact that they pay their own sub to play how THEY WANT to ...not yours.

What is it with you people? Are you too stupid to read and comprehend what I typed??? I never said ANYONE has to play my way!! IDIOTS!

Lets look at it this way should HTC change the way the game is played so much that you couldn't play the way YOU want, would you continue to play/pay? I don't think so. So at this point as the game continues the way it is it is driving more and more people away because THEY can't play the way they want.

Don't you think there should be a compromise so EVERYONE can play the way they want? Or do you just want it to continue on the way it is until there is a single horde running around grabbing base until HTC closes the doors?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

If I had 1 100th of one cent for every post you make wishing to force your ideal of gameplay against the ideals of those who pay their own 15 Bucks to play the way THEY want to play their 15 bucks I'd own the Bahamas.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

Other players are entitled to their own opinion.

You are entitled to your idea of game play.

Other subscribing players are entitled to their idea of gameplay, weather you like that, comprehend that, or understand that.

All of your whining, crying, bawling, squalling, bellyaching, complaining, whining, will NEVER EVER in a BILLION YEARS change the fact that they pay their own sub to play how THEY WANT to ...not yours.

Yes and since YOUR way seems to be a great way to diminish AH user base you can continue playing the game the way YOU want and WE others stop subscribing and move on. AH will be the private playground of a bunch of hordelings and spawn raped 2 weekers that stay as 2 weekers.

[Traveler]

The bottom line here is that the number of fights will not increase without an increase in the number of subscriptions.  If HTC can't attract new subscribers the doors will close.  I see no advertising for this game in any of the media that I watch, I asked my nephews (6) of them, in that 15 to 25 age group and they have never heard of the game.    I see no desire  on the part of the game provider to offer something new to a potential customer to induce them to subscribe.  I've been here a long time and aside from a few changes that HTC imposed to control game play alone the way, essentially the game remains unchanged and we play with the same basic rules that we have always used.

There have always been Hordes ,  but at the same time there were so many more subscribers that the horde went pretty much unnoticed.  Today with so few subscribers, the horde accounts for a larger portion of players at any one time.  So now there are people who claim they can't find a fight because of the horde.   

Oh and I guess the furballs that I see aren't two hordes mixing it up, but rather are considered individual combat?  To me it just looks like two hordes on their side going around in circles. 

[Max]

I think this thread is pretty well played out 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The bottom line here is that the number of fights will not increase without an increase in the number of subscriptions.  If HTC can't attract new subscribers the doors will close.  I see no advertising for this game in any of the media that I watch, I asked my nephews (6) of them, in that 15 to 25 age group and they have never heard of the game.    I see no desire  on the part of the game provider to offer something new to a potential customer to induce them to subscribe.  I've been here a long time and aside from a few changes that HTC imposed to control game play alone the way, essentially the game remains unchanged and we play with the same basic rules that we have always used.

There have always been Hordes ,  but at the same time there were so many more subscribers that the horde went pretty much unnoticed.  Today with so few subscribers, the horde accounts for a larger portion of players at any one time.  So now there are people who claim they can't find a fight because of the horde.   

Oh and I guess the furballs that I see aren't two hordes mixing it up, but rather are considered individual combat?  To me it just looks like two hordes on their side going around in circles. 

Exactly, two hordes and there are 3 countries. Which usually means two larger countries horde the smallest one effectively killing any hope of gameplay for the one 'in the bucket'.