Losing the war

[JimmyD3]

Had this happening in MW a year or so ago, with out going into details, Skuzzy came in and reset the map. No one got any perks out of it.

[Oldman731]

This is partially the community's fault as well. Some of the veteran players need to tell their countrymen to back off the side that is getting pounded and focus on the other side.

Agreed, but, as Lusche says, it doesn't work in the MA.  Sad but true.

- oldman (I mean, like, this is a WAR, man, don't you know?)

[DREDIOCK]

Couldnt care less about who wins or looses the war.
When I was relatively new I cared. Seemed like something to strive for. But as I played more and more it became less and less important to me.

I care about taking or loosing bases. But only because it provides a a cause to fight for.
Nothing and I mean nothing is more fun the a desperate struggle to capture or defend a base. Not the bases that are horded. But the ones that are actually contested and fought over. Where the balance of advantage tips back and forth one way or the other.

Had such an instance the other night. Back and forth over a base against the rooks. They would pin us at our base and then we would pin them at theirs.
Eventually they got the advantage and took the base. But it wasnt free or an easy steam roll. Which is all hording is. No. it was decided after a drawn out fight on both land and air and they eventually managed to get troops in just before we could stop them

They then tried to continue on with the next base. Another struggle ensued where it eventually came down to only a couple of our aircraft and 4 Gvs.
An M8, A wirble and a couple of tanks getting to and near the town just in time to stop them as they tried setting up a gauntlet of wirbs to protect the M3s for a final push. Then holding on till the town started popping again.

Lost one. Held one

Nights like that are far FAR FAR better and infinitely more fun then partaking in the hoard. Or being horded. Big blobs of players attacking undefended bases  only 1 sector from one another such as I witnessed the  next night (night before last). Or one side just steamrolling bases just to win the reset.

Thats right. Two nights ago I watched nits hording one base and I forget it was either bish  or rooks hording a nit base literally one sector away

Sorry. I dont "get" the hoard or steamrolling bases. You up more planes then you would need to take two bases simultaneously if you chose. And you use that blob to attack where the enemy isnt. Then pat yourselves on the back when you take the base against at best token resistance as though you have accomplished some great feat of skill.

I mean really. How much skill does it take to form a conga line? What great feat of tactical and strategic planning is it to get so many people that the opposing side has not a hope in hell to resist then throw that blob at a base where nobody is?

Sorry but thats not skill or genius in planning. The first scenario in the two bases was far better deserving of praise and WTGs for both attackers and defenders alike then any horde battle can ever hope to be. Yes the risk of failing is much much higher. But its a ton more gratifying win or loose.

Winning the war? Its the same way when you just steam roll people. The victory is much more hollow because you havent really worked for it. All you did was set the situation where you cant loose. About as much fun and gratifying as bringing your "a" game in playing chess against a novice 7 year old

[The Fugitive]

Couldnt care less about who wins or looses the war.
When I was relatively new I cared. Seemed like something to strive for. But as I played more and more it became less and less important to me.

I care about taking or loosing bases. But only because it provides a a cause to fight for.
Nothing and I mean nothing is more fun the a desperate struggle to capture or defend a base. Not the bases that are horded. But the ones that are actually contested and fought over. Where the balance of advantage tips back and forth one way or the other.

Had such an instance the other night. Back and forth over a base against the rooks. They would pin us at our base and then we would pin them at theirs.
Eventually they got the advantage and took the base. But it wasnt free or an easy steam roll. Which is all hording is. No. it was decided after a drawn out fight on both land and air and they eventually managed to get troops in just before we could stop them

They then tried to continue on with the next base. Another struggle ensued where it eventually came down to only a couple of our aircraft and 4 Gvs.
An M8, A wirble and a couple of tanks getting to and near the town just in time to stop them as they tried setting up a gauntlet of wirbs to protect the M3s for a final push. Then holding on till the town started popping again.

Lost one. Held one

Nights like that are far FAR FAR better and infinitely more fun then partaking in the hoard. Or being horded. Big blobs of players attacking undefended bases  only 1 sector from one another such as I witnessed the  next night (night before last). Or one side just steamrolling bases just to win the reset.

Thats right. Two nights ago I watched nits hording one base and I forget it was either bish  or rooks hording a nit base literally one sector away

Sorry. I dont "get" the hoard or steamrolling bases. You up more planes then you would need to take two bases simultaneously if you chose. And you use that blob to attack where the enemy isnt. Then pat yourselves on the back when you take the base against at best token resistance as though you have accomplished some great feat of skill.

I mean really. How much skill does it take to form a conga line? What great feat of tactical and strategic planning is it to get so many people that the opposing side has not a hope in hell to resist then throw that blob at a base where nobody is?

Sorry but thats not skill or genius in planning. The first scenario in the two bases was far better deserving of praise and WTGs for both attackers and defenders alike then any horde battle can ever hope to be. Yes the risk of failing is much much higher. But its a ton more gratifying win or loose.

Winning the war? Its the same way when you just steam roll people. The victory is much more hollow because you havent really worked for it. All you did was set the situation where you cant loose. About as much fun and gratifying as bringing your "a" game in playing chess against a novice 7 year old

Night like those are the ones that usually caused you to go to work the next day with very few hours of sleep  ahhhh but they were fun!

[Changeup]

Last night the knights we really taking a beating on ND isles, one of my favorite maps. When I got on the knights only had control of 47% of their bases. It was so bad the only bases we controlled were the ones on the main island by the HQ and the two bases near tank town. As a tactical bomber by it was impossible for me to find a decent place to launch, so into the furball with my A6m I go...
While I had a few great white-knuckle turn fights (which I lost all but one) I couldn't get the altitude I wanted. It wasn't that bad, low and slow is the life story of an A6m pilot, but a few squaddies logged because they couldn't get high enough. My suggestion is once a side losses so many bases (maybe >50%) the message appears "X have lost the war" and the map is rotated. This would cut down of the number of instances like last night where there are very few to no places to launch if you don't want to furball....

Out of curiosity, ummmmm, how high do they need to get to feel tactically advantaged? 

[Delirium]

(Jokes aside, it is a good book)

[Debrody]

Out of curiosity, ummmmm, how high do they need to get to feel tactically advantaged? 

Above the enemy. I never ever "fight" from alt disadvantage, rather just log off 

[Zerstorer]

 

[tuton25]

Out of curiosity, ummmmm, how high do they need to get to feel tactically advantaged? 

They're pickers, so as high as they need to....

[NatCigg]

simple solution.  more arenas. 


Luche could probably show you a graph of how over the last five years the amount of play in the MW has stayed steady while the MA has been cut in half.

IIRC the peak of players online began to decline following the rash decision to eliminate two late war arenas.  The complaints were about the orange arena being locked after noon central time until the blue arena had a population over 100. this created a lot of frustration for players wanting to join there friends.  It would of made much more sense to leave the arenas UNLOCKED in place of eliminating the 2nd arena.  I, who is probably like a fair percentage of the customers, like to get away from the horde, and would be much happier if we had a option to go elsewhere.

I remember logging off titanic tuesdays because of the hordish mess it was.

Nowadays I constantly log off because the maps and fights are controlled by hordes.

[Lusche]

Luche could probably show you a graph of how over the last five years the amount of play in the MW has stayed steady while the MA has been cut in half.

He could not because it hasn't

For a quick comparison see the total kills in MW in last August (8,749) with those of August 2009 (34,716)

IIRC the peak of players online began to decline following the rash decision to eliminate two late war arenas.  The complaints were about the orange arena being locked after noon central time until the blue arena had a population over 100.

The dual LW setup was eliminated because of a substanbtial decline in numbers that had happened over the years before. This was finally done in June 2011, more than 3 years after AH player numbers peaked out in early 2008.

[toddbobe]

I believe the AH population fell because of the economic meltdown of 2008 and lack of advertising by HTC. I hope HTC will do more advertising and or get cozy with museums to distribute disks.
Todd

[Zerstorer]

I think that's part of it, Todd....but it doesn't explain all of it.  You have to factor the aging of the game engine in as well as the steep learning curve vs. other games. 

[Getback]

That was knights fault. They left one base untouched close to the city. No amount begging, pleading, or praying could get them there. I upped a set of buffs when finally 3 players were in that vicinity, they left.

[DmonSlyr]

Smaller maps are essentially the key. Points and are:

Is that it is easier to find action.
It looks like there is more going on on the entire map.
Players won't be scattered all over the place and the fights will be more concentrated.
If HQ is down, players will still be able to find the action easier.
The amount of time it takes to fly to bases is shortened.
The war per each map is shorter
With a smaller map, the amount of players on does not matter as much in that fights will be more concentrated and most people on will be fighting out of the same general areas.
With bases closer together, fighters can up from near by fields to defend a base that is being attacked without having to fly 2 sectors to defend it.

The only downside is that HQ is easier to kill, yet that can be fixed.

The only other option, which why I like festers map so much, is that the bases need to be closer.  One thing about festers map, is that even though it is big, each field has an objective it can harbor, like how there is a line of tank fields inbetween 2 fighter bases.  It doesn't make the fields seem so far apart and bombers and attackers have something to do in the fights as well.

I think islands like a total tank town or furball island defeats the purpose of the war, puts only one style of players in a group somewhere and is pointless to the cencept of the game. When you have 1 group of players all with the same goals and shove them in there own little corner, it takes away from rest of game and attempts to take bases and win the wars.