ENY/Gameplay Modification

[Chris79]

I think this topic is somewhat related to the general discussion topic of "why have some many people have left". What I am suggesting here for the most part isn't necessarily meant to bring in new players, but more or less to retain existing players.
1. Maps are still far to large. With the max players online at any given time being no more then 150, I think 60 total bases ought to be the max size allowed for a terrain.
2. Battleships need to be kept far enough out to sea where they can not pour direct fire into an enemy field. Allowing players who sit in guns to shut down a field with no risk is de-incentivizing upping a jabo or buffs.
3. Remove Vbases, and ports. Vbases ought to be replaced with a modified small airfield with 3 Vhh, 1 Fth, and 1BMH. Task groups ought to be assigned to a standard airfield like they were in OZkansas I think.
4. Add punitive measures to negate ganging. Lets say you have countries "A", "B" and "C". If country "A" has 10% of "C"s bases and 0% of "B"s, and country "B" has 13% of "C"s base and 0% of "A"s then at which point country either country "C"s base should be un-capturable for 15-20 minutes or country "A" and "B" need to have a substantial ENY penalty.
5. remove icons for aircraft under 45 feet.
6. Remove half of the tress or re-implement gv icons.
7. Remove the ability for damaged gvs to instantly repair themselves from a box of supplies maybe add a recovery vehicle and a 30 second repair time in its stead.
8. Allow gv'rs who are in the command position to be killed by strafing
9. Give dedicated GV killers, ie, the Ju87g and Il2 storch vision.

[Chris79]

Oh, and maybe a separate subscription for those who just strictly do special events.

[CptTrips]

You got my vote.


That all sounds reasonable to me.



[Edit: Well #4 is maybe a little iffy.  I'd have think about it more, but that would require math and it's the weekend.

And I'd prefer the second option in #6 for the same reason I think having plane icons is actually more realistic to account to the lack of resolution of current display technology.]

[Ramesis]

I think this topic is somewhat related to the general discussion topic of "why have some many people have left". What I am suggesting here for the most part isn't necessarily meant to bring in new players, but more or less to retain existing players.
1. Maps are still far to large. With the max players online at any given time being no more then 150, I think 60 total bases ought to be the max size allowed for a terrain.
2. Battleships need to be kept far enough out to sea where they can not pour direct fire into an enemy field. Allowing players who sit in guns to shut down a field with no risk is de-incentivizing upping a jabo or buffs.
3. Remove Vbases, and ports. Vbases ought to be replaced with a modified small airfield with 3 Vhh, 1 Fth, and 1BMH. Task groups ought to be assigned to a standard airfield like they were in OZkansas I think.
4. Add punitive measures to negate ganging. Lets say you have countries "A", "B" and "C". If country "A" has 10% of "C"s bases and 0% of "B"s, and country "B" has 13% of "C"s base and 0% of "A"s then at which point country either country "C"s base should be un-capturable for 15-20 minutes or country "A" and "B" need to have a substantial ENY penalty.
5. remove icons for aircraft under 45 feet.
6. Remove half of the tress or re-implement gv icons.
7. Remove the ability for damaged gvs to instantly repair themselves from a box of supplies maybe add a recovery vehicle and a 30 second repair time in its stead.
8. Allow gv'rs who are in the command position to be killed by strafing
9. Give dedicated GV killers, ie, the Ju87g and Il2 storch vision.

For the most part

-1

[The Fugitive]

I think this topic is somewhat related to the general discussion topic of "why have some many people have left". What I am suggesting here for the most part isn't necessarily meant to bring in new players, but more or less to retain existing players.
1. Maps are still far to large. With the max players online at any given time being no more then 150, I think 60 total bases ought to be the max size allowed for a terrain.

Agreed, but are you going to spend the next 3-6 months building a new small map?
 

2. Battleships need to be kept far enough out to sea where they can not pour direct fire into an enemy field. Allowing players who sit in guns to shut down a field with no risk is de-incentivizing upping a jabo or buffs.

How about when a ship starts hitting anything at a base it starts flashing the base and town to alert people of incoming fire.

3. Remove Vbases, and ports. Vbases ought to be replaced with a modified small airfield with 3 Vhh, 1 Fth, and 1BMH. Task groups ought to be assigned to a standard airfield like they were in OZkansas I think.

Each Task group needs a port other wise youd be swapping Task groups every 15 minutes.

4. Add punitive measures to negate ganging. Lets say you have countries "A", "B" and "C". If country "A" has 10% of "C"s bases and 0% of "B"s, and country "B" has 13% of "C"s base and 0% of "A"s then at which point country either country "C"s base should be un-capturable for 15-20 minutes or country "A" and "B" need to have a substantial ENY penalty.

I always thought making country "A" switch to take a base from country "B" after capturing 2 bases from country "C" would work nice to slow the ganging. It would also help break up the "hordes" as the horde must stay together even when switching fronts.

5. remove icons for aircraft under 45 feet.

6. Remove half of the tress or re-implement gv icons.

yes please

7. Remove the ability for damaged gvs to instantly repair themselves from a box of supplies maybe add a recovery vehicle and a 30 second repair time in its stead.

or limit the number of supplies that can be layed out at once

8. Allow gv'rs who are in the command position to be killed by strafing

add make shooting from the commanders position not possible.

9. Give dedicated GV killers, ie, the Ju87g and Il2 storch vision.

[Vraciu]

Overall +1 to the OP.

Agreed, but are you going to spend the next 3-6 months building a new small map?

With respect, I fail to see how that is his job.

HTC allows us the option to make maps, but the responsibility for providing them ultimately rests with the company.   After all, MONOPOLY doesn't come without a board.

 

[CptTrips]

I always thought making country "A" switch to take a base from country "B" after capturing 2 bases from country "C" would work nice to slow the ganging. It would also help break up the "hordes" as the horde must stay together even when switching fronts.

I seems to me that if you start doing this you completely negate the "proposed" advantage of 3-sides;  The possibility of two sides forming an alliance and agreeing to concentrate all attacks on the larger side currently winning.
 
That falls completely into the ebb and flow argument. Now you would be forcing them to fight each other equally to their common enemy.

The complex 3-way dynamic turns in to rote lock-step, doesn't it?

[guncrasher]

Remove icons at certain alt kind of takes a bit from some of us. It's already hard at least for me to see planes at tree top level. All I see is an icon.


semp

[The Fugitive]

Overall +1 to the OP.


With respect, I fail to see how that is his job.

HTC allows us the option to make maps, but the responsibility for providing them ultimately rests with the company.   After all, MONOPOLY doesn't come without a board.

 

Agreed, but would you rather have HTC spent that time building a map, or working a any number of other things?

I seems to me that if you start doing this you completely negate the "proposed" advantage of 3-sides;  The possibility of two sides forming an alliance and agreeing to concentrate all attacks on the larger side currently winning.
 
That falls completely into the ebb and flow argument. Now you would be forcing them to fight each other equally to their common enemy.

The complex 3-way dynamic turns in to rote lock-step, doesn't it?

It will be that much harder for one country to get that far ahead.

[CptTrips]

It will be that much harder for one country to get that far ahead.

I'm still confused a bit:

First nothing about your plan prevents numerical imbalance.  So it's already quite common for one side the get twice as many players as either of the others.  Someone just recently posted a screenshot of a common example. 

Wouldn't what you are suggesting destroy ebb and flow because:

1.  You can't form alliances any more. Every team has to attack the other in predictable locks step.  Right?  wouldn't that lead to less interesting dynamics?

2.  It is possible each of the smaller teams must take a base of the larger team next, but the larger team have enough numbers to block them.  So couldn't you have a deadlock condition?  Each of the smaller teams can't  take their next needed base from the larger team, yet they aren't allowed take any other?

3.  Wouldn't what you suggest create bizarre tactics like once team A takes a base from team B, team B is now free to temporarily remove all forces from the A-B front because they are not allowed to attack again until after they've take a base from team C? 


It kind seems to me you are going the long way around the barn to create a pseudo 2-sided arena.  You're starting with 3-sides and forcing each side to alternatively pretend it's only two sides and ignore the third side.  You'd just be throwing in a bunch of extra complexity and create additional perverse states.

In my opinion, 2-sides with aggressive ENY and side limitation if necessary, would make a lot more sense.

[The Fugitive]

I'm still confused a bit:

First nothing about your plan prevents numerical imbalance.  So it's already quite common for one side the get twice as many players as either of the others.  Someone just recently posted a screenshot of a common example. 

Wouldn't what you are suggesting destroy ebb and flow because:

1.  You can't form alliances any more. Every team has to attack the other in predictable locks step.  Right?  wouldn't that lead to less interesting dynamics?

2.  It is possible each of the smaller teams must take a base of the larger team next, but the larger team have enough numbers to block them.  So couldn't you have a deadlock condition?  Each of the smaller teams can't  take their next needed base from the larger team, yet they aren't allowed take any other?

3.  Wouldn't what you suggest create bizarre tactics like once team A takes a base from team B, team B is now free to temporarily remove all forces from the A-B front because they are not allowed to attack again until after they've take a base from team C? 


It kind seems to me you are going the long way around the barn to create a pseudo 2-sided arena.  You're starting with 3-sides and forcing each side to alternatively pretend it's only two sides and ignore the third side.  You'd just be throwing in a bunch of extra complexity and create additional perverse states.

In my opinion, 2-sides with aggressive ENY and side limitation if necessary, would make a lot more sense.

Well we are never going to see a two sided war so we can forget that, comparing to  that or wishing for that.

Side "A" has the numbers. As it is today they attack country "B" rolling base after base taking up to 50% of their fields (resent screen shot). Team "B" is over whelmed for the duration. Team "C" goes after team "A" helping evening the side.

With my setup "A" must attack "C" after taking 2 of "B"s bases. "C" knows the attack is coming and sets up a defensive front forcing a battle to take the base they need. Mean while team "B has a chance to recover and attack team "A". "A" having the numbers is now fighting a 2 front war.

Even should team "A" capture a base from "C" they now have to decide to continue to hit "C" or switch back the taking "B" bases. Have you ever been part of one of those hordes that roll base after base? They spend 5 minutes asking which base is next? The whole horde wont always move together again slowing the attack. Teams "B" and "C" can continue to attack "A", the team with the numbers.

Raising ENY faster might help, but there is already a bunch of players who leave due to ENY as it is. This way they can still do what they want to do.....roll bases..... but with them having to switch fronts every few bases it will slow them down, give the defending teams a break, and eventually break up the horde. 

[CptTrips]

Well we are never going to see a two sided war so we can forget that, comparing to  that or wishing for that.

Yeah, that's what they keep trying to tell me.    But if he won't accept a clean, simple solution like that, I can't possible see him accepting something like this. 


Also, even though the team with twice the numbers might not be able to take your base yet, surely he could be flattening your hangars and radars and factories and HQ right?  They just can't capture?  Or are the hangars and strats invulnerable when it isn't your turn to be attacked?

[CptTrips]

Side "A" has the numbers[...]As it is today they attack country "B" rolling base after base [...]Team "B" is over whelmed [...]"C" goes after team "A" helping evening the side.
[...] "A" must attack "C" after taking 2 of "B"s bases. "C" knows the attack is coming and sets up a defensive front [...] Mean while team "B has a chance to recover and attack team "A". "A" having the numbers is now fighting a 2 front war.
[...]
Even should team "A" capture a base from "C" they now have to decide to continue to hit "C" or switch back the taking "B" bases. Have you ever been part of one of those hordes that roll base after base? They spend 5 minutes asking which base is next? The whole horde wont always move together again slowing the attack. Teams "B" and "C" can continue to attack "A", the team with the numbers.

[...]

[Chris79]

When I started in 2013 AH was an entirely different animal. If I started fresh today there would be absolutely no way in hell I would have hung around after the first 2 weeks. Aside from the basic learning curve there is not enough action in my opinion to hook someone in.

[Chris79]

Agreed, but are you going to spend the next 3-6 months building a new small map?
 

How about when a ship starts hitting anything at a base it starts flashing the base and town to alert people of incoming fire.

Each Task group needs a port other wise youd be swapping Task groups every 15 minutes.

I always thought making country "A" switch to take a base from country "B" after capturing 2 bases from country "C" would work nice to slow the ganging. It would also help break up the "hordes" as the horde must stay together even when switching fronts.

yes please

or limit the number of supplies that can be layed out at once

add make shooting from the commanders position not possible.

I believe in the old Ozkansas map the task groups were tied to an airfield instead of a port. With so few players on and how easy it is now to pork aaa strat and kill a few ack guns at a Vbase or Port, there are just not enough people on to baby sit a field for 1 hour plus.