Please stop doing that

[fudgums]

This is something that honestly needs to be adjusted.  I've honestly thought there should be un-capturable bases closer to the fronts as well.  I think this would cater to some of the furball type pilots while not taking away from the base-takers.

Ndisles map for sure. Just make them un-capturable. Seems with that map, once those bases are gone, the fights go away rather quickly. But some of the best overall action has been with all three countries together there. 

[Animl-AW]

I think 2 country gang bangs should be undoable, then we wouldn’t have paybacks are M***** F****er convos. So what they are really asking for is no retributions for bad acts.

Quite frankly? After 6 weeks of 2 countries gang banging knits to nothing every weekend, some prolly like Fin3time didn’t listen to me asking to dump both HQs, or I missed it.

I think things are just fine as is. We wouldn’t get those changes anyway

[JimmyD3]

Bottom line Rotbaron is right. There is NEVER any justification for any country taking more than 30% of another country. The sad part is, all 3 countries do it. I mostly fly Bishop, if it happens with the Bishops when I'm logged on, I try to go to the other country.

Hitech needs to update ENY to address this for the offending country.

[Animl-AW]

Bottom line Rotbaron is right. There is NEVER any justification for any country taking more than 30% of another country. The sad part is, all 3 countries do it. I mostly fly Bishop, if it happens with the Bishops when I'm logged on, I try to go to the other country.

Hitech needs to update ENY to address this for the offending country.

Well, what was it 2 weekends ago both rooks and bish took about 30% each, we had 1-2 bases left, cpl factories and HQ. We upped into 5 or 7-1 gang bangs. If a crowd doesn’t like FT dumping HQs they should ask themselves why. So if I sound unsympathetic there is reason. 6 weekends in a row is well beyond ridiculous. That said, that I know of no tweaks are being done. So asking a gaming community to mind their manners is fubar. Knowing this reality leaves us with shaming as our only tool. FT could do it everyday if he chose to, but he uses restraint and usually only does it when one (or both) of the other countries gets out of hand.  They’ve both been out of hand until the last weekend. If HT doesn’t tweak it then I have no complaints about paybacks. I guess when it comes down to it, I’m not listening well to those who got their fingers sliced sfter taking our legs off repeatedly. <shrug>

[hazmatt]

Wow. The biggest squads full of pickers and now 2 country gangbangs. Guess I'm not missing much lolz.

[Animl-AW]

Wow. The biggest squads full of pickers and now 2 country gangbangs. Guess I'm not missing much lolz.

Luckily, they aren’t every day events. Nothing new in gaming.

[The Fugitive]

Bottom line Rotbaron is right. There is NEVER any justification for any country taking more than 30% of another country. The sad part is, all 3 countries do it. I mostly fly Bishop, if it happens with the Bishops when I'm logged on, I try to go to the other country.

Hitech needs to update ENY to address this for the offending country.

I agree with this 100% unfortunately human nature takes over like a horse with the bit in his mouth....... you just cant stop them. Easiest fix, Hitech needs to look the captures at 30%. Once a country grabs 30% of another country the rest of the bases cant be captured by that country.

[Animl-AW]

I agree with this 100% unfortunately human nature takes over like a horse with the bit in his mouth....... you just cant stop them. Easiest fix, Hitech needs to look the captures at 30%. Once a country grabs 30% of another country the rest of the bases cant be captured by that country.

I agree with both of yas, but also the human nature part.
Great idea. I’ll zip it on my thoughts

[potsNpans]

Every change has it's unintended consequences, I'd love to see a break down of how a change would result, and after a competent debate we all have a nice adult beverage(18yr&above) and consider soberly the options. Is it just boredom with current system. Didn't we use to have base order of capture?

[Animl-AW]

Every change has it's unintended consequences, I'd love to see a break down of how a change would result, and after a competent debate we all have a nice adult beverage(18yr&above) and consider soberly the options. Is it just boredom with current system. Didn't we use to have base order of capture?

Yep, as soon as we talk changing settings we get into wack a mole. But I do think a keash is needed.

That said, the arenas reset in a defense to the idea.

I kinda go full circle if its not changed,…expect harsh repercussions on 2 country gang bangs. The lesson may have been learned. We are pretty much governing ourselves. <shrug>

But I am up for cocktails and slurring ideas into the abyss.

[Lazerr]

This is something that honestly needs to be adjusted.  I've honestly thought there should be un-capturable bases closer to the fronts as well.  I think this would cater to some of the furball type pilots while not taking away from the base-takers.

I could see that.  As long as they don't have a gv spawn out of them, it could be a good idea.

[CptTrips]

This is something that honestly needs to be adjusted.  I've honestly thought there should be un-capturable bases closer to the fronts as well.  I think this would cater to some of the furball type pilots while not taking away from the base-takers.

In the past I seem remember Hitech saying uncapturable bases would interfere with the win-the-war logic.  So I expect that would take a non-trivial change to the code to make work.

So in your logic,  country A might not be able to capture any more bases from country B, while country B can still capture bases from country A?

Put it up in the Wishlist see if he bites.

[The Fugitive]

Every change has it's unintended consequences, I'd love to see a break down of how a change would result, and after a competent debate we all have a nice adult beverage(18yr&above) and consider soberly the options. Is it just boredom with current system. Didn't we use to have base order of capture?

Yes, you would capture a base and it would put arrows on the map pointing from the base you captured to the available bases you could move on to. I think it lasted a tour or two but thats it Lusche would probably have written down the dates it was active.

I think it was too restricting taking away any chance of surprise of where the next attack was going to be. With the current system......is it really a system or just a "herd mentality" driving the action, nobody wants to break the rhythm of the run. Everyones working together so dont mess with it!

As mentioned above, a lock down when a country hit 30% of another countries bases they cant take any more would work. My idea of locking the captures at two until that team takes at least one base from the other team would ensure no long periods of time were one team is getting ganged until 30% rule kicks in. Countries would jump back and forth from front to front to continue to move toward the win.

[potsNpans]

My idea of locking the captures at two until that team takes at least one base from the other team would ensure no long periods of time were one team is getting ganged until 30% rule kicks in

What does that mean?

So your not opposed to 2 side ganging then.It's a numbers game. I think your Idea supports field progression for concentrating combat. Several possibilities can occur.  Country A & country B takes 30% of Country C. Country A & C fight B, B has numbers to fight both. Or B with numbers "conspire"with C, what then. Only thing gained is option of base to attack. Side numbers make the difference. With ENY and limited base capture paths, could not a smaller force hold? Stacked GV's bombers and fighters vying for 1 or 2 bases sound like a consolidated combat setup. Then that opens up the strategic bombers to weaken front. Granted I prefer a fighter/furball scenario, so I might be missing the bigger picture.

[Animl-AW]

OR
 As I understand it, when one country captures a % of another it can cause reset>?
How about how much is left of a country to cause reset?

 This is a loophole that allowed two countries to beat one to dust, without causing a reset, so they could both beat it more (split the %). That was WELL beyond 30% it was 90% gone. This took planning on both sides. Hence, ya lost your HQ, more than once. what they WANT is to change things so they can do crap like that over and over with no repercussions from the victims. Always read an idea 5 times. Ya lost your HQ for a very good reason, and if I had my way, I'd taken both out. <shrug> Dirt gets dirt. That's life.

 And here we are looking at a loophole and wack-a-mole. The herd mentality, OR the Gamer mentality vs the Simmer mentality. It's a teeter-totter. Please Simmers here the Gamers cry there, please Gamers the Simmers cry, now everyone is crying. Ya get a different issues depending on who you listen too. This is part of why game companies take suggestions with a huge boulder of salt. After 100k times it gets harder to get their attention, it's exhausting and time consuming.

Settings in a game IS a science, and rarely answers exist, there should never be haste. It must be small and seriously well thought out before even presenting it.

I always looked at game, communities etc.. as biospheres. Just do one thing a little wrong and the whole thing starts dying. Kid gloves. Humans are so damn reactionary to small beans.