Author Topic: Time to go to the hanger  (Read 166 times)

Offline 1Cane

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
Time to go to the hanger
« on: Yesterday at 03:55:58 PM »
This morning 8 vs 1
If a gv attacking he parks under tree while you loiter.3x
The capper was buffs rtb over my field upped on chance he was low he wasn't, I then see buffs from east continue climb turn east. Buffs immediately do 180 at edge of dar.It must of been freighting  to face the One nit in flight. Landed and logged when they won't fight 8 vs 1 they should sign off!
AkCaine

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Time to go to the hanger
« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 04:11:52 PM »

Seen that a lot more often lately, at least it appears that way to me.
People log into the arena looking for different things.  Some just want to take bases, unopposed and as quickly as possible.  You can tell who these folks are by the targets they select, usually an undefended base.  And if failure looks imminent, or actually occurs, they find another undefended base to go after.  Rinse and repeat. 
Others seem content to up a set of buffs and venture off on a bombing run...you can usually tell if they are seeking action or just want to have a peaceful run over and back from where they take off from.  Altitude is their friend, as not a lot of players want up a fighter and climb up there and thwart a mission that most of the damage can be repaired before the buffs land again.
Others, myself included, want to log in and fight someone.  Win or lose, the action is what they seek.  Kill, get shot down, doesn't matter.  Combat is what they see as the game's biggest attraction for them.
It's frustrating when you encounter players who want their time in the arena to be something different than what you are trying to achieve. 
The other night, actually a pretty common thing to see, I upped from a base that was under attack, with a huge enemy dar bar next sector over. 
Once the enemy fighters showed up, all a lot of them seemed interested in doing was making high speed passes on you after you tried to engage an enemy, but extend(flee like a coward) once you maneuvered into a position to fight them.  Rinse and repeat, high speed pass, never go below 10K, run towards their friends, who would try and come in on your 6, and continue running til they were out of icon range.
I tolerated that for about 10 minutes til the boredom was too much, landed, logged, and tried again the next night. 
Sometime I wonder if they do that because their personal skills or ego won't let them risk actually engaging in a fight without overwhelming support from their buddies?  Or is it something else?

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19175
Re: Time to go to the hanger
« Reply #2 on: Yesterday at 04:44:23 PM »
That is why there should be a set strategy of which bases need to be taken and in what order..

It would concentrate the action by forcing the fight into the next known required area..

The bases need to be laid out hopscotch so you have all three countries around each base longer than they are now forcing 3 country fights not 2 like most are now..

Eagler
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline CAV

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 724
Re: Time to go to the hanger
« Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 08:13:45 PM »
Quote
That is why there should be a set strategy of which bases need to be taken and in what order..

Something like that's been tried before, And as I recall most of us didn't like it.

Maybe something along the lines of what one of our competitors does... Limited number of Offensive attacks per side based on the current population. 
But that game has a player run chain of command per side That dictates strategy, most players have very little say in it. We do not have anything like that here.

I think the tricky thing here is to stop the two country versus one thing. Or a over populated team rolling a few players. (AM US time zone)

Option one
Let's say Bish take a Rook base, 
They have to take a Knight base next, And bish troops have no effect on the Rook Till that happens.

Option two
As a side loses bases once it gets to a certain percentage the number of troops needed to take a base increases.


I still think the key is limited attack options per front. Keep the fights focused, and the defender doesn't have to play whack-a- Mole Against small groups of people trying to sneak bases as the big fights is going on.
"THE BUNKER BUSTER" Scenario - RAF 19 Squadron

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18464
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Time to go to the hanger
« Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 09:29:28 PM »
That is why there should be a set strategy of which bases need to be taken and in what order..

It would concentrate the action by forcing the fight into the next known required area..

The bases need to be laid out hopscotch so you have all three countries around each base longer than they are now forcing 3 country fights not 2 like most are now..

Eagler

Its been tried before and was a disaster. Next time your in the game, right click the map and there is a selection that says "Field order". During that time that was the button you clicked to see what order the fields needed to be captured in. The fog of war was gone and you would find players at stupid alts waiting for the next attach.

 
Something like that's been tried before, And as I recall most of us didn't like it.

Maybe something along the lines of what one of our competitors does... Limited number of Offensive attacks per side based on the current population.
But that game has a player run chain of command per side That dictates strategy, most players have very little say in it. We do not have anything like that here.

I think the tricky thing here is to stop the two country versus one thing. Or a over populated team rolling a few players. (AM US time zone)

Option one
Let's say Bish take a Rook base,
They have to take a Knight base next, And bish troops have no effect on the Rook Till that happens.


Option two
As a side loses bases once it gets to a certain percentage the number of troops needed to take a base increases.


I still think the key is limited attack options per front. Keep the fights focused, and the defender doesn't have to play whack-a- Mole Against small groups of people trying to sneak bases as the big fights is going on.

Ive suggested something like that before, but I would set it at after taking 2 base from one country before you MUST switch fronts. This way you didnt know for sure if the attacking country was coming for yours after a take on the other front or they were going to go for the second before switching (fog of war), but in the end it forced the tag team to break up and "included" the lone country in the fighting.

I also think one team should NEVER be able to take more than 25-30% of another countries bases. Force a team to move to the other front to get those bases. Far to often you see one team rolling one front and once they hit 25% of bases captured they continue to crush that same front mostly because they got the "team rolling" and dont want to break that by switching fronts.

Smaller maps keep the fronts focused. Get rid of/ retire the big maps that dont do this.

I dont think these things are unreasonable, then again I didnt help write the coad for the game. Id love the chance to spend an afternoon with Hitech and just pick his brain on the game and his thoughts for the future. It certainly wouldnt chase me away, but Im dying to know what he thinks on this stuff and what is possible.