player ethos in the bucket

[-gg-]

I would guess that when a threshold was reached that the bases icons would somehow change to something that resembled an uncapturable base.

[CptTrips]

I would guess that when a threshold was reached that the bases icons would somehow change to something that resembled an uncapturable base.

That would be a good idea, but if someone bombed it anyway, is everything invulnerable but just no white flag?  (I don't expect you to know, just thinking it thru.)

If they leveled everything before it was available, would the flag instantly go up as soon as it was?  Or would the building reconstitute and they start over?

I guess in the grudge case, they could still keep the weaker side leveled and unable to fly from the front line, even if they couldn't capture.

[-gg-]

Yeah I don't know. Just guessing, but I would think that you should be able to still bomb the crap out of those bases but just not capture them. So the motivation would be to not really do that like why would somebody continue to do that just out of spite or something? I think that when people are trying to roll a map all they're trying to do is really quickly capture a base.

I guess we will see.

[CptTrips]

Yeah I don't know. Just guessing, but I would think that you should be able to still bomb the crap out of those bases but just not capture them. So the motivation would be to not really do that like why would somebody continue to do that just out of spite or something? I think that when people are trying to roll a map all they're trying to do is really quickly capture a base.

I guess we will see.

Yeah.  Though even if you can't capture, it doesn't hurt to keep them flattened and not a threat.  Like "Mowing the Lawn" strategy.   
Especially if it generates glorious "HATE" as Dok used to say.   

Bottomline, is if sides are allowed to get grossly out of whack, everything else you do seems like a bandaide on an arterial wound.

I expect there will be new emergent gameplay tactics.

Hope it works.  Being GB sucks.  Unless you're in Vegas with the Swedish Swimsuit Team.

[toasted]

maybe a revolt function would be cool to force some fights. just spitballing.


something like if you take an enemies base, but you haven't deployed from it in x time, then it starts to go white flag on its own and you have to up something to reverse the process.
you could pretty much force all three sides to have to be fighting the other two fronts all the time.

not sure if it would be an improvement but I'm toasted and its an idea.

[The Fugitive]

I dont mind "spit ballin'" but so far it all sounds like forcing players to play the game a way they dont want to.

[toasted]

yea, really ideal situation would be to find a way to incentivize desirable behavior without necessarily penalizing others.

[Dadtallica]

Countries used to work together to stop a horde or a reset. Let’s do that again.

[-gg-]

yea, really ideal situation would be to find a way to incentivize desirable behavior without necessarily penalizing others.

Yep.

[CAV]

How about....

Keep the sandbox open,  Let each side make their own Tactical decisions but...

If side A wants to push side B, they can do so But each additional base requires more troops.
1 base - 10
2 base - 20
3 base - 30
etc, etc

Oh... And other than the  first base...put a time limit on how long they have to do so.... even if the town is still down.

Till they capture a base from side C and then it resets back to 10 for side b and then it starts again.

CAV

[Animl-AW]

Why play a game with people you don't like?

You don't have to worry about that since there are not many fights outside AI in your game

[Dadtallica]

Even AI cannot code everything for curbing human behavior… yet.

[Shane]

Now that I am updating again the plan is to implement a Max # of fields one country can capture from another.

HiTech

nvm, read data wrong. 

But I do hope something gets done along these lines.