Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tuton25 on November 13, 2014, 11:20:43 AM
-
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....
-
I know that map has based on the mainland to the West, East and North, you couldn't launch from those? (Just asking :))
And on such a small map for one country to lose that amount of bases is totally a relatively common event, and it's better for you to switch sides to do what you want rather than have a map's worth of people's fun to end for a portion of that population's own "good".
-
I vultch 4 rooks in 1 pass with a 262. It was glorious.
-
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.
We had a similar system until about 8 years ago, and it was horrible. It simply meant that the smallest team was regularly ganged by both bigger once in a race for reset. Unlike today, it meant that there was no incentive for them to turn against each other at any point, because it only mattered who got the most fields of the underdog at reset to be declared winner. Coincidentally that country happened to be the knights. And I can assure you, much more players logged of in disgust back then...
I can already hear the objection by some: "But that's what happens today!"
No. Not that much not anywhere that much, and not that much against the same team without a break for days and weeks. It's very much different today (That's the good thing in switching teams every tour, you really see what happens on all sides ;))
Oh, and if you meant "nobody would win the war, it just would be lost and the terrain would be rotated" - this would have an enormous griefing potential.
-
What Lusche said :noid
And Glzz what a noob you are. :noid
-
With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue. There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt. Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt. Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.
The bigger problem, I believe is that players do log off due to frustration when one side is getting ganged. When one side has a dis-incentive to play, it then naturally creates an ENY problem for the other two sides, which expands the problem because now players log off due to ENY. (I personally believe more people log off due to ENY switch sides.) I think every time a player logs off in frustration with the game, for whatever reason, it is a bad thing.
Here's another idea to deal with one side being ganged (that I think I put on the Wishlist ages ago):
When an attacking side has taken in excess of 20% of another side's bases, start decreasing the downtime for all objects on the side being attacked. The concept would be to make it increasingly harder to take bases from a side that has lost a considerable number of their bases. Call it a "stiffened resistance" or "shorter supply lines" or whatever you want to justify the concept.
For example: Once the 20% threshold has been met, reduce the downtime on objects for the "losing" side by 5% per 1% percent over the 20% threshold. Sounds complex, but yields simple results: If one side attacks until they have 25% of a side's fields, they have reduced the enemy downtime by 25% (5 x 5) -- a little harder to take bases, but not impossible. However if they continue to push and get to 30%, the downtime is now reduced to 50%, making it considerably harder to take fields. If BOTH sides gang one country and get to say 27% each (like we saw last night) then they are a combined 14% over threshold, 14x5=70, so now the down-times reduce by 70%, making it VERY hard to take fields from that side.
This also effectively caps the number of bases BOTH sides can take from one side at 30%. If both sides have 30% of an enemy's field they are over the threshold by a combined 20%, 20x5=100, meaning NO downtime for objects on that side, making it impossible to take more fields from the side that only has 40% of their bases left.
Yeah, that's a lot of math, but it should work. :)
<S>
Ryno
-
You obviously put thought into that. I pushed back the pain and read it front to back. Not bad, squaddie.
-
With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue. There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt. Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt. Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.
The bigger problem, I believe is that players do log off due to frustration when one side is getting ganged. When one side has a dis-incentive to play, it then naturally creates an ENY problem for the other two sides, which expands the problem because now players log off due to ENY. (I personally believe more people log off due to ENY switch sides.) I think every time a player logs off in frustration with the game, for whatever reason, it is a bad thing.
Here's another idea to deal with one side being ganged (that I think I put on the Wishlist ages ago):
When an attacking side has taken in excess of 20% of another side's bases, start decreasing the downtime for all objects on the side being attacked. The concept would be to make it increasingly harder to take bases from a side that has lost a considerable number of their bases. Call it a "stiffened resistance" or "shorter supply lines" or whatever you want to justify the concept.
For example: Once the 20% threshold has been met, reduce the downtime on objects for the "losing" side by 5% per percent over the 20% threshold. Sounds complex, but yields simple results. If one side attacks until they have 25% of a sides fields, they have reduced the enemy downtime by 25% (5 x 5) -- a little harder to take bases, but not impossible. However if they continue to push and get to 30%, the downtime is now reduced to 50%, making it considerably harder to take fields. If BOTH sides gang one country and get to say 27% each (like we saw last night) then they are a combined 14% over threshold, 14x5=70, so now the down-times reduce by 70%, making it VERY hard to take fields from that side.
This also effectively caps the number of bases BOTH sides can take from one side at 30%. If both sides have 30% of an enemies field they are over the threshold by a combined 20%, 20x5=100, meaning NO downtime for objects on that side, making it impossible to take fields from the side that only has 40% of their bases left.
Yeah, that's a lot of math, but it should work. :)
<S>
Ryno
-1 No.
I believe your idea would mean no one would be engaging the "down" country and they would have no one to fight.
-
With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue. There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt. Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt. Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.
The bigger problem, I believe is that players do log off due to frustration when one side is getting ganged. When one side has a dis-incentive to play, it then naturally creates an ENY problem for the other two sides, which expands the problem because now players log off due to ENY. (I personally believe more people log off due to ENY switch sides.) I think every time a player logs off in frustration with the game, for whatever reason, it is a bad thing.
Here's another idea to deal with one side being ganged (that I think I put on the Wishlist ages ago):
When an attacking side has taken in excess of 20% of another side's bases, start decreasing the downtime for all objects on the side being attacked. The concept would be to make it increasingly harder to take bases from a side that has lost a considerable number of their bases. Call it a "stiffened resistance" or "shorter supply lines" or whatever you want to justify the concept.
For example: Once the 20% threshold has been met, reduce the downtime on objects for the "losing" side by 5% per percent over the 20% threshold. Sounds complex, but yields simple results. If one side attacks until they have 25% of a sides fields, they have reduced the enemy downtime by 25% (5 x 5) -- a little harder to take bases, but not impossible. However if they continue to push and get to 30%, the downtime is now reduced to 50%, making it considerably harder to take fields. If BOTH sides gang one country and get to say 27% each (like we saw last night) then they are a combined 14% over threshold, 14x5=70, so now the down-times reduce by 70%, making it VERY hard to take fields from that side.
This also effectively caps the number of bases BOTH sides can take from one side at 30%. If both sides have 30% of an enemies field they are over the threshold by a combined 20%, 20x5=100, meaning NO downtime for objects on that side, making it impossible to take fields from the side that only has 40% of their bases left.
Yeah, that's a lot of math, but it should work. :)
<S>
Ryno
Stiffened resistance. Flipping brilliant. +1
-
-1 No.
I believe your idea would mean no one would be engaging the "down" country and they would have no one to fight.
I get what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree with that. I think you're over-exaggerating the result. What you mean is that one side might stop being attacked -- but that doesn't mean the fight is over. The side getting trounced simply has a chance to go offensive and take the fight to the enemy, which still creates its own fights.
There is always an ebb and flow to where the fights are anyway, often based on the horde changing focus from one side to the other. This system simply gives more incentive to fight evenly on all fronts once you have taken 20% of an enemy's fields rather than continuing to gang one side (the point the OP was making).
<S>
Ryno
-
I get what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree with that. I think you're over-exaggerating the result. What you mean is that one side might stop being attacked -- but that doesn't mean the fight is over. The side getting trounced simply has a chance to go offensive and take the fight to the enemy, which still creates its own fights.
There is always an ebb and flow to where the fights are anyway, often based on the horde changing focus from one side to the other. This system simply gives more incentive to fight evenly on all fronts once you have taken 20% of an enemy's fields rather than continuing to gang one side (the point the OP was making).
<S>
Ryno
Not quite sure what to make of this. In the spirit of 'what are the unintended consequences?' suppose a side has been pushed back so they're capped. Instant or near instant uptime.
Wouldn't that create a situation where it would be obscenely profitable to find a base and just keep bombing the town center over and over and over with your lancs for full points every pass?
I don't particularly think the motivation to gang one side is winning the war, but rather funneling the defense into one easy area to control/vulch. I don't really see this change affecting that, other than making the front a little bit larger.
Wiley.
-
With regard to logging off because you "can't get enough alt to fight", I find it hard to think that is the issue. There was a 6K+ base on the Knight island far enough from the front to get plenty of alt. Also, you can very often take off from a front-line base and extend AWAY from the front/fight in order to get alt. Nothing says you have to take off and fly directly toward the enemy.
In the half an hour I was on last night, there were only about 8-10 knight bases (The main island near the strats and the 2 in tank town, including the v-base) and the air base near tank town was half-vulched. I could get up just couldn't climb anywhere before being jumped.....
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. (This is similar to capturing v-bases in the tank towns. Let the GV guys sit on their ridge tops and lob shells at each other).
-
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. (This is similar to capturing v-bases in the tank towns. Let the GV guys sit on their ridge tops and lob shells at each other).
I agree with that. In fact, when I was on I put on 200 "What did Knights do to deserve this?" I'm not sure that my comment can entirely take credit for it, but I'm fairly certain some Bish base-takers looked at the percentages as they immediately started attacking a couple Rook bases in short order. I then joined in the defense of that Rook base, as that was better action on the Rook side, IMO, than was hunting for the few Knights that were on.
-
Not quite sure what to make of this. In the spirit of 'what are the unintended consequences?' suppose a side has been pushed back so they're capped. Instant or near instant uptime.
Wouldn't that create a situation where it would be obscenely profitable to find a base and just keep bombing the town center over and over and over with your lancs for full points every pass?
Yes, I try to think of "unintended consequences" as well, and you have raised a good one, with regard to someone score-whoring the heck out of that situation. I suppose that is one consideration, but personally, I don't care about a small number of players using that to score points compared to seeing one side continually ganged for hours on end that causes people to log off.
Maybe also incrementally reduce the points earned for bombing a side you already have 20% or more bases on? If a side's downtime is 0 then points earned should be 0, making it literally "pointless".
I don't particularly think the motivation to gang one side is winning the war, but rather funneling the defense into one easy area to control/vulch. I don't really see this change affecting that, other than making the front a little bit larger.
That's exactly my thinking, and I believe my idea aims to cut down on this. Lowered down-time means unporked fields, hangers up and most importantly having ACK up, giving the cornered or ganged side a better ability to defend itself.
Good points, Wiley.
<S>
Ryno
-
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.
This does never work. At best, telling other players what to do and what not creates pointless quarrels on 200 and Country.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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
-
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 :devil ahhhh but they were fun!
-
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? :rofl
-
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ql-j%2BHUUL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
(Jokes aside, it is a good book)
-
Out of curiosity, ummmmm, how high do they need to get to feel tactically advantaged? :rofl
Above the enemy. I never ever "fight" from alt disadvantage, rather just log off :old:
-
(http://www.bedug.com/pics/smiley/18876-facepalm.gif)
-
Out of curiosity, ummmmm, how high do they need to get to feel tactically advantaged? :rofl
They're pickers, so as high as they need to....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think it's a decline of the "Defenders". Many seem to care less about the war, their country and only their fight. There was much furballing last night and I tried to get some rooks to defend a base I was at and "0" players came to help. After getting overwhelmed I gave up, let them have it.
When you put up no resistance to attacks you will get rolled quickly. Some argue attack and don't bother to defend. :headscratch:
-
I think it's a decline of the "Defenders". Many seem to care less about the war, their country and only their fight. There was much furballing last night and I tried to get some rooks to defend a base I was at and "0" players came to help. After getting overwhelmed I gave up, let them have it.
When you put up no resistance to attacks you will get rolled quickly. Some argue attack and don't bother to defend. :headscratch:
This is the reason why maps need to be smaller and bases need to be closer together. Only slightly, like 17 miles apart, instead of 25. It will make a difference. People would see where you are talking about Slade and will up from a near by base to help defend. Not saying the other bases were close/far, but either A. The friendly bases were too far to help defend the bases with alt, or the map was too big for players to really be concerned about losing the base.
-
Some argue attack and don't bother to defend. :headscratch:
the answer is to attack.
But they attack the wrong places where the enemy isnt instead of attacking where its needed. Where the enemy is attacking from
-
the answer is to attack.
But they attack the wrong places where the enemy isnt instead of attacking where its needed. Where the enemy is attacking from
As this game only counts the simple number bases to determine a victory, it's very much rewarding to smash undefended bases, as it allows you to capture more bases in less time.
Hope that a few fools defend your field while you take the majority of players and do a surprise smash&grab of a remote Vbase.
That's the strategy of AH.
All of it :D
-
That's the strategy of AH.
All of it :D
which is what makes the armchair generals in our game so comical.. sometimes I wonder if they really do consider themselves great military minds.
-
As this game only counts the simple number bases to determine a victory, it's very much rewarding to smash undefended bases, as it allows you to capture more bases in less time.
Hope that a few fools defend your field while you take the majority of players and do a surprise smash&grab of a remote Vbase.
That's the strategy of AH.
All of it :D
\
Agreed.
I still feel the reintroduction of the old Zone base strat system would help. Some bases were obviously more important then others and as such people would actually defend them.
But still. the single best way to protect your field is to turn the tables and attack the field they are attacking from. When you spend all your time defending over your own field the outcome is almost certainly inevitable that you will loose that base
-
which is what makes the armchair generals in our game so comical.. sometimes I wonder if they really do consider themselves great military minds.
Imma lead my fellow chess pieces to viktoree! All your bases are belong to us! Leeeeeroy Jenkins!
-
\
Agreed.
I still feel the reintroduction of the old Zone base strat system would help. Some bases were obviously more important then others and as such people would actually defend them.
But still. the single best way to protect your field is to turn the tables and attack the field they are attacking from. When you spend all your time defending over your own field the outcome is almost certainly inevitable that you will loose that base
I don't think the old zone system would work these days. You don't see people try to defend or fight when your about to lose the last base or two the other side needs to win the war. They think its better to try and capture bases faster to even the numbers.
Porking runs and fighting a defending war NEVER enters most players minds. Just hammer undefended base after undefended base as fast as you can.
-
How often do you read "I'm tired of all this defending, let's ATTACK"?
How often do you read "I'm tired of all this attacking, let's DEFEND!"?
;)
-
I've been here a long time.
I've look at this thread several times. Tried to read it twice.
Still, I cannot capture "the gripe."
The closest I can come to what it "might" be is, "Our side is getting slaughtered. Since that is the case, HTC should alter the game to keep that from happening."
Am I right?
-
I've been here a long time.
I've look at this thread several times. Tried to read it twice.
Still, I cannot capture "the gripe."
The closest I can come to what it "might" be is, "Our side is getting slaughtered. Since that is the case, HTC should alter the game to keep that from happening."
Am I right?
Yes. 100%
-
I've been here a long time.
I've look at this thread several times. Tried to read it twice.
Still, I cannot capture "the gripe."
The closest I can come to what it "might" be is, "Our side is getting slaughtered. Since that is the case, HTC should alter the game to keep that from happening."
Am I right?
:lol Pretty much dead on target.
-
I don't think the old zone system would work these days. You don't see people try to defend or fight when your about to lose the last base or two the other side needs to win the war. They think its better to try and capture bases faster to even the numbers.
Porking runs and fighting a defending war NEVER enters most players minds. Just hammer undefended base after undefended base as fast as you can.
To be honest, from a winning the war perspective, assuming even numbers and capabilities, rolling undefended bases faster than the other sides IS the way to win the war. Smash and grab faster than they smash and grab.
Defense is an inefficient use of your resources that could be rolling an undefended base somewhere else.
That's one of the reasons I don't much care about winning the war. It's either rolling undefended bases or wasting your time, and I don't find rolling undefended bases fun at all.
Wiley.
-
I've been here a long time.
I've look at this thread several times. Tried to read it twice.
Still, I cannot capture "the gripe."
The closest I can come to what it "might" be is, "Our side is getting slaughtered. Since that is the case, HTC should alter the game to keep that from happening."
Am I right?
No, not entirely.
His point was that players were logging off from his side because it was not fun for them, as their side was being ganged into a corner with few remaining bases. When players log off because the game is not fun, especially due to a large game imbalance, that is not a good thing, and probably something HTC should be concerned with.
This is not even an issue of "winning or losing the war", as others are talking about here. In the case cited, BOTH sides already had enough Knight bases (over 20% each) to win, however they continued attacking only the Knights. Many, if not all, Knight bases had enemy aircraft over or near them. The ability for two sides to gang up on one side, beyond the required war-winning parameters, does exist. It happens rather frequently and definitely creates a big game-play imbalance when it does. There really is no dis-incentive for ganging one side well beyond what is necessary to win the war, especially for those players that are just looking for easy kills/points.
If you read my suggestion, it addresses this issue in what I think is a reasonable way.
Hope this explanation helps. (By the way I was NOT on the Knight side when this occurred, but I did see it. I was one of the Rook players who encouraged some others to move to Bish front.)
<S>
Ryno
-
How often do you read "I'm tired of all this defending, let's ATTACK"?
How often do you read "I'm tired of all this attacking, let's DEFEND!"?
;)
I say it. then I do it even if I do it all by myself (which is most of the time)
BUT its amazing what one person can do to hold up a bunch as everyone scrambles to go after 1 lone plane. In such cases it often provides just the right amount of needed time for your side to recover
-
When players log off because the game is not fun, especially due to a large game imbalance, that is not a good thing, and probably something HTC should be concerned with.
Good point, now that you mention it.
It's why we don't have night anymore, among other things.
- oldman
-
8:30 PM PST
Bishops 30% Knights 100% Rooks 100%
Knights 37.5 %
Rooks 32.5 %
I think this is the best way to get people to stop playing!
I have certainly had my fill of the CRAP!
-
8:30 PM PST
Bishops 30% Knights 100% Rooks 100%
Knights 37.5 %
Rooks 32.5 %
I think this is the best way to get people to stop playing!
I have certainly had my fill of the CRAP!
It happens to every side. I don't hear people complaining when they're the ones beating a team back into their 163 bases.
-
8:30 PM PST
Bishops 30% Knights 100% Rooks 100%
Knights 37.5 %
Rooks 32.5 %
I think this is the best way to get people to stop playing!
I have certainly had my fill of the CRAP!
So you gotta stop playing because you have less fields than the enemy?
-
It happens to every side. I don't hear people complaining when they're the ones beating a team back into their 163 bases.
Of course you don't, why should they? But it's not like there's extra fun to make up for it when it's someone else's turn to be overwhelmed 3-1.
There is a simple solution to this that has been brought up many, many times: zone-based ENY so if 180 of [Side A] and 150 of [SideB] are all 330 of them attacking 120 of [Side C] Sides A and B both have ENY >25 instead of 3 and 0, respectively, which is what they have now.
HTC apparently don't care about the crappy experience their customers are having, and it shows in the rapidly declining number of players. There are maybe half as many players now as there were five years ago, so in a few more years when AH goes under because of HTC's apathy I guess I'll see you guys over at WoT.
-
And the moment people are being hit by this proposed zone ENY themselves, they are going to kick and scream again and demand that this BS has to stop and HT has to get rid of eny.
It's the effin hypocrisy that's the biggest bane of the arena. I'm so utterly tired of it.
-
It's the effin hypocrisy that's the biggest bane of the arena. I'm so utterly tired of it.
Hey, who said you could step out of your shell?
-
And the moment people are being hit by this proposed zone ENY themselves, they are going to kick and scream again and demand that this BS has to stop and HT has to get rid of eny.
All they'd have to do is fly on the other front instead. Anyway, we already have ENY, which is both irritating and, as currently implemented, useless, so the fix I'm suggesting could only be an improvement.
-
It happens to every side. I don't hear people complaining when they're the ones beating a team back into their 163 bases.
When something is wrong it doesn't matter who is doing it!
So you gotta stop playing because you have less fields than the enemy?
I had just signed on and found this situation. I find it utterly gutless of the other teams actions for last night. And I chose not to be a part of that farce!
-
I noticed some Bishes were getting some nice kill streaks in their 262s last night. :aok
Great fights against both sides last night. :salute Bish successfully delayed a base take we rooks were trying and then when we finally got it, it was not long until it was retaken by the poor defenseless Bishes. :cry
(http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/kelly73_photos/smallestviolin.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/kelly73_photos/media/smallestviolin.gif.html)
-
When something is wrong it doesn't matter who is doing it!
I had just signed on and found this situation. I find it utterly gutless of the other teams actions for last night. And I chose not to be a part of that farce!
When you logged in and complained about the percentages of fields held by them, they weren't even attacking us anymore. You were complaining about the number of fields left, not the ganging, which is what leaves me puzzled.
And would you have come here if bish and rooks held 35% of Knight fields and we Bish would have been about to win the war? ;)
-----
On no country channel I see complains about us ganging them. All I read is "pile on XXX", "Vulch is on at AXX", "ENY 5! When will HTC get rid of this ENY s***?", "great turnout on this mission guys, lets smash them!" when 30 of us are about to dive on a Vbase
But wait until it's our turn... "They always gang us", "Lame vulchers", "look how many red dots at VXX, it's pathetic" yadda yadda yadda
-
I've already said when something is wrong it doesn't matter who's doing it. :noid
-
This is gay, just play the game.
-
I have found it most enjoyable when the Bish are being ganged. Don't have to fly far to find a fight. Usually we have a great perk point bonus going. Which means you grab a high ENY plane and farm some perks. If they hoarding 1 base go back from the front 1 base up and come in higher than the vulchers and push them down because now they worried about you and not the guy trying to take off and help defend. When people continually up at a capped field it gives the vulchers a reason to stay. I have noticed since I have come back only a very few times have the rooks or knits try to up from a capped base. Just my experience. So people keep saying I can't find a fight blah blah blah. If you can't find one you are not looking hard enough. Make your own fight I can almost guarantee that if you fly over to a field that no one is at somebody is gonna up and come and see who or what you are doing.
-
"So people keep saying I can't find a fight blah blah blah. If you can't find one you are not looking hard enough. Make your own fight I can almost guarantee that if you fly over to a field that no one is at somebody is gonna up and come and see who or what you are doing."
especially if you fly back and forth across the edge of the radar ring, he he he
salute
ab8aac/dmdchief
-
Good point, now that you mention it.
It's why we don't have night anymore, among other things.
- oldman
Because people having their monitors calibrated correctly was COMPLETELY out of the question
Back then with a properly calibrated monitor Night wasnt that big a deal.
And with the new way HTC has it setup now. (as per last Christmas eve) Its even less of a big deal for even a poorly calibrated monitor
-
Because people having their monitors calibrated correctly was COMPLETELY out of the question
Back then with a properly calibrated monitor Night wasnt that big a deal.
And with the new way HTC has it setup now. (as per last Christmas eve) Its even less of a big deal for even a poorly calibrated monitor
It wasn't that at all, it was that most tweaked the setting to make it "not" night. So to keep up you either messed with your settings, or you logged. Thankfully, most logged. All we need is another way to game the game.
-
Above the enemy. I never ever "fight" from alt disadvantage, rather just log off :old:
That pretty much sums it up, you log off because you lose the advantage, unbelievable. :headscratch:
-
It wasn't that at all, it was that most tweaked the setting to make it "not" night. So to keep up you either messed with your settings, or you logged. Thankfully, most logged. All we need is another way to game the game.
Yes they did. Thing is had they simply calibrated their monitors correctly to begin with which would have improved the quality of whatever you were looking at in game or out. They would not have had to turn gamma up to make it "not night"
At first I used to mess with the gamma settings too. But then I thought "maybe my monitor isnt set up right" and I discovered a calibration site. When I was done not only could I see in game at night. But everything from movies to websites in general looked better too and I no longer needed to mess with the settings at all. In game or out
Currently very little if any monitor setting changes are needed to make it not "night anymore" and you get the added benefit of an improved and more stable frame rate. At least I did.