Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Urchin on May 29, 2006, 11:05:11 PM
-
I love the AH gameplay.
-
4?
-
I'm still surprised by it.
But then again I've only been here a year.
-
I love 2 airfields, a port and 2 CVs (all in 2 sectors) being swamped at once with no aircover while someone tries to get pork missions rolling. :confused:
-
Yeah, that is hard to believe.
Gotta wonder where that extra hordes came from... should only be one per country.
In the future, when we achieve Toolshed Nirvana, there will only be three hordes with no stray players. The hordes will (since HTC's server is in the Northern Hemisphere) rotate clockwise around a map and on the radar it will appear as if the three circling comets are each chasing the tail of the comet in front of it.
There will be no actual fighting between real people of course. Just the rotational destruction of toolsheds with follow-on capture, followed by the trailing horde's destruction of the same toolsheds with follow-on capture...ad infinitum.
-
You forgot the vaguely uneasy counter-rotating inner cycle from our Aussie players...
-
Can't believe it...gameplay getting worse. Could be because of the number of new players. I guess security in numbers the reason. My squad mates and I usually try to cap the fields the hordes are coming from to at least slow down the horde machine somewhat. Or......we fly on the perimeter to pick them off. Usually ends up being a game of dodgeball instead of flight acm.
-
I lov diving into the hoard machine and Doing whatever the voices tell me to ....
muhahahahahaa :D
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Can't believe it...gameplay getting worse. Could be because of the number of new players.
It is a map i believe. Small map with very few fields near frontline far away from each other just cannt produce anything but few huge hordes. Especially with ~450 ppl online.
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
I lov diving into the hoard machine and Doing whatever the voices tell me to ....
muhahahahahaa :D
Which last night was land on a field with GVs all over it. I am still wondering why you were trying that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, that is hard to believe.
Gotta wonder where that extra hordes came from... should only be one per country.
In the future, when we achieve Toolshed Nirvana, there will only be three hordes with no stray players. The hordes will (since HTC's server is in the Northern Hemisphere) rotate clockwise around a map and on the radar it will appear as if the three circling comets are each chasing the tail of the comet in front of it.
Let's do it counter-clockwise, I love saying widdershins
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
I lov diving into the hoard machine and Doing whatever the voices tell me to ....
muhahahahahaa :D
Does one of your voices sound like Hitler? When I hear that voice I ususaly try to persuade the "Toby the cell block homie" voice to go pimp him out.
Other than that I ususaly only listen to the voice that keeps saying "Pay no attention to the other voices. They are all a bunch of whining pansies. Have fun or log off and do something else."
;)
-
the farther apart the fields are the worse the gameplay.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
MA gameplay continues to suck and its suckage continues to rise. Small maps only magnify the suckage. All the small maps should be retired and replaced with new larger maps. Granted, some of the larger maps also promote suckage, but no where near what the small maps generate.
-
Get rid of all small maps, add a FT to all remaining maps and/or move all bases to minimum distance apart. Do nothing and watch the game continue to languish.
-
Zone limits spread game play..............and lower FR's
-
Originally posted by mars01
Get rid of all small maps, add a FT to all remaining maps and/or move all bases to minimum distance apart. Do nothing and watch the game continue to languish.
Adding an FT does nothing to reduce the suckage. It merely provides a place to find respite from the suckage.
What's really needed is an overhaul of the reward system to improve gameplay. The law of unintended consequences has struck AH hard and below the belt.
This "perk" idea....as if perks are actually worthing something....led to the "reset for perks" goal. The "reset desire" led to the horde steamroller. Score and the posting of the highest ranks led to timidity and increased cherrypicking. Adding too many V-bases to the maps spread the airwar out WAY too far and created the path of least resistance. The majority of players head for the shortest flight/closest base, generatin a horde every time. EVERY A-field HAS a V-hangar....there's NO reason why every field shouldn't be an A-field. Getting GV's "close to the fight" isn't a problem; there's INSTASPAWN (tm) that allows them to beam across half the map with a mouse click if the map-maker so desires.
If you want to improve the gameplay, something must be done to reward air-to-air combat, which is what this game is supposed to be about.
Simply put, the game rewards actions that result in boring gameplay.
Until that is addressed we'll have ..... boring gameplay.
-
Yeah I agree totally Toad.
But at least with FT the percentage of logging in and having a place to fight goes up a bit.
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
I lov diving into the hoard machine and Doing whatever the voices tell me to ....
muhahahahahaa :D
:aok
hap
-
Originally posted by Chalenge
Which last night was land on a field with GVs all over it. I am still wondering why you were trying that.
need gas ... on E . (insert eng sputters here) ... gotta land ... oh $#%^^^%$# ... well the good guy gv's may protect me ..... BOOOOM ... oh well back to the tower quicker then expected .. :D
-
meh. I'm back playing after a long hiatus. The only difference between then and now is there are more people online when I play, but the gameplay is the same.
Poor lazs has been saying the same thing for years, and he's right. It's the very rare opportunity that one has to up an F4F (for example) in the MA and be able to find a "good" fight. The distance between airfields causes boredom for those wanting to fly slower planes, unless you try to up in the face of the horde. The exceptions are places like Furball Island or when a CV is parked off the coast of an airfield.
Toad, I don't think anything can be done to improve the A2A combat. Until you get people to realize it's OK to lose a fight and "die", you will always have people flying timid. Though, that in itself brings up a paradox of sorts. It's completely ok for some people to auger while battling a building or a CV, but they'll turn and run at the sight of multiple red cons.
At the same time, I can understand the timidness. They treat the flight as if they were doing the real thing. Real "doctrine" is if you're not fighting with the advantage, then you're fighting wrong. For them, landing the flight is what's fun. To me, whenever I play to live in the MA, I don't have as much fun as I do when I just go all in regardless of the situation (though I get frustrated a bit more that way.)
-
I get a kick out of the LVT Spawn Cloud tactic - when you can't up figthers cuz you're losing, just start upping LVT's and PT's as fast as possible in a mad dash to the shore. Being on the pier 37mm gun with tracers off when that tactic is deployed is just too funny.
Or the insta-spawn torpedo weenies ... who just keep upping a PT, launching fish in direction of enemy fleet, and then back to tower - giving a free kill to whoever happens to be overhead at the moment. Well, those and the ones who watched too much McHales Navy and shoot torpedos at coastal airfields.
But anyway ...
Perks are too big a driving factor - too many times when someone lands a nice streak they announce how many perks it was on team channel. You can almost tell how big a Horde is coming by how many C205's and P40's are in the mix looking to vultch for perks.
Reward air combat - treat ground kills as manouever kills for a start, stop rewarding vultching so much. And harden base strats (troops, ord, radar) so that players need to find some other way to "help the team" - one that requires skills beyond that of a bag of dung falling off the back of a garbage truck. It's no wonder people HO some much when half the things they are shooting at are either stationary or rolling down the runway.
GV's more often than not are used in a griefer capacity. If a 500 pound bomb can't kill a GV, it sure as hell will make the crew woozy from the concussion. So add GV crew black-outs due to proximity bomb hits. Then watch the use of GV's w/o air cover drop like a rock.
There are probably a dozen small changes to scoring and MA mechanics which could yield huge payoffs in gameplay.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
It's completely ok for some people to auger while battling a building or a CV, but they'll turn and run at the sight of multiple red cons.
Simply because augering into a building or CV is a choice THEY make; it's deliberate, it's honorable because they're "giving their all" to "help the team".
Dying to another player is LOSING. Cod ferbid you should actually lose a fight; how would one ever stand the shame of losing to another human being in a cartoon online game?
Far, far better to give one's cartoon life to the lemming horde and honorably kill an outhouse.
I'm far from the best fighter pilot in this game but I'm dammed if I'm afraid of "dying" in a cartoon plane game.
The fun is in the fight. They'd realize that if they grew a pair and gave it a try.
Somehow, gameplay and rewards have to be changed to emphasize the fight.
-
I LOVE YOU ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ACADEMY AND ...................
-
Hmm, maybe the only thing that will help those people is to have an option to fly anonymously to the enemy sides. Someone shoots them down, and all they see is "You shot down an anonymous pilot" or something of the sort.
Even if you turned off ordnance, vehicles and strat which would force nothing but air to air combat, these types would still have the timid, horde mentality. They'll still turn tail as soon as the odds are against them.
To be honest, I can't think of a single change in gameplay that would change that type of player. They play to land the flight first and foremost. You and I, of course we want to land the fight, but we won't back down until we're bingo ammo/fuel, or just damaged to the point where all we can do is run.
How do we get the other group to adopt our mentality? More importantly, should we even try to get the group to adopt our mentality? Sure, we think the fight is the most fun, but to them, maybe "winning" is the most fun. Holding off a Spit16 and a N1K2 in a 109F-4 for some time was a lot of fun for me a couple of nights ago, even though I only managed a few pings on the N1K2 before I lost. To someone else, maybe they think that's an awful way to spend a few minutes in game. If they wouldn't enjoy that fight, why should we try to get them to face those types of fights?
-
yep... someone that isn't a strat girl needs to make some maps that have the fields closest to the center 3/4 of a sector apart. lots of em..
It might not even work these days tho... the attention starved horde wussies and strat girls will go where they see a fight and drop the radar and Fighter hangers.
no matter where it is or how unimportant the fields.... a good fight is like waving a red flag in the face of the attention starved strat girls...
They are infuriated and excieted all at the same time... they allmost wet themselves thinking about how easy it will be to destroy such a good fight for so many.
The only good thing would be that there would be so many that they couldn't get em all... enough that those who like air combat could maybe allways find a place to up and have some fun before the women showed up.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Play AvA instead...
No hoards... good fights... good pilots...
Tex
-
If you want to improve the gameplay, something must be done to reward air-to-air combat, which is what this game is supposed to be about.
That was the past. This is the present. Wake up and get a grasp on the concept of time - it flows from the past to the present to the future in our Earthly dimension. The glory days of pure, simple, homey, cozy, 'veteranesque' A2A combat is gone and it is not coming back. Face the reality.
You can dream all you want about how 'this game is supposed to be about A2A', but no amount of 'reward' is gonna get people to emphasize soley on aerial combat as in the good ol' AH1 days. Times have changed, people have changed, and the definition of "fun" has also changed with it. Back then, the goal of the game was to have A2A fun. Nowadays, the goal of the game is to take part in the war and achieve victory by means of aerial, naval, and ground combat combined. I didn't make this up, nor did HT set it up this way. It's simply the people nowadays play it that way.
The game has changed. GVs, fleets, all of it has become a vital part of the MA and the emphasis on combat doesn't just shift from where it is by willing it. People will play this game for the sole purpose of "winning the war" and there's nothing you can do about it, whether you personally think its lame or not. However, what is still possible, is to find a good compromising point in the overall structure of how the basic strat of the game is laid out, so that the 'fighter combat fun' does not necessarily have to be incompatible with the 'warring fun'. As it is, the current status of MA is one of total chaos, where the sheer size of overall combat has far exceeded the point where people can self-organize (or at least follow a set of moral codes) so that the gameplay stays healthy and orderly enough to enjoy the many aspects of AH to the full.
In the old days people followed the 'moral code of the old vets' where they didn't care much of land-grabbing. AH was like a small town where everybody knew everyone else, most of the whom already know each other from some other, previous sim they used to play together. Compared to that, the current AH2 is like a bustling metropolis, and going Hill-billy-retro and ranting about the good square-dancing and baked-beans and lawn-barbeque-party days is not gonna bring the friendly neighborhood back.
Face the future, old man. What AH needs is not some way to 'bring the fighter combat days back'. What it needs is some way to organize the strat into something that makes sense, so that in some parts of the map the limited aspect of "pure aerial combat" will have a chance to manifest more thoroughly from time to time, depending on its necessity based on the larger picture of general strategy.
In other words, if the MA strat gets a total overhaul and people submit themselves to some kind of basic structure that is carried on by the game, then the deployment of forces would be more limited and organized, instead of the impulsive, nasty, Armageddon locust horde we have in the game. Fighter numbers will be more evened out, and people will have to fight with limited resources - in which case the stupid suicidal augering and HOing frenzy will do nothing but ultimately harm a country's capability to win and advance at the particular front. It is only then, when facing the facts that what they're doing is harming the country rather than benefitting it, will people begin to fly differently, emphasizing more on the results of fighter skirmish absed on skill, rather than lazily depending on steamrolling everything with brute force.
It's about time AH moved on, instead of turn back 180 degrees and go back to 'this game is supposed to be about fighter combat'. The problem with AH is not there is too many changes, but too less.
-
^
LOL!
people submit themselves to some kind of basic structure that is carried on by the game
[/b]
How typical that your solution is " submit and play my way" though.
I think the CT forum is thataway ------>
-
Kweassa
I think you are partially right especially in the sence that everything has its time. Times change and so does everything. Its the cause of nature and it does affect online games as well, all online games.
But I dont think that organization is what the game needs. Organization and structure will come with CT for those who want it.
Though you are touching what I think is the answer to our problem. Strats.
War´s have never been won through conquering airfields. They have been won through conquering strategical areas and cutting the supply lines of the enemy.
If the war effort was moved AWAY from the airfields and towards the strats there would be much much less of a clash between the war winners and the furballers.
The furballers could fly straight lines between airfields and dogfighting other furballers while the war winners would fly between strats and airfields in both offence and defense.
Tex
-
Well how about creation of a new arena with no field capture ability? Buffers could still bomb and fighters could still fight and tankers could still groundpound. I know... It still won't stop hordes but make the fighter/gv bases harder to supress that it wouldn't be worth it. They have a backup arena in place and why not just convert it to a non-land grab arena?
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
See HT's reply in the HTC Request! Beta Terrain in DA! thread.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
That was the past. This is the present. Wake up and get a grasp on the concept of time - it flows from the past to the present to the future in our Earthly dimension. The glory days of pure, simple, homey, cozy, 'veteranesque' A2A combat is gone and it is not coming back. Face the reality.
...
It's about time AH moved on, instead of turn back 180 degrees and go back to 'this game is supposed to be about fighter combat'. The problem with AH is not there is too many changes, but too less.
I don't know what bug you have about those of us who've been doing this a while, but we aren't the problem. In fact, only a couple are advocating Fighters Uber Alles, the rest are looking for ways to keep it all integrated.
And I've been saying that change is needed - any change - for a while. If the game is, in fact, churning people through at some rate then changes will at worst cause a dip in the current "generation" of players. They will be replaced. And eventually a solution will be hit upon where fewer people leave every month.
And a lot of the "moral code" you claim us "old men" want back has *nothing* to do with fighter combat. It's simply that the Gamer Ethic doesn't care about anything but personal gain attained by the shortest and cheapest route. Whereas with the enthusiast (in *any* endeavor) enjoys the journey, even if it means working for it.
The game has grown and absorbed a lot of Gamers - who have gravitated to the techniques that let them "win" the quickest and easiest way. That needs to be corrected so that AH2 stays true to what it says it is: "The Internet's Premier WW2 Combat Experience." Lawn-darting outhouses and 20mm Jousting don't qualify.
-
a tiny idea:
Remove fighter perks as a reward for destroying buildings in jabo sorties and give them bomber perks instead.
In order to get fighter perks you now actually have to shoot down other players.
Of course, this is still easier in a horde, but the focus may shift a little towards a2a action.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I don't know what bug you have about those of us who've been doing this a while, but we aren't the problem. In fact, only a couple are advocating Fighters Uber Alles, the rest are looking for ways to keep it all integrated.
And I've been saying that change is needed - any change - for a while. If the game is, in fact, churning people through at some rate then changes will at worst cause a dip in the current "generation" of players. They will be replaced. And eventually a solution will be hit upon where fewer people leave every month.
And a lot of the "moral code" you claim us "old men" want back has *nothing* to do with fighter combat. It's simply that the Gamer Ethic doesn't care about anything but personal gain attained by the shortest and cheapest route. Whereas with the enthusiast (in *any* endeavor) enjoys the journey, even if it means working for it.
The game has grown and absorbed a lot of Gamers - who have gravitated to the techniques that let them "win" the quickest and easiest way. That needs to be corrected so that AH2 stays true to what it says it is: "The Internet's Premier WW2 Combat Experience." Lawn-darting outhouses and 20mm Jousting don't qualify.
Well said.
ack-ack
-
I'm all for getting rid of the garbage gameplay we have today.
I wouldn't say that I like lazs idea of the endless furball, because I don't belive in just shooting down planes as fast as possible before getting shot down by the endless incoming planes.
I agree with Kweassa in that we need some changes to what players deem as the "reward" or the "winning conditions"
The Quake and Doom era has spawned a new breed of players that do not win by skill or tactics, but by gaming the game and taking advantage of reality consessions that supposedly improve the playability of the game for the average player.
Seriously, have you tried Counter-Strike or HL Death-Match? Using RL team survival tactics is pointless, because you're playing against people that just run through rooms shooting HE rockets point blank. Sure hey die in the blast with you, but they are just happy to have killed you too.
It's my opinion that making the fields closer together won't make the furballs any better, because it will only allow the suicide jabos to load up, fly to the enemy field, drop bombs, crash and respawn all the more quickly. This already happens when CVs are close to shore, but the furball lasts longer because the CV has extra defenses that an airfield does not (i.e. endless spawning PT boats and mannable 5" AA guns)
If players believe that the way to "win" is to force a reset by capturing enemy airfields, they will keep doing whatever it takes to make it happen as quickly as possible.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
It's my opinion that making the fields closer together won't make the furballs any better, because it will only allow the suicide jabos to load up, fly to the enemy field, drop bombs, crash and respawn all the more quickly.
Many close fields spreads players over frontline, decreases size of hordes and gives you choice where to fight.
Of course, there are hordes anyway, but you dont forced to join or oppose them. Current map (if it didnt changed till my last visit of MA) is good example.
-
oleg is correct... if you have suicide fluffers they will come in at low alt and be slaughtered by guys who don't normaly even bother with fluffs.... I have seen enough of it at furballs at some of the closer fields..
midnight is leaving out what really happens now... with far fields it is common for peeee51's or typhies to hit an undefended far fileld and kill ack and FH because they have time to gain alt and are untouchable to the rare plane upping and the ack is too slow to hit them... they simply deack and de hanger the field unappossed.
Said fast movers are no fun to defend against so that kind of gameplay continues.
Close fields would do as Oleg and I have said.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Moving fields closer together have a lot of benefits.
Just some are:
1) If your hangers go down at one field you can still put up a TIMELY defense from another field.
2) If you are fighting the Horde it is easier to swallow when it only takes 30 seconds to get back rather than 5 mins. Flying for 5 mins to die against unsurmountable odds sucks.
3) If a base is captured the furball is easily moved/followed.
4) More early war era planes. People will be more apt to take the early stuff cause it won't take that long to get there.
5) More people condensed into a smaller area means more people running into each other wich = more fighting.
on and on...
-
I agree with you on 1), Mars ... but not the rest.
2) The Horde gets turned when they can't overwhelm the numbers at a base and the defenders have *time* to gain altitude with which to defend. With bases next to each other, there isn't that separation to create a time gap.
3) The current "tactic" is to keep the Horde intact and if it loses in one place, move it someplace else in search of 10:1 odds. Even to the point of abandoning a base they just captured. Closer bases only makes it easier to let the Horde keep the same starting point and steamroll some other nearby base. Which gives the defenders no time to establish CAP.
4) If you really think that smaller transit legs will entice any of the current crop to fly EW planes ... well ... no way. Unless you mean the Hurri2C ... in which case, yeah, you'll see a bunch of them.
5) More condensed area means the Horde can affect more fields without moving its home base. No way will this produce better fights, only more fields being steamrolled by Hordes at once. It's a lot easier to shift an attack vector than to relocate 30 people.
-
2) The Horde gets turned when they can't overwhelm the numbers at a base and the defenders have *time* to gain altitude with which to defend. With bases next to each other, there isn't that separation to create a time gap.
2 has nothing to do with turning the horde, just fighting it. I don't climb anyway so time to climb means nothing to me. Also if it is an affective hord then while your climbing they have already taken the base.
3) The current "tactic" is to keep the Horde intact and if it loses in one place, move it someplace else in search of 10:1 odds. Even to the point of abandoning a base they just captured. Closer bases only makes it easier to let the Horde keep the same starting point and steamroll some other nearby base. Which gives the defenders no time to establish CAP.
Again 3 has nothing to do with the horde or deterring it. 3 has everything to do with how quickly another furball gets started after the horde grapefruits fk up the fur you were in.
4) If you really think that smaller transit legs will entice any of the current crop to fly EW planes ... well ... no way. Unless you mean the Hurri2C ... in which case, yeah, you'll see a bunch of them.
Well I definitely know that long legs do not encourage EW planes what so ever.
5) More condensed area means the Horde can affect more fields without moving its home base. No way will this produce better fights, only more fields being steamrolled by Hordes at once. It's a lot easier to shift an attack vector than to relocate 30 people.
The Horde goes from one base to the next closest. If they are a sector apart or right next to each other it doesn't change. The horde can only hit one field at a time. If defenders can up and hit the horde in a timely manner from multiple fields that is a good thing.
I think where you are getting confused is applying everything to the horde. I never said that close bases cures the horde problem it just makes it easier to deal with.
I wrote the above list from perspective of just being able to fight and find fights. Also notice on FesterMA the horde rarely starts in the middle where the bases are close together. The horde is always moving on the outer ring where the bases are farther apart. Why is that???
-
My observation of The Hordes as of late show that if they can get 10:1 odds over 2 or 3 neaby bases, they'll go after all of them. Putting things close together just reduces the time needed for the Horde to win by attrition.
If bases are moved closer together that just makes the Spit16 and La7 more appealing choices than before since they're both pretty short-ranged. There's less reason to try something else, not more.
The Horde wins by attrition. Putting up so many planes that the defenders can't shoot them down as fast as they're replaced. The only vulnerability of The Horde, short of becoming outnumbered by another Horde, is getting strung out on the way to target. So that the defenders, while still under constant attack, are fighting at closer to even odds locally even though outnumbered badly overall.
-
I disagree, I think the pros out weigh the cons. Lets face it the only way to beat the horde back is with = numbers. That's why I don't care if the bases are lost as much as I can get som decent fights out of it. Closer bases helps the latter.
-
Originally posted by mars01
I disagree, I think the pros out weigh the cons. Lets face it the only way to beat the horde back is with = numbers. That's why I don't care if the bases are lost as much as I can get som decent fights out of it. Closer bases helps the latter.
And right there is the problem ... and I don't mean that to sound critical. You want closer bases because it'll give you a kind of "rolling furball" for you to get fights in. Fair enough.
But ... the Gamers will see that it is now even easier to steamroll a country by keeping a concentrated Horde together. As long as their group outnumbers the nearby defenders (either because of overall odds or convenient alliances or whatever), they can just pick whatever neaby base has the smallest bar-dar and trample it 5 minutes later. No way for defenders to react in time - especially if the two bases are in the same sector. And when you factor in HO'ing, well, if you can be back to where you were in 2 minutes then there's no investment in the sortie, so HO some more.
I guess I'm saying you're right for what you want out of it. But the side effects will just provide more incentive for the crap we now are saddled with.
-
from my experience so far one way of quashing the "horde" is by nipping it at its source. whether it is by killing thier ordinance, troops & fuel. hangars can be taken out giving defenders time to get a better position. it also forces re-supply which now involves strats.
wars were not won by who had the biggest horde but rather the side that did the most strategical damage!
points are set up in part to promote this ie. high points for resupplying factories/cities & bases, as well as high destruction points for killing them. it gives the average players more oppertunities to be effective against opposing sides instead of having to be a top fighter pilot or a target for them. it also promotes team work & cuts down on numbers able to stay in the horde do to nesessity to resuply & protect strats. killing strats would cut down the number of spit XVls & LAs also.
it promotes "smarter" game play having bases further apart & atleast one of two is going to try a little harder to avoid the "ho".
if ENY was stricter (which it needs to be) late model planes would come into play more often.
when it comes to maps with close bases & lots of them it pretty well nullifies all of that. pork one base they just fly from the next, an endless supply of troops, bombs & fuel. the horde never ceases, strats dont get hit so its either join the horde or join the furball!
-
I guess I'm saying you're right for what you want out of it. But the side effects will just provide more incentive for the crap we now are saddled with.
See I look at the crap we are saddled with as noise. You are never going to stop the horde mentality and people that take bases that way. Trying to do so will only frustrate. So I look at it from a "ok how can I still enjoy fighting in such an environment".
Thus closer bases. When the bases are too far apart the only winners are the horde monkies. The horde is going for the next closest base no matter if it's in the same sector or a sector away. The only difference is wheather or not you have to fly 5 mins or 30 seconds to intercept it and fight. I will gaurantee you I am not going to fly into those odds if I have to wast 5 mins getting there.
As for the ho's they don't bother me, 99% of the time they are avoidable and like the horde they are here to stay.
-
Dastardly not all hordes are win the war hordes. Half of em are just unorganised noobs flying where they are safe.
-
I'm with mars... I don't really care if the horde continues with close fields... let em steamroll fields till they peter out... I will defend if that looks like a good fight or move to another area if it doesn't.
With close fields you at least get choice. and.. the alt of the fights comes down.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by mars01
You are never going to stop the horde mentality and people that take bases that way.
As long as the game allows unlimited respawns for every player with absolutely no penalties for individual or country (team) then you are 100% correct.