Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DREDger on December 01, 2008, 06:54:18 PM
-
Yes, another post about winning teh war....
I wonder if the 40% necessary for country win might be too stringent for these large maps, which are predominant as of late.
Seems they are stalemate maps to me.
Any opinions?
-
Yes, but it would come across as snarky and sarcastic so I'll just keep my mouth shut. :)
-
I think two sides should every now and then get together to wipe out the other... I mean at least to just change the map. Multiple fronts so far apart make very difficult to build momentum. Considering if you kill only one troop that the mission fails. On that note. I think the goon should carry 11 or 12 troops.
-
Solution; Bring two goons.
-
I agree,
10-15% would make the game more challenging, dynamic and less players complaining about same boring map stalled for weeks.
-
I think two sides should every now and then get together to wipe out the other... I mean at least to just change the map. Multiple fronts so far apart make very difficult to build momentum. Considering if you kill only one troop that the mission fails. On that note. I think the goon should carry 11 or 12 troops.
They're already doing that. :rofl :rofl
-
If you made the percentage low you defeat the purpose of nearly 75% of all bases. Only the ones with 1-2 sectors of the battle lines will be used. Any farther back and youll just have an arena reset. My issue is that it seems like you either have too large of map or too small of one. Something in between the 512 mile map and the 256 would be a little better in my opinion. Its feast or famine now. Either you have alot of cons or your fighting over a lone spit. Granted there are exceptions but this has been my view of things. I dont know if its even possible to change something like that but its worth a shot if it were.
Race
-
Capture the HQ to win the war
-
How about HQ town/city percentage down to zero? You would seem some massive bomber raids then!
Race
-
The problem I see with this is if it was reduced to 10%-15% to win, then the small maps you would only need to capture 2-3 bases to win. If you just need to capture/destroy the HQ, then you might see a mass wave just fly straight to the HQ from the begining of the war to win it in under 5 minutes (bigger maps it would take longer). Maybe if we combine the two, like you have to capture 30% of the enemy bases and reduce strats and HQ below 20% to win.
I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud..
-
Better yet, lets do away with base captures altogether.
-
Since it's been at 40% there has been no reason to attack. If there is no reason to attack there is no reason to defend. No reason to fight.
The old system of crush one country to extinction sucked. The new system is better but with goals set so high it may as well not exist. On the bright side, instead of playing, I get plenty of time to reorganise my sock drawer now.
-
Since it's been at 40% there has been no reason to attack. If there is no reason to attack there is no reason to defend. No reason to fight.
To me it seems people are still capturing bases, winning territory, fighting the enemy... :noid
-
You can have all the bases but 1. It's all I need to fight from.
You can win the war if you like... and collect your perks.
I'll go get more perks in one flight. Funny thing is I never use them.
-
what about have it also to where if one country falls below a certain % the map is reset.. with the country with the most % getting the win..
that way you could avoid the situations we see where Country A and B have 3/4 of the map and country C is down to next to nothing, so everyone on country C logs and goes to the other arena and ENY goes bananas for the other countries (or at least one of them)
-
what about have it also to where if one country falls below a certain % the map is reset.. with the country with the most % getting the win..
that way you could avoid the situations we see where Country A and B have 3/4 of the map and country C is down to next to nothing, so everyone on country C logs and goes to the other arena and ENY goes bananas for the other countries (or at least one of them)
We had this for years and it sucked. There's a reason it was replaced by the current war win system.
It results in nothing but country A and B constantly dogpiling on country C without any need to ever fighting each other. Reset, rinse & repeat. And it would help your ENY because country C players will get frutrated and leave arena again.
-
We had this for years and it sucked. There's a reason it was replaced by the current war win system.
It results in nothing but country A and B constantly dogpiling on country C without any need to ever fighting each other. Reset, rinse & repeat. And it would help your ENY because country C players will get frutrated and leave arena again.
You are correct. I've seen it where people would take the wrong base intentionally to cause their country to lose too. (Not sure if I explained that correctly)
-
How about a hard lock on the percentages? I think the 40% is to tuff to get to and does discourage the win the war types a bit. So I would drop it to 35% of the other two countries to win the war. The lock part would be that once country A has captured 35% of country B it is locked out from capturing any more of country B. They can pork B, but not capture any more. This would force them to attack country C. So at the max should both B and C gang up on A the worst that it would get would be 30% of A left to counter attack from.
As it is now, B and C continue to attack A because as the base numbers drop, so do the defenders, so easy captures. If they can attack A any longer they have to work on each other. It gives the underdog country room to counter, the other countries have to defend while still working the attack on the other front. I don't know if it would make the maps reset more often of not, but I think it would promote more fights.
-
On the bright side, instead of playing, I get plenty of time to reorganise my sock drawer now.
:rofl :rofl
i would like a "Win WAR" /map rest system where the HQ destroyed has longer downtime and impact on reset, same like 5% of bases lost
Let's say : country A capture 15% of country B + 15% of country C => map reset ,
country A capture 15% of country B + min 10 % of country C+HQ destroyed=> map reset
this would encourage large scale high alt fights, bombing raids, like 96Delta does unfortunately not very often:, this are fun, makes memories and gives a mature, realistic role to all the bombers with formation option.
-
So I would drop it to 35% of the other two countries to win the war.
35% is too high, i would like 15 or max 20%, What"s wrong if the maps are changing more often?
-
Better yet, lets do away with base captures altogether.
:aok
-
Why must the maps change so often anyway? The reason we seem to have the same map all the time is it is the hardest one to accomplish the requirements for "winning the map". (I won't say "winning the war").
A different map, easier to capture bases, is gone withing an hour or two. Maybe the requirements for a reset should be upped instead?
I thought it was amusing last night when someone complained about the "same map again" after the reset. Bet there's a different map in the "unpopular", other arena.
Nevertheless, I like the map we're currently "stuck" with. Plenty of places for good fights of all kinds. The gv spawns across the water always attract attention and bases seem close enough so you don't have to fly forever to find a furball.
wrongway
-
this is an idea i have had, i think it would allow every "type" of player to enjoy game play more and allow for better fights at the same time. it would even make the "win the war" type player happy.
Make it so when you start a tour, you pick what you will be scored under for the whole tour, no matter what you fly.Keep it the same way you pick At the begining of every sortie, you get to chose what you will be flying under, IE: fighter, Attack, bomber, ect ect, but it will only count to your rank if its what you picked, at the start of the tour.
your Rank for the current tour, is the score of the sortie type that you picked at the begining of tour, that way if you where to take up any thing other than a fighter,(thats what i would pick, at begining of tour) it would not effect Rank, You would still be able to check out your full stats, and see what you did while not in your selected score, (does that even make sense?)
This way if you wanted to just have fun doing whatever, pick the sortie "type" that will not effect your "Rank", and vise versa.
anyone else like the idea? if not why?
-
Isn't it an oxymoron that when you "win the map" it goes away. :rolleyes:
I thought when you won something you were supposed to be able to keep it.
-
Isn't it an oxymoron that when you "win the map" it goes away. :rolleyes:
I thought when you won something you were supposed to be able to keep it.
:rofl
You make a good point.
Well I remember reading somewhere that upgrading the terrain is at least on the horizon at some point..
perhaps when we have maps that are prettier to look at, people wont be so hell bent on resetting them. :cool:
-
Ink,
I fail to see how "winning the war" relates to score and rank?
Has there ever been a full scale strat system tried that involved winning the war? I would love to see the strat percentage come into the mix. Doesnt it guarantee a fight almost? The bombers will have a viable target....the fighters will have something to defend. Bombers will move from VH's and FH's to better targets for the most part. The defense forces will draw in a escort force. Large missions would come into play as usefull tactics and not the dreaded horde mentality rolling bases. I fail to see how this is called a WW2 flight simulator (or game) when it neglects the largest part of the air war....strategic bombing. You could say that you can still bomb and have an effect on things but currently I dont think the system does it justice tho. I wouldnt ask for plane factories or fuel down to 25% thats a bit much. However if your strat system for the HQ is down to <25% as a whole that could count as a victory.
Opinions? Disagreements fine but dont flame....
Race
-
Ink,
I fail to see how "winning the war" relates to score and rank?
Has there ever been a full scale strat system tried that involved winning the war? I would love to see the strat percentage come into the mix. Doesnt it guarantee a fight almost? The bombers will have a viable target....the fighters will have something to defend. Bombers will move from VH's and FH's to better targets for the most part. The defense forces will draw in a escort force. Large missions would come into play as usefull tactics and not the dreaded horde mentality rolling bases. I fail to see how this is called a WW2 flight simulator (or game) when it neglects the largest part of the air war....strategic bombing. You could say that you can still bomb and have an effect on things but currently I dont think the system does it justice tho. I wouldnt ask for plane factories or fuel down to 25% thats a bit much. However if your strat system for the HQ is down to <25% as a whole that could count as a victory.
Opinions? Disagreements fine but dont flame....
Race
Race, your absolutely correct. the only problem, is crybaby's.. if you allow bombing strat to in ANY way interfear with mindless furballing.. it wont happen, in the past strat WAS more important, in fact lots of stuff was different, porking fuel at a base, lowered the max fuel there to 25%.. of course the furballers FLIPPED OUT.. and that was removed, now porking fuel means nothing, BOMB CRATERS.. used to damage landing gear if you drove through them at speed, furballers got that removed as well.. All of these things interfere too much with the mindless ritual of taking off with autotakeoff, hitting utoclimb to 8k, then swirling to your death in the middle of a bunch of other people doing the exact same thing for the sake of doing it.
cmon, you cant expect people to actually be doing things.. for a reason.
:P
-
I don't understand why they don't just put 3 air fields in the center of all the maps, that are not capturable.
this way on every map furballers have a place to call home, and those that are into winning the war, have the rest of the map to fight over, every ones happy :D
Race at this point it does not, but it would be cool if it was implemented somehow.
-
PLease dear baby jesus atleast go back to resetting the map weekly.It`s almost christmas and that`s all I ask for!!!
-
I like the old Jesus better so does Ricky Bobby. He just doesn'r realize it yet.
-
I'd like to see a switch away from % of bases taken to another method. Leave the base taking as is, but switch the 'war win' criteria to capturing sectors based on number of kills within that sector for a given time period (like every hour or 1/2 hour). That way the war can only be won by fighting and getting kills. The team with the most kills within a sector in a given time period wins the sector. This continues until one team owns x percentage of sectors. The furballers would be the primary agents of winning the war. The base takers and ground pounders would still be important in that it would be next to impossible to hold sectors that contain enemy bases. There would certainly need to be a few additional criteria to avoid gamey cheats like spies committing suicide in various uncontested sectors (like there must be an enemy within range for a death to count toward sector capture). I've been thinking about this for a while and can't really find a flaw that couldn't be remedied with some fairly simple criteria.
flame me please.
-
I'd like to see a switch away from % of bases taken to another method. Leave the base taking as is, but switch the 'war win' criteria to capturing sectors based on number of kills within that sector for a given time period (like every hour or 1/2 hour). That way the war can only be won by fighting and getting kills. The team with the most kills within a sector in a given time period wins the sector.
I see what you're trying to accomplish with that (you want to promote the fight)... but it also opens a can of worms.
The "n00bs" will be yelled at to stay out of a given sector that's close to get "captured" for fear they are just providing kills for the enemy.
A new player upping and dying a dozen times in a row will get nasty PMs from own side.
And even worse, what's about shade killing then? Dedicated "warmongers" will either fly openly or in shades to provide easy kills to his team just to win this sector.
Or what about the huge landgrab squads that do vulch the fields? Players now upping in defense may actually hurt their own side, because they get much more killed than they do kill...
Or how about defending a sector by just not flying & fighting there - after all, no defenders = no kills for the attacker...
-
I see what you're trying to accomplish with that (you want to promote the fight)... but it also opens a can of worms.
The "n00bs" will be yelled at to stay out of a given sector that's close to get "captured" for fear they are just providing kills for the enemy.
A new player upping and dying a dozen times in a row will get nasty PMs from own side.
And even worse, what's about shade killing then? Dedicated "warmongers" will either fly openly or in shades to provide easy kills to his team just to win this sector.
Or what about the huge landgrab squads that do vulch the fields? Players now upping in defense may actually hurt their own side, because they get much more killed than they do kill...
Or how about defending a sector by just not flying & fighting there - after all, no defenders = no kills for the attacker...
I've been thinking about this for a while and can't really find a flaw that couldn't be remedied with some fairly simple criteria.
There you go. Let's hear the "simple" criteria to fix all of that.
-
I think on these super large maps the percentage should be dropped from 40% down to maybe 305 or 25%.
On the small TT map, maybe keep it at 40%.
The large maps are stalemate maps at this percentage.
-
Dredger has made a valid point, the maps are too huge and war becomes stale mate to win = trench warefare.
Raptor, I love your suggestion, capture the HQ to win the war would put some life in this game.
Guys just image the the fun we would in fighting our way to an HQ.
Hitech, lets make this happen..
-
I think it would be better to automatically reset the map after it has been up for 7 days than to change to war win system.
In my opinion the war win system is good the way it is now. It allows there to be enough of an incentive to entice those that care about such things but not so much as to make them too obnoxious to ruin the fun for those who don't care about it.
again this is my very humble opinion.
-
There you go. Let's hear the "simple" criteria to fix all of that.
Thanks for the feedback, Lusche and BaldEagl. I’ll respond once here and start a different thread if another. Also, I should qualify ‘simple’. This overall idea would not be simple for HTC to implement, I'm fairly certain. That as a given, I intend ‘simple’ to mean modifications to it.
The "n00bs" will be yelled at to stay out of a given sector that's close to get "captured" for fear they are just providing kills for the enemy.
A new player upping and dying a dozen times in a row will get nasty PMs from own side.
I don’t expect any plan could be engineered to extinguish players ‘harshing’ on each other no matter how the war is arranged.
Some options–
No one would have access to a running total of kills until the sector time limit was up where you could see the stats of the previous sectors capture/kill stats. While this wouldn’t change many players attitude toward noobs contributions, it would cast the ‘harshing’ as particalarly unwarranted. It would be obvious when one team outnumbers the other within a sector and might foster the attitudes you mention. To that HTC could consider ‘any player demanding another not fly where and when they wish’ to be a reportable offense.
Or consider that capturing a sector really has little bearing on changing the activity going on in that sector. Unlike capturing a base where the fight is essentially over for now, a sector might just change color every hour. It may seep in that ownership of a sector toward ‘winning the war’ is only useful if it is about then advancing. The defending team ultimately has to deal with that fact and simply fight or be overrun. Grounding noobs isn’t really going to save a sector that is being overrun with enduring superior numbers.
Or possibly, break the sector grid into smaller chunks, maybe keypads, putting less emphasis on each land capture. This might alleviate some of the anxiety that an ‘all is lost if we lose this sector’ syndrome might foster.
Or arrange the ‘capture’ sectors in a pinwheel or target shape rather than the current grid of squares. Here the sectors for capture would be narrow then widening as they extend from the center of the map outward like a darts target making it difficult for the ‘generals’ to know the qualifications and effect of everyone in the sector.
And even worse, what's about shade killing then? Dedicated "warmongers" will either fly openly or in shades to provide easy kills to his team just to win this sector.
True enough, and the team with the best ‘warmongers’ will probably prevail. But unless the majority of players are doing this I would expect it too difficult to hold enough sectors, in enough time, to actually win a LW large map (especially the pinwheel arrangement). Those types of players would just end up being the scourge they are now. IMO
Or what about the huge landgrab squads that do vulch the fields? Players now upping in defense may actually hurt their own side, because they get much more killed than they do kill...
Wheels down kills below 10 ft. count on personal stats but not toward sector capture or something like that.
Or how about defending a sector by just not flying & fighting there - after all, no defenders = no kills for the attacker...
An undefended base takers paradise with no real annoyance to the ‘takee’, what’s the problem?
But seriously, the pinwheel/target arrangement would eliminate the likelihood of that becoming a problem. Each sector would occupy a ‘swath’ across the entire map concentrating the total number of sectors at the very center where you would find TT/FT. It might be necessary to create a center zone where the sectors converge and disqualify sector capture within it, however.
Or, some iteration of…. taking all enemy bases within a sector will win that sector if one full time-frame completes with no kills in it. The sector can, of course, just be taken back next frame, bases or no.
Or using the keypad model… you could also capture keypad sectors by surrounding them on all adjacent sides, making ‘not defending’ not foolproof.
Regardless of sector style, base capture would eventually still have a decisive effect in the event a team was ‘not defending’. They would eventually have to confront the enemy or stalemate, it would be up to the attacker.
-
For HTC the game has worked successfully as is. What I'm about to twitter on about will sound like an old timer wishing for something new. OK, partly true :D
I would like to see some of the strat system utilised for the benefit of all. In keeping with the thread lower the win % to 20 - 20 or 1 complete Zone per side BUT in order to take bases the Zone city has to be under 50%. <1 complete zone of each side for large terrains. 20% of each for smaller.>
The terrain starts off with all bases marked with red square as uncapturable and remains so untill a zone City is taken out below 50%. Then all fields in that zone become capturable. Once the city regains above 50% the uncapturable red squared icons pop back up. In order to keep capturing fields the city will have to be hit again.
Defenders can recapture their fields at any time so long as they hold the Zone base. If they lose the zone base then the roll is reversed. Zone defenders will then have to bomb their old city below 50% once it regains, in order to recapture their old territory.
The theory behind my fendish plot to make HTC scratch his head about how it could be coded is simply to diversify the capture system. Making the Cities valued targets will result in various mission types to secure the 50% objective. I would envisage high alt bomber missions with or without escorts. Sneaky NOE runs. Mass Gv raids. Cv action. A plethora of defensive schemes would be born leading to very interesting fights.
Needless to say Zone bases would become even more contested and valued. Along with any base that's next to or spawns to the City :aok
-
I don’t expect any plan could be engineered to extinguish players ‘harshing’ on each other no matter how the war is arranged.
I agree. But not extinguishing is not quite the same as fueling the fire.
Right now, any player that doesn't chose to play the "war" game or simply isn't skilled enough or doesn't know better doesn't hurt the ones on his country that do (perhaps with only real exception of giving CV positions away by taking off).
If you make every players action count in regard to "the war", there will be trouble.
If someone is now trying to see how a B-25H holds it's own in a furball, that's his problem (or fun). But once his numerous deaths start to affect his team, there will be bad blood on countrychannel. And yes, even more than it's nowadays, because finally the strat guys woudl be right when yelling about someone "waisting resources".
One thing that makes this game and the MA's successful is it's sandbox gameplay. Within some (minor) limits, you can play any style you want in the MA. Winning the war, madly furballing in everlasting merry-go-rounds, hunting for that holy #1 rank position... all in one arena. And most amazingly, usually it works. You choose your game.
With your proposal, everybody takes part in the war game, regardless if he wants to. The rift between "furballers" and "strat guys" would get wider and much nastier.
-
I agree. But not extinguishing is not quite the same as fueling the fire.
Right now, any player that doesn't chose to play the "war" game or simply isn't skilled enough ...
One thing that makes this game and the MA's successful is it's sandbox gameplay. Within some (minor) limits, you can play any style you want in the MA. Winning the war, madly furballing in everlasting merry-go-rounds, hunting for that holy #1 rank position... all in one arena. And most amazingly, usually it works. You choose your game.
With your proposal, everybody takes part in the war game, regardless if he wants to. The rift between "furballers" and "strat guys" would get wider and much nastier.
Agreed, it would certainly add 'stakes' for some.
I don't really think it would fundamentally change the culture though. The majority of players know the importance of new players and the strat guys have already given up on the individuals that furball in Mitchells. It would still be a sandbox with a same-ish rifts, different angles.
Granted if the option to have a quantifiable effect(or not) is a particular issue for people, than this doesn't work. I don't think it a stretch or daunting to find this arrangement in a combat sim/game though.
Just tossing an idea not a manifesto.
-
porking fuel at a base, lowered the max fuel there to 25%.. of course the furballers FLIPPED OUT
Everyone flipped out because a SINGLE enemy aircraft could make a field completely useless within 2-3 passes. This was also back when a single guy could easily de-ack a field.
BOMB CRATERS.. used to damage landing gear if you drove through them at speed, furballers got that removed as well..
Again, a single aircraft could shut down a field. Drop a bomb at each end of the runway and one at the hanger and the field is dead.
Anyone else see a pattern here? Obviously, some want AH porking to be as easy as possible.
-
I like Lynx's idea tho - doing it by zones, with fields only capturable after the zone city is below 50% could well provide something for everyone. The bomber guys go get the city, fields are then attacked with a view to capture, and the furballers get to engage the defenders. To make it really interesting, in the long run, when/if terrain files are updated, we could use one of the really large cities from CT for the big fields zone, etc etc
Wurzel (having a not so bright day today, so not going to go into any negatives of this one)
-
If you lower the percentages of field takes then every single night when no one is on the map will be reset. You will have to decide if that is good or bad.
-
I dont see a problem with what we've got - maps do get reset, although less often on the larger maps as you would expect. just because hardly anyone bothers to use the strat system doesnt mean it doesnt work.
like most complaints about the system, the problem is generally with the players' ability and tactics, not the system itself.
eg. 15 heavy fighters roll in to attack a base. you've got several options:
1. Sit in the tower moaning about hoarding and vulching
2. Sit on the field in a wirble/field gun hoping for a couple of vulcher kills before the base is taken
3. Keep upping from that field and get repeatedly vulched
4. Up a 15-strong fighter sweep from the next base over and kill the attackers.
you will pretty much only see a combination of 1-3, hardly ever 4. is this a problem with the map/eny/arena cap/hoarding red guys? plainly not.
-
If you lower the percentages of field takes then every single night when no one is on the map will be reset. You will have to decide if that is good or bad.
Perhaps another good reason to incorporate the Zone city into the capture system. I know the night shift is active in gv'ing bases. Maybe with so few players on the city would be as important as it would be in peak times.
When the red square uncapturable icons are up nothing stops folk from flattening towns, porking fields or recapturing their zones fields. It's just that the troops won't work untill the city is below 50% if they are attaking in enemy zones.
-
Race, your absolutely correct. the only problem, is crybaby's.. if you allow bombing strat to in ANY way interfear with mindless furballing.. it wont happen, in the past strat WAS more important, in fact lots of stuff was different, porking fuel at a base, lowered the max fuel there to 25%.. of course the furballers FLIPPED OUT.. and that was removed, now porking fuel means nothing, BOMB CRATERS.. used to damage landing gear if you drove through them at speed, furballers got that removed as well.. All of these things interfere too much with the mindless ritual of taking off with autotakeoff, hitting utoclimb to 8k, then swirling to your death in the middle of a bunch of other people doing the exact same thing for the sake of doing it.
cmon, you cant expect people to actually be doing things.. for a reason.
:P
I agree, and have seen just this change swing towards the fuballing community.
Look at what the complaint is now, "bombers" having too many guns, "lazer" accuracy, they have too many bombs, bombers are too accurate, etc. etc. What it boils down too is they are not the easy fast kill they are looking for, they actually die for a change, and then complain.
I think it has alot to do with the ones that know how to Game the Game for score, and they dont want that to change because they will actually have to earn it.
-
There were some interesting posts, but I think two are worth reiterating.
GHI would like to have HQ kill as a percentage towards capture. Fabulous idea IMO. HQ missions are sooo much fun, however they are currently pointless. The GV base that supplies HQ is often uncapturable, and gains from a 50 minute mission will be erased in 5 minutes.
LYNX would like strat (city, factories) being bombed down to count towards capture. Another fun idea. This would add a strategic component to the game and make it more interesting.
At any rate, the percentage need to be lowered so win the map is attainable. Right now the (large) maps are stalemate maps. It isn't as much fun for the capture crowd (me for one) because coordinated efforts are not yielding results.
This change isn't going to adversely affect those who just want to up and dogfight. Frankly I don't see any reason not to.
-
There were some interesting posts, but I think two are worth reiterating.
GHI would like to have HQ kill as a percentage towards capture. Fabulous idea IMO. HQ missions are sooo much fun, however they are currently pointless. The GV base that supplies HQ is often uncapturable, and gains from a 50 minute mission will be erased in 5 minutes.
LYNX would like strat (city, factories) being bombed down to count towards capture. Another fun idea. This would add a strategic component to the game and make it more interesting.
At any rate, the percentage need to be lowered so win the map is attainable. Right now the (large) maps are stalemate maps. It isn't as much fun for the capture crowd (me for one) because coordinated efforts are not yielding results.
This change isn't going to adversely affect those who just want to up and dogfight. Frankly I don't see any reason not to.
Handy thing with my little plot is that the HQ is often a Zone base on large terrains. As you'll know not only is the HQ Berlin ack tower there but also a city :aok
-
There were some interesting posts, but I think two are worth reiterating.
GHI would like to have HQ kill as a percentage towards capture. Fabulous idea IMO. HQ missions are sooo much fun, however they are currently pointless. The GV base that supplies HQ is often uncapturable, and gains from a 50 minute mission will be erased in 5 minutes.
LYNX would like strat (city, factories) being bombed down to count towards capture. Another fun idea. This would add a strategic component to the game and make it more interesting.
At any rate, the percentage need to be lowered so win the map is attainable. Right now the (large) maps are stalemate maps. It isn't as much fun for the capture crowd (me for one) because coordinated efforts are not yielding results.
This change isn't going to adversely affect those who just want to up and dogfight. Frankly I don't see any reason not to.
As long as it's a tangible resource that (1) one side wants to get at, and (2) the other side wants to protect from being bombed into oblivion makes for fun, sustainable fights.
-
As long as it's a tangible resource that (1) one side wants to get at, and (2) the other side wants to protect from being bombed into oblivion makes for fun, sustainable fights.
And argueably more realistic fights.......within a cartoon game anyway.
Race