Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tyrannis on August 29, 2011, 03:41:30 PM
-
Im probably gonna get alot of flak for this, but here goes...
Is their any way to work out some type of system that Locks base-taking down without a sufficient number of people on to put up a defence?
Like take Mid-war for example. The knits come in, fight a hard-fought war against the bish, and we take their bases and push them almost all the way back to their HQ.
Half of us have to log to do some rl things. I come back 2 hrs later To see the bish (Most notably the flying fairies) Have rolled all the undefended bases we worked hard to take from them.
It really makes you go "Why do we even bother putting the work out to take these bases when they just get rolled when we log?" in your mind.
Some system that only aloud Taking the bases of a Country only if a certain % of players were on would be nice, maybe half the amount of players that are on the attacking country. or something, just throwing thoughts out their.
And im not asking this for LW. Just for MW and EW. Where we dont get enough numbers to effectivly defend our bases 24/7.
Idk, The Undefended base taking in MW is just getting old FAST. :(
-
You might want to encourage more people to play Mid then. :salute
-
You might want to encourage more people to play Mid then. :salute
that would only be a band-aid of sorts.
Im probably gonna get alot of flak for this, but here goes...
Is their any way to work out some type of system that Locks base-taking down without a sufficient number of people on to put up a defence?
Like take Mid-war for example. The knits come in, fight a hard-fought war against the bish, and we take their bases and push them almost all the way back to their HQ.
Half of us have to log to do some rl things. I come back 2 hrs later To see the bish (Most notably the flying fairies) Have rolled all the undefended bases we worked hard to take from them.
It really makes you go "Why do we even bother putting the work out to take these bases when they just get rolled when we log?" in your mind.
Some system that only aloud Taking the bases of a Country only if a certain % of players were on would be nice, maybe half the amount of players that are on the attacking country. or something, just throwing thoughts out their.
And im not asking this for LW. Just for MW and EW. Where we dont get enough numbers to effectivly defend our bases 24/7.
Idk, The Undefended base taking in MW is just getting old FAST. :(
now i like the idea but i see to many problems with it. what if say your country has 20 ppl and every body else has 5 or less, while this is easily solved by just switching teams. not to many are all that willing to jump teams just to take basses. but if we had some sort of hardness or ack variable, something that acted like the eny values. Ok so for just for the sake of argument say the roster reads (in order bish/knights/rooks) 5/3/23, so we rooks start trying to attack a knight base. The knights base ack should be a bit more accurate and or harder to kill, same goes for buildings.
so the auto guns would be able to compensate for the lack of defenders. with the hardness variable normally it would take 2 tank shells to destroy a town building, in this situation it might take 4 or more for the "rooks" to destroy a town building.
but on the other side, say the a knight attacks a rook base it would just be normal ack coverage and hardness (or less then normal depending on the amount of ppl on each team)
i hope i have diverted at least some of the flak that was meant for you tyrannis :D
-
Im probably gonna get alot of flak for this, but here goes...
Is their any way to work out some type of system that Locks base-taking down without a sufficient number of people on to put up a defence?
Like take Mid-war for example. The knits come in, fight a hard-fought war against the bish, and we take their bases and push them almost all the way back to their HQ.
Half of us have to log to do some rl things. I come back 2 hrs later To see the bish (Most notably the flying fairies) Have rolled all the undefended bases we worked hard to take from them.
It really makes you go "Why do we even bother putting the work out to take these bases when they just get rolled when we log?" in your mind.
Some system that only aloud Taking the bases of a Country only if a certain % of players were on would be nice, maybe half the amount of players that are on the attacking country. or something, just throwing thoughts out their.
And im not asking this for LW. Just for MW and EW. Where we dont get enough numbers to effectivly defend our bases 24/7.
Idk, The Undefended base taking in MW is just getting old FAST. :(
There are hundreds of bases on a map though, they are meant to be change hands regularly. An individual base's value is minor.
-
There are hundreds of bases on a map though, they are meant to be change hands regularly. An individual base's value is minor.
True, But the Bish numbers usually number twice those of any other's, and as the bish begin to roll bases more people jump to them hoping to get the war perkies.
The flying fairies are the main Horders in Mid war. I guess could say their the Vdevils of MW (except the Vdevils can put up a good fight).
They number in the 10s-20s, and when they start to roll undefended bases they do it pretty well.
Like i said, We had the bish pushed back all the way to their HQ, we logged, came back 2 hrs later to see they had rolled all those bases we fought so hard to get and had pushed the undefended knits almost to our own HQ.
It was truly as pathetic as it was disheartening.
-
Heres an idea: change the ENY of all heavy ordnance carrying planes to ENY of 20 at most. That way they can only carry 200lbs at at time to the town. Eventually they get pissed off and quit :D.
-
you know...you can just steamroll those bases back when there not on :devil
-
When the odds are 30v1, there is no stopping it.
-
Restrict them to Hurricane Mk I's and C-47's. I'm telling you, It'll work.
-
It was truly as pathetic as it was disheartening.
i agree with you there. On the plus side if you are one of the few defenders left in the game you get some awesome perk bonuses :rock
Restrict them to Hurricane Mk I's and C-47's. I'm telling you, It'll work.
i wouldn't even give them the C-47 :devil
-
let the perks stay in the arena they are earned. betcha the rolling will stop.
semp
-
It really makes you go "Why do we even bother putting the work out to take these bases when they just get rolled when we log?" in your mind.
stop thinking of it as work :) remember how much fun you had taking those bases and take them again.
-
True, But the Bish numbers usually number twice those of any other's,
They are?
The Muppets are bish because they are usually the low numbers side, at least they have been for the past couple months when we fly. Just a couple weeks ago there was a thread in the GD Titled "Bish are dead", but you say they usually have twice as many players as everyone else. :lol
This was from yesterday as well:
Yesterday knits had 153 players to Rook 137 to Bish 105. ENY for Knits was 3.3.
I believe Irish One was asking if that made any sense. It seems based on those umbers that Rook and Knits would have larger ENY cut offs. Then I looked at the map status and Bish had 32 Bases, Knits had 20, Rooks had 25.
So does the map status (number of Bases held by each country) factor in?
:salute
-
They are?
The Muppets are bish because they are usually the low numbers side, at least they have been for the past couple months when we fly. Just a couple weeks ago there was a thread in the GD Titled "Bish are dead", but you say they usually have twice as many players as everyone else. :lol
This was from yesterday as well:
Your thinking of Late war Grizz. Im talking about Mid war. Where the average amount of players is 15-20. And sometimes 30 on a lucky day.
-
let the perks stay in the arena they are earned.
:aok
-
Your thinking of Late war Grizz. Im talking about Mid war. Where the average amount of players is 15-20. And sometimes 30 on a lucky day.
Oh, rgr.
-
honestly i agree but not for the reason stated those "hard earned bases" most likley undefended infact thats midwars pattern useally
knights: attack team with least amount of players..(give up or attack other team when defence is ecounterd)
bish: roll undefended bases use it as main battle tactic (but will still attack a defended base useally 2/1 or greater)
rooks: always out numberd useally about 4/1 but dont give up but always get rolled in the end
so i like the idea but just be honest about those "bases" and u cant be mad at the bish for what they do to you when you do the same thing to the rooks and bishops...infact as of about a week ago rooks/bish were working together to stop knights from doing the same thing..but you shouldent go spelling a squads name in an insulting manner on the forums just becuase you dont like them... wont lie they get annoying and think highly of them selfs at times...but most of them are still alright people
eitherway i think somthing should be done but to find somthing that prevented base taking without killing the ability to take a base...would be hard increased ak leathality would be a nice touch..
or possiblly....land mines surrounding the town/map room random land mines only clear to freindlys.. would stop m3s and some troops would be luck to make it but also luck to hit them.. less players=more mines 0 ppl=2 mines per person on enemy team so... say theres 0 rooks on and 10 bish theres 20 mines surrounding map rooms/flags/towns and so on but for every 1 person on freindlys=2 less mines so r10-b10=no mines r9-b10=2 mines and so on ofc randomly placed
but manned guns are more of a problem in midwar i think... but thats just my opinion
-
Im probably gonna get alot of flak for this, but here goes...
Is their any way to work out some type of system that Locks base-taking down without a sufficient number of people on to put up a defence?
Well it is never a good idea to restrict choices in this game, but "morphing" the capture system a bit would help greatly IMHO.
#1- After a town is taken the base should go into a kind of "dead state" or "contested" where NO-ONE owns it and NO-ONE can use it, it is simply in limbo.
#2- All ack should stay down
#3- All buildings should stay down
#4- The base should stay in this "contested" state for a period of time, maybe 20-30 minutes
#5- The country with the last set of troops in before it times out will own the prize and it will become fully fuctional immediately after time runs out
#6- This would force the country who put the base into "contested" mode to defend it aggressively
#7- This would allow the "original" owners to mount some sort of counter attack without needing to deal with buildings and ack to try and retake it
#8- This would foster "MAD, RAGING" short term battles to determine ultimate control and ownership of the base
I could easily see squads specializing in "interdiction" (to try and interfere with any potential counter attack). Squads that will specialize in the "counter attack". Squads that specialize in "escort" to( try and fend off the "interdictors"). Missions would start to become more planned and technical, rather than the "mob rules" tactics we have now. The "smash and grab" would morph into the "smash, grab then defend" (as it should be).
As it is now there is no realistic way to organize a reasonable defence against the "mob base takers". By the time folks see the gaggle on dar it is too late as most folks are off doing "whatever" and do not want to auger a ride (for many reasons) just to go get gang raped at a base with no alt or speed. It is also very well known, upping from another base to try and stop the capture is not realistic and has the same problems of folks not wanting to dump what their doing at that second to try a make a difference. So adding some kind of "limbo" state would give the original defenders time to organize and mount a response, after all the original attackers had plenty of time to organize their attack "in secret" I might add.
Also in a purely "realistic" point of view, all newly conquered territory has been vulnerable to "counter attack" In fact it is well known and taught that the most "vulnerable" an attacker is, is at the moment of conquest as the attacker has probably destroyed most defences and expended much of his resources and energy to drive the defenders out, making him suseptable to a planned counter attack sapping him of any momentum he has gained "at the minimum" or "the best case scenario" driving the attacker from the territory he just expended so much energy and resources to aquire!
It's my vision anyway :aok
JUGgler
-
I started a similar thread to this in AvA forum, a while back.
RTholmes suggested that the eny value of any troop carriers be lowered to 5.
That way sides would have to be relatively even for troops to be deployed.
I don't fully understand how eny works, and don't believe it would work in AvA with the non standard 2 country setups, but I thought that was an interesting idea.
-
I started a similar thread to this in AvA forum, a while back.
RTholmes suggested that the eny value of any troop carriers be lowered to 5.
That way sides would have to be relatively even for troops to be deployed.
I don't fully understand how eny works, and don't believe it would work in AvA with the non standard 2 country setups, but I thought that was an interesting idea.
So if there is a side imbalance you can't capture a base? That's the worst idea I've ever heard.
-
Get a few players to stay on top of ords destruction and you can slow down any mob. Its seems taking out ords is a lost art in the game sometimes.
-
Get a few players to stay on top of ords destruction and you can slow down any mob. Its seems taking out ords is a lost art in the game sometimes.
or go after the goons :).
semp
-
So if there is a side imbalance you can't capture a base? That's the worst idea I've ever heard.
What the hell are you talking about?
The way I read the OP is that base capture when there is a large side imbalance is the whole issue.
Is their any way to work out some type of system that Locks base-taking down without a sufficient number of people on to put up a defence?
Seems like the side that has the lopsided numbers not being able to deploy troop carriers until it evens up a bit, might help accomplish what the OP is asking for.
-
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about the horrible idea that you suggested. Don't take it personal.
-
Eh, never mind. Not worth continuing.
-
Limit on # of people who can be airborne from any one base at any time. Worked fairly well in AW
-
They can't "roll" bases if they don't have any troops.
Pretty simple solution really.
No need to thank me, just doin my job. :salute
-
I started a similar thread to this in AvA forum, a while back.
RTholmes suggested that the eny value of any troop carriers be lowered to 5.
That way sides would have to be relatively even for troops to be deployed.
I don't fully understand how eny works, and don't believe it would work in AvA with the non standard 2 country setups, but I thought that was an interesting idea.
It's a nasty roundy round with this.
First you have a huge horde rolling bases, and the only way to slow them is either take away their troops, or make it much hard to take them (increase town down percentage, double,triple ack, make troops only available at rear bases). Both options piss players off because that is what they are paying their $15 for.
Second you have players from the other team crying because all the bases they rolled the night before are lost and it pisses them off.
Not really anything you can do to make everyone happy in this situation.
-
This has been a problem for a long time; some people just want the path of least resistance.
I've seen hordes on both sides a few sectors away, but this made me laugh.
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff14/DeliriumP38/typicalahnight.jpg)
-
:lol
I took almost the exact same sceen shot yesterday. :)
-
This has been a problem for a long time; some people just want the path of least resistance.
I've seen hordes on both sides a few sectors away, but this made me laugh.
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff14/DeliriumP38/typicalahnight.jpg)
Egad, that's bad.
-
Not really anything you can do to make everyone happy in this situation.
This is true.
Considering that the original post was about locking out base-taking when there isn't a sufficient number of people on to put up a defense, lowering the eny value of troop transports would seem to more directly and temporarily address this issue rather than simply making base capture harder at all times.
I believe that eny can be adjusted to kick in at whatever level of imbalance is desired.
The merits of the OP's request and whether it should be addressed at all as a separate issue, in the context of actually discussing how it might be accomplished, it would, in my opinion, be no more of a "horrible" idea than any others I've read.
-
How do you prod people into not being lemmings?
-
How do you prod people into not being lemmings?
high voltage might help :D
-
How do you prod people into not being lemmings?
Fence off the cliff's edge.
ack-ack