Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on April 24, 2012, 05:20:55 PM
-
Currently, in cases where GVs must attack a distant base via a spawn point, we rarely see perked GVs used by the attackers, but only by the defenders. This is because in the face of opposition, it is very difficult for attacking GVs to withdraw beyond the requisite 6K (?) distance from all enemy units in order to allow a safe “landing”. So unless you capture the base, you eventually die.
I suggest that we add more variety and interest to such GV encounters by adding a mechanism to encourage use of perked GVs by the attackers.
Might it be possible to do this without modifying existing maps? Perhaps one could define in code a “recovery space” associated with each GV spawn point, defined as a locality anywhere along the shaft of the “arrow” at least some minimum distance (4K?) behind the spawn point. “Landing” along this recovery space (within a band of say 500 yards wide) would be treated as if one had landed on a concreted area on the attacking base.
A further advantage to this idea is that it would automatically give defending ground attack aircraft additional perk points, should they succeed in killing any of the perked attacking GVs.
A disadvantage to this idea would be that any attacking GV would be liable to disappear at will if on the recovery space, even if close to opposing GVs. However, that would be no worse than what the defenders can already do on the concreted areas of the defending base. Presumably, few combats would be occurring 4K behind the spawn point anyway.
MH
-
would be better if you cut down the price of a gv by a percentage if you use a spawn and those that decide for the safety of their own base pay the full price.
semp
-
Your idea is interesting, and simpler to implement. However, I think that while your idea would in theory induce greater use of perked attacking GVs, if I understand it correctly, they will still be lost in the end. Therefore, I think that most attackers will still avoid significant perk GVs. So the net result is that the attacker will still tend to have worse GVs than the defender, as currently.
With the OP I am attempting to achieve equivalence between the choices available to both GV attacker and GV defender. So in both cases, you can pick a more effective perked vehicle, with an equal chance of landing it, on an equivalently close location. In the case of the defenders, that location is the base. In the case of the attackers, that location is the recovery space.
MH
-
A basic idea came to mind:
What if a player was able to create a small forward base? It would deploy with a "Deploy Base" tab (where Load Supplies would normally appear(?)) and would consist of a few tents/bunkers with a perimeter that gv's could successful land inside regardless if enemies are around. This little base would be set up to have 1 37mm manned ack as a defensive position that the person who spawned it would man. This base can be bombed/shelled down, which takes away this perimeter one could land inside. This base would remain after it's been spawned until it's destroyed, and the person who spawned it in can go do something else unless they wish to stay behind in the manned gun. If they leave, the manned gun would free up for someone else to take over. If someone else wishes to take control of the manned gun after it's freed up, they would only need to drive into the perimeter of the base and click on a "Man Gun" tab. As they are inside the perimeter, they would successfully land and take over the manned gun. If someone else is in the manned gun, then the "Man Gun" tab will not show. In order to destroy this forward base, you have to take down all tents/bunkers and the defensive gun. The forward base can only be repaired by someone running field sups to bring up anything destroyed. As a cut back, only 1 of these bases can exist within x distance (but close enough to cover each other with the manned gun effectively, maybe 500 - 750 apart(?)) of each other and can't be placed within x distance of the base/town being attacked. We could use the M3 and 251 for this purpose until trucks are modeled in and would have a FB (Forward Base) Package option added. As another cut back, only 4-6 bases can exist within x distance of each other. In other words, FB 1 could only have 3-5 other bases withing x distance if it.
A basic idea, but may prove to be more fun vs just having the fixed spot at the spawn and would feel less "gamey". If you decide to take a perked tank out without the support of a FB, then you run the risk of losing them because someone kept upping to take you down (which is as it stands). If you can get someone to spawn in and set one up, then you are set, unless it's (or you're) taken out before you get to it. :)
-
What you need to do is force the players away from the spawns, both on the field and away from the field. This would even the odds for both sides. If you up a base in a tiger and can not get a safe landing then your in the same boat as the attacking player. Have no spawn points ON the bases. Have the spawn points be a mile or two out from the base. Make them at 8 points around the base to cut down on camping. For spawn points in the field increase the range of the random spawn out to the same distance as the bases, a mile or two. Again it cuts down on the camping, and give both side room to maneuver and possibly make it to a point that they can "land" their kills.
-
What you need to do is force the players away from the spawns, both on the field and away from the field. This would even the odds for both sides. If you up a base in a tiger and can not get a safe landing then your in the same boat as the attacking player.
Unfortunately it's still not the same boat. The defender still can "ditch" even with attackers around, which does cost him half perks, while the attacker still would pay the full cost due to "captured". And he can drive back to the pavement where he can get a safe landing regardless of enemy ground or air units around, which is still next to impossible under most circumstances for the attacker.
It's one of those thing I'd like to be changed fundamentally... But I have yet to come up with something really smooth & simple working ;)
-
Unfortunately it's still not the same boat. The defender still can "ditch" even with attackers around, which does cost him half perks, while the attacker still would pay the full cost due to "captured". And he can drive back to the pavement where he can get a safe landing regardless of enemy ground or air units around, which is still next to impossible under most circumstances for the attacker.
It's one of those thing I'd like to be changed fundamentally... But I have yet to come up with something really smooth & simple working ;)
The problem is in the "coading". I dont think HTC can just put in "safe zones/recovery spaces" at the spawn points so that GV's can land safely. Even if they could, I bet the amount of work editing of the maps would be a very daunting task.
While I think it is a valid wish, request, and ultimately a necessary thing, now may not be top in the "importance" list. Just sayin'.
-
The problem is in the "coading". I dont think HTC can just put in "safe zones/recovery spaces" at the spawn points so that GV's can land safely. Even if they could, I bet the amount of work editing of the maps would be a very daunting task. <snip>
No changes to the maps should be needed.
Furthermore, game already knows where the GV is relative to the map and to the spawn point. It should be a relatively simple geometric calculation to determine whether the GV is within the "recovery space", at which point the code can set a “safe landing potential” flag associated with that particular GV. The AH client should probably explicitly indicate this “safe landing potential” state to the player.
Here’s an illustration of the concept. Essentially the existing spawn point is a proxy departure point for the distant base, illustrated by the point of the yellow arrow, below. This “Wish List” idea adds a proxy return point/area for the distant base, illustrated by the shaded area along the yellow line, below. (To avoid the need for map changes, the shaded areas denoting the "recovery spaces" would not be shown on the maps, so players would have to estimate their locations along the yellow lines, which are shown on the maps). This change would only apply to bases which are “far apart”, so as to preclude the “recovery space” from interfering with game play near the base it is associated with.
(http://home.comcast.net/~mark.hinds/misc_online_storage_dir/recovery_zone.jpg)
MH
-
No changes to the maps should be needed.
Furthermore, game already knows where the GV is relative to the map and to the spawn point. It should be a relatively simple geometric calculation to determine whether the GV is within the "recovery space", at which point the code can set a “safe landing potential” flag associated with that particular GV. The AH client should probably explicitly indicate this “safe landing potential” state to the player.
Here’s an illustration of the concept. Essentially the existing spawn point is a proxy departure point for the distant base, illustrated by the point of the yellow arrow, below. This “Wish List” idea adds a proxy return point/area for the distant base, illustrated by the shaded area along the yellow line, below. (To avoid the need for map changes, the shaded areas denoting the "recovery spaces" would not be shown on the maps, so players would have to estimate their locations along the yellow lines, which are shown on the maps). This change would only apply to bases which are “far apart”, so as to preclude the “recovery space” from interfering with game play near the base it is associated with.
(http://home.comcast.net/~mark.hinds/misc_online_storage_dir/recovery_zone.jpg)
MH
Each zone would have to be coaded into each spawn line, into each map. That's not editing?
Unfortunately it's still not the same boat. The defender still can "ditch" even with attackers around, which does cost him half perks, while the attacker still would pay the full cost due to "captured". And he can drive back to the pavement where he can get a safe landing regardless of enemy ground or air units around, which is still next to impossible under most circumstances for the attacker.
It's one of those thing I'd like to be changed fundamentally... But I have yet to come up with something really smooth & simple working ;)
That would have to be changed. If the defender doesn't have the same risk it's not fair, and we know how it's all suppose to be fair :P
I just think setting it up so that the risks and reward are the same for both sides would help to bring the GV game into something more than a spawn camping game.
-
Each zone would have to be coaded into each spawn line, into each map. That's not editing?
I doubt the maps would have to be edited. Generally speaking, there are usually multiple ways in which you can do these things. For example, the maps already specify the spawn points. Then, outside of the map code/data, the locations of the “recovery spaces” could be calculated relative to the spawn points.
Another possibility is that the map elements are in some sort of library, thus centralized to at least some degree. In the best case, HTC could just modify the spawn point entity, and have it automatically propagate to all the maps which use it.
MH
-
Make the range for a safe landing in enemy territory 3K, instead of what it is now (6K, right?), would help being able to get your tank far enough away from the baddies to land safely.
Also, PLEASE PLEASE add a 10 or 15 second delay from the time you '.ef' to when you actually land, to take away the "cheesiness" from the gamers who up a Tiger II and sit on concrete to "defend" knowing they for all practical purposes cannot be killed by plane or GV. Or change it so that the best you can get is a ditch if you .ef on concrete while an enemy is within 3K of your base.
-
Make the range for a safe landing in enemy territory 3K, instead of what it is now (6K, right?), would help being able to get your tank far enough away from the baddies to land safely.
Also, PLEASE PLEASE add a 10 or 15 second delay from the time you '.ef' to when you actually land, to take away the "cheesiness" from the gamers who up a Tiger II and sit on concrete to "defend" knowing they for all practical purposes cannot be killed by plane or GV. Or change it so that the best you can get is a ditch if you .ef on concrete while an enemy is within 3K of your base.
These are perfectly valid opinions, but IMHO, they might better be in a separate thread. The second part especially doesn't have much to do with my OP.
MH
-
These are perfectly valid opinions, but IMHO, they might better be in a separate thread. The second part especially doesn't have much to do with my OP.
MH
They both deal with issues raised by other posts within this thread. :huh
-
What about this....
We already have vehicles that can carry things. The M3 and SdKfz 251 for instance, can carry vehicle supplies, which are used to repair and rearm other vehicles... and field supplies, used for resupplying bases. Add another "box" that the M3 and SdKfz 251 can carry and call it "command post" (CP)... or something.
When this "box" gets dropped by the M3 or SdKfz 251... it becomes a tent. Give this tent an effect radius similar to vehicle supplies. Any friendly vehicle inside this radius can "tower out" safely.
However... the CP can be destroyed just like a box of supplies can be. It has NO DEFENSES. It cannot be "manned". It also would disappear after 15 minutes just like a box of supplies does.
They should only be "deliverable" by M3 or SdKfz 251 (or even an LVT)... no goon drops. For one, if the box lands on top of a tree... that isnt where you want the CP tent to get set up. Having them deployed out of an M3 or SdKfz 251 would make sure they get set up on the ground... and not on top of something goofy.
Only one of these would be able to be carried at a time... just like field supplies.
This would require no modification to any existing map. There are already 3D tent objects in the game that could us used to depict the CP when it gets deployed... so no modeling required. The coding for the effect radius of supplies are already in the game... so coding an effect radius for the CP shouldnt be too difficult. The effect radius could be made smaller than the effect radius of supplies... requiring a retreating tank to get pretty close to the CP to tower out... this would reduce gameyness and abuse.
It would add another element to the GV game... requiring more M3's or SdKfz 251's to be used to support the offensive units. It would also give attackers a safe way to "fall back" and tower out without losing perks... but, its a spot they have to defend from being destroyed, or quickly set up another one, or have multiple CP's in place.
What do you all think?
EDIT: as an option to this... the CP could either allow any number of vehicles to tower out within its 15 minutes of existence, OR... once a GV uses it to tower out... the CP is gone... just like supplies. The 2nd option would definitely make them harder to abuse.
-
What about this....
We already have vehicles that can carry things. The M3 and SdKfz 251 for instance, can carry vehicle supplies, which are used to repair and rearm other vehicles... and field supplies, used for resupplying bases. Add another "box" that the M3 and SdKfz 251 can carry and call it "command post" (CP)... or something.
When this "box" gets dropped by the M3 or SdKfz 251... it becomes a tent. Give this tent an effect radius similar to vehicle supplies. Any friendly vehicle inside this radius can "tower out" safely.
However... the CP can be destroyed just like a box of supplies can be. It has NO DEFENSES. It cannot be "manned". It also would disappear after 15 minutes just like a box of supplies does.
They should only be "deliverable" by M3 or SdKfz 251 (or even an LVT)... no goon drops. For one, if the box lands on top of a tree... that isnt where you want the CP tent to get set up. Having them deployed out of an M3 or SdKfz 251 would make sure they get set up on the ground... and not on top of something goofy.
Only one of these would be able to be carried at a time... just like field supplies.
This would require no modification to any existing map. There are already 3D tent objects in the game that could us used to depict the CP when it gets deployed... so no modeling required. The coding for the effect radius of supplies are already in the game... so coding an effect radius for the CP shouldnt be too difficult. The effect radius could be made smaller than the effect radius of supplies... requiring a retreating tank to get pretty close to the CP to tower out... this would reduce gameyness and abuse.
It would add another element to the GV game... requiring more M3's or SdKfz 251's to be used to support the offensive units. It would also give attackers a safe way to "fall back" and tower out without losing perks... but, its a spot they have to defend from being destroyed, or quickly set up another one, or have multiple CP's in place.
What do you all think?
EDIT: as an option to this... the CP could either allow any number of vehicles to tower out within its 15 minutes of existence, OR... once a GV uses it to tower out... the CP is gone... just like supplies. The 2nd option would definitely make them harder to abuse.
Tent could be the one used in the WW1 arena... maybe just resize it so its a little smaller. Add a big fat "CP" to the outside of it, so its clear what it is too. The point is, the 3D model for this is already in the game. It would just need to be used for a temporary object like supplies are, instead of a fixed map object.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/CP_Tent.jpg)