Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Kingpin on July 02, 2012, 06:23:15 PM
-
I believe this has been discussed before, but I think it is still a worthy suggestion:
Wish: When a base gets captured, keep all the ack (both town and field) down for another 10-15 minutes.
Why? I see this as having many positives: 1) it extends fights at bases being captured 2) it is more realistic 3) it could encourage more defenders from adjacent bases and 4) it would make GV play in defense of airfields more fun and useful.
As it is, when a field is captured and all the ack magically pops, the fight is essentially over. Any GVs on the field are usually killed by their "own" guns. Defending aircraft are often killed by their “own” ack when this happens. Meanwhile, the attacking force suddenly has the cover of guns they killed only minutes before which they can use to land safely. Usually this means the attackers quickly disappear into the tower and move on to the next target elsewhere on the map. (The common “whack a mole” game-play complaint).
Instead, if the ack were to stay down at the town and field for a short time, the fight would be extended. Fighters already in the air would need to conclude their fights, instead of the ack being the deciding factor.
As it is now, upping from an adjacent field to defend also tends to be a complete waste of time, as you arrive after the field is captured and the "fight is over". But with field and town ack down for a short while, the battle wouldn’t necessarily be over. Newly captured bases would need to be guarded against a quick recapture. Even the largest horde of attackers would need some consideration of defense, or risk losing their gains quickly. Some attackers might need to stay airborne or re-up to defend the field, instead of just disappearing into the tower. Even the “late arrival” who upped from an adjacent field could still be in a position to be useful at a newly captured field (both on the attacking AND defending side).
Having the ack not “insta switch” would also eliminate the very gamey situation where your own ack suddenly starts shooting you. I think there are few things more annoying than launching to defend your field and being shot down by your own ack. This is especially annoying in a GV. As it is, defending a field in a GV is pointless, unless you can get to the maproom. A GV that is not near the maproom can essentially be ignored by the attackers as it can't stop the capture. However, if the “insta magic ack” didn’t pop, even a single wirble sitting on a captured field could keep the field in contention for a short time. This could make defending fields in GV’s much more fun and viable.
I realize this could result in some M3/C47 races to recapture fields, but even in that scenario, all you have is a prolonged battle over a single field, which is far more interesting than the “smash and grab” attack vs. “whack a mole” defense where little real fighting goes on in contention for the fields themselves.
-
+1
-
+1 absolutely
it was like this for about a week after the new towns came out, because there wasn't even any ack in the towns at all, remember!
someone would have to actually watch the town until buildings started popping to insure it was actually captured.
could be carnage, so many goons/m3's trying to race to maprooms, but, the horde would have to leave someone on station, to kill goons/m3's/lvt's.. real difficult!
-
Shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the ack reset routine in the coad to have it remain down the normal time from when it was destroyed - regardless of field capture status. No need to have it stay down "another 10 minutes after capture"...just have it stay down however long it normally would.
-
Shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the ack reset routine in the coad to have it remain down the normal time from when it was destroyed - regardless of field capture status. No need to have it stay down "another 10 minutes after capture"...just have it stay down however long it normally would.
+1 :aok
-
+1 the attackers would have to defend too, and give more options of counter attack
-
Agreed, would make the base takers actually have to stay and defend for a bit rather then just run off to another base.
+1
:salute
BigRat
-
I like this idea +1
-
Shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the ack reset routine in the coad to have it remain down the normal time from when it was destroyed - regardless of field capture status. No need to have it stay down "another 10 minutes after capture"...just have it stay down however long it normally would.
Hello ImADot,
Thanks for the feedback. My thinking was to have a solid 10 min period (a time frame both sides are sure about) where the base is in "limbo", so it will need to be defended. The problem with having the ack come up in its normal rebuild time is that it would likely pop too soon after the take for this to be an effective period of time. I thought 10 minutes from the time of the capture would be a good amount of time.
In fact, I think all ack should go down upon capture (even guns at the field that were up). The idea is a period of no ack at a newly captured field during which the field needs to be defended or fought over, instead of having the "insta magic popping ack" to hide in and effectively end the fight.
Thinking this idea through a bit further, though, the ack down-time frame might need to be shorter at ports and v-bases, where the ack is more critical in defense. Perhaps 5 minutes of no ack at a newly captured port or v-base? And 10 minutes of no ack at newly captured airfields/towns.
If you need a logical, realistic way of thinking of this, consider it the time the new occupiers need to repair, rearm, man or set up their own ack gun emplacements and personnel at their newly captured field.
What I also like about this is that it doesn't change the dynamics of actually capturing a base. It only adds an element where use and defense of a newly captured field need to be considered. The whole concept being to extend the fight over a field, instead of the "land and move on" approach we have now.
Personally I think this could promote more combat. Not player v. building combat, or player v. ack-gun combat, but actual player versus player combat. Isn't that what the game is supposed to be about?
Thanks again for the feedback on this. I sincerely hope HTC takes note of the idea.
<S> all
-
Thanks again for the feedback on this. I sincerely hope HTC takes note of the idea.
unfortunately, he has commented on the idea in the past, and IIRC, he didn't seem to like the idea of the defenders being able to just hide a goon or m3 somewhere to steal a base back real quick... i, like you, don't see the problem, but ohwell..
-
unfortunately, he has commented on the idea in the past, and IIRC, he didn't seem to like the idea of the defenders being able to just hide a goon or m3 somewhere to steal a base back real quick... i, like you, don't see the problem, but ohwell..
Yes, I don't really see the problem with this either. With such a narrow window of opportunity (5-10 minutes) I doubt you'd be able to sneak a goon or M3 in without it being noticed. I'm thinking to successfully retake it, you'd at least need some kind of air cover first. And if the people capturing the base don't want it quickly retaken by some sneaky goon or M3, they only need to guard it for a few minutes. Surely this will promote more fighting, both in the air and on the ground, even after the field is captured. Wouldn't a protracted fight like that be more fun than one that is essentially over as soon as the capture happens?
I think there are a lot of wasted sorties and bored players with the way it works now. Players fly to fields all the time, on both the attacking and defending side, only to arrive just as it is captured. I think that is why we see so few players actually trying to defend bases by flying from adjacent bases. Keeping a field "in limbo" for a short while could change that, as even the "late arrivals" could be a factor.
I really think this would be a change for the betterment of the game, especially compared to the way it is now where the attackers simply smash the base, land and move on to another field elsewhere. I honestly don't see how trying it could make game play worse in any way. Can anyone explain a serious downside to this idea?
Thanks again for the replies.
<S>
-
i found the previous thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,324549.msg4245208.html#msg4245208
-
Why not just use the same timer that works when the base doesn't change hands instead?
Each autogun stays down for 45 mins and each manned ack would be down for 15.
-
+1 for keeping normal respawn time as if base didnt change hands...just like hangers.
If the new owners want guns up faster, resupply the base.
-
I prefer the ack just as it is.
-
If you want to reset any one of our giant maps. This is not the way to acheive it along with the large scale conflict that attends the group trying to roll the bases to reset the map. You would eventualy loose your momentum and edge by virute of numbers depleated as rear guards versus resetting the large map. The defenders would have a better position by organising themselves to prey upon your rear guards as strike hoards to perform quick recaptures behind you as you tried to march across their territory.
The other danger is loosing the interest of your map resetting group by depleating their passion for mounting up and taking the next feild while garrisoned waiting out each captured feild's ack to come back up before safely moving on. You run the real danger of your map reset deing to your group being pinned down repeatedly in boring counter stalemate attacks which eventuly will grind your map reset to a stalled halt.
Your focus would become defensive based on holding and protecting ground rather than taking ground with the real danger of achieving only stalemate as odds would dictate some of your captures would be recaptured behind you as player numbers in your rear guards decreased. In a microcosim you would discover why it's hard to conquer large empires streatched across vast territories where you have to garrison every town and city you capture before moving on to the next. This is one of the reasons the mongols flattened almost every town and city they attacked while killing much of the population. I think Hitech agrees with the mongols by regenerating ack upon capture.
Small maps. This might be a worthwhile addition to promote strategic counter moves which wouldn't grind to a halt against the scale of the map like a large map would. Consider that the scale of the map controls the efforts of the limited numbers of players. And just how easy it is for 400 players to dissapere on one of our large maps versus the small ones.
-
I would like the ack to come up under it's own timer regardless of whether field changed hands.
If you are an attacker and want ack to defend your newly captured field, then don't kill the ack and it will do it's job.
-
Buster, I think you might be misreading this. What I'm suggesting doesn't require any long-term garrisoning of towns as you use in your example. I'm suggesting an "all ack down" period of about 10 minutes at a newly captured field. This isn't going to create a huge chain of fields that needs to be guarded for extended periods.
The idea is simply meant to extend the battle over a newly captured field by having a brief period where that field may be vulnerable to counter-attack/re-capture. It doesn't make the process of actually capturing fields any harder. It just adds that brief period where some defensive-mindedness may be needed to hold it. As it is, once a field is captured, the base-rolling horde typically just all land as a group and move on the next hording field. With this ack down period in effect, they can still do that if they wish, but risk someone recapturing their field. Essentially I'm talking about adding about 10 minutes of defense to the process, not something that is likely going to grind into a stalemate as you suggest.
Even in an extreme case, where this short "all ack down time" might actually create a back-and-forth battle of recapturing of a given field, I seriously think it is not a "stalemate" that anyone is going to complain about. It's more likely going to be a really exiting fight going on -- a fight that players with a variety of play styles could all enjoy. The "base-takers" on both sides get something out of it (as they are fighting over capturing a base), the "defenders" have a little more time to rally and get involved, and even the "furballers" who don't care about the disposition of the field may have a nice protracted fight to join into.
I don't see this happening very often, and I certainly don't see it turning into the slow-paced stalemate you describe. Actually, I see this potentially creating some epic battles. I can't see how something that potentially creates an epic, drawn-out battle every once in a while is bad for the game.
The "instantly-popping side-switching ack" upon field capture is very gamey in my opinion, and worse, it contributes to the smash-and-grab vs. whack a mole game game play that we have. Addressing that with something as simple as an ack setting that keeps a field "in play" for another 10 minutes is supposed to be an easy idea aimed at creating better fights in the main arena.
<S>
-
+1 absolutely
it was like this for about a week after the new towns came out, because there wasn't even any ack in the towns at all, remember!
I remember that and it was a blast! There should be zero ack in the towns and a crapload more at the base. These days, it's mostly cap and vulch before they even bother touching the town. No ack in town means a free for all melee! Oh and make it so all buildings have to be flat too.
+1 for keeping normal respawn time as if base didnt change hands...just like hangers.
If the new owners want guns up faster, resupply the base.
And +1 to this. Guns should need to be resupplied, not pop up like a jack in the box.
-
Ten minutes for a mission group following the momentum of their common goal in the MA is equal to a life time of patience staying interested in the mission goal of resetting the map.
Our giant maps force that kind of smash and move on to the next feild strategy to reset a map the size of Trinity. You should talk to players like the Free Birds about their 10 years of experience with player motivation in missions and what it takes to keep them focused when they target resetting a map. That ten minutes will bleed off and diffuse players to other parts of the map. It's a canard right here to answer but, if they are interested in resetting the map they will return. Years of experience proves otherwise. Once they are being entertained by a new focus it takes forever to get them back into a mission. The MA is like herding cats unless you have the right bag of Kitty Kibble and know how to use it.
Yes you will have some interesting counter attack fighting. But, you will have the unintended consiquence of boring the 80% needed in missions to tip the force projection each time in favor of achieving a map reset. Or refocusing them into a furballing and GV pitched fight defensive mentality. Which sounds like your real aim in asking for this.
You can always Gin up that kind of a fight by following these steps.
1. - get 2 to 3 freinds to follow you jabo to an enemy arifeild that has a GV spawn to your airfield and vice-versa.
2. - drop their GV hanger and radar. Vulch any uppers.
3. - keep returning no matter how out numbered you become.
4. - when their GV hanger comes back up they will retaliate back to your airfeild along with the furball at theirs.
5. - pray your countrymen have watched the map and see this great whizzing fest you have picked.
This is why POTW never lacks for a fight. We pick fights or take the feild if they don't up to respond. Or do you want all of this along with the 20 guys from the mission to have your back? Thats what the 10 minute bit will get you.
-
Ten minutes for a mission group following the momentum of their common goal in the MA is equal to a life time of patience staying interested in the mission goal of resetting the map.
Our giant maps force that kind of smash and move on to the next feild strategy to reset a map the size of Trinity. You should talk to players like the Free Birds about their 10 years of experience with player motivation in missions and what it takes to keep them focused when they target resetting a map. That ten minutes will bleed off and diffuse players to other parts of the map. It's a canard right here to answer but, if they are interested in resetting the map they will return. Years of experience proves otherwise. Once they are being entertained by a new focus it takes forever to get them back into a mission. The MA is like herding cats unless you have the right bag of Kitty Kibble and know how to use it.
Yes you will have some interesting counter attack fighting. But, you will have the unintended consiquence of boring the 80% needed in missions to tip the force projection each time in favor of achieving a map reset. Or refocusing them into a furballing and GV pitched fight defensive mentality. Which sounds like your real aim in asking for this.
You can always Gin up that kind of a fight by following these steps.
1. - get 2 to 3 freinds to follow you jabo to an enemy arifeild that has a GV spawn to your airfield and vice-versa.
2. - drop their GV hanger and radar. Vulch any uppers.
3. - keep returning no matter how out numbered you become.
4. - when their GV hanger comes back up they will retaliate back to your airfeild along with the furball at theirs.
5. - pray your countrymen have watched the map and see this great whizzing fest you have picked.
This is why POTW never lacks for a fight. We pick fights or take the feild if they don't up to respond. Or do you want all of this along with the 20 guys from the mission to have your back? Thats what the 10 minute bit will get you.
So you're saying that this is a bad idea because hordelings have a short attention span?
I support normal ack respawn times for captured bases. Resuply if you want them up faster.
-
The short attention span has a lot of truth in it. My cousin Larry use to own a big machine shop and he would go from one area to the next and each time he stopped to do something Larry would light a cigarette and laid it down. He would forget all about that cigarette go to another area of the shop and light another one and lay it down and so on. His Dad who also worked there would follow Larry around and smoke his cigarettes so he never had to pay for his own.
Base captures are a lot like Larry and his Dad. Once the horde comes in and takes a base they move on to another one and no one ever defends the base that was just taken. So just follow them around like Larry's Dad and take them back while the horde is off lighting up another base lol. Maybe the ack staying down for what ever time it stays down would be a good thing and folks would have to resupply that base and defend it while they do that. This could make for some good fights but the Larry and his Dad Principal would also make resetting a map much harder.
-
I like this analogy :)
-
unfortunately, he has commented on the idea in the past, and IIRC, he didn't seem to like the idea of the defenders being able to just hide a goon or m3 somewhere to steal a base back real quick... i, like you, don't see the problem, but ohwell..
Why not just make troops have the same requirement as supplies? They have to have been launched from an different base from the one being (re)captured to have any effect.
Oh, and +1 to the ack staying down for a while :aok. I always thought it should take some time, for the conquerers to man their own defenses.
Actually, we could make it a sort of frontline base? U see the base (on clipboard) as green when it was yours, it turns grey once enemy troops are in (and ack is down), it turns red once the enemy has completed its capture and setup their defenses. While its grey (the 5-10min window) its a limbo state where the country icon would change to indicate who owns/has captured it, but the gry colour indicates its still a sort-of no mans land, until either side can establish its dominance and hold it till its no longer 'grayed out'. :cheers:
:salute
-
Any of the large maps you already dislike. This will make you 100x bored with them after your first blush of excitement over actualy getting a change like this out of hitech wears off by the end of the first tour it's in force. Then you will be stuck with these large maps you hate longer by lowering your chances of reseting them due to the follow up stalemating of each capture. Granted even if you are the followup stalemating to vTard missions holding up the map reset adfinitum. Eventualy this will get stale and they will have come up with another tardling thing around this to irritate you with requiring a hoard that dissaperes when the deed is done. And you will be left with Large maps that are harder to reset.
Then you will be in here complaining about how hard it is to reset Large maps and Hitech needs to shorten their rotation cycle becasue you are bored. You gents always think up something that sends a tingle up your collective legs to fix your short term bordom or problems and want Hitech to use it to tingle everyone elses leg in the game becasue leg tingling is a good thing says Martha Stewart. None of you ever think up all the downsides and unintended consiquences which means shooting holes in your own idea to see if it can float in spite of the holes over the long haul as a good thing for the larger game community. Not just your immediate bordom or problem with the game.
Instead leaving it up to Hitech to beat his head against a wall of your bordom, short term problems, good intentions and tingling legs to sink it for you. Using the spectrum of his greater experience at having to shoot holes in his own ideas to see if they will float well enough to work in his game for everyone.
This time next year most of the vTards will be fighter jocks and have moved on from mindless base hoarding to telling everyone how weak their ACM is on ch200. A number of them have been showing some ACM skillz lately that take time with a trainer or in the DA to learn. What are you going to do when they can both hoard a base and kick your collective kesters? Come up with a short term fix to handicapp them for their youthful reflexes and present that to Hitech for codeing into the game?
-
+1 to this Idea .... I for one would form a squad just for defense ( well I would have a group of like minded guys hanging around me...I wouldn't force any to play my game).... That is my cup of tea anyway... I feel it would allow more of a balance in game play..... sure the maps might take longer to take but honestly the smash and grab of the moment is really quite hilarious....
-
You will be back in here in 6 months asking for something else to be changed to make the stalemated large maps easier to win the war and cycle them faster. But, you will require Hitech to tie one hand behind his back and hop on one foot to do it while not touching this previously asked for sacred cow.
This is any change for the sake of seeing something changed even if you have to come back and have something changed later to address the unintended consiquences of wanting any kind of change today.
-
I'm looking at it purely as new combat options.. being able to sneak troops in, or staying on station waiting to kill the sneak troops would be a NEW thing added to the gameplay. it doesn't take away. it adds.
-
by the way I'm not a war-winner or base taker.. I think you'd have to go back 18 tours or so to even find my last base capture.
I also don't complain about being on the same map.. they're all the same to me. if we got stagnated on mindanao or beta2, forever, I'd be fine.
-
You will be back in here in 6 months asking for something else to be changed to make the stalemated large maps easier to win the war and cycle them faster. But, you will require Hitech to tie one hand behind his back and hop on one foot to do it while not touching this previously asked for sacred cow.
This is any change for the sake of seeing something changed even if you have to come back and have something changed later to address the unintended consiquences of wanting any kind of change today.
Was this in reply to me? ....
-
You will be back in here in 6 months asking for something else to be changed to make the stalemated large maps easier to win the war and cycle them faster. But, you will require Hitech to tie one hand behind his back and hop on one foot to do it while not touching this previously asked for sacred cow.
This is any change for the sake of seeing something changed even if you have to come back and have something changed later to address the unintended consiquences of wanting any kind of change today.
This game is in a constant state of flux. That's one of the cool things about it. Just because you don't want it to change doesn't mean it shouldn't. My only issue with large groups or missions is that they seek to avoid any fight whatsoever. They snatch a virtually undefended base, move to another sector and do the same thing. Prevailing game wisdom is "A good offence is the best defense." So the team your snatching bases from gets a group together and levels your base and grabs it. Then you have 60 guys who logged on to kill each other in the virtual skies completely defeating the entire purpose of the game by not fighting each other at all. Then you have guys like me who find the biggest red darbar on map and try to hunt the bad guys down. Many a night I log off in disgust because I spent the entire evening in a 5+ on 1. My fault??? Yep! But I get no pleasure from joining the horde or being the sixth guy in line to kill a lone defender who barely got his gear up in the wells. Eventually, if the hordes continue or get worse, guys like me will disappear from the game and the three or four kills the mission got as a result will dry up. Then there is nothing left but 60 guys bombing stuff they could bomb offline without having to pay 15 bucks to do it. So I'd rather play on the same map for months if there are fun fights to be had rather than just be on a perpetual hunt to see where the next mole pops up. I don't want to remove the land grab from the game but I want the fights to be a little more protracted than they are now. Large offensive missions have a big advantage. It's too easy to wipe out a base with overwhelming odds. This simple suggestion might make a few more fights happen and, at the very least, give me a shot at a fight if I show up late. Never fun to get up in the air as the base gets captured only to find 30 guys landing or hiding from me in ack.
-
You will be back in here in 6 months asking for something else to be changed to make the stalemated large maps easier to win the war and cycle them faster. But, you will require Hitech to tie one hand behind his back and hop on one foot to do it while not touching this previously asked for sacred cow.
This is any change for the sake of seeing something changed even if you have to come back and have something changed later to address the unintended consiquences of wanting any kind of change today.
In my OP and replies, I have specifically stated WHAT I think is wrong with the current "magic ack popping" system, HOW a 10 minute ack down period is likely to affect game play and WHY I think that change would be good for game play. That is hardly asking for a change "for the sake of seeing something changed".
Perhaps you missed the multiple times I've referenced the point of this being to promote better fights in the game and precisely how I think that might happen. (I put that point in bold text, so you note it this time.) I given a fair amount of thought to this idea before suggesting it. I have also followed up with specific details and suggestions.
I asked for suggestions of any negative "unintended consequences" this might cause. We even discussed the "recapture races" issue that existed once before. Clearly, that is not failing to think of consequences in advance, as you are suggesting with your reply above.
You brought up a point where a "chain of garrisons" would be required as a result of this idea, including an interesting, albeit irrelevant reference to the Mongols. While interesting, it only led me to believe you didn't understand my original post. I clearly explained how yours was an incorrect reading of my suggestion and would not have the consequence you suggest. Yet you've persisted with this "stalemate" claim, and I still think you are overstating that.
Maps have stalemated before, long before my suggestion, but not due to quickly recapturing fields. My suggestion is not even about the map -- it is about the fights that take place on it. I firmly believe it will not have the negative impact on "map resetting" that you seem convinced it would. So, if it makes you feel better, I will state here for the record that this idea is no "sacred cow" and if it somehow has a negative effect on the game, it can and should be changed (just as the "side switch time" sacred cow has been touched before). I further state, that I will not "require any one-legged hopping by HT" or anyone else. (You seriously overestimate my ability to "require" anything of Hitech or his game!)
Now you have changed your argument into this being a change for change's sake.
Bustr, you are clearly concerned with a "large maps stay in rotation for too long" issue, so I suggest you start your own suggestion thread about that. But please don't attack my suggestions in such a baseless manner as this.
I do expect you'll continue to post your trademark walls of rhetoric, complete with obfuscating references and numbered lists, though.
<S>
-
Ack should be resupped to pop makes it more realistic
-
To simplify the question:
Since the current programming allows all ack to reset upon capture, couldn't a field capture instead trigger all field/town ack to be "destroyed" while also setting a short rebuild time of 5 minutes (for ports/V-bases) or 10 minutes (for airfields/towns) at that point?
That is the crux of my suggestion.
I do like your suggestion for ack that was destroyed prior to capture taking longer to rebuild (i.e. +5 min to the 5/10 min rebuild time). Would that be that much harder to program in (since it was a condition PRIOR to capture and reset)?
<S>