Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: WWhiskey on July 21, 2013, 07:04:37 PM
-
Maybe increasing the number of buildings in town that have to be destroyed?
Other options?
When the new towns came into play, they had to be taken completely down for capture,, I'm not sure how much of it has to be taken down now but if it was a higher percentage, it could slow down map rotation a bit!
Jeff
-
... I'm not sure how much of it has to be taken down now but if it was a higher percentage, it could slow down map rotation a bit!
Jeff
Yeah, but so can a good fight!
-
When the new towns came into play, they had to be taken completely down for capture
And it brought gameplay almost to a stop, changing the dynamics in a bad way.
It's still much more difficult to capture bases than before, even with town requirement of 70(?)% and flag indicator we only have base captures at about half the rate than with the old towns all those years before.
-
Yeah, but so can a good fight!
iif it took longer to capture, there would be more of a chance at a good fight,, IMO.
70 percent now seems a bit to easy, Maybe 85%? Just a thought!
-
And it brought gameplay almost to a stop, changing the dynamics in a bad way.
It's still much more difficult to capture bases than before, even with town requirement of 70(?)% and flag indicator we only have base captures at about half the rate than with the old towns all those years before.
agreed,, I remember,,,, but 70. May be to little these days,,, as the players have gotten better at smash and grab,,, a little more of a challenge couldn't be a bad thing as long as its in small amounts!
Maybe even different amounts for different maps,,, no clue if that would even be possible!
-
agreed,, I remember,,,, but 70. May be to little these days,,, as the players have gotten better at smash and grab,,,
What makes you think they gotten 'better' at it?
When the new town was introduced, the rate of captures was halved (for the short time at 100%/no flag it was much less) and basically stayed at the same level ever since.
Or to put it the other way around, there is still twice as much combat / gametime per base capture compared to the old towns, and nothing much had changed since the 70%/flag adjustment
-
I miss the old 110 smash and grab or the 2 wirb town take down
-
IMO, GVs should be able to spawn directly into town or near it. It's already easy as hell for the VH to be taken down. Might serve to deter those vChemistJoker NOE raids or at least prolong them.
-
Whats the advantage to harder captures? I would think an impending map win would keep people on longer. If there were 1/2 as many map wins in a week, how would that improve the game?
-
Whats the advantage to harder captures? I would think an impending map win would keep people on longer. If there were 1/2 as many map wins in a week, how would that improve the game?
a harder capture would take more time and allow for a better window of defense ,,IMO
-
a harder capture would take more time and allow for a better window of defense ,,IMO
Which will be countered by more radical mission, i.e. bigger hordes.
It's a delicate balance... if you make base captures more difficult, chances are that the impact on gameplay will be the opposite of the intentions. When at some point the attacker figures that the only reasonable way to grab a base is a giant, annihilating suprise raid, you will get exactly this. And yes, it always can be worse than it now is ;)
At the time we had 100% of town, no flag indicator, the battles for bases had not been longer than today, but actually shorter. They were much likely to be aborted in the face of any resistance, as the chance for a capture radically dropped if determined defenders showed up.
The other danger: Players like to capture bases. They hate to defend. Not all, but the majority. We may don't like it, but it's probably not a good idea to alienate them too much...
And I have to repeat myself, we still have a very low rate of base captures compared to the times of old. :old:
-
Don't forget, we recently gained the ability to bring town buildings back up by dropping supplies at the town. That's made it more difficult to take bases that have a defender-friendly incoming GV spawn.
-
Don't forget, we recently gained the ability to bring town buildings back up by dropping supplies at the town. That's made it more difficult to take bases that have a defender-friendly incoming GV spawn.
Globally balanced by tying the town and town acks to the strats, thus potentially greatly increasing the downtimes.
The net effect was zero, meaning the overall rate of base captures didn't change notably.
-
Which will be countered by more radical mission, i.e. bigger hordes.
It's a delicate balance... if you make base captures more difficult, chances are that the impact on gameplay will be the opposite of the intentions. When at some point the attacker figures that the only reasonable way to grab a base is a giant, annihilating suprise raid, you will get exactly this. And yes, it always can be worse than it now is ;)
At the time we had 100% of town, no flag indicator, the battles for bases had not been longer than today, but actually shorter. They were much likely to be aborted in the face of any resistance, as the chance for a capture radically dropped if determined defenders showed up.
The other danger: Players like to capture bases. They hate to defend. Not all, but the majority. We may don't like it, but it's probably not a good idea to alienate them too much...
And I have to repeat myself, we still have a very low rate of base captures compared to the times of old. :old:
Personally I'd be ok with a bigger horde, as long as the was a big defensive horde there as well.
Hordes NOE, and make a grab for a base. If <---- big question here, defenders should show up and stop the attack the horde disappears and goes else were, more often than not the other front. So a fight starts, and then nothing until the horde is balked on the other front and they sneak back.
Making the bases tougher to grab will discourage the attackers just as much as defenders.
Whats needed is something to make defending a bit more ..... ummmm..... profitable?
-
Perhaps making Towns a bit easier to capture may make more of a fight. As Lusche points out...it is a delicate balance.
-
Knights couldn't capture a out house right now, much less a base! :bhead
-
I think hangar downtime should be longer. Especially since resupplying works better now.
-
I love how this is a flight sim and we are so worried about killing buildings :D
-
Maybe increasing the number of buildings in town that have to be destroyed?
Other options?
When the new towns came into play, they had to be taken completely down for capture,, I'm not sure how much of it has to be taken down now but if it was a higher percentage, it could slow down map rotation a bit!
Jeff
Really when will you guys ever learn the harder you make it the bigger the crowd that will show up to take the damn thing.
Leave it alone already.
-
I love how this is a flight sim and we are so worried about killing buildings :D
It's what warplanes do...jabo and strategic level bombing. Fighter planes exist to do or stop those activities :)
-
1 set of lancs, 2 passes on town = WF,
1 guy finishes the 4 outer edge guns that will be left after lanc pass. He moves into Cap once job done.
1 guy has troops waiting outside of town.
any extra players provide aerial cap.
Not 1 hangar dropped quick and effective capture with 3 players.
-
If the idea is to stop maps changing so quickly then just up the requirement for how many fields have to be captured. IIRC currently you need 20% of each of the other two sides' bases while holding 90% of your own. This could be increased to 25% or 30% of the other sides' bases. Better still go with Fester's idea and make it variable, so big maps stay at 20% and small maps go to 30%.
-
yes up the requirement on small maps. :aok
+1
-
As Snailman and Lyric have both said, if you make it harder, the more planes will be brought to hammer town and take down bases.
I think (at least for me ) the issue is that 20 guys in P-51s or P-38s can kill a base and basically avoid any interceptor on the way to the base. This creates poor gameplay IMO. But whatever is done is typically just compensated by more planes.
I'd rather see any ordnance over 500lbs perked for 1 perk base per anything that's not considered a bomber. Still might not stop, but it may cut down on big fighter destroy missions.
-
It would be nice if the game could indicate where large masses of enemy planes are in a better way than the current darbar. So if there are more than lets say 10 planes within icon range of each other then the opposing sides would see a big red X at that spot anywhere on the map.
-
I think hangar downtime should be longer. Especially since resupplying works better now.
I'm for this but in doing so would make bases easier to take IMO.
What about just requiring all hangers on the base to be down as well as the town? Seems like a simple solution to me :headscratch:
In doing so it would slow up the attacking forces from launching from that base for the next base grab wouldn't it?
Those are just my thoughts on the subject. Personally I'm fine with the way things are now. I'd prefer to see more map rotations actually.
-
I think (at least for me ) the issue is that 20 guys in P-51s or P-38s can kill a base and basically avoid any interceptor on the way to the base. This creates poor gameplay IMO.
:aok
-
Bases should be easier to take but the war win should require more bases taken. More fights with possibly smaller hordes would be a good thing.
What about just requiring all hangers on the base to be down as well as the town? Seems like a simple solution to me :headscratch:
That is basically what we have now. The usual tactic is all about suppressing the base (basically eliminating the fight) and then work on the town. Lame steamrolling stuff.
The fight should be away from the fields, IMO. Move the towns out a bit and give multiple GV spawns to them. Remove town ack and require 100% destruction for the white flag. Then beef up base ack to keep vulchers at bay. This way, the towns are where the fight is. No ack coverage from the field, so defenders will have to come out and play if they want to keep it. More base ack will let them actually do that.
-
As Snailman and Lyric have both said, if you make it harder, the more planes will be brought to hammer town and take down bases.
I think (at least for me ) the issue is that 20 guys in P-51s or P-38s can kill a base and basically avoid any interceptor on the way to the base. This creates poor gameplay IMO. But whatever is done is typically just compensated by more planes.
I'd rather see any ordnance over 500lbs perked for 1 perk base per anything that's not considered a bomber. Still might not stop, but it may cut down on big fighter destroy missions.
This is the problem I see. 1000lb eggs should be perked for fighters. Tired of watching helpless as 30 FIGHTERS come in to level a base.
-
. Tired of watching helpless as 30 FIGHTERS come in to level a base.
+1
A greater percentage of bases might work as well to slow down map rotation
Towns go down very easy,,, 2 or 3 guys can take them with ease. I agree,,,, so bringing thirty fighters with bombs is overkill,, the only defense is resupply,, which is also easy to suppress by taking the vh at the supplying field ,,and not very combat orientated ! In other words without a greater ability to defend against base capture,, town takes are suppressing combat,, I still like to think the game is supposed to promote combat,, in order to do that, something needs to change in the ability to defend
Another idea might be to stop the ability to immediately resupply the town after capture in order to slow the enemy down by defending for at least a moment or two and the other side the chance to counter attack for the retake!
By making town tougher to take,, IE a bigger percentage,,you increase the amount of skill required to take it and or give defenders more time to respond! IMO
the best fights I remember are the ones in which the base was saved .. Captures come and go ,,but that time when a few of us defended the base and beat the horde,, those are the battles I remember.
I don't know what the answer is but I know it is no fun upping against overwhelming odds only to get ganged by 30 p-38's who also dropped all hangers so no fight would exist ! Maybe if the hangers didn't go down so easy?
Like I said I don't know!
-
+1
A greater percentage of bases might work as well to slow down map rotation
Towns go down very easy,,, 2 or 3 guys can take them with ease. I agree,,,, so bringing thirty fighters with bombs is overkill,, the only defense is resupply,, which is also easy to suppress by taking the vh at the supplying field ,,and not very combat orientated ! In other words without a greater ability to defend against base capture,, town takes are suppressing combat,, I still like to think the game is supposed to promote combat,, in order to do that, something needs to change in the ability to defend
Another idea might be to stop the ability to immediately resupply the town after capture in order to slow the enemy down by defending for at least a moment or two and the other side the chance to counter attack for the retake!
By making town tougher to take,, IE a bigger percentage,,you increase the amount of skill required to take it and or give defenders more time to respond! IMO
the best fights I remember are the ones in which the base was saved .. Captures come and go ,,but that time when a few of us defended the base and beat the horde,, those are the battles I remember.
I don't know what the answer is but I know it is no fun upping against overwhelming odds only to get ganged by 30 p-38's who also dropped all hangers so no fight would exist ! Maybe if the hangers didn't go down so easy?
Like I said I don't know!
I wouldn't mind seeing a larger town. Similar to 1-2 "squares" of Strats :devil
I really like Greebo's suggestion on smaller maps +1 to that :aok
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
the town building could have dynamic hardness that would vary with the number of people in the arena
-
Symbolically what is the deference between a WW2 fighter mission that strafed up an airfield disabling all of the parked available fighters to up and defend. Or AH P38's showing up with bombs and disabling the fighter hangers? In WW2 attacking airfields was by design a high speed surprise attack as much as the planners could account for.
The goal was to damage\destroy enemy aircraft on the ground. Not allow them into the air. In ww2 if anyone tried to roll and up they were strafed just like we do in our game.
The complaint against a hoard of P38 jabo killing the fighter hangers in a single pass, infers not wanting players to approach this game from the same inclination that their grandfathers did in ww2. This would be disabling the enemies ability to fight as quickly as possible, then kill as many of him at the same time who remain to try and fight. Or a veiled complaint that somehow all actions in this game should be forced into an equality of number versus number of players participating rather than the chaotic miss match of player numbers hallmarked in the MA. Like organized team sports versus ad hock regional Militia attacks against lightly defended storage outposts.
Numbers will always matter in a game with no standing organized forces and everything is voluntary, chaotic and capricious.
Just like allowing M3 to resupply towns has put a strategic crimp into base captures. It might be time to perk 1000lb bombs for fighters, and not change the requirements to bombing down hangers or the town buildings. You may end up with faster more lightning like town destruction jabo attacks with troops better organized and standing close by. I'm sure the GV crowd would like this one until the jabo guys became better at hitting what they drop on with smaller bombs.
After all, we have become lazy and abusive with the force of the 1000lb bomb like the BFG9000 was in Doom with god hacks.
-
We aren't supposed to play like we are really in WWII
Yes we are
No we are NOT!
YES WE ARE!
Bite me!
Your Mom hates you!
DA?
Come at me!
That was fun
Yeah catch ya in the MA
*repeat
-
I'm not sure I want bases to be more difficult to capture. When I'm online there's only about 20 players in flight in the whole arena.
-
the town building could have dynamic hardness that would vary with the number of people in the arena
I would love to see the dynamic hardness of the town to be tied to the number of enemy in the dar circle. Bring a small crowd and the town goes down easy, bring a big crowd and you had better hope each guy hits his target! :devil
-
I would love to see the dynamic hardness of the town to be tied to the number of enemy in the dar circle. Bring a small crowd and the town goes down easy, bring a big crowd and you had better hope each guy hits his target! :devil
different schemes are possible, and it could apply to all objects
-
Dynamically making objects easier and harder is abusing the paying customers.
Perking 1000lb bombs in fighters is removing player abuse of the process. When there is only 20 players in the MA as one poster says he faces as a chronic issue. Make the 1000lb bomb free for fighters using the ENY function.
No one forced to enjoy exotic dynamic global adjustments of primary game objects imposed on them will enjoy it let alone understand or believe it is fair. Other than the bored geniuses who thought it might relieve their own boredom because they get to watch their exotic progeny screw with the paying customers.
Order and control imposed for peoples own good does not make them more fun. It just makes the imposers happier.
-
There are a lot of "good" ideas that could help the situation. The new towns are light years ahead of the old towns, they are much more realistic in layout and in appearance. Kudos to HTC for that. I also give major kudos to HTC for attaching the down times of the towns and strategic OBJ's to the health of the strategic industrial complex (factories). That went light years ahead in adding a legitimate strategic element to AH. More kudos.
HTC can't stop the horde mentality, they can only adjust the gross balance via implementing the ENY scale. But again, that can't stop the horde monkeys marching towards a base like 'tards banging on drums in a kiddie parade. So what can they do? Nothing.
All I can do is shake my head and wonder how it can be fun being in a horde of 30 attacking a field and allowing NO chance to defend while wiping out hangers, ack, town buildings, etc. Anytime a defender is able to squeeze through and get in the air there are 8 guys immediately shooting over each others shoulder's while trying for the easy mode kill. I certainly dont find the enjoyment in that, it must be the kid mentality these days in having the "winz" mean everything.
About the only thing defenders can do is to Hail Mary enough M3's in to the town and resupply it fast enough to bring up the ack guns or town buildings before the troops get in to the MR.
I think there are a lot of little things that HTC could do to adjust the game so that hordes are not needed, but it wouldn't stop the hordes. They would still be part of AH. Total and complete dominance at any cost is the name of their game. I'd like to see HTC change the hardness setting on the different OBJ (town buildings, ammo bunkers, barracks, etc). Not that changing the hardness settings on town buildings would do much vs 30 P51D's armed with 2k bombs, but it seems to be that different size buildings would take different amounts of ord to destroy.
MOST of all... I'd like to see HTC chance the % of buildings that make the white go up from month to month **and not say a word**. :aok
-
What I can't figure how such a huge percentage of players in game are horde members and how such huge number of folks on the BBS apparently aren't part of hordes.
-
What I can't figure how such a huge percentage of players in game are horde members and how such huge number of folks on the BBS apparently aren't part of hordes.
That's the AH paradox.
Nobody HO's
Nobody runs
Nobody bomb****s
Nobody hordes.
:noid
-
Hoard
1. - It's good strategy and fun to assault a field with a large group of friends. You will have fun, stay alive, and possibly capture a field.
1. Neg - It's a personal affront to your dignity and sense of fairness to have a hoard whizz down your back because you are brave enough to up against them from the field they are hoarding. In some cases repeatedly.
-------------------------------------------------
Running
2. - It's good strategy to run out far enough that you can either rtb and land your kills. Or reverse from the merge without the possibility of watching your con trade nose for tail in your 6-view, and 1 second later be 200 off your 6 shooting you. Running out off the merge gives you the separation to turn around.
2.Neg - Everyone who rtb's is a coward even if they don't have the fuel or ammo to put up a fight. I do, or I wouldn't be here trying to pick you. Everyone is a looser because they only pull lame reversal moves off the merge and I'm bored killing worthless players with my superior skillz which obviously scares them into running from me. They should all stop running and just die because they are lame and should play this game the way I do because my ACM skillz make me superior than them.
------------------------------------------------------
HOing
3. It's good strategy when you reverse off the merge and now it's 5 versus 1 when you could have sworn only the two of you were in that sector. You see the con tracking under your nose 2 Oclock down to 10 Oclock after the reversal on the merge. Every time you try a reversal off a merge you watch the con in your rear view trade nose for tail, never loose E and crawl up your kester. You pull off one more circle and put the zero gravity UFO out of your misery.
3. Neg - You didn't put all those hours into learning ACM just to have some coward HO you at the merge and not let you burn them with those superior skillz for being lame and skillzless. You didn't choose to dive under their nose in a tried and true evasive just to have some coward HO(snap shoot) you. You don't HO anyone because you learned the proper way to perform a front quarter angle snap shot on the second merge even if it's from 11:56pm crossing to 00:04am on the merge. Technically that's not head on if you ask anyone who knows these things.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bombing ****s
4. I'm assuming tanks. It's good strategy to bomb tanks often and with the largest bombs in the greatest quantities possible. After all tanks can kill airplanes at will with single shot magic guns.
4. Neg - Tanks are helpless victims around airplanes with bombs. Tanks should have tank only play areas and airplanes should be restricted by game programing from being able to fly in that area on each map. Tanks were the heros of ww2 and killed any airplane that came near them or Hitech would not have programed that into the tanks in this game.
-
:rofl :rofl. Lol great stuff bustr, and describes a great number of player's.:
-
Hoard
1. - It's good strategy and fun to assault a field with a large group of friends. You will have fun, stay alive, and possibly capture a field.
1. Neg - It's a personal affront to your dignity and sense of fairness to have a hoard whizz down your back because you are brave enough to up against them from the field they are hoarding. In some cases repeatedly.
-------------------------------------------------
Running
2. - It's good strategy to run out far enough that you can either rtb and land your kills. Or reverse from the merge without the possibility of watching your con trade nose for tail in your 6-view, and 1 second later be 200 off your 6 shooting you. Running out off the merge gives you the separation to turn around.
2.Neg - Everyone who rtb's is a coward even if they don't have the fuel or ammo to put up a fight. I do, or I wouldn't be here trying to pick you. Everyone is a looser because they only pull lame reversal moves off the merge and I'm bored killing worthless players with my superior skillz which obviously scares them into running from me. They should all stop running and just die because they are lame and should play this game the way I do because my ACM skillz make me superior than them.
------------------------------------------------------
HOing
3. It's good strategy when you reverse off the merge and now it's 5 versus 1 when you could have sworn only the two of you were in that sector. You see the con tracking under your nose 2 Oclock down to 10 Oclock after the reversal on the merge. Every time you try a reversal off a merge you watch the con in your rear view trade nose for tail, never loose E and crawl up your kester. You pull off one more circle and put the zero gravity UFO out of your misery.
3. Neg - You didn't put all those hours into learning ACM just to have some coward HO you at the merge and not let you burn them with those superior skillz for being lame and skillzless. You didn't choose to dive under their nose in a tried and true evasive just to have some coward HO(snap shoot) you. You don't HO anyone because you learned the proper way to perform a front quarter angle snap shot on the second merge even if it's from 11:56pm crossing to 00:04am on the merge. Technically that's not head on if you ask anyone who knows these things.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bombing ****s
4. I'm assuming tanks. It's good strategy to bomb tanks often and with the largest bombs in the greatest quantities possible. After all tanks can kill airplanes at will with single shot magic guns.
4. Neg - Tanks are helpless victims around airplanes with bombs. Tanks should have tank only play areas and airplanes should be restricted by game programing from being able to fly in that area on each map. Tanks were the heros of ww2 and killed any airplane that came near them or Hitech would not have programed that into the tanks in this game.
That... that would be totally sig worthy if it wasn't a small novel. Very nice Bustr. :cheers:
I really like the idea of ENY (ing) the bombs.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
how would dynamic hardness would be a good customer abuse? It would encourage hitting multiple fields at once instead of just hording one, multiplying the number of small fights over the map
-
An idea I've proposed a few times before is to bias score relative to the numbers of friendly and enemy players in the local area. So when a player scores a kill the FE would tot up the number of red and green icons visible at the time and apply a multiplier. Lots of green and few red would lower the points scored for that kill and vice versa. This would give those players who care about score an incentive to fight hordes rather than joining them.
-
We in this forum don't constitute the majority of players.
People just want to be with other people having fun and hopefully not loosing(getting killed). Landing a few kills is a big moment for most of them as icing on the fun experience. Dynamic anything is to force players to act outside of their personal interests. It always sounds good and looks good on paper where it's always calculated perfectly and rationally in the fantasy of it's creator. It never accounts for the irrational reasons that players are motivated to pay $14.95 and the unintended consequences you can't cover in your good looking fantasy. Three hours a week is all you can impose restrictions on some of the customers as the door fee to play SFO. Past that they will eventually stop coming to the MA so your controls can be imposed on them 24x7 for $14.95 a month.
That's why dynamic controls abuse the customer(S) and drive them away. ENY and perking object use is a tool to control player abuse of other players which is easier to understand on a fairness basis. Dynamic controls always sound like someone has to get the shaft and left holding the dirty end of the stick no matter how much PR you throw at fun seeking average customers. Dynamic controls are no more than sticks hidden behind a curtain. The customer is still getting beaten for not following the controls even if he's fooled into thinking the curtain bashing his brains out is softer than the stick and that makes his pain OK.
-
We in this forum don't constitute the majority of players.
People just want to be with other people having fun and hopefully not loosing(getting killed). Landing a few kills is a big moment for most of them as icing on the fun experience. Dynamic anything is to force players to act outside of their personal interests. It always sounds good and looks good on paper where it's always calculated perfectly and rationally in the fantasy of it's creator. It never accounts for the irrational reasons that players are motivated to pay $14.95 and the unintended consequences you can't cover in your good looking fantasy. Three hours a week is all you can impose restrictions on some of the customers as the door fee to play SFO. Past that they will eventually stop coming to the MA so your controls can be imposed on them 24x7 for $14.95 a month.
That's why dynamic controls abuse the customer(S) and drive them away. ENY and perking object use is a tool to control player abuse of other players which is easier to understand on a fairness basis. Dynamic controls always sound like someone has to get the shaft and left holding the dirty end of the stick no matter how much PR you throw at fun seeking average customers. Dynamic controls are no more than sticks hidden behind a curtain. The customer is still getting beaten for not following the controls even if he's fooled into thinking the curtain bashing his brains out is softer than the stick and that makes his pain OK.
No, the dynamic controls steer the selfish players who gather up in massive hordes in order to seal club others. The selfish ones get gratification of the total unfairness of the fight - and the clubbed party most likely logs off in disgust tilting the balance even more.
There should be strict penalties in place for hording.
-
There should be strict penalties in place for hording.
Why and how would you implement them?
While your theory may be true to an extent, the overall premise of game play is "winning the war". Why else would HTC award the winning chess piece perk points for the conquest?
Yes, WW2 aerial combat is what lures the majority of players to the game. And, yes, a knock down, protracted, uninterrupted 1 v 1 fight can be an adrenalin rush, but there's no way that can be guaranteed by HTC or the players. Like it or not, the horde exist and will continue to roll bases.
/.02 cents
-
Why and how would you implement them?
While your theory may be true to an extent, the overall premise of game play is "winning the war". Why else would HTC award the winning chess piece perk points for the conquest?
Yes, WW2 aerial combat is what lures the majority of players to the game. And, yes, a knock down, protracted, uninterrupted 1 v 1 fight can be an adrenalin rush, but there's no way that can be guaranteed by HTC or the players. Like it or not, the horde exist and will continue to roll bases.
/.02 cents
I agree. HTC can't restrict or penalize those who congregate together like sheep and feel the need to take the best of the best with 30v1 odds to capture the base. All they can do is apply a macro level balancing slider (ENY) and adjust from there. So if all three teams have 100 players on and 1 team has 30+ player lifting together constantly and capturing base after base, there really isn't anything HTC can do, and on the same token there really isnt anything they should do. Now if the players numbers were 100/70/50, then yes have the ENY kick in and restrict the better planes (no more P51D for j00!), but no fear the second most common choice for the drummers in the 'tard parade is the P38L and the ENY for that is 15 (iirc).
I for one think there is too much emphasis on "winning the war", I would rather see maps play out longer. There are many more things to do than to capture a field, and none of them take a horde to accomplish. I wish that HTC would consider A: removing the flag in the towns; B: increasing the % of buildings that need to go down (but still no flag); and C: increase the % of fields needed to "winz the war". Also, if there was some way for HTC to change the % of buildings that needed to go down before capture based on the % of fields owned, I think that would create more of a see-saw effect. The closer the enemy is to your front door the more intense and desperate the fighting usually is, so why not reflect that?
-
I miss the old 110 smash and grab or the 2 wirb town take down
This town capture change killed the ER arena because it only had 10 to 15 guys on it to start with and now it is a ghost town. I liked the old town capture system because it made map changes much faster and we didn't have the same map for a week and a half. I can't see how making it even harder to take a base help game play. Here is a plan, Get up and defend your base with gusto when it is attacked and if you get shot down HTC will give you another plane right away.
-
Offensive groups will always have the advantage in the MA because of the short distances between bases. It takes time to put together a mission and launch it. It takes just as much time to put up a reasonable defense. Because of the short distances, fighter missions can easily shut down a base before a reasonable defense can be assembled. No one really wants to fly four sectors to fight in the MA so distances aren't going to be increased. And they shouldn't be either. The bomber guys have a tough job as it is so I don't think increasing target hardness is a viable solution. What I would like to see is less dependence on heavy American fighters closing bases in a single pass which is why I think applying a one perk cost to 1000lb eggs for fighters is a possible solution. Perks would be lost if you don't do damage to a target and maintained if you do and survive to land. I think it would add several dimensions to the game. Medium bombers might come into play more, the frequency of heavy fighters closing a base AND providing their own CAP would slow down, it'll make people think twice before just pickeling their eggs if the mission does get caught before reaching its target, the bomber guys will become more of an asset to base captures rather than bait for the 30 fighters who already closed the base. As to the OP, I think the base capture is pretty fair as it is. Especially with the ability to resupply the town.
-
I'd say easier capture would be better, if anything. Too many hordes, and even one defender can spoil a capture by a small group.
Imo, the key lies in detection, not in the actual capture. Reward small groups work reduced visibility on radar and darbar, punish hordes with a lack of stealth.
Reduce the size of the darbar sectors, (1/4th the current size), but have them all tied to the same map sector. 10+ people in close proximity = no NOE, and extended dot dar range.
Individuals get a bonus of 100ft NOE, and 3/4th dort dar range.
2-5 gets just the NOE bonus. 5-10 has current settings.
-
No, the dynamic controls steer the selfish players who gather up in massive hordes in order to seal club others. The selfish ones get gratification of the total unfairness of the fight - and the clubbed party most likely logs off in disgust tilting the balance even more.
There should be strict penalties in place for hording.
It doesn't always lead to grief counceling. Sometimes the clubbed party learns to stop doing stupid things like taking off from bases that are under attack by a heartless gang of selfish players conspiring to inflict emotional distress upon the tender and innocent.
They Horde because they hate our freedom. :salute
-
Everything that gets proposed here is to eliminate the emotional tendencies of 80% of the paying customers. Its some form of punishment for not being a die hard elite member of the 20% who truly appreciate the "Flight of Sim" Way and orthodoxy. You eliminate the 80%, which dynamic stick beatings for not playing in a proscribed manner will accomplish. You eliminate this game.
Complex dynamic human nature control processes blow up in the face of basic simple human nature and lazyness. Stop trying to control people to make yourselves happy. The doors were thrown open to the lesser unworthy masses when the price was reduced to $14.95. Now you sound like country club snobs who want to keep the riff raff out. Except you need their monthly dues to keep your golf course running. So you lie to the "riff raff" with complex "by laws" that exclude the riff raff from ever setting foot on the Tee if the board of trustees agree to pass them.
Eventually in human associations like this game, the 20% take it upon themselves to punish the "riff raff" as the reason for their perceived lack of fun. Doesn't matter if it's the "ACM Skillz", "Armchair Stratego Generals" or "Tank Gawds". You all take your turns identifying the "Rif Raff" as the source of your unhappiness with the game and trying to convince Hitech to take your word that they need constant beatings with dynamic processes to save you from your boredom.
-
My intention was not all that!
And one of the ideas that I found interesting was making base capture easier instead of harder!
A lot of good ideas came from this,, and probably some bad ones,, I'm not sure if I like the perked ord or not, would it be plane specific or across the board?
Anyway,,,I digress,, I'm against taking away anyone's ability to play or to fly what they want,, when they want,, I also think that large raids that shut down everything and pretty much stop anyone's ability to defend cause players to log off!
If I don't have enough squadeis on to defend, I'm left to go find some other place to fly or tank,, away from the actual fight,, I doubt I'm alone in that feeling. So maybe if bases could be captured by one player again, it would in courage more spread out combat and shrink the horde that way.
One thing I know,, discussion never hurt anything,, if something good comes of it , great,,, if not. So be it!
Jeff
-
I think (at least for me ) the issue is that 20 guys in P-51s or P-38s can kill a base and basically avoid any interceptor on the way to the base. This creates poor gameplay IMO. But whatever is done is typically just compensated by more planes.
This! And the whole horde capture (for me at least) was anti climactic. It was intense for the few of us that contested them, but it was also frustrating and almost always hopeless. And on the side of the attackers I imagine it is quite anti clamactic also. I believe even the horde wishes for a struggle, one they can survive and win ofcourse, same as everyone else. But the struggle was rare because many potential defenders don't want to bail from an existing flight or they think it is like beating your face against a wall or they don't wish to give easy kills to the horde etc etc, being vulched repeatedly (trying to get 1 chance at a vulcher or maybe even a goon) takes a very stubborn and self immolating soul :D. The failure of a struggle IMHO is that defenders do not up in consistant #s to contest the base. And under the present circumstances, nor should they. Even if they did manage to bring higher #s to bear the game would stagnate terribly as captures might never happen then! Missions have the real potential to create more struggle in one mission than any "purist" could find in an entire week, IF folks could be motivated thru "risk" and "reward" to defend.
A determined horde had all the advantages with little risk and little "anti climactic" reward.
The "little risk" acts like a magnet, attracting many folks to join, kind of like a herd, most folks like to be part of something and be together, some new, some vets etc.
Little reward: they get nothing other than some "country channel" WTGs and high 5s.
The defenders have "high risk" meaning the chance of them going to the tower against such odds are almost 100%
Little reward: there is no reward for the defender other than his own personal machismo and ego as a spoiler, there is no reason for the average player to risk defending when he knows in a couple hours a horde from his country will most likely take the base back in the same "little risk, little reward" fashion.
I think there needs to be some kind of reward structure that will encourage risk. Funny thing is the reward does not have to be the same for both attack or defense. Let me splain:
Rewards for a successful capture mission could be perk points.
Conversely, reward for a successful defense is preventing the attackers from getting the perks----SPOILER!
Now we have reward or "incentive", Lets talk "risk"
Risk for the initial base attack is the same, small but now there is a possible reward.
Risk for the defense is the same, High with the same reward--spoiler. How do we get the risk down to incentivize some spoilers?
My idea (as I've said in the past) is to have basically a "dead base timer". Meaning after the attackers get their 10 troops in the base goes in to "hibernation" for a certain amount of time with an absolute minimum of 10 minutes. During this time it is unusable to any country, it will rebuild itself normally but will not be usable in any sense. Even the ack will remain dormant until one of 3 things happen.
1 - The attackers can put more troops in to shorten the timer. The absolute minimum could not be shortened, but after that each troop entered could remove say 1 minute of time. So a mission timed at 30 minutes could be shortened to the minimum with 20 extra troops inserted.
2 - The defenders can counter by getting "double the amount of troops in the maproom to offset the attackers, upon which the base would immediately revert to the original owning country.
3 - The timer times out, at which time the attacking country would own it fully functional.
I believe this idea will lower the "risk" for the defenders cause they now would have a little time on their side, and could plan a response if they so choose.
This idea also raises the "risk" for the attackers, as they now would have to defend their "potential capture" or force it with greater vigor.
I think this idea creates risk and reward for both sides and incentivizes struggle, which I believe most folks want.
Maybe the "mission generator" could be altered to allow some control over "risk/reward". IE, If I started a mission maybe i could choose the timer which would directly relate to perk reward. So I could choose say 30 minute mission for say 60 perks for all joiners.
Anyway, I'm blathering on but I think there is a way to create the "struggle" that most folks enjoy and seek.
:salute :cheers:
JUGgler
-
stop awarding perk points for map reset.
-
stop awarding perk points for map reset.
I don't really think that is a reward enough for people to horde fields. I truly think that for some players they gauge their self worth and their own ability on how many "winz" (base captures and maps won), they get. Seriously. Likewise, stop and think how many players run at the first sign of losing their advantage in a dog fight. Instead of clawing their way back to the advantage they run. Those are the same people who tie their fun to the number of kills landed (name in lights), their rank/score position, and how much they can light up 200 with trash talk.
I think there is too much emphasis on winning the map. That is the focal point. HTC could open that up somewhat by making it easier to stop the base rolling not right then and there at the field being swarmed by thirty P51D's, but rather allowing for the fuel to be reduced to %50, and a lower hardness setting for barracks (make it easier for more planes to take them down via strafing, etc). Currently, the only way to slow a horde is to take down ords at the prospective launching fields or to intercept them as they make their way towards their next victim.
If HTC were to open up the strategic dynamics in the field there would be more options available for those of us who refuse to try and up at a field being horded by 30 enemy fighters.