Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: SPKmes on December 02, 2014, 02:31:24 PM
-
I don't think you should be able to see an enemies spawn point...GV and PT
I know I will probably get jumped on for this but I find it strange that I know exactly where not to put a boat or where to look for incoming GV's..
Granted once you find it you will l know where it is but to be shown where exactly it is from the get go....people like me just sit and pluck M3's till they up... It won't stop this but I won't be able to just fly straight there... I could and some will have there own maps with it marked and that's fine.... intel is great.... shouldn't just be given on a platter.... same with the PT spawns....any good driver will keep the boats away from them.... sure they are not a big threat...but it is still something I feel shouldn't just be there for all to see.
-
Wishes have been proffered from making the random circle larger to allowing the player to select his own drop point across a mini map of the spawn area. Even a consideration to an auto buffer moving the available spawn locations away from campers in the mini map selection spawn area. As for PT, they would probably make more sense if the game had a different kind of shipping for them to attack.
The spawner(s) knows the base is there and fixed where the defending vehicles will up from. The spawners jabo know this to. In effect the spawn destination is no different than two GV bases 5000yds apart from each other. One just happens to have an airfield attached to it. Which never stops aircraft from reducing the airfield to a non contender for control of that real-estate.
Unlike our air combat which often turns into an all night game of peeka boo because many players these days are afraid to loose. The spawn points force players to face each other. Capriciously at times when it comes to PT.
This kind of wish usually shows up after the OP gets a drubbing or his feelings hurt. Then wants HiTech to change the game to make him feel better.
You are asking for something to be taken away without offering something in it's place to benefit those who currently rely on that something without your negative feelings about it. That is not adding to the game with your wish.
-
You are asking for something to be taken away without offering something in it's place to benefit those who currently rely on that something without your negative feelings about it. That is not adding to the game with your wish.
Bustr gets it.
-
Hi Buster....
I am only thinking that the little arrows that point to exactly where the spawn point is gets removed from the map, if you don't own the base it originates from... for ground defenders you know where the enemy base lays so the spawn will be in that line somewhere...once found it can be camped till the heart is content.... I just find it funny that i can up and defend and go straight to the spawn point on my map without any question of where it might be and kill M3's or what ever ups...
with out it I will find the spawn point but that extra 30's might just help out the poor ole M3 that ups to set his men free...
it would work the other way too when trying to run in supplies to a town.... as it is now...if the call goes out about a resupply on a field trying to be taken.... I head straight for the little yellow arrow on my map... once again...that extra 30 seconds could allow the resupply... once found though the spawn point is capped
Need to defend ... up a storch and find that spawn... then direct people to it.... camp away
CV's i can just stay away from the little purple lines... If I didn't know where it was I could get a surprise attack on my boat.... but now I know and get the heck out of dodge and stay away from there.
I feel sorry for the poor people that I wait for without any work on my part
The add to it whilst taking something away..... use a storch... it is what it was implemented for.
-
Are you feeling sorry for the M3 driver, or were you the M3 driver?
-
When the HQ is bombed, the result should be the removal of spawn points on the map. Since no darbars is ok with HTC, no visible spawn points should be as well.
-
I am feeling sorry for the M3 driver.
Sorry I had to rush off and didn't finish properly.
I take away spawn point indicators...and add immersion
Well in my funny little mind anyway
It isn't just M3's... I see a flashing town...strap on some bombs...head to town and work my way out in a search pattern directly to the spawn arrow...
some smart ones will drive sideways from the spawn... but most take a direct route...
Even with a base that has three enemy spawns I just up head to town out to a spawn point back to town out to the next spawn point etc etc....Until they get smart and up lots of gv's and flackers... then I cry hahaha
-
Wishers tried to get the random area increased, and some the ability for the spawner to target his jump point with a mini map of the spawn area. I suspect for as many M3 get nailed, that many get in and cause people to wish HiTech had never revamped the resupply for towns. I've watched more base captures fail these days for not remembering to watch the spawn for M3.
-
When the HQ is bombed, the result should be the removal of spawn points on the map. Since no darbars is ok with HTC, no visible spawn points should be as well.
Lets just remove all icons while we are at it... and keep killshooter on :devil
-
Lets just remove all icons while we are at it... and keep killshooter on :devil
Base icons too. :D
-
The spawn camping game is a joke. its not "forcing players to face one another" Its nothing more then mindless whackamole most of the time. And simulates ground combat about as much. Its the primary reason why I dont often play GVs
Logically speaking IRL you may be able to bushwhack from an area once and maybe even a few times. But eventually an enemy figures out that enemy contact is made in a specific area and takes a different approach to avoid or thwart the bushwhack.
And suddenly being surrounded by enemy isnt how bushwhacks work anyway. What in a normal world has to happen is someone wanders into an ambush area not noticing the trap having been laid for them which requires slightly more skill and thought then selecting a spot where they know an enemy will be magically appearing.
I'd favor a more fluid spawn location where the spawned in vehicle never spawns within short range of the defender and certainly never into the middle of a series of defenders. The farther out to a spawn a defender drives. The farther out the spawn location is.
the attacker may still end up driving into an ambush. But he will at least have had the chance to move and possibly spot the ambush ahead of time
-
for ground defenders you know where the enemy base lays so the spawn will be in that line somewhere...
Actually, when a map is designed, the spawn points can be put anywhere. There is nothing to stop the designer from having the spawn point on the far side of a base instead of stopping short between them. It's just that the spawned vehicles face the direction of the arrow, so they would be facing away from a base if the point is past the base, which may be why pretty much every spawn stops between bases.
It would make for interesting ops if enemy spawns weren't visible and there were multiple points around a base. Would definitely give more value to having someone in the air with a Fi 156.
-
It would make for interesting ops if enemy spawns weren't visible
30 minutes after such a terrain would come up for the first time I would have a printed map next to my screen showing all the spawns. ;)
-
The spawn camping game is a joke. its not "forcing players to face one another" Its nothing more then mindless whackamole most of the time. And simulates ground combat about as much. Its the primary reason why I dont often play GVs
ToMato TomAto... Those that do play the GV game, enjoy it it seems. It doesn't really effect the air game, so why the hate?
-
IMO dredriock gets it ...... But Lusche is right as well.
Re PT spawns there is no reason IMO why there cannot be at least 5 fanned around every coastal base (Gv, air or port). Set so any CV close enough to put AA over said base risks having PT's in its midst. It's really a terrain builders thing not a COAD thing.
Eventually I would wish a PT could spawn at any point on a given radius and that we had Spawn roads for vehicles..... But obviously that would require input if it was the chosen route.
-
ToMato TomAto... Those that do play the GV game, enjoy it it seems. It doesn't really effect the air game, so why the hate?
Because I used to enjoy it before it became whackamole. And I would like to occasionally play GVs. But to me the spawncamp whackamole ranks (as in smell) of nothing even remotely resembling what a GV battle should be about.
In the air we try and replicate within a certain degree reason what air combat would be like using various maneuvers
We do see that sometimes on the ground. But most of the time its just whackamole.
Why is tanktown so popular? It aint spawncamp whackamole where a bunch of drunkards sit around and wait for some masochist to keep upping only to get clubbed on the head before he can even identify where the rounds are coming from. Its about fire and movement. Gaining and holding position.
-
ToMato TomAto... Those that do play the GV game, enjoy it it seems. It doesn't really effect the air game, so why the hate?
You're basicaly saying its fine the way it is. Im saying it can be done better. MUCH better
-
I think hitech said that the spawn area can be changed. As it is now you spawn randomly in an 1000 Sq ft area. If that area was was increased to 5000 Sq ft area it would make the walk a mole aspect a bit tougher. Maybe a bigger are than that even.
-
You're basicaly saying its fine the way it is.
No, I am saying it's a large portion of people like the way it is.
Im saying it can be done better. MUCH better
Much better as defined by you...
The wishlist is full of things that would benefit one playing style while causing a detriment to another. "perk ords", "perk field guns", "perk the LA" and my favorite "fix the collision model".... Even looking at your suggestion on a movable spawn, I can see a way to game it an mess with a GV attack with nothing more than a jeep and 10 minutes...
It's a lot easier to complain, than it is to think through a solution, many of which HTC has already considered.
-
I think hitech said that the spawn area can be changed. As it is now you spawn randomly in an 1000 Sq ft area.
Where did you get that number from? It's actually much larger, at least by factor of 5,000!
-
I think hitech said that the spawn area can be changed. As it is now you spawn randomly in an 1000 Sq ft area. If that area was was increased to 5000 Sq ft area it would make the walk a mole aspect a bit tougher. Maybe a bigger are than that even.
It's is currently set to approximately 7 million sq feet.
1500 ft radius circle
HiTech
-
No, I am saying it's a large portion of people like the way it is.
Because thats all they know.
My wife didnt like lobster at all. Till she had it
-
It's is currently set to approximately 7 million sq feet.
1500 ft radius circle
HiTech
Which means my own testing result came reasonably close :banana:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/spawntest_zps8c916675.jpg)
-
All you have to do is not drive directly from a spawn point to another point (base/town/enemy spawn) in a straight line.
When you drive directly from a spawn you are very easy to find and kill. This is why most GVers are easy to bomb****. This is also why guys like DR7 can rack up tons of kills in a M18.
Guys like the OP make it very easy.
-
All you have to do is not drive directly from a spawn point to another point (base/town/enemy spawn) in a straight line.
When you drive directly from a spawn you are very easy to find and kill. This is why most GVers are easy to bomb****. This is also why guys like DR7 can rack up tons of kills in a M18.
Guys like the OP make it very easy.
Hmmm wondering if the thread was read ...if so not well comprehended (to be fair getting what is in my into text does come out strange) I am taking the easy path to find the GV's...that is the whole point of my ....wish....thing is, it is not really a wish...more a comment that I think could produce something that allows for a little more immersion... as it is now I fly straight to a spawn point...Guys like me the OP use this and it is too easy to find and kill a GV .... not that it will be that much harder..
-
Hmmm wondering if the thread was read ...if so not well comprehended (to be fair getting what is in my into text does come out strange) I am taking the easy path to find the GV's...that is the whole point of my ....wish....thing is, it is not really a wish...more a comment that I think could produce something that allows for a little more immersion... as it is now I fly straight to a spawn point...Guys like me the OP use this and it is too easy to find and kill a GV .... not that it will be that much harder..
You don't need the wish. Just stop driving your GV on a predictable path. I'm sorry that it will take you more time to get where you want to go.
If you don't want to be an easy target, stop making yourself an easy target.
-
Even looking at your suggestion on a movable spawn, I can see a way to game it an mess with a GV attack with nothing more than a jeep and 10 minutes...
It's a lot easier to complain, than it is to think through a solution, many of which HTC has already considered.
Gamed how? By driving out and moving the spawn back. Well this would more accurately represent the gaining of ground. And just because your in a jeep doesnt mean mcuh because then you have to be able to hold that location, Jeeps die pretty easy...well most of the time (but thats another issue entirely)
If I had it purely my way. The spawn points would stretch and shrink depending on how much ground is controlled and where the enemy is spawning to
Better yet There would be no spawn points directly to a base. Ony a bit out from your own. There would be capture-able villages between feilds which do nothing more then provide a place to spawn to and possibly have a rearm pad. (This would simulate capture of ground and the moving of logistics to the front) To capture a village you would have to do nothing more then drive to the center of it and stop on the rearm point/pad and have no enemy GVs in it. After that its yours until the enemy does likewise.
Capturing a village would enable your side to spawn to it until or unless it becomes occupied or captured by the enemy and in that way you would advance to an enemy base. You wouldnt spawn directly into the village but somewhere around it on all sides. This would make camping a village more difficult and the campers would still be under threat from those coming in from one village over. Tie to that a meaningful road net connecting them all where travel along roads is faster then over open ground
-
You don't need the wish. Just stop driving your GV on a predictable path. I'm sorry that it will take you more time to get where you want to go.
If you don't want to be an easy target, stop making yourself an easy target.
read the freakin thread ... Stop insinuating .... I am not the target ...opinion is good.... but not out of context
-
Gamed how? By driving out and moving the spawn back. Well this would more accurately represent the gaining of ground. And just because your in a jeep doesnt mean mcuh because then you have to be able to hold that location, Jeeps die pretty easy...well most of the time (but thats another issue entirely)
If I had it purely my way. The spawn points would stretch and shrink depending on how much ground is controlled and where the enemy is spawning to
Better yet There would be no spawn points directly to a base. Ony a bit out from your own. There would be capture-able villages between feilds which do nothing more then provide a place to spawn to and possibly have a rearm pad. (This would simulate capture of ground and the moving of logistics to the front) To capture a village you would have to do nothing more then drive to the center of it and stop on the rearm point/pad and have no enemy GVs in it. After that its yours until the enemy does likewise.
Capturing a village would enable your side to spawn to it until or unless it becomes occupied or captured by the enemy and in that way you would advance to an enemy base. You wouldnt spawn directly into the village but somewhere around it on all sides. This would make camping a village more difficult and the campers would still be under threat from those coming in from one village over. Tie to that a meaningful road net connecting them all where travel along roads is faster then over open ground
That sounds like fun and would be a good addition, really! What I am waiting for now is the "this isn't aces low" griefers to chime in.
-
Better yet There would be no spawn points directly to a base. Ony a bit out from your own. There would be capture-able villages between feilds which do nothing more then provide a place to spawn to and possibly have a rearm pad. (This would simulate capture of ground and the moving of logistics to the front) To capture a village you would have to do nothing more then drive to the center of it and stop on the rearm point/pad and have no enemy GVs in it. After that its yours until the enemy does likewise.
Capturing a village would enable your side to spawn to it until or unless it becomes occupied or captured by the enemy and in that way you would advance to an enemy base. You wouldnt spawn directly into the village but somewhere around it on all sides. This would make camping a village more difficult and the campers would still be under threat from those coming in from one village over. Tie to that a meaningful road net connecting them all where travel along roads is faster then over open ground
This is a pretty cool idea in my mind.... no need for the arrows then either....
again it makes for more immersion....more battles for all.
P.S sorry Rob .... just got a little ansy at the fact you pointed at me for something I am not doing and it had been stated in posts within this thread.... I pointed out that there are some who do drive away from the spawn but many go straight from and with the arrows on my map I am able to fly straight to them and bomb/gun GV's down without even having to really search.
and pt spawns... not showing means that if you are driving the boat you will at least need to be a little vigilant as when close to a base you could just happen onto a spawn point and lose the boat...as it is now you can set a coarse and stay clear of the spawn points and just leave the boat without too much of a care until the side is ready to use....
As a defender I am often scouring shore bases for the sneaky CV I would love it if a CV group happened onto my spawn point whilst it was unmanned
-
It's is currently set to approximately 7 million sq feet.
1500 ft radius circle
HiTech
And if I remember correctly, it's an arena setting - but there are only 3 or 5 actual spots within that radius that you spawn into.
-
I think hitech said that the spawn area can be changed. As it is now you spawn randomly in an 1000 Sq ft area.
It's is currently set to approximately 7 million sq feet.
1,000... 7,000,000... close enough.
-
Where did you get that number from? It's actually much larger, at least by factor of 5,000!
It's is currently set to approximately 7 million sq feet.
1500 ft radius circle
HiTech
I was only guessing as using the "search" function on the phone is a major "P in the A", however the point still holds true..... would increasing that area for the spawn, say tripling it, cut back on the "wack a mole" and add more "hunting" into the GV game?
If a guy spawns in and get wacked, then spawns again a mile away, it would give him time to "hunt" the other guy, and the guy who did the wacking would now have to go into hunt mode as well.
-
30 minutes after such a terrain would come up for the first time I would have a printed map next to my screen showing all the spawns. ;)
yup so true, and it would be passed around a lot just like the base maps with numbered hangars, ammo dumps...
semp
-
This is a pretty cool idea in my mind.... no need for the arrows then either....
again it makes for more immersion....more battles for all.
And thats part of the point. You're not just camping. You're doing something more immersive. And its a step up from how I understand WOT is played.
In WOT you choose the type of battle to be in. You fight that battle until one side becomes a winner. Rinse repeat. Ok yo won the battle..so what.
My way. Any of the types of battles fought in WOT can be fought here at any given time in any given place only gameplay doesnt end until the proverbial "war" has been won. It just moves on. And unlike WOT You get your choice of vehicles all for one low price and maybe a few perks. And there is an actual reason to fight the battles. And in that front I think we can steal players from games like WOT with a simple message. "WOT you can fight battles. AH you can fight battles to win a WAR!"
People like not only having a fight. But fighting for a reason. A greater cause. Why is it people go for the reset? To win the war!
And this is coming from a person that doesnt give a damn about winning the war or collecting perkies
Won the fight over a village? Well the battle isnt over. You just move onto the next village and one step and spawn closer to the goal of the base. Or defend against a counter attack by an enemy that in all likelyhood would like to recapture that village in an attempt to prevent you form doing exactly that.
Dunno. Sounds an awful lot like ..war to me. Sounds a lot like.."WOW!"
Gameplay here hasnt changed much since its inception and to say its old and dated would be a fair assessment. It used to be "WOW!". Now..not so much
Also upping only to be clubbed like a baby seal over and over again while fun for drunkards and clubbers in general I dont think is something that attracts nor keeps new people. If I were a new player I'd say Its tough enough just trying to reach the level of being only "ok" in the air let alone any good. In looking for some sort of reprieve or break from being a repeated sacrificial lamb in the air, I'd head to the ground as an escape from the air clubbing. If I head to the ground and find myself being clubbed even worse then I was in the air. Well... I'd be looking for a different game.
People play games to have fun themselves. And just simply to be someone elses fun
-
If bases became connected by real road networks. And spawning became a progressive choice along and around those roads. Our current Polish firing squad style of spawn camping would go by the wayside. Your idea for capture able villages. Put one of these villages between all fields, to be captured, to own the next spawn to the outskirts of the field.
On paper it sounds WoW. In reality it has a lot of room to be abused. Would it be something that can be shut down by bombing and enemy tank fire, and needing to wait for a rebuild time? Or resupply able to make it come back up faster? And the capture process. Will you end up with all of your GVers whack a moleing and trading off a single village like a Twilight Zone episode for ever? WoT and WT have fixed limited fights to the death by two sides to get away from that.
One of the things the current spawn system does for the GVers is to not have them caught on a road being killed repeatedly like the escape from Kuwait. The old system has everyone running around like cockroaches cross country pell-mell, and is safer for them. Do you want to listen to the whining when SHawk uses his gazzillions of B29 perks to carpet bomb GV columns driving down the roads between villages?
In our game GVers are sissys out of an abundance of caution. You give them real world road systems and they will sacrifice getting there faster for sissying slowly through the trees. Roads would become all you can eat buffets. But, dang the game would look really WoW with them.
-
If bases became connected by real road networks. And spawning became a progressive choice along and around those roads. Our current Polish firing squad style of spawn camping would go by the wayside. Your idea for capture able villages. Put one of these villages between all fields, to be captured, to own the next spawn to the outskirts of the field.
On paper it sounds WoW. In reality it has a lot of room to be abused. Would it be something that can be shut down by bombing and enemy tank fire, and needing to wait for a rebuild time? Or resupply able to make it come back up faster? And the capture process. Will you end up with all of your GVers whack a moleing and trading off a single village like a Twilight Zone episode for ever? WoT and WT have fixed limited fights to the death by two sides to get away from that.
One of the things the current spawn system does for the GVers is to not have them caught on a road being killed repeatedly like the escape from Kuwait. The old system has everyone running around like cockroaches cross country pell-mell, and is safer for them. Do you want to listen to the whining when SHawk uses his gazzillions of B29 perks to carpet bomb GV columns driving down the roads between villages?
In our game GVers are sissys out of an abundance of caution. You give them real world road systems and they will sacrifice getting there faster for sissying slowly through the trees. Roads would become all you can eat buffets. But, dang the game would look really WoW with them.
Current mode of spawncamping SHOULD go by the way side. It needs to. Worst part of the game
Not if bombing a village had no effect. You're assuming a village would have to be destroyed or could be disabled. Im suggesting that for exactly those reasons you mention they are not. They would not be subject to supply or destruction but for whatever destruction happens at the field. Destroy the VH or barracks at the main field (airbase) and the results are the same as they are now. No Gvs or ammo resuppy you have to drive back into the town to re arm on the re arm pad. same as a fiield
Remember. the only thing needed to capture a village would be to reach a specific point with no other enemies in it. You clear the village and hit the point the village is yours till the enemy does the same. Render destroying a village pointless other then to kill any GVs in it
And im not talking of a single village. But a series of them.
Yes you have the risk of being caught on a road. But you still have the option of leaving the road albeit you travel at a slower pace. The is a risk reward factor there
-
I remember when GVs would spawn into trees and flip. I don't think I've had it happen for a very long time. Was that issue addressed by decreasing the spawn area? If so, would increasing the spawn area size make that an issue again?
-
Was that issue addressed by decreasing the spawn area?
Many years ago (about 8), the random spawn area had been increased.
-
Current mode of spawncamping SHOULD go by the way side. It needs to. Worst part of the game
Not if bombing a village had no effect. You're assuming a village would have to be destroyed or could be disabled. Im suggesting that for exactly those reasons you mention they are not. They would not be subject to supply or destruction but for whatever destruction happens at the field. Destroy the VH or barracks at the main field (airbase) and the results are the same as they are now. No Gvs or ammo resuppy you have to drive back into the town to re arm on the re arm pad. same as a fiield
Remember. the only thing needed to capture a village would be to reach a specific point with no other enemies in it. You clear the village and hit the point the village is yours till the enemy does the same. Render destroying a village pointless other then to kill any GVs in it
And im not talking of a single village. But a series of them.
Yes you have the risk of being caught on a road. But you still have the option of leaving the road albeit you travel at a slower pace. The is a risk reward factor there
You will have GVers caught in the Twilight Zone of playing king of the hill for a village. At least not off in TT somewhere sniping from the trees all night. And SHawk will simply loiter around in his B29s until the new crew holds the village and carpet bomb them. That seems to be his bliss these days. 999000 will popup out of the grass and carpet bomb them. But, knowing airstud, czok, and erastmus. They will happily live in the twilight zone all night long rinsing and repeating that village. Dr7 will probably help. And my squad, that will be a dinner bell to drop bombs and shoot big guns from planes.
If it's only possession by killing off all the enemy, welcome to AH Quake Tourney, GV Team style. But, that is how WoT and WT model their fights. Kind of like the GV fight at V85 that never ends while attracting up to 1\4 of the available players on the map all of prime time. Our hard core GVers will thank you for getting HiTech to give them V85 everywhere. Then promptly disappear and ignore what everyone else is doing to sneek around in the bushes shooting each other in the back in "The Twilight Zone".
At least we will know where to find free GV kills when no one wants to furball. And a WoW looking road system no one in their right mind will use.
-
You will have GVers caught in the Twilight Zone of playing king of the hill for a village. At least not off in TT somewhere sniping from the trees all night. And SHawk will simply loiter around in his B29s until the new crew holds the village and carpet bomb them. That seems to be his bliss these days. 999000 will popup out of the grass and carpet bomb them. But, knowing airstud, czok, and erastmus. They will happily live in the twilight zone all night long rinsing and repeating that village. Dr7 will probably help. And my squad, that will be a dinner bell to drop bombs and shoot big guns from planes.
If it's only possession by killing off all the enemy, welcome to AH Quake Tourney, GV Team style. But, that is how WoT and WT model their fights. Kind of like the GV fight at V85 that never ends while attracting up to 1\4 of the available players on the map all of prime time. Our hard core GVers will thank you for getting HiTech to give them V85 everywhere. Then promptly disappear and ignore what everyone else is doing to sneek around in the bushes shooting each other in the back in "The Twilight Zone".
At least we will know where to find free GV kills when no one wants to furball. And a WoW looking road system no one in their right mind will use.
Bombers bombing GVs attract fighters killing bombers
-
At least the action would be over a useless place to winning the war like V85 and the Greebo TT. We would be acting like the Gvers but, in the air playing Quake forever Tourney to no where. Then ghi and two friends would roll bases undisturbed and win the map. Airstud, czok, and erastmus would go dangit knights lost the map as usual. But, no one will use the roads a week after they and your king of the hill tournament villages get introduced. What happened in WW2 when a column of tanks and vehicles was spotted on an open road?
Complicated war scenario with bells and wistles can only be imposed inside of a limited area played like an organized sport. WoT and WT give the illusion of this. When you capture something in the MA, it means you own that territory and those who you took it from have to ramp up a new front to take it back or move on. A King of the Hill village just means 1\4 of the available players will veg the night away in a single spot. And they may well opt back for TT once the blush has worn off on the King of the Hill villages. Some genius will figure out how to whizz on the winner with an airplane like clock work. The ability to capture makes this a tad harder after winning the village.
-
At least the action would be over a useless place to winning the war like V85 and the Greebo TT. We would be acting like the Gvers but, in the air playing Quake forever Tourney to no where. Then ghi and two friends would roll bases undisturbed and win the map. Airstud, czok, and erastmus would go dangit knights lost the map as usual. But, no one will use the roads a week after they and your king of the hill tournament villages get introduced. What happened in WW2 when a column of tanks and vehicles was spotted on an open road?
Complicated war scenario with bells and wistles can only be imposed inside of a limited area played like an organized sport. WoT and WT give the illusion of this. When you capture something in the MA, it means you own that territory and those who you took it from have to ramp up a new front to take it back or move on. A King of the Hill village just means 1\4 of the available players will veg the night away in a single spot. And they may well opt back for TT once the blush has worn off on the King of the Hill villages. Some genius will figure out how to whizz on the winner with an airplane like clock work. The ability to capture makes this a tad harder after winning the village.
I guess you missed the part where you can leave the road. You dont HAVE to travel upon it and you dont HAVE to stay on it and you can still use the option many GVers use now to counter an air threat. Wirbles Ostwinds and M16s.
Its not that complicated a war scenareo. Actually its as simple or as complicated as the players want to make it.
And same here. when you capture a village. The enemy would have to ramp up a new front to try and take it back. something thats made more difficult by the fact that you can now spawn GVs directly to the village you just took. whereas your opponent now has to drive there from one village back And I dont think they would be vegging in one spot because the very notion that its king of the hill encourages you to move on and take the next one if for no other reason then to protect the last. It encourages maneuver and best of all. It aint whackamole
And besides. 1/4 of the players veg out in one spot now s even if that were the case it would be little different other then to provide the players options. Options they currently dont have
-
Seems you need to define two end results for the village.
1. - King of the Hill.
You initialy presented King of the Hill. Kill all the enemy, then park on a capture spot in the village. You own the spawns outbound to capture able fields until deposed by the next king.
2. - Town style capture.
Your last response diverged to a town capture style of "owning" the village which resets the mental state to ramping up for another capture initiative at that village or move to another combat area to resume looking for action.
Did you want the between village to own spawn points to capture able fields, while those capture able fields could only spawn to those villages to promote strategic GV combat over the key spawn lines? Or did you want both kinds of spawns?
Do these villages count towards war win or act as strategic hubs only? If a realistic road network is put in place. Do you spawn to the road bed or in a random spawn area in the local country side? On the road bed would be worse than the current polish firing squad style camping we have. Even if spawn lines are removed and the roads become your guessable vector. Lusche will have a map of spawn areas created in 30 minutes while SHawk will sit at 15k in his B29 on full zoom waiting.
Cross country bushwhacking to stay off the road would create the need for strategic snipers to cover approaches and the need to fly storch from the village or have friends with bombs. Still depending on the construction of the village, the snipers would hole up there creating a TT style stalled long range shooting contest. Or until SHawk carpet bombs the village.
I almost wonder if HiTech would comment that you are simply shifting combat from large places to stalling it in small places in the long run. Fighting for something as small as control of spawn points inside of every sector will slow down an already slow map flipping process based on field capture.
Still, on the new Fester map having GV bases very close together works like these spawn controlling villages for GV action. The action stalls out to sniping unless a group decides to bring in air power to flatten one of the capture able bases. There is still something to this in a Bastogne esqu sense. Make the outbound spawns open to anyone who can get to one, with the real fight to control the place until your side has control of all destinations out of that village. Then the village is not tied to a country, it's just a destination hub.
-
You are asking for something to be taken away without offering something in it's place to benefit those who currently rely on that something without your negative feelings about it. That is not adding to the game with your wish.
i'm not sure i understand this comment
it should not be more difficult to spawn camp because some players like spawn camping?
-
Having a lot of villages will only lead to people trying to avoid each other by sneaking undefended villages (and there will be plenty of them) so there will be very little fighting. It will also lead to ground war being the primary with air craft reduced to supporting the ground forces. ive had similar toughts but i dont think its a good idea.
-
Having a lot of villages will only lead to people trying to avoid each other by sneaking undefended villages (and there will be plenty of them) so there will be very little fighting. It will also lead to ground war being the primary with air craft reduced to supporting the ground forces. ive had similar toughts but i dont think its a good idea.
Everyone is crying for "Change". Dred believes change will WoW new customers and tear them away from WoT and WT. In those two games you are controlled by the game to achieve pre determined results. Face off and beat the other guy in a time limit while enjoying eyeball masturbation. There is no pretense at skill and painful meritocracy driven growth. You can buy your way to uberdom, or run around hiding your ego from getting hurt while backstabbing everyone. "while enjoying eyeball masturbation."
The well meaning wish is that once we get all of these combat avoiding sissys into our game, we can beat them into our way of thinking with our "while enjoying eyeball masturbation" and our superior community riding herd on them.
You are correct in your observation that the more places salted around to fight over, the more places to avoid fighting anyone. And yes, the GV war will dominate because it takes nothing to get started and you can hide from the uber dork killers longer with the new and improved "while enjoying eyeball masturbation".
So in WoT and WT they have very tiny arenas with mechanisms forcing them to fight. We lack the force of game functions to make us fight or do anything we don't want to. Not everyone has the strength of imagination and self drive to last in such a freedom of personal action environment. And eventually they ask for imposed order and goals to achieve with rules some will use as their sol motivation by breaking them.
-
They are only undefended because people chose to ignore the raging clue that they are under attack.............much like strats and hq.
-
Change is Gud.
So Gud that change is Gud for changes sake.
Bad game modelling is bad........ The two are not irrevocably connected.
-
I was reading this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,367924.0.html when it dawned on me.
Why not add a small, scattered country village to the end of each and every spawn then you randomly spawn anywhere inside it. It would make it harder to camp and allow at least some of the spawners a chance to move.
-
Change for the sake of change in business, is only good from the instigator's perspective, while he is spending other peoples money and not his own.
More to "this game's" reality, second guessing from the side lines is an emotional win, win. If change happens, you get change until you get bored again. If the company fails, you get to spit on the company's grave and do the "I told you So" dance. Without ever risking anything in the process other than an opinion, while the company's creator spends his own money.
But, like government feels all of your income really belongs to them, and they allow you to keep some to live on. Many players I suspect, privately feel their $14.95 is not HiTech's in fair trade for each month they make use of his private property.
And we wonder why he is careful about how often he responds to us anymore in these forums.
-
Greetings,
Been gone a long time (the more things change, the more they stay the same), so take this with a grain of salt (huge friggen nugget of salt!).
The potential for testing this idea already exists (or did). We have Vehicle Bases, that require troops to take. Hitech tested a 'must take base to take next base' method years ago - I am sure some of you remember it, much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the board. Unfortunately, the test had only one line of advance per country.
I once made a map with multiple vectors for taking the next field (one field led to 2-5 others). This made some bases more 'strategic' than others as the base connected to a larger number of bases.
Remove all vehicle spawn points, all vehicles launch from VHs. Place multiple VBs between the air fields (to simulate towns). How far apart the bases are depends on how far you want to drive, as you can be certain the lead VB hangers will be camped. You take the next base, you 'move' the front lines.
Build the map (I recommend a small one), ask to test it in a special arena.
Regards,
-
Yes Bustr, we understand. You're like Mikey in the TV commercial... you don't like anything. If it was up to you we'd still be using buggy whips and smoke signals.
-
The spawns address an issue of time scale and how much tolerance the player has to trying to find other players to shoot at. In aircraft with the HQ down we can still find each other because we can cover more territory in a short time period. We don't like it but, we have the speed to work with it.
Very few GVer's will drive a half sector to shoot at something because of the huge time investment let alone invest a huge amount of time scouting in their GV. Very few of the GVer's I know won't get off their lazy bums and fly a storch around to locate the enemy, then fly back to get a GV, and drive back to where they think the enemy will be waiting to sniper them.
As imperfect as it is, those predetermined end points all of us see on the map. Keeps Gvers from suffering the real time scale of having to drive around looking for each other. CrateMA TT works because most can spawn in, then get setup into hidey holes, and snipe all night long. If they get killed, 3minutes to setup again. Sadly, it's the quality of safety versus risk and time investment to get at the fun(shooting other players in the back).
The popularity of V85's spawn war, is a good indication the spawns, nor aircraft are a problem. Just venue and positioning rational on our over sized maps as a response to the hoards of the past. And no one really trying to apply known good working models to map creation like the last two maps of Fester and Greebo.
Everybody wants to burn the house down and build a new one, when updating the wiring is all that's needed.
-
Just for a bit of levity . . .
Spawn camping:
http://http://youtu.be/NagaFZCgdOI
Regards
-
Change for the sake of change in business, is only good from the instigator's perspective, while he is spending other peoples money and not his own.
More to "this game's" reality, second guessing from the side lines is an emotional win, win. If change happens, you get change until you get bored again. If the company fails, you get to spit on the company's grave and do the "I told you So" dance. Without ever risking anything in the process other than an opinion, while the company's creator spends his own money.
But, like government feels all of your income really belongs to them, and they allow you to keep some to live on. Many players I suspect, privately feel their $14.95 is not HiTech's in fair trade for each month they make use of his private property.
And we wonder why he is careful about how often he responds to us anymore in these forums.
Likewise. Stagnation in business often leads to that businesses demise. Particularly when other businesses are being highly successful by evolving and innovating. Gameplay in AH and especially in the GV game itself is stagnant at best and not conducive to attracting new and more players as is obvious by the drop in players
My suggestion isnt change for the sake of change. But change from being what it has become..stagnant.
There isnt a single ting I suggested that would be any worse then it is now at worst. They do however provide the players with more options, depth and immersion. Something this game is definitely lacking.
-
The spawns address an issue of time scale and how much tolerance the player has to trying to find other players to shoot at. In aircraft with the HQ down we can still find each other because we can cover more territory in a short time period. We don't like it but, we have the speed to work with it.
Very few GVer's will drive a half sector to shoot at something because of the huge time investment let alone invest a huge amount of time scouting in their GV. Very few of the GVer's I know won't get off their lazy bums and fly a storch around to locate the enemy, then fly back to get a GV, and drive back to where they think the enemy will be waiting to sniper them.
As imperfect as it is, those predetermined end points all of us see on the map. Keeps Gvers from suffering the real time scale of having to drive around looking for each other. CrateMA TT works because most can spawn in, then get setup into hidey holes, and snipe all night long. If they get killed, 3minutes to setup again. Sadly, it's the quality of safety versus risk and time investment to get at the fun(shooting other players in the back).
The popularity of V85's spawn war, is a good indication the spawns, nor aircraft are a problem. Just venue and positioning rational on our over sized maps as a response to the hoards of the past. And no one really trying to apply known good working models to map creation like the last two maps of Fester and Greebo.
Everybody wants to burn the house down and build a new one, when updating the wiring is all that's needed.
Who said anything about driving half a sector? my way doesnt make anyone drive around looking for anyone. Just like todays spawns you pretty much know where the enemy will be. The only difference is you wont be able to sit there whacking people before they ever have a chance to shoot back as easily. You seem to be making every effort in turning my suggestion into things they arent. Fighting tooth and toenail to preserve what is easily the lamest and least realistic part of this game. That being the whackamole spawn camp
-
Having a lot of villages will only lead to people trying to avoid each other by sneaking undefended villages (and there will be plenty of them) so there will be very little fighting. It will also lead to ground war being the primary with air craft reduced to supporting the ground forces. ive had similar toughts but i dont think its a good idea.
How will they be avoiding one another? All the villages do is lengthen your spawn. Course you can stop this by simply defending a village from capture or capturing a captured village yourself win either case it usually leads to a fight.
On quite a few maps the ground war has already become primary. but lets say it does.
Aircraft come in in supporting roles. Enemy aircraft come in to provide protection from those trying to support the other side.
Hmm. sounds like a war to me
-
Yes Bustr, we understand. You're like Mikey in the TV commercial... you don't like anything. If it was up to you we'd still be using buggy whips and smoke signals.
I've just been over 5 pages of his posts because I noticed that in a a couple threads he never seems to have anything positive to say about any idea and wanted to see if this was a pattern or hee was just having a couple bad days. And your statement seems entirely accurate. Bustr seems to be our very own Naysayer Nellie. Or Eeore, "it'll never work" take your pick Just be glad he doesnt work for or coad AH or no doubt we would in all likelyhood be playing a wireframe game and it would look something like this
(http://www.mortaljourney.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Battlezone_thumb1.png)
-
No, until HiTech changes "his" underlying reasons for how he presents the game. We are stuck with what we got. We have been down this rabbit hole for almost 14 years. HiTech changes very little of how the game functions, and at a glacial speed for reasons only he knows. While you guys have spent those years building sand castles and stay offended at him for not responding, or, that he has never duplicated your sand castles in "his" game.
HiTech should really give you guys a "What If I Were King" forum.
This last 12 months, almost all of these wishes devolved into a doom message to HiTech from his loyal angry customers. The sky is falling and you need to burn the house down and build a new one or else......
Else what?
-
How will they be avoiding one another? All the villages do is lengthen your spawn. Course you can stop this by simply defending a village from capture or capturing a captured village yourself win either case it usually leads to a fight.
On quite a few maps the ground war has already become primary. but lets say it does.
Aircraft come in in supporting roles. Enemy aircraft come in to provide protection from those trying to support the other side.
Hmm. sounds like a war to me
So u mean that instead of the present spawn system it should be replaced by a line of villages between the 2 bases? And when u have taken all villages on the line u can spawn into the base itself. Correct?
What happen if someone just horde the base and capture it using C-47? Is that team getting control over all villages belonging to that base automatically? And what happen to enemy Gv:s that are defending a village when the base is captured by a C-47?
-
No, until HiTech changes "his" underlying reasons for how he presents the game. We are stuck with what we got. We have been down this rabbit hole for almost 14 years. HiTech changes very little of how the game functions, and at a glacial speed for reasons only he knows. While you guys have spent those years building sand castles and stay offended at him for not responding, or, that he has never duplicated your sand castles in "his" game.
HiTech should really give you guys a "What If I Were King" forum.
This last 12 months, almost all of these wishes devolved into a doom message to HiTech from his loyal angry customers. The sky is falling and you need to burn the house down and build a new one or else......
Else what?
And exactly what role is it that you think you play in all this? All you seem to do is your very best to shoot down each and every idea as it comes along.
I agree HT does what HT does. and at HTs pace. His game, his house.
You've been here a while. Well Ive been here awhile too. Wanna go by registration dates? Ive been here longer...I win. :rolleyes:
Your being here a while does not make you an authority or your opinion any more valid one single iota then anyone elses be it mine or someone who has only been here 6 months. And unless you actually ARE HT. You are in no position to decline anyones suggestions. As you also are not any sort of "king" around here either though you seem to feel some sort of entitlement to act as though you think you are.
I dont see anyone being offended at HTCs lack of implementation or response. I know I have never been. This is a wishlist forum. Thats what I see people putting out Their wishes on what they think they would like to see. If HT chooses implement any or none of the ideas put forth here that is entirely his call. Not yours. His house. Not yours. To give him and HTC as a whole a lot of credit. At least they are open to ideas or this forum wouldn't be here
What I do see that is offensive is your continual bullying like tactics in shooting down or manipulating,twisting and redefining as you have done to mine, other peoples thoughts and ideas just so you can make an argument against them. You are our resident Naysayer Nellie, our very own Eeyore
Wanna go by time spent? Ive been playing these games for over 20 years. I think by now I have the experience of actually playing to form a valid opinion and have a pretty good grasp on what I as well as other people might like in a game and what I and they dont. What I think might work and what I think wont.
How is it HT came about creating his own games in the first place but by the very notions we see here. He had the experience of game play himself. knew what he liked and didnt like, had his own ideas and thought he could do it better. Coupled that with the ability to "coad" Then went out and did it...twice (that is intended as a complement to HT BTW)
If I could write code I'd do the same. I cant, so the best I can do is the same as everyone else. Offer my suggestions based on what I see. What my experience playing tells me works/will work and doesnt/wont. What has gotten stagnant and what hasnt. What I see that attracts new people elsewhere over coming here and what isnt.
I do so for the same reasons as everyone else. We give a damn about the game.
Instead of being critical of every suggestion people come up with. Why not let HTC make those decisions for themselves. It is after all their decisions to make. And this forum IS supposed to be for people to make suggestions is it not?
Try offering something positive for a change. Maybe a suggestion or two of your own.
At the very least back off of those that do
-
So u mean that instead of the present spawn system it should be replaced by a line of villages between the 2 bases? And when u have taken all villages on the line u can spawn into the base itself. Correct?
What happen if someone just horde the base and capture it using C-47? Is that team getting control over all villages belonging to that base automatically? And what happen to enemy Gv:s that are defending a village when the base is captured by a C-47?
Yes a series of villages. connected by a road net which you can choose to or not to use. The benifit of using the roads would be faster travel. the downside would be being exposed to enemy attack. The downside to driving over open terrain would be slower movement. But the upside would be cover and concealment.
For each there would be benefits and drawbacks
Spawn within range yes. Like say for example. (and example only) the final spawn point village would be where the current spawns are now. But not directly next to the base.
This would give the base some maneuvering room to muster and organize a defense.
All villages would be neutral until captured if you owned the village before capture. You still own it even if the enemy takes the base/s. If the bases on both sides of the string of villages were captured. Those villages would still be yours so long as you can hold them. But you would not be able to spawn to or from them nor resupply from them. A chain of supply must be maintained from a base in order to use the rearm pad. However just as normal you can resup GVs by way of goon or any other means as is currently used for resupply (think Bastogne)
If you lost a base but not the villages and managed to regain it. Those villages would automatically be considered back in supply and the Rearm pad could again then be used
Likewise if you capture both bases but not the villages and want those villages inbetween to be yours. Well, you have to go out and capture them.
Bombing villages should have no effect on the village itself other then the destruction of buildings and would not effect the ability to take, hold or prevent re-arming. Obviously Gvs would be susceptible to bombing just as normal.
The villages themselves should be spaced a reasonable distance from one another (not the half sector someone suggested)
This would help in the aiding of breaking up spawn camping the villages.
We have a couple of maps that have both near and far spawns where if the far spawn is camped people up the closer one to drive over and break up that spawn. Same principle
Im not talking about completely reinventing the wheel.
Just upgrading from wooden wagon wheels to Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires
-
No, until HiTech changes "his" underlying reasons for how he presents the game. We are stuck with what we got. We have been down this rabbit hole for almost 14 years. HiTech changes very little of how the game functions, and at a glacial speed for reasons only he knows. While you guys have spent those years building sand castles and stay offended at him for not responding, or, that he has never duplicated your sand castles in "his" game.
Oh really? Here's just a few examples of things that have been implemented that I specifically crusaded for (only those that leap immediately to mind):
Return of large maps
Return of disbursed strats
Return of VB tank bunkers
Addition of the I-16
Here's a few more additions that have come as a direct result of player input and/or this forum specifically (again only a small sampling):
Addition of the B-29
Addition and relocation of vehicle hangers at V bases
Changes in radar range/effective altitude
Un-perking of the TA-152
Addition of field ack
Redesign of the strat system (at least twice)
The list goes on and on.
To suggest that player wished fall totally on deaf ears at HTC is ludicrous based on the history of implementation.
HiTech should really give you guys a "What If I Were King" forum.
Evidently you already think that he's given you one in the wishlist forum.
This last 12 months, almost all of these wishes devolved into a doom message to HiTech from his loyal angry customers. The sky is falling and you need to burn the house down and build a new one or else......
Else what?
Outside of the twelve hour rule please state examples of "almost all" wishes leading to this. Also, please post links to the threats mentioned.
-
Yes a series of villages. connected by a road net which you can choose to or not to use. The benifit of using the roads would be faster travel. the downside would be being exposed to enemy attack. The downside to driving over open terrain would be slower movement. But the upside would be cover and concealment.
For each there would be benefits and drawbacks
Spawn within range yes. Like say for example. (and example only) the final spawn point village would be where the current spawns are now. But not directly next to the base.
This would give the base some maneuvering room to muster and organize a defense.
All villages would be neutral until captured if you owned the village before capture. You still own it even if the enemy takes the base/s. If the bases on both sides of the string of villages were captured. Those villages would still be yours so long as you can hold them. But you would not be able to spawn to or from them nor resupply from them. A chain of supply must be maintained from a base in order to use the rearm pad. However just as normal you can resup GVs by way of goon or any other means as is currently used for resupply (think Bastogne)
If you lost a base but not the villages and managed to regain it. Those villages would automatically be considered back in supply and the Rearm pad could again then be used
Likewise if you capture both bases but not the villages and want those villages inbetween to be yours. Well, you have to go out and capture them.
Bombing villages should have no effect on the village itself other then the destruction of buildings and would not effect the ability to take, hold or prevent re-arming. Obviously Gvs would be susceptible to bombing just as normal.
The villages themselves should be spaced a reasonable distance from one another (not the half sector someone suggested)
This would help in the aiding of breaking up spawn camping the villages.
We have a couple of maps that have both near and far spawns where if the far spawn is camped people up the closer one to drive over and break up that spawn. Same principle
Im not talking about completely reinventing the wheel.
Just upgrading from wooden wagon wheels to Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires
This would most likely leads to a jeep race at the beginning of each map in order to take as many empty villages as possible. And when a base is captured by a C-47 a bunch of A-20:s will up and bomb the few enemy tanks remaining in the village line. If bases are a sector away u have to count with having Gv:s drive for 10-20 miles before they eventually have taken all villages and can attack the base so it will most likely cause a big drop in Gv-fights. (Since all villages between the bases are neutral all Gv:s start at their own base and drive down the road all the way to the enemy base, 25k away)
-
This would most likely leads to a jeep race at the beginning of each map in order to take as many empty villages as possible. And when a base is captured by a C-47 a bunch of A-20:s will up and bomb the few enemy tanks remaining in the village line. If bases are a sector away u have to count with having Gv:s drive for 10-20 miles before they eventually have taken all villages and can attack the base so it will most likely cause a big drop in Gv-fights. (Since all villages between the bases are neutral all Gv:s start at their own base and drive down the road all the way to the enemy base, 25k away)
Could always limit capture by vehicle type. but I don think thats needed.
Jeeps may go quick. But remember. You sill gotta hold it once you have taken it. Something jeeps wouldnt be very good at. It would however give ner use for the faster moving but less used vehicles such as the M8 which can not only go faster to gain ground. But potentially hold it until armor arrives. I think you would end up with more vehicle collisions (fights) not less. Also remember you would have the other side doing the same thing. An attacked base would be able to see the attack coming just by the villages being taken.
You might have A20s up yes. Its known as mopping up and on that front it would be little different then what happens now. and remember you dont HAVE to stay on the roads. You can leave them at any time. Which would mean that just like now. The A20s would have to find them then kill them.
Course some wirbles or osties or opposing aircraft might contest that..just like now
But lets say like you say people up and race to capture as many villages as they can. Remember. the last village would be placed where the current spawn is now. the lines would eventually stabilize and What you end up with is nothing worse then we have now. A spawn to the enemy base. The difference it those spawns can be taken from you. You can be pushed back and forced to spawn to an area further away.
What you end up with here is movement becomes important rather then the spawn camp. Just like the real thing. Anyone camping would have to worry about being attacked from the next village over. It wouldnt be arcadish whackamole with little or nor risk
-
Jeeps don't need to defend anything at all, as soon as they roll in to an undefended village u can spawn in as many Tiger 2:s into is as u want. What would happen is that a jeep takes of from each base at the end of the village line and run down the line until they meet halfway. Then the stalemate begins. Because u need to kill all the defenders in the village in order to capture it and the defenders can respawn into the village as many times as they want it will be impossible to take it. So all assaults will start with a jabo killing the VH at the base, leaving the village line undefended since most of the time no one will babysit the villages. Step 2 is the jeep, running into 1 or 2 undefended enemy villages and take them while the VH is down. Incase of enemy gv:s left in the village after VH is down Jabo:s will bomb them to clear the village before the jeep arrives. When the VH pops again the attackers spawn a few tanks into their new village to defend them until VH is down again and it starts all over. So it will kill all GV-fights because no one is stupid enough to drive a tank 3-5 miles and attack a village where the enemy can respawn as much as he want.
Having a fight for terrain instead of bases is a good thought but it wont work.
-
Jeeps don't need to defend anything at all, as soon as they roll in to an undefended village u can spawn in as many Tiger 2:s into is as u want. What would happen is that a jeep takes of from each base at the end of the village line and run down the line until they meet halfway. Then the stalemate begins. Because u need to kill all the defenders in the village in order to capture it and the defenders can respawn into the village as many times as they want it will be impossible to take it. So all assaults will start with a jabo killing the VH at the base, leaving the village line undefended since most of the time no one will babysit the villages. Step 2 is the jeep, running into 1 or 2 undefended enemy villages and take them while the VH is down. Incase of enemy gv:s left in the village after VH is down Jabo:s will bomb them to clear the village before the jeep arrives. When the VH pops again the attackers spawn a few tanks into their new village to defend them until VH is down again and it starts all over. So it will kill all GV-fights because no one is stupid enough to drive a tank 3-5 miles and attack a village where the enemy can respawn as much as he want.
Having a fight for terrain instead of bases is a good thought but it wont work.
they dont respawn directly into the village. But in the surrounding area. This would be done to make it harder to spawncamp the village itself.
Why not? people are stupid enough to keep reupping at spawncamps and people drive those distances now. And your assuming jabos would always be there to help. Thats not always the case now.It probably wouldnt be any different here either. Tiger2s are expensive. Thats why you dont see many of them.
And even with teh VH down it can be notoriously difficult to jabo all spawncampers or town protectors before the VH re-ups. I know Ive personally held off jabo attacks long enough for the VH to respawn. I dont see a village as being any different
Most of the things and reasoning you are using and are saying nay to already exist
not to mention. any attackers would be under the same danger of air attack as defenders would...just like now
-
How far from the village are they spawning and how close do they have to be in order to count as "in" it?
The system still has a lot of flaws. Since all villages are neutral at the beginning we will not only see the jeep race between front line bases but if someone want to resupply or spawn Gv into a friendly base under attack it always require that someone drives all the way between the bases (can be more than one sector) and capture the villages so GV:s can spawn into the base. That is for ALL bases on the map. And same thing if u manage to capture a base. In order to get to the next base u have to drive all the way there, fighting your way trough the system of villages. No map will ever be won by anyone.
-
Oh really? Here's just a few examples of things that have been implemented that I specifically crusaded for (only those that leap immediately to mind):
Return of large maps
Return of disbursed strats
Return of VB tank bunkers
Addition of the I-16
Here's a few more additions that have come as a direct result of player input and/or this forum specifically (again only a small sampling):
Addition of the B-29
Addition and relocation of vehicle hangers at V bases
Changes in radar range/effective altitude
Un-perking of the TA-152
Addition of field ack
Redesign of the strat system (at least twice)
The list goes on and on.
To suggest that player wished fall totally on deaf ears at HTC is ludicrous based on the history of implementation.
Evidently you already think that he's given you one in the wishlist forum.
Outside of the twelve hour rule please state examples of "almost all" wishes leading to this. Also, please post links to the threats mentioned.
players are campaigning now against large maps. we dont have the players. they complain about the strats are not together, then they complain because they are together. they complained against the dar being too small, then being too big. they complain against the field ack being too accurate and not accurate enough....
semp
-
The way this reads to me, about the only way it would work reasonably well is if the maps were tiny compared to what we have now.
Wiley.
-
I'm not sure if I am right in this... but I think many are fixed on the capture side of this... I don't believe the villages count on the entire win the war capture system..
Is this correct DREDIOCK ?
-
How far from the village are they spawning and how close do they have to be in order to count as "in" it?
The system still has a lot of flaws. Since all villages are neutral at the beginning we will not only see the jeep race between front line bases but if someone want to resupply or spawn Gv into a friendly base under attack it always require that someone drives all the way between the bases (can be more than one sector) and capture the villages so GV:s can spawn into the base. That is for ALL bases on the map. And same thing if u manage to capture a base. In order to get to the next base u have to drive all the way there, fighting your way trough the system of villages. No map will ever be won by anyone.
Location of spawns would have to be determined. Like I said I cant code so I cant makea working model to experiment with. But as a beginning working number say the same distance around the village as we have at spawns now more or less.
No to take the village you actually have to physically enter it. Once entered and a predetermined spot occupied (for arguments sake we will say the Rearm pad)
Maps arent typically won by the ground war but by hordes of players coming in by air. flattening and steamrolling bases. As so far as the horde is concerned. The villages would be little more then speedbumps
-
How far from the village are they spawning and how close do they have to be in order to count as "in" it?
The system still has a lot of flaws. Since all villages are neutral at the beginning we will not only see the jeep race between front line bases but if someone want to resupply or spawn Gv into a friendly base under attack it always require that someone drives all the way between the bases (can be more than one sector) and capture the villages so GV:s can spawn into the base. That is for ALL bases on the map. And same thing if u manage to capture a base. In order to get to the next base u have to drive all the way there, fighting your way trough the system of villages. No map will ever be won by anyone.
This is however a valid point. I have a couple of ideas to address this But let me ponder on it a bit and get back to you.
-
I'm not sure if I am right in this... but I think many are fixed on the capture side of this... I don't believe the villages count on the entire win the war capture system..
Is this correct DREDIOCK ?
Im dont think villages counting toward the capture system in "winning the war" would be a great idea as yes it would lead to people just running around in jeeps capturing villages.
Villages primarily would be to move forward, make it harder to spawncamp thus turning a GV battle into ...a gv battle as well as provide aplace where once owned your GV can go get more ammo instead of either having to drive all the way back to base, tower out, or depend on the mercy of someone bringing an M3 out to you
-
How far from the village are they spawning and how close do they have to be in order to count as "in" it?
The system still has a lot of flaws. Since all villages are neutral at the beginning we will not only see the jeep race between front line bases but if someone want to resupply or spawn Gv into a friendly base under attack it always require that someone drives all the way between the bases (can be more than one sector) and capture the villages so GV:s can spawn into the base. That is for ALL bases on the map. And same thing if u manage to capture a base. In order to get to the next base u have to drive all the way there, fighting your way trough the system of villages. No map will ever be won by anyone.
Ok.
As promised.
Easy enough fix
Be best to nix the neutral villages at least within a country at the outset.
At the beginning of each reset all villages within a country would belong to that country. Just as they would IRL. This solves your resupply problem.
In essence spawns within a country would be as they are now.
Any villages between countries would be neutral and have to be captured individually. Once lost any captured village would have to be recaptured to regain that spawn advantage regardless of the surrounding base's ownership
Once the "war" begins it works just as I outlined before
Bombing a village to oblivion would have no effect on spawns or the ability for GVs to re-arm there other then to blow up buildings which likewise make the villager very unhappy. but who the hell cares about the villagers anyway, right? We dont pay them any mind now LOL
Bombing it would have no effect on score in any way unless you by chance happened to kill a player in it.
-
To avoid confusion
These villages could be abandoned villages already suffering from mass destruction.
or
These villages could be forests or wooded areas with a fixed land scape ..... like stripping a village of buildings and roads and replacing it with trees and dirt tracks...
-
To avoid confusion
These villages could be abandoned villages already suffering from mass destruction.
or
These villages could be forests or wooded areas with a fixed land scape ..... like stripping a village of buildings and roads and replacing it with trees and dirt tracks...
We already have forrests and wooded areas. Village would be villages. Im thinking about half the size of the current towns and an irregular shape with streets instead of square
This would make it harder to camp an entire town area and the village would be large enough to fight in