Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 10:01:22 AM
When a country loses 20% of their bases, their AAA should become more lethal and the 88's should be converted to puffy ack (unmanned).
It's kind of like a last stand scenario.
Post by: JimmyD3 on October 03, 2018, 10:58:12 AM
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 03, 2018, 11:09:49 AM
The best option is to put a hefty perk cost to these fighters as the eny ratio increases. Who would be mad by this?
Post by: ONTOS on October 03, 2018, 11:14:09 AM
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2018, 11:26:53 AM
I understand where you're coming from though, Ciaphas.
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 11:45:43 AM
this is only for a country that has 20% or more of its bases captured.
it would make the price of continuing smashing a single country expensive.
I also think AAA friendly fire should be turned on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2018, 11:48:12 AM
not sure that he understands the context of my original post.
this is only for a country that has 20% or more of its bases captured.
it would make the price of continuing smashing a single country expensive.
I also think AAA friendly fire should be turned on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would slow the roll of the invaders...
I get where you're going here...it's just that we already despise ACK and ack huggers as it is...
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 11:57:14 AM
AAA is a known hazard, for me it's not that big of a deal because more times than not I survive a dive through AAA row but all I can offer are my experiences.
my suggestion is there to deal with those times when a side continues to smash a country to a point that they serve no purpose by continuing to play the game until the next map rotation.
It's based off of the "cornered dog" mentality.
The most fierce of animals are those backed in a corner.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Shuffler on October 03, 2018, 12:11:24 PM
Enemy had numbers at the base and this individual decided that being in a gun was necessary. I did not get mad, I didn't talk bad on 200, I just decided it was not worth flying all the way back again so I logged for the night.
Hope everyone else had fun.
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2018, 12:15:02 PM
I have no pony in this show but.... I was on for awhile last night. We had a good fight going at 27. It was a pretty good flight to get there. Many enemy were up. I was closing on 2 of them with 5 others in my vicinity. I get hit with an 88.
Enemy had numbers at the base and this individual decided that being in a gun was necessary. I did not get mad, I didn't talk bad on 200, I just decided it was not worth flying all the way back again so I logged for the night.
Hope everyone else had fun.
An all-too common experience for many of us...and an identical reaction.
Post by: Shuffler on October 03, 2018, 12:18:46 PM
An all-too common experience for many of us...and an identical reaction.
I had a great time flying and dying last night... right up till I logged.
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 12:21:18 PM
It would help eliminate AAA huggers.
but back to the topic of this thread:
dealing with steam rolling a country that is already severely crippled.
how would this alter the two on one ganging mentality that has been brought up? Would it help eliminate two countries from ganging a single country?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2018, 12:23:39 PM
what would be the perception of AAA and 88's had FF enabled? would that change the opinions of the masses?
It would help eliminate AAA huggers.
but back to the topic of this thread:
dealing with steam rolling a country that is already severely crippled.
how would this alter the two on one ganging mentality that has been brought up? Would it help eliminate two countries from ganging a single country?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Part of me wants a condition of total victory. These percentages are a system not a war. It's.............I dunno.
In WBs we had two sides and total victory. The fronts ebbed and flowed throughout the day. It was dynamic. It was fun. You got a tactile sense of what was going on. I don't get that same feeling with three sides and percentages.
Uh....... Maybe harden some of the buildings or modify downtimes?
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 12:41:09 PM
Part of me wants a condition of total victory. These percentages are a system not a war. It's.............I dunno.
In WBs we had two sides and total victory. The fronts ebbed and flowed throughout the day. It was dynamic. It was fun. You got a tactile sense of what was going on. I don't get that same feeling with three sides and percentages.
Uh....... Maybe harden some of the buildings or modify downtimes?
total victory should be the only condition IMHO but that is an end game for a two sided war not a three sided war.
For true tactical play I personally think there are far to many bases, but I suppose they are necessary for the type of setup we currently have.
ultimately I would like to see a two sided game that requires total victory, fewer bases. bases/towns and strat objects hardened considerably , dar bar removed for both Air and GV, radar rings effectivity based on Radar strat percentage. visual position notification to remain.
ENY would be of little concern by this point.
but then again I can only offer my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fuzeman on October 03, 2018, 01:10:11 PM
The 88s were my first targets if they were up.
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 03, 2018, 01:46:52 PM
total victory should be the only condition IMHO but that is an end game for a two sided war not a three sided war.
For true tactical play I personally think there are far to many bases, but I suppose they are necessary for the type of setup we currently have.
ultimately I would like to see a two sided game that requires total victory, fewer bases. bases/towns and strat objects hardened considerably , dar bar removed for both Air and GV, radar rings effectivity based on Radar strat percentage. visual position notification to remain.
ENY would be of little concern by this point.
but then again I can only offer my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a world map perspective, more bases in a smaller area would actually provide more action than less bases on a big map. That's why I've always griped about making bases a little closer and I'm glad Hitech and Bustr have implemented that.
I do believe that radar should be harder to destroy. Tank dar is good for new players, though I don't think it should point to where they are on the map.
I wish that some custom arenas with these ideas could be created, but the biggest challenge is being able to keep the room open all day while keeping 2-5 people in there at all times to keep it active.
The only thing making AA harder would stop is people playing the game like Shufflers first comment. Its just not worth the time.
Zoned areas that are more important than others would provide a better way for players to chose where to fight. Players that are picking on one team to get them down to 20% would move to a new zone if they knew it was more important. This may shift the fight.
You always have players who just want fighter combat who don't care about the map, they will just go where the fight is regardless of the #s or fields on the map. If one side is getting picked on, that's fights to be had! If one side is under 20%, they should be fighting for bases back, that creates fights!
Its hard when not everyone on your team has the same idea of what to do in AH. The people just go where the fight is, the action is, or their sqaud is.
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 03, 2018, 02:36:04 PM
Post by: Shuffler on October 03, 2018, 03:58:34 PM
I scratched my head and then scratched my... ummm in any case I just determined to return another time. :D
I may be on tonight... if I have to I will be hunting, or should I say PORKING 88s. :D
EDIT; maybe one of the other sides had a lot of folks in the tower. Who knows........
Post by: The Fugitive on October 03, 2018, 04:09:46 PM
If it is not coded to force players to do it, they wont do it. Its kind of like a "capture line" like some players asked for (and like we had years ago that didnt work) with out the enemy knowing exactly where the next attack is coming from. It may even get players to switch fronts to grab that "one base" after grabbing the first one instead of waiting until they hit the limit and are forced to switch fronts. More surprise involved that way.
Gamey I know, but maybe add a kill counter as a requirement to capture, to force the attacking force to have to kill 50% of enemy targets at the time of the first damage done. This forces players to fight for the base they want.
How tough is things like this to code? I dont know, but Hitech is a pretty good coader and Im sure he could figure it out if he wanted to.
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 05:13:18 PM
adding lethality to AAA, hardening structures , shortening down times etc.. will not prevent the capture but it make it considerably more difficult to continue rolling a country.
Adding something like this would also make attacking another front more lucrative for those that want to fight (path of least resistance) and for those that want to score (quicker point earning) and HT could also add a point modifier to those that continue to attack the adjusted countries bases and to those that defend it.
just spit balling here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Arlo on October 03, 2018, 06:06:55 PM
The only way your going to turn the "2 vs 1" thing around is to force the players to change fronts. Once a team gets 2-4 field captures from one front they MUST switch fronts and capture at least one base on the other teams front before they can continue with the assault on the first teams front.
I find this idea compelling. Now I only wonder what amount of coding it would take and if it would break the game. It doesn't sound like too much, on the surface ... but I don't code. :) :salute :cheers:
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 03, 2018, 06:19:42 PM
Putting conditions to capture in the manner you have described would be counter productive.
adding lethality to AAA, hardening structures , shortening down times etc.. will not prevent the capture but it make it considerably more difficult to continue rolling a country.
Adding something like this would also make attacking another front more lucrative for those that want to fight (path of least resistance) and for those that want to score (quicker point earning) and HT could also add a point modifier to those that continue to attack the adjusted countries bases and to those that defend it.
just spit balling here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A tempest from a back field would be more beneficial than all of that. :old:
It really only takes about 3-5 good fighters to take out a hoard enough so that players can roll their planes. If the other team is putting up a fight, that's where the action is, disregard the # of bases they have. The point of the 3rd team is to make it so the other 2 have to fight each other to win. The team with the least amount of bases should technically be able to take bases back more easily as the other 2 teams fight. Thus creating fights on both sides of the map. There are also fields on the map that cannot be taken, this prevents a total base field capture.
You just cannot stop natural flows of how people play the game, and the situations that the maps are in when you log in.
Be the Temp that stops the hoard! :joystick:
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 06:21:55 PM
A tempest from a back field would be more beneficial than all of that. :old:
It really only takes about 3-5 good fighters to take out a hoard enough so that players can roll their planes. If the other team is putting up a fight, that's where the action is, disregard the # of bases they have. The point of the 3rd team is to make it so the other 2 have to fight each other to win. The team with the least amount of bases should technically be able to take bases back more easily as the other 2 teams fight. Thus creating fights on both sides of the map. There are also fields on the map that cannot be taken, this prevents a total base field capture.
You just cannot stop natural flows of how people play the game, and the situations that the maps are in when you log in.
Be the Temp that stops the hoard! :joystick:
it wouldn't stop the flow of play it would add consequence to game play decisions and over all strategy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2018, 08:03:05 PM
To be clear, I was on the knights side. The only fight I saw was at 27. I even looked to see what the numbers were so I could switch to the low number side to find fights. As it turned out the knights were the low number side by a pretty good margin.
I scratched my head and then scratched my... ummm in any case I just determined to return another time. :D
I may be on tonight... if I have to I will be hunting, or should I say PORKING 88s. :D
EDIT; maybe one of the other sides had a lot of folks in the tower. Who knows........
Logged in twice today...saw Buzzkill. Groaned. Logged off.
Post by: 8thJinx on October 03, 2018, 09:22:32 PM
Post by: 715 on October 03, 2018, 09:30:15 PM
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 03, 2018, 11:53:58 PM
Putting conditions to capture in the manner you have described would be counter productive.I understood where you were going...I like it. its like a SHOCK COLLAR...it only zaps you if you are THAT hard headed :aok
adding lethality to AAA, hardening structures , shortening down times etc.. will not prevent the capture but it make it considerably more difficult to continue rolling a country.
Adding something like this would also make attacking another front more lucrative for those that want to fight (path of least resistance) and for those that want to score (quicker point earning) and HT could also add a point modifier to those that continue to attack the adjusted countries bases and to those that defend it.
just spit balling here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Ciaphas on October 03, 2018, 11:54:44 PM
I understood where you were going...I like it. its like a SHOCK COLLAR...it only zaps you if you are THAT hard headed :aok
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: icepac on October 05, 2018, 04:22:16 PM
Post by: JimmyD3 on October 06, 2018, 10:12:32 AM
How about a timer that reduces rebuild times of objects such as hangers, town, and guns based on percentage of fields owned and arena population of each side?
+1