Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: guncrasher on September 06, 2019, 01:33:08 AM
-
I think it would be good if the max amount of bases you can take from any of other 2 countries is cap at 25%. seen countries lose the war when they have 40% of bases and they still try to take more bases instead of fighting the country that is actually fighting to win the war. think it makes sense.
semp
-
Some just like to win the fight. Some like to win the base. Some like to win the terrain.
What if they just put a time limit on a terrain? What if they just allowed so many of a certain type of plane in an area?
Not everyone is in the game for the same reason.
-
Agree.
Sometimes GV'ers have tank battles and ignore if their country is trying to win the map. They are
having fun fighting the other tanks. GV furballing :D
:salute
-
Oh you can still gv, furball, vulch, same as now, you just can't take it.
Semp
-
Oh you can still gv, furball, vulch, same as now, you just can't take it.
Semp
I understand your point. It is not a bad idea but I see it causing another issue. If side B can't capture side A bases they all go fight side C. Then A does not need to defend against side B at all. They can go pile on side C also. It seems like it has the possibility to cause stagnation.
-
I say funnel the map. Until numbers reach a certain level many bases should be closed.
-
I say funnel the map. Until numbers reach a certain level many bases should be closed.
Even real wars have choke points.
Maybe not closing bases, but incentivizing them more to fight in a certain spot.
-
I think what hes talking about is when....
Team A 100% of their bases-40% of Bs bases-3% of Cs bases
Team B has 20% of their bases-0% of As bases- 0% of Cs bases
Team C has 97% of their bases- 40% of Bs bases- 0% of of As bases
....and yet team A and C continue to roll B land bases.
It doesnt further the "win the war" effort at all as both A and C team should turn toward each other to get the 20% needed from them. It is just the easiest way to grab more bases as team B has less defenders due to players logging off because they get tired of being over whelmed from both sides.
It would be nice to have something that either slows or stops the bleeding of the team getting continually hammered.
-
This is more for folks who care about the win the war. Evidently more care about the fight instead.
-
This is more for folks who care about the win the war. Evidently more care about the fight instead.
no I was just thinking, now the pigs play bishops, we have been down to like 6 or 7 bases and we were still being attacked. now this is not specific to bishops, we have had twice I think taken 40% of the bases of one country while ignoring the other. past 2 weeks one country or another has been down to a few bases while still being attacked by the other 2.
not a matter of fight more like a matter of just going for easy destruction.
semp
-
no I was just thinking, now the pigs play bishops, we have been down to like 6 or 7 bases and we were still being attacked. now this is not specific to bishops, we have had twice I think taken 40% of the bases of one country while ignoring the other. past 2 weeks one country or another has been down to a few bases while still being attacked by the other 2.
not a matter of fight more like a matter of just going for easy destruction.
semp
It does kind of roll around. Seems to all come out in the wash though.
Would be nice if we could just get more even numbers on sides. I was going to go rook last night but knits were getting hit by bish. Bish far outnumbered both other sides.
-
It does kind of roll around. Seems to all come out in the wash though.
Would be nice if we could just get more even numbers on sides. I was going to go rook last night but knits were getting hit by bish. Bish far outnumbered both other sides.
Disable Bishlamic fields, adjust ENY values to ignore lack of Bishlamist extremists. Problem solved. :)
-
I think it would be good if the max amount of bases you can take from any of other 2 countries is cap at 25%.
It matters not how many bases you take - it’s where you take them to that counts. :old:
-
I think it would be good if the max amount of bases you can take from any of other 2 countries is cap at 25%. seen countries lose the war when they have 40% of bases and they still try to take more bases instead of fighting the country that is actually fighting to win the war. think it makes sense.
semp
-1 keeps the maps rotating, even if bish are taking undefended bases.
-
It sounds like you want something like ENY, which would make more bases uncapturable under certain conditions.
-
It sounds like you want something like ENY, which would make more bases uncapturable under certain conditions.
actually I have seen bishops lose the war when we have like 40% of one country or another and they keep hammering to get the last few bases. while on the other side only a few are defending. it happens in all 3 countries.
semp
-
-1 keeps the maps rotating, even if bish are taking undefended bases.
If you used the funnel method maps would still rotate.
-
In AH2 Hitech tested a variation of funneling and it crashed and burned. Ultimately customers liked attacking the feilds they chose to assault versus being forced by Hitech to follow a funnel he defined. It's the whole forcing the customer to do what they don't want to that has to be approached carefully versus stick it to them becasue something has gotta change.....
Semp's scenario has played out as I remember for the last 17 years, all through each tour with the three countries taking turns doing what he is observing. What is wrong with paying customers getting the satisfaction they are paying for by working together to acheive goals that make them happy? When Hitech funneled them in his experiment in AH2, they did not appreciate it as things started stagnating becasue their evening was controlled by the funnel if they wanted to win the map. For the first few days it was exciting becasue it was a change from the norm. Then it became a burden which impacted customers willingness to take part just to flip a map. Ultimately these conversations turn into wanting change for the sake of change regardless of the consequences. No one itemizes the consequences and discuses them as part of the whole process. Watch, it will turn into the usual attack any dissenters who disagree with "change".
-
In AH2 Hitech tested a variation of funneling and it crashed and burned. Ultimately customers liked attacking the feilds they chose to assault versus being forced by Hitech to follow a funnel he defined. It's the whole forcing the customer to do what they don't want to that has to be approached carefully versus stick it to them becasue something has gotta change.....
Semp's scenario has played out as I remember for the last 17 years, all through each tour with the three countries taking turns doing what he is observing. What is wrong with paying customers getting the satisfaction they are paying for by working together to acheive goals that make them happy? When Hitech funneled them in his experiment in AH2, they did not appreciate it as things started stagnating becasue their evening was controlled by the funnel if they wanted to win the map. For the first few days it was exciting becasue it was a change from the norm. Then it became a burden which impacted customers willingness to take part just to flip a map. Ultimately these conversations turn into wanting change for the sake of change regardless of the consequences. No one itemizes the consequences and discuses them as part of the whole process. Watch, it will turn into the usual attack any dissenters who disagree with "change".
Well, these giant maps are a smashing success at current levels. /sarcasm
You don't have to use a funnel but you can limit the outer useful edge of the map. People can still take the bases they want on a slightly smaller playground. This is a variation on the theme that was proposed by Violator awhile back.
Either that or reduce the minimum size for new maps so people can make some that are smaller.
-
Maybe he can use a whisk.