Review and reconsider radar loss as a result of HQ raid.

[Ghastly]

If you haven't done so recently, I'd like to ask that you review the effects of the HQ bomber raids and ensure that they are having a desired effect on overall game play.

In my experience, they:

a) are usually perpetrated against the most "down-trodden" of the 3 sides in the game.
b) occur primarily when one side already has a numbers advantage and most of another country's territory.
c) seem to result in a number of players for the side that loses radar either logging, switching arenas, or changing sides.  

In light of the fact that the effects of HQ raid seem to be at cross purposes with efforts like ENY to balance game play even when a side is outnumbered, and when they are successful seem to further - and at times dramatically - unbalance the arena, it seems as though they may be a remnant of earlier game play that should perhaps be reconsidered.

[hubsonfire]

Well put.

[Ghastly]

I almost can't believe that I and Hub agree on something {way big grin...}

[Oleg]

And make off-map bombers visible on map, please.

[SD67]

I think if someone flies off- map for more than say 5 minutes (to allow for accidental AFK's) they should find themselves in the tower.
I've run HQ raids when our side has been down on the numbers to give us an advantage to help even the score. I never fly off map since I enjoy the challenge of threading my way between the radar rings. It's simply amazing how one can run a couple of bomber wings in between the radars without anyone coming up to see what's going on. I'm sure many folk don't pay a lot of attention to the bars near their HQ.

[OOZ662]

Originally posted by Oleg
And make off-map bombers visible on map, please.

The big red arrow pointing at them is good enough for me.

[Rich46yo]

I dont find HQ raids all that unbalancing. Yes they take a coordinated resupply but 4 or 5 goons does it right? Nor do I find they happen very often. Nor do I find that the team that attacks an HQ has a coordinated attack plan to take advantage of the Dars now down.

                        They just dont seem to happen much. And for that matter they seem to be one of the only strategic targets worth flying against. Removing them would just make the game more of a furballing game and take even more strategy away from it.

                       So I would respectfully disagree.

[Ghastly]

Nor do I find they happen very often. Nor do I find that the team that attacks an HQ has a coordinated attack plan to take advantage of the Dars now down.

I agree with you on all of these things.  

I respectfully disagree that they are of much "strategic" value -what they mostly seem to do in my opinion is make guys who are already frustrated with flying for the lower numbered country that already has territory problems sign off, switch to the other arena, or switch to the winning side.  Strategically I think that they are a disaster for the side that's winning, because ENY shoots through the roof as a result of the loss of defenders, so the aggressors are suddenly limited in plane choices - meanwhile the defenders that are left circle around aimlessly trying to find the fight that was going strong before the radar went down.

Based on my experience, I think that if HTC checks the logs, they might find that HQ raids mostly occur at times when HTC would probably prefer to encourage people to fly for the side that's radar gets shut down, and that the loss of radar has a negative impact on the balance for the next half hour or so that might outweight any positive aspects to it's inclusion in the game design.  

But I'm not "asking" that it be changed, only that they consider reviewing whether it's having the effect that they would want.  I tend to mostly fly for the side that's outnumbered, so perhaps I see it's negative impact more than others do.