Field & Town Ack Down - Wish revisited

[LilMak]

You will be back in here in 6 months asking for something else to be changed to make the stalemated large maps easier to win the war and cycle them faster. But, you will require Hitech to tie one hand behind his back and hop on one foot to do it while not touching this previously asked for sacred cow.

This is any change for the sake of seeing something changed even if you have to come back and have something changed later to address the unintended consiquences of wanting any kind of change today.

This game is in a constant state of flux. That's one of the cool things about it. Just because you don't want it to change doesn't mean it shouldn't. My only issue with large groups or missions is that they seek to avoid any fight whatsoever. They snatch a virtually undefended base, move to another sector and do the same thing. Prevailing game wisdom is "A good offence is the best defense." So the team your snatching bases from gets a group together and levels your base and grabs it. Then you have 60 guys who logged on to kill each other in the virtual skies completely defeating the entire purpose of the game by not fighting each other at all. Then you have guys like me who find the biggest red darbar on map and try to hunt the bad guys down. Many a night I log off in disgust because I spent the entire evening in a 5+ on 1. My fault??? Yep! But I get no pleasure from joining the horde or being the sixth guy in line to kill a lone defender who barely got his gear up in the wells. Eventually, if the hordes continue or get worse, guys like me will disappear from the game and the three or four kills the mission got as a result will dry up. Then there is nothing left but 60 guys bombing stuff they could bomb offline without having to pay 15 bucks to do it. So I'd rather play on the same map for months if there are fun fights to be had rather than just be on a perpetual hunt to see where the next mole pops up. I don't want to remove the land grab from the game but I want the fights to be a little more protracted than they are now. Large offensive missions have a big advantage. It's too easy to wipe out a base with overwhelming odds. This simple suggestion might make a few more fights happen and, at the very least, give me a shot at a fight if I show up late. Never fun to get up in the air as the base gets captured only to find 30 guys landing or hiding from me in ack.

[Kingpin]

You will be back in here in 6 months asking for something else to be changed to make the stalemated large maps easier to win the war and cycle them faster. But, you will require Hitech to tie one hand behind his back and hop on one foot to do it while not touching this previously asked for sacred cow.

This is any change for the sake of seeing something changed even if you have to come back and have something changed later to address the unintended consiquences of wanting any kind of change today.

In my OP and replies, I have specifically stated WHAT I think is wrong with the current "magic ack popping" system, HOW a 10 minute ack down period is likely to affect game play and WHY I think that change would be good for game play.  That is hardly asking for a change "for the sake of seeing something changed".

Perhaps you missed the multiple times I've referenced the point of this being to promote better fights in the game and precisely how I think that might happen.  (I put that point in bold text, so you note it this time.)  I given a fair amount of thought to this idea before suggesting it.  I have also followed up with specific details and suggestions.

I asked for suggestions of any negative "unintended consequences" this might cause.  We even discussed the "recapture races" issue that existed once before.  Clearly, that is not failing to think of consequences in advance, as you are suggesting with your reply above.  

You brought up a point where a "chain of garrisons" would be required as a result of this idea, including an interesting, albeit irrelevant reference to the Mongols.  While interesting, it only led me to believe you didn't understand my original post.  I clearly explained how yours was an incorrect reading of my suggestion and would not have the consequence you suggest.  Yet you've persisted with this "stalemate" claim, and I still think you are overstating that.

Maps have stalemated before, long before my suggestion, but not due to quickly recapturing fields.  My suggestion is not even about the map -- it is about the fights that take place on it.  I firmly believe it will not have the negative impact on "map resetting" that you seem convinced it would.  So, if it makes you feel better, I will state here for the record that this idea is no "sacred cow" and if it somehow has a negative effect on the game, it can and should be changed (just as the "side switch time" sacred cow has been touched before).  I further state, that I will not "require any one-legged hopping by HT" or anyone else.  (You seriously overestimate my ability to "require" anything of Hitech or his game!)

Now you have changed your argument into this being a change for change's sake.

Bustr, you are clearly concerned with a "large maps stay in rotation for too long" issue, so I suggest you start your own suggestion thread about that.  But please don't attack my suggestions in such a baseless manner as this.

I do expect you'll continue to post your trademark walls of rhetoric, complete with obfuscating references and numbered lists, though.

<S>

[Tracerfi]

Ack should be resupped to pop makes it more realistic

[Kingpin]

To simplify the question:

Since the current programming allows all ack to reset upon capture, couldn't a field capture instead trigger all field/town ack to be "destroyed" while also setting a short rebuild time of 5 minutes (for ports/V-bases) or 10 minutes (for airfields/towns) at that point?  

That is the crux of my suggestion.

I do like your suggestion for ack that was destroyed prior to capture taking longer to rebuild (i.e. +5 min to the 5/10 min rebuild time).  Would that be that much harder to program in (since it was a condition PRIOR to capture and reset)?

<S>