456 players and 4 hordes per side..

[doc1kelley]

Well how about creation of a new arena with no field capture ability?  Buffers could still bomb and fighters could still fight and tankers could still groundpound.  I know... It still won't stop hordes but make the fighter/gv bases harder to supress that it wouldn't be worth it.  They have a backup arena in place and why not just convert it to a non-land grab arena?

All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1

[Toad]

See HT's reply in the HTC Request! Beta Terrain in DA! thread.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Kweassa
That was the past. This is the present. Wake up and get a grasp on the concept of time - it flows from the past to the present to the future in our Earthly dimension. The glory days of pure, simple, homey, cozy, 'veteranesque' A2A combat is gone and it is not coming back. Face the reality.

 ...

 It's about time AH moved on, instead of turn back 180 degrees and go back to 'this game is supposed to be about fighter combat'. The problem with AH is not there is too many changes, but too less.

I don't know what bug you have about those of us who've been doing this a while, but we aren't the problem. In fact, only a couple are advocating Fighters Uber Alles, the rest are looking for ways to keep it all integrated.

And I've been saying that change is needed - any change - for a while. If the game is, in fact, churning people through at some rate then changes will at worst cause a dip in the current "generation" of players. They will be replaced. And eventually a solution will be hit upon where fewer people leave every month.

And a lot of the "moral code" you claim us "old men" want back has *nothing* to do with fighter combat. It's simply that the Gamer Ethic doesn't care about anything but personal gain attained by the shortest and cheapest route. Whereas with the enthusiast (in *any* endeavor) enjoys the journey, even if it means working for it.

The game has grown and absorbed a lot of Gamers - who have gravitated to the techniques that let them "win" the quickest and easiest way. That needs to be corrected so that AH2 stays true to what it says it is: "The Internet's Premier WW2 Combat Experience." Lawn-darting outhouses and 20mm Jousting don't qualify.

[leitwolf]

a tiny idea:

Remove fighter perks as a reward for destroying buildings in jabo sorties and give them bomber perks instead.
In order to get fighter perks you now actually have to shoot down other players.
Of course, this is still easier in a horde, but the focus may shift a little towards a2a action.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I don't know what bug you have about those of us who've been doing this a while, but we aren't the problem. In fact, only a couple are advocating Fighters Uber Alles, the rest are looking for ways to keep it all integrated.

And I've been saying that change is needed - any change - for a while. If the game is, in fact, churning people through at some rate then changes will at worst cause a dip in the current "generation" of players. They will be replaced. And eventually a solution will be hit upon where fewer people leave every month.

And a lot of the "moral code" you claim us "old men" want back has *nothing* to do with fighter combat. It's simply that the Gamer Ethic doesn't care about anything but personal gain attained by the shortest and cheapest route. Whereas with the enthusiast (in *any* endeavor) enjoys the journey, even if it means working for it.

The game has grown and absorbed a lot of Gamers - who have gravitated to the techniques that let them "win" the quickest and easiest way. That needs to be corrected so that AH2 stays true to what it says it is: "The Internet's Premier WW2 Combat Experience." Lawn-darting outhouses and 20mm Jousting don't qualify.

Well said.



ack-ack

[Midnight]

I'm all for getting rid of the garbage gameplay we have today.

I wouldn't say that I like lazs idea of the endless furball, because I don't belive in just shooting down planes as fast as possible before getting shot down by the endless incoming planes.

I agree with Kweassa in that we need some changes to what players deem as the "reward" or the "winning conditions"

The Quake and Doom era has spawned a new breed of players that do not win by skill or tactics, but by gaming the game and taking advantage of reality consessions that supposedly improve the playability of the game for the average player.

Seriously, have you tried Counter-Strike or HL Death-Match? Using RL team survival tactics is pointless, because you're playing against people that just run through rooms shooting HE rockets point blank. Sure hey die in the blast with you, but they are just happy to have killed you too.

It's my opinion that making the fields closer together won't make the furballs any better, because it will only allow the suicide jabos to load up, fly to the enemy field, drop bombs, crash and respawn all the more quickly. This already happens when CVs are close to shore, but the furball lasts longer because the CV has extra defenses that an airfield does not (i.e. endless spawning PT boats and mannable 5" AA guns)

If players believe that the way to "win" is to force a reset by capturing enemy airfields, they will keep doing whatever it takes to make it happen as quickly as possible.

[Oleg]

Originally posted by Midnight
It's my opinion that making the fields closer together won't make the furballs any better, because it will only allow the suicide jabos to load up, fly to the enemy field, drop bombs, crash and respawn all the more quickly.

Many close fields spreads players over frontline, decreases size of hordes and gives you choice where to fight.
Of course, there are hordes anyway, but you dont forced to join or oppose them. Current map (if it didnt changed till my last visit of MA) is good example.

[lazs2]

oleg is correct... if you have suicide fluffers they will come in at low alt and be slaughtered by guys who don't normaly even bother with fluffs.... I have seen enough of it at furballs at some of the closer fields..

midnight is leaving out what really happens now... with far fields it is common for peeee51's or typhies  to hit an undefended far fileld and kill ack and FH because they have time to gain alt and are untouchable to the rare plane upping and the ack is too slow to hit them... they simply deack and de hanger the field unappossed.

Said fast movers are no fun to defend against so that kind of gameplay continues.  

Close fields would do as Oleg and I have said.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[mars01]

Moving fields closer together have a lot of benefits.

Just some are:

1) If your hangers go down at one field you can still put up a TIMELY defense from another field.

2) If you are fighting the Horde it is easier to swallow when it only takes 30 seconds to get back rather than 5 mins.  Flying for 5 mins to die against unsurmountable odds sucks.

3) If a base is captured the furball is easily moved/followed.

4) More early war era planes.  People will be more apt to take the early stuff cause it won't take that long to get there.

5) More people condensed into a smaller area means more people running into each other wich = more fighting.

on and on...

[DoKGonZo]

I agree with you on 1), Mars ... but not the rest.

2) The Horde gets turned when they can't overwhelm the numbers at a base and the defenders have *time* to gain altitude with which to defend. With bases next to each other, there isn't that separation to create a time gap.

3) The current "tactic" is to keep the Horde intact and if it loses in one place, move it someplace else in search of 10:1 odds. Even to the point of abandoning a base they just captured. Closer bases only makes it easier to let the Horde keep the same starting point and steamroll some other nearby base. Which gives the defenders no time to establish CAP.

4) If you really think that smaller transit legs will entice any of the current crop to fly EW planes ... well ... no way. Unless you mean the Hurri2C ... in which case, yeah, you'll see a bunch of them.

5) More condensed area means the Horde can affect more fields without moving its home base. No way will this produce better fights, only more fields being steamrolled by Hordes at once. It's a lot easier to shift an attack vector than to relocate 30 people.

[mars01]

2) The Horde gets turned when they can't overwhelm the numbers at a base and the defenders have *time* to gain altitude with which to defend. With bases next to each other, there isn't that separation to create a time gap.

2 has nothing to do with turning the horde, just fighting it.  I don't climb anyway so time to climb means nothing to me.  Also if it is an affective hord then while your climbing they have already taken the base.

3) The current "tactic" is to keep the Horde intact and if it loses in one place, move it someplace else in search of 10:1 odds. Even to the point of abandoning a base they just captured. Closer bases only makes it easier to let the Horde keep the same starting point and steamroll some other nearby base. Which gives the defenders no time to establish CAP.

Again 3 has nothing to do with the horde or deterring it.  3 has everything to do with how quickly another furball gets started after the horde grapefruits fk up the fur you were in.

4) If you really think that smaller transit legs will entice any of the current crop to fly EW planes ... well ... no way. Unless you mean the Hurri2C ... in which case, yeah, you'll see a bunch of them.

Well I definitely know that long legs do not encourage EW planes what so ever.

5) More condensed area means the Horde can affect more fields without moving its home base. No way will this produce better fights, only more fields being steamrolled by Hordes at once. It's a lot easier to shift an attack vector than to relocate 30 people.

The Horde goes from one base to the next closest.  If they are a sector apart or right next to each other it doesn't change.  The horde can only hit one field at a time.  If defenders can up and hit the horde in a timely manner from multiple fields that is a good thing.

I think where you are getting confused is applying everything to the horde.  I never said that close bases cures the horde problem it just makes it easier to deal with.

I wrote the above list from perspective of just being able to fight and find fights.  Also notice on FesterMA the horde rarely starts in the middle where the bases are close together.  The horde is always moving on the outer ring where the bases are farther apart.  Why is that???

[DoKGonZo]

My observation of The Hordes as of late show that if they can get 10:1 odds over 2 or 3 neaby bases, they'll go after all of them. Putting things close together just reduces the time needed for the Horde to win by attrition.

If bases are moved closer together that just makes the Spit16 and La7 more appealing choices than before since they're both pretty short-ranged. There's less reason to try something else, not more.

The Horde wins by attrition. Putting up so many planes that the defenders can't shoot them down as fast as they're replaced. The only vulnerability of The Horde, short of becoming outnumbered by another Horde, is getting strung out on the way to target. So that the defenders, while still under constant attack, are fighting at closer to even odds locally even though outnumbered badly overall.

[mars01]

I disagree, I think the pros out weigh the cons.  Lets face it the only way to beat the horde back is with = numbers.  That's why I don't care if the bases are lost as much as I can get som decent fights out of it.  Closer bases helps the latter.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by mars01
I disagree, I think the pros out weigh the cons.  Lets face it the only way to beat the horde back is with = numbers.  That's why I don't care if the bases are lost as much as I can get som decent fights out of it.  Closer bases helps the latter.

And right there is the problem ... and I don't mean that to sound critical. You want closer bases because it'll give you a kind of "rolling furball" for you to get fights in. Fair enough.

But ... the Gamers will see that it is now even easier to steamroll a country by keeping a concentrated Horde together. As long as their group outnumbers the nearby defenders (either because of overall odds or convenient alliances or whatever), they can just pick whatever neaby base has the smallest bar-dar and trample it 5 minutes later. No way for defenders to react in time - especially if the two bases are in the same sector. And when you factor in HO'ing, well, if you can be back to where you were in 2 minutes then there's no investment in the sortie, so HO some more.

I guess I'm saying you're right for what you want out of it. But the side effects will just provide more incentive for the crap we now are saddled with.

[Dastrdly]

from my experience so far one way of quashing the "horde" is by nipping it at its source. whether it is by killing thier ordinance, troops & fuel. hangars can be taken out giving defenders time to get a better position. it also forces re-supply which now involves strats.

wars were not won by who had the biggest horde but rather the side that did the most strategical damage!

points are set up in part to promote this ie. high points for resupplying factories/cities & bases, as well as high destruction points for killing them. it gives the average players more oppertunities to be effective against opposing sides instead of having to be a top fighter pilot or a target for them. it also promotes team work & cuts down on numbers able to stay in the horde do to nesessity to resuply & protect strats. killing strats would cut down the number of spit XVls & LAs also.
 
it promotes "smarter" game play having bases further apart & atleast one of two is going to try a little harder to avoid the "ho".

if ENY was stricter (which it needs to be) late model planes would come into play more often.
 
when it comes to maps with close bases & lots of them it pretty well nullifies all of that. pork one base they just fly from the next, an endless supply of troops, bombs & fuel. the horde never ceases, strats dont get hit so its either join the horde or join the furball!