Race to the reset.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Flayed1
"Now with greater numbers of Barracks the counter attack is viable and sides ignore heavily populated enemy front lines at their peril. Defenders can switch to attack if their opponents go elsewhere.............We may still wish to increase barracks/ordinance numbers further."


  I think they have em about right...  Last night we did an attack raid about 6 strong (I think this is an average # with the population being decreased per arena) to pork a small field..    We porked it all right but we all died doing it.  I can only imagine what it would be like trying to do a larger field with the same amount of guys.

  Might get half, maybe 3/4 of the strat down.  

If by attack you mean fighters with ord then My wish would be that it would require all 6 of you to die many times before you could wipe out all the infantry for an area supported by a field.

My point being that porkage (particularly of troops and ordinance) should be very difficult and require mass bombing from many formations.

Forcing you to meet your opponent and fight him (and kill his troop carriers)in the field rather than try to adopt a tactic that denies his troops access to the field  such that his attack would be a waste of time.

[thndregg]

Originally posted by Tilt
My point being that porkage (particularly of troops and ordinance) should be very difficult and require mass bombing from many formations.

No problem.

[mutant]

Originally posted by Tilt
I would presume concept of "you cant hit em where they aint" is one of HT's  constant challenges.........

Map design would ideally channel the "invasion routes" to focus conflict in key areas or at least provide key "flash points" that were critical to the next stage in the invasion or defence of a territory.
 New map design to add areas critical to the war effort would produce a whole new complexity to the game and certainly welcomed by those who enjoy the strategic aspect of the game

However we see that when capture attempts against fields presently heavily defended are doomed that attackers (quite sensibly given their goal) switch the attack to less defended fields.

Gameplay therefore is placed on a moving battle field......... this is OK as long as both attack, defence and counter attack etc can move and the defenders are not removed from gameplay.

If defenders cannot respond to this move in time then they are removed from gameplay...........very demotivating

and why can they not respond in time? IS it because the attackers are more organized?  Then organize your countries defences better. The fact that defenders can immediatly re-up upon being killed is a huge advantage that must be overcome by either #'s (brute force) or well organized and well timed raids (tactics and strategy). To eliminate well coordinated raids that capture poorly defended fields from the game would effectively put an end to the philisophy 'timing is everything' and replace it with '#'s is everything' .

We may  like to consider a method of enabling defenders to respond a little quicker to a changing point of attack. To do this they will need more notice........... this may be as simple as extending radar ranges and or even conveying more data from radar than that presently obtained.

 Motivation to defend is important.......... it should be fun, it should be rewarding and it should be possible.

There is ample notice currently to mount a defence of just about any field. Yes it may cost you some K/D ratio as you start to pick away at attackers #'s

Mass attacks geared to runway suppression via vulching are no fun for the defender and extremely de motivating............ I believe the recent increase in AA has reduced this trend.  

unfortunatly if future patches effectively eliminate the NOE mission this will become the primary means of base capture! Mass attack to clear the skies and cap the field. In concert with high level bmbing to take out hangers. And perhaps a GV line on the ground....And if defense is sufficiently organized you will effectively have trenchwarfare in the WW1 style...lots of killing and destruction for little or now effective change in the lines of battle...with the occasional large foray of 1 side going 'over the top' only to be mangled by the defenses rinse cycle and repeat....

NOE surprise low level formation carpet bombing made defence improbable due to lateness of defensive responce.........the defending field often porked/ killed before a defence could properly respond......again I believe the recent increase in AA has reduced this trend as low level formations are getting shredded.

I disagree...if more people were willing to up in the face of these attacks (isntead of worrying about their K/D ratio, they are likely to repel the attack...mainly because when they die they can immediatly reup while any attacker they kill is effectively removed from the battle. It may cost a few rides but eventually the attackers #'s are depleted while the defenders grow! LTAR does this often  and it shows in our lower K/D ratios...one reason we care little about that stat. And as always organizatioin is key....having trouble with bases being undefended? Organize a BDF that speciallizis in going to fields under attack and as a unit repelling them! Your K/D ratio would prob be low but take satisfaction in all the saves you make!

Now with greater numbers of Barracks the counter attack is viable and sides ignore heavily populated enemy front lines at their peril.  Defenders can switch to attack if their opponents go elsewhere.............We may still wish to increase barracks/ordinance numbers further. [/B]

This is the very kind of counterattack that those wishing to stop the 'end runs' will eliminate!  Indeed if you are having trouble stopping the opponent from rolling bases, a counter-attack into his poorly defended flank is a good strategy! You can't eat your cake and have it too!  


LTARcnuk

p.s. sgt203, well said...that was the very point I made earlier, and I fail to understand why some would seek to change it because they don't like how 'other guys' play the game! DO what you enjoy! And leave others to do the same.

[1azbaer]

Since I have been playing that has been the point of the MA, or at least my impression of it. Why else would you want to fly in there?

So are any of you going to switch back to or try the AVA? Where furballs and one on one  dog fights, and a few base captures were the norm? Granted the plane sets bite but, most populate MA arena has been the early war which seem to be the norm plane set in the ava.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by mutant
and why can they not respond in time? IS it because the attackers are more organized?  Then organize your countries defences better. The fact that defenders can immediatly re-up upon being killed is a huge advantage that must be overcome by either #'s (brute force) or well organized and well timed raids (tactics and strategy). To eliminate well coordinated raids that capture poorly defended fields from the game would effectively put an end to the philisophy 'timing is everything' and replace it with '#'s is everything' .



There is ample notice currently to mount a defence of just about any field. Yes it may cost you some K/D ratio as you start to pick away at attackers #'s


I disagree...if more people were willing to up in the face of these attacks (isntead of worrying about their K/D ratio, they are likely to repel the attack...mainly because when they die they can immediatly reup while any attacker they kill is effectively removed from the battle. It may cost a few rides but eventually the attackers #'s are depleted while the defenders grow! LTAR does this often  and it shows in our lower K/D ratios...one reason we care little about that stat. And as always organizatioin is key....having trouble with bases being undefended? Organize a BDF that speciallizis in going to fields under attack and as a unit repelling them! Your K/D ratio would prob be low but take satisfaction in all the saves you make!

 

This is the very kind of counterattack that those wishing to stop the 'end runs' will eliminate!  Indeed if you are having trouble stopping the opponent from rolling bases, a counter-attack into his poorly defended flank is a good strategy! You can't eat your cake and have it too!  


LTARcnuk

p.s. sgt203, well said...that was the very point I made earlier, and I fail to understand why some would seek to change it because they don't like how 'other guys' play the game! DO what you enjoy! And leave others to do the same.

Finally getting to the crux of poorly defended fields.

People worried about scores and K/D ratios.

Seen GHI and a few of use stop a mass attack just by re-upping (sometimes only in IL2's as FHs dead), eventually the attackers get depleted you can just keep on re-upping.

Penalty - The almighty quest for the 'score/rank' gets flushed, no biggie we all know it means diddly squat anyway.

[Tilt]

Fears for K/D ratio or not these are player motivators and game play must take them into account......................

Equally if for some mystical reason defences are more poorly organised than attacks then game play must take this into account...................

If "facing up" to attacks is as fun and rewarding as attacks them selves then........????????

re counter attack we agree......................

and all the cake I eat is mine and some time some one elses too

[hitech]

People worried about scores and K/D ratios.

I believe sores have very little to do with it.

I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.

The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend,  rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.

Now do not view me this as pointing fingers saying people should play different.

I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.

HiTech

[airspro]

IMO if you want more combat do this >

Leave the radar up all the time , not let it be killable like it is now , or better yet , make it cover ALL the map not just the circles . Reason , you can't kill what you can't find .


Shut down the score page . Reason , people play alot differant with it on .

You do these two things , you'll see a HUGE differance in game play .


Don't matter to me either way . But if you really want more interaction between people online this will work .

Edit > I just seen HT's answer for score . I will say more now . I played on the zone servers my first online flight game CFS one . Thunderbirds on the zone was were you were scored and I forget the other one were no scores were counted . TB had maybe 30 people most times and they were soooo scared about losing rank that most of the time they just sat outside the room and chatted . The none scored rooms had 200 or more most nights . When I finally got my friends to play in the none scored rooms we had so much more fights .

I really think your wrong on the score issue , not everyone looks but I would from my exp playing online that alot more do than don't . Food for thought for you , I hope .

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by hitech
I believe sores have very little to do with it.

I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.

The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend,  rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.

Now do not view me this as pointing fingers saying people should play different.

I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.

HiTech

Amen

And I think we need to get away from the red v blue state....er....Liberal v Conservative....um.......Repu blican v Democrat......grrrr......Tool shedder v furballer stereotypes.

This isn't about finding the perfect 1 v 1 or finding the totally undefended base.  It's about getting the players to go into combat against each other.  There is no point to playing an online game against real folks if your only goal is to avoid them

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by airspro
Leave the radar up all the time , not let it be killable like it is now , or better yet , make it cover ALL the map not just the circles . Reason , you can't kill what you can't find .

Shut down the score page . Reason , people play alot differant with it on .

I dont think the score page has that much to do with it.

People worried about scores and K/D ratios.

Seen GHI and a few of use stop a mass attack just by re-upping (sometimes only in IL2's as FHs dead), eventually the attackers get depleted you can just keep on re-upping.

some may worry about k/d ratios and scores but for myself I just dont see the fun in continously uping a plane just to get shot down again time and time again in the hopes that eventually I'll get them all and prevent the capture.  Better for me to go look for a fight where the odds are more even and I have a chance to get my wheels up

Now the Radar thing might be something worth trying,  get rid of the 200/500ft limit on the radar and show everything from the ground up, including GVs.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by hitech
I believe sores have very little to do with it.

I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.

The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend,  rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.
 

exactly. most peoples comments when asking on ch2 about defence would be "offence is the best defence".... its sorta true, but a bit annoying when the offence is pointless lol

Originally posted by hitech

I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.

HiTech

SFMA.... every base has GV spawn, high bases in corners allow buffs to get high relatively easy, and the bases are quiet close (bar the outside edge ones)... not only that but the CV battles are good too. that map has virtually everything in one place.

that way, the fighters fight. the bombers kill towns, and gvs take bases... much better to have a alround balanced attack, than 10x110s coming in with no bombers or troops lol.

[Sweet2th]

the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.

You mean like the new map in the TA?It has very many area's of conflict, why don't you just throw that map up?

[mutant]

Originally posted by Tilt
Fears for K/D ratio or not these are player motivators and game play must take them into account......................

Equally if for some mystical reason defences are more poorly organised than attacks then game play must take this into account...................

If "facing up" to attacks is as fun and rewarding as attacks them selves then........????????

re counter attack we agree......................

and all the cake I eat is mine and some time some one elses too

 BUt the game DOES take them into account...
 the scoring/ranking system rewards those who playfor score and the base capture/ war victory rewards those who are willing to pay the price to take and defend territory.

And yes some of us do find 'facing up' to attacks just as rewarding when we manage to send a horde packing!:aok  Those who don't enjoy it are of course free to do whatever they like,  but to NOT defend bases and then whine about how 'undefended' bases are to easily taken is just silly!

and organizition is also taken into account in the game as all are free to form squads, communicate on radio and otherwise coordinate their attack/defense startegy. Further if one is dissatified by their countries tactics/organization and feeling like it is costing them ''the war' they are free to change countries.

Changing the game so those who don't want to defend bases no longer have to worry about bases being captured is ridiculous in my opinion and will seriously reduce the enjoyment of the game.


LTARcnuk

p.s.  keep your hands off my BASE! (er CAKE!)

[mutant]

Originally posted by hitech
I believe sores have very little to do with it.

I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.

The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend,  rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.

Now do not view me this as pointing fingers saying people should play different.

I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.

HiTech

 With all due respect sir,
    You already have such a system. The opportunity for conflict is there for all types. And people are of course free to attack/defend however they see fit.
 However a change in the system that limits strategies and tactics for base capture to brute force/ hoard attacks will be a serious blow to gameplay.
 And to make base capture more difficullt  to satisfy those who are unwilling to 'look around and defend' at the expense of those who are willing to 'look around' and attack is a poorly thought out idea.
 It is these very attacks that often turn into the 'fight that is already happening' that furballers may go to. If you remove the incentive to begin these attacks (ie base capture) the arena will become stale indeed.


LTARcnuk

[E25280]

Originally posted by hitech
I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.

HiTech

I would add -- without going overboard so that it becomes complete gridlock.

I know you posted an idea about making only one base capturable at a time.  The more I have thought about that (or similar options), the more I think that would just create a whole new problem.  Yes, it would channel the fights around a few fields -- but unless one side by quirk of timing has an overwhelming majority in an arena, you end up with nothing but a "stagnant" furball.  The same base is fought over for hours, with neither side being able to get the upper hand and actually take it.

That may sound like heaven to the pure furballers out there.  But, if there is no sense of "forward movement" within a reasonable amount of time, it will be very frustrating to the base capture crowd.

So, there have to be outlets of some type.  IMO, this is what the "end runs" are about.  If a side feels they are getting nowhere after a time, they have to start a new front somewhere where "forward movement" is perceived to be possible.

I think upping the field ack and increasing the strats was a great idea. Any"end-runs" now must be done by larger groups of people organizing and working together rather than just two looking at a quiet area of a map.  It also gives more time for defense against poorly timed / executed attacks.  Porking becomes mission oriented rather than lone wolf territory.  

But remove the possiblity of an "outlet" entirely, i.e. funnel too tightly, and I think the game will lose something of what makes it fun for many.