Disable resupply of City/factories and reasons why

[EagleDNY]

+1 to this again - and my reasons are in the other thread. 

[Citabria]

See rule #4

[HawkerMKII]

IMO it's not resupplies that do it.


IMO the strat pops up on its own before you can even land back at your start base. Which makes you not want to bother doing it again.

Down times and impacts on overall arena are so negligable that aside from the joy of seeing your text buffer fill with building kills, there's no reason to do it.

I don't think that's because of resupplying, because I never see anybody resupply strats, ever. It just pops up too fast.

I do, free and easy perks 

[W7LPNRICK]

you think I care about winning the war? i have 7000 fighter 7000 bomber and 4000 vehicle perks. I could care less about winning the war.
am I a regular bomber pilot? no fighters.

so what do I want? I want bomber pilots to fly into my sides strat targets en mass so I have more bombers to shoot at.

because I like shooting at bombers and I like them having a reason to feel good about attacking a high value target in spite of being shot down x3 after their bombs are dropped.

There is a valid point being made here. How many times have you climbed up to 17-25k chasing bombers over strats, to have them bail all 3 bombers because going back to land is not worth it. 

[SlapShot]

There is a valid point being made here. How many times have you climbed up to 17-25k chasing bombers over strats, to have them bail all 3 bombers because going back to land is not worth it. 

or they are too lazy to make the flight home or they don't want to be shot down ?

Can't tell you how many times I have seen (from an Ostwind/Whirble) a set of Lancs take down a VH base and rather than fly home ... they bail ... or a set of bombers that have bombed the town and try to escape and as soon as you get within range of possibly killing them ... they bail.

[LLogann]

And they never realize bailing is the same as being shot down.   

or they are too lazy to make the flight home or they don't want to be shot down ?

Can't tell you how many times I have seen (from an Ostwind/Whirble) a set of Lancs take down a VH base and rather than fly home ... they bail ... or a set of bombers that have bombed the town and try to escape and as soon as you get within range of possibly killing them ... they bail.

[bustr]

You guys are still blaming the bomber pilot for not doing what you want him to.

It's his $14.95 and is just as good as your $14.95. There are no rules proscribing how a bomber pilot is supposed to invest his aricraft's offensive capabilities to "enjoy" his time in the game. Give him a fun reason to invest his time to show up so you can fly home with your easy kills.

So far the only things you can agree on is the strat has relatively nothing of "FUN" interest to most bomber pilots in this game and as a group they won't fly their bombers the way you want them to. So back to what Hitech said about player centric wishes for the game. You are still thinking inside of your own boxes to make yourselves happy. What are the unintended consiquences?

[grizz441]

You guys are still blaming the bomber pilot for not doing what you want him to.

It's his $14.95 and is just as good as your $14.95. There are no rules proscribing how a bomber pilot is supposed to invest his aricraft's offensive capabilities to "enjoy" his time in the game. Give him a fun reason to invest his time to show up so you can fly home with your easy kills.

So far the only things you can agree on is the strat has relatively nothing of "FUN" interest to most bomber pilots in this game and as a group they won't fly their bombers the way you want them to. So back to what Hitech said about player centric wishes for the game. You are still thinking inside of your own boxes to make yourselves happy. What are the unintended consiquences?

I disagree completely.  You are making the mistake of distinguishing black and white between a bomber pilot and a fighter pilot as if there is no room for grey area.  There are plenty of players, I and Fester included, that would participate in strategic bomber sorties if there was a significant impact on the war, relative to the level of effort that must go into such an attack.  As it stands, I know that flying 30-45 minutes in a bomber to go attack a strat or HQ is ultimately a waste of time, and deters me from it.  Done it once, that was enough.  Only a small percentage of the player base, aka the bomber pilot diehards, will even attempt it as it stands.  

Personally I think there needs to be longer down times, as well as better real time strategic information that shows exactly what is going on, what is down, how that affects other fields.  Most players don't have a clue as to what bombing cities these strats and factories controls.  Formulating a beautiful plan to cripple your enemy is basically impossible/non existant in current format.

P.S. Fester was clearly talking in tongue in cheek when he said he wants more bombers to attack so he can shoot them down.

[moot]

It's not impossible, just not worthwhile.  The error margins / time window to exploit it are too small.

[Chilli]

When dealing with such things in the AvA, we have come to the conclusion, that it is the best strategy to give every player the option to choose what type of role they wish to play.  So if someone comes into the arena expecting to dogfight, it is up to that person to initiate that action in hopes that others will have the same intent, or are at least be willing to ablige.  The same goes for bombing targets, and capturing bases.  There are times when downtimes have to be adjusted to balance the overall arena (keeping short range dogfights and tank battles available, as well as presenting viable targets for ordinance.)

Posibly the most reasonable area to be affected by bombing should be fuel.  The impact would be felt in terms of long range missions, certain bomber altitudes and range, etc. but would not hinder a country's defense.  Ordinance is a sticky area, because without it ground vehicles can gain an upper hand rather quickly.  Availability of troops and supplies would next in terms of benefit to the value of target, with a less "lethal" affect on a country's abilities.

It's not impossible, just not worthwhile.  The error margins / time window to exploit it are too small.

Maybe it is time for the exploit to favor the offense then.  How long have we known about the port exploit?  Park a CV off the coast and ack can be resupplied in seconds.  I sure hope that has been fixed.......   I don't even bother with most base captures anymore due to the "exploits" that favor EZ mode base defense.

There I said it, EZ mode and exploit.  Two of the nonsense reasons that people use as an excuse for not presenting changes or knocking wishes.  Moot, this is not a knock at you however, it is more of an eye of the beholder thing. 

[AWwrgwy]

It's not impossible, just not worthwhile.  The error margins / time window to exploit it are too small.

No one bothers to follow through.

As has been pointed out in this thread, by the developer, taking down the strats in the proper order, then porking fields, slows, if not halts, a country's offensive ability.

Tired of the hoard rolling your bases? Kill the city, then the ords or grunt training, then pork some bases.

But it's tooo haard.

Tagma. Titanic Tuesday's map. The stats are right on the coast. Three sectors max from the enemy. Sectors away from the Me163 base. It would be easy to do as the game was designed.

No one resupplies strats. If anything, with something down at a base they need, they resupply the base.

HQ is a totally different situation. It's obvious it is down and what needs to be done to get it back up. Flying without HQ up is the next best thing to flying in the dark. You can't quickly find where the fights are.

Look at it from a different perspective. Make the wish: I do not want to be able to resupply my own strats if needed. I want to be limited to 25% fuel so I can only fly BUFFS, Mustangs, and Jugs. I don't want to have troops or ords available to me to use if they are destroyed.

Then, maybe the powers that be will think what you are asking for is what you really want.

I still think it's a non-issue anyway.

A. no one porks the starts as they were designed.
B. no one resupplies the strats if they are bombed.

Everyone looks at the HQ situation, "I flew for an hour to kill a country's dar and it's back up in 15 minutes" and substitutes "STRAT" for "HQ".

RE: equity of effort.

The whine is also that the effort to kill something is greater than the effort to get it back up. I say this is not so.

One plane can kill the dar and ords at a small field in one sortie. One person with supplies cannot undo this in one trip.
Three or four players can take down HQ in one sortie. Often one long sortie but still one. How many supply runs to bring it back up? Six? Eight? Of course it is quicker. Do you want HQ on the front lines where it is easy to kill? Do you want your HQ where it is easy to kill?

Wishes like this are always about "how can I make it easier to kill the other guy?" Remember, it also becomes "how can it be easier for the other guy to do it to me?"

Is that what you really want?


wrongway

[hitech]

How long have we known about the port exploit?  Park a CV off the coast and ack can be resupplied in seconds. 

About 10 secs.

HiTech

[moot]

Chilli - I'd never heard of that.  You mean the CV's LVT spawn allows you to mass drop supplies to the port if it's brought close enough?

Wrongway - I'm on both sides of this one so the bias argument doesn't fly.  If you read what I've argued that's self-evident.

Then, maybe the powers that be will think what you are asking for is what you really want.

Don't go Bustr on me, I'm not trying to cook anyone's fun bunny, I just want to raise the potential for both damage and repair so that actions mean more rather than less.  As it is now (putting aside HT's mention that resupply effectiveness is twice what it should be) you just don't have any worth in hitting HQ.  Not only is it most likely a suicide mission unless you go there in a large mission, the strategic value (radar) lasts too little time, because resupply is too quick.

Now HT says we ought to get twice as much downtime for a given amount of resupply (say, as much as we usually get), and if that's what we'd get (probably not, because people would resupply more - consequently with decreased resupply effectiveness) it'd already be IMO a large enough increase to be worth leaving it be for a while to see how the whole Arena/Players system adjusts to it.

Instead HT says he will change the mechanic - resupply no longer affects all buildings within supply box range, but a limited number of buildings.  So it seems to me he agrees that resupply equity needs balancing.  Which is all I've argued.  There's both a decrease in resupply effectiveness (15min instead of 30), and a new limit to how many buildings in supply range are affected - but then the range could be adjusted too, so I don't know what the bottom line +- rebalancing of supp. effectivness is.

The difference between strats in HQ zone and elsewhere is that most of the time the HQ zone is behind enemy lines, and so you can't do jack about those resupply convoys == HQ downtime in practice is as good as guaranteed to be always minimal.  Whereas I think the balance of [downtime/resupply survivability] outside of the HQ area is good enough. 

Wishes like this are always about "how can I make it easier to kill the other guy?" Remember, it also becomes "how can it be easier for the other guy to do it to me?"

No and you must've meant to quote Fester or something, because I clearly say after thinking about it that no resupply is too lopsided.

I still think it's a non-issue anyway.

You think it's a non-issue that the central part of the game's strat system is ignored?  You don't think that's symptom of some dysfunction?

A. no one porks the starts as they were designed.
B. no one resupplies the strats if they are bombed.

A. because they're not worth it.  Or they would be bombed like hangars and radar are consistently bombed.
B. Because they're not valuable like dot dar antennas and hangars are.  Make them so and they will be minded.

And this argument isn't really HQ but City.  Especially when the City is near HQ.  I haven't been back long enough to comment on what it's like to have the City away from HQ.

[AWwrgwy]

Chilli - I'd never heard of that.  You mean the CV's LVT spawn allows you to mass drop supplies to the port if it's brought close enough?

You forgot the

The spawns were fixed so you cannot dry spawn any more

part.

Wrongway - I'm on both sides of this one so the bias argument doesn't fly.  If you read what I've argued that's self-evident.Don't go Bustr on me, I'm not trying to cook anyone's fun bunny, I just want to raise the potential for both damage and repair so that actions mean more rather than less.  As it is now (putting aside HT's mention that resupply effectiveness is twice what it should be) you just don't have any worth in hitting HQ.  Not only is it most likely a suicide mission unless you go there in a large mission, the strategic value (radar) lasts too little time, because resupply is too quick.

Now HT says we ought to get twice as much downtime for a given amount of resupply (say, as much as we usually get), and if that's what we'd get (probably not, because people would resupply more - consequently with decreased resupply effectiveness) it'd already be IMO a large enough increase to be worth leaving it be for a while to see how the whole Arena/Players system adjusts to it.

Instead HT says he will change the mechanic - resupply no longer affects all buildings within supply box range, but a limited number of buildings.  So it seems to me he agrees that resupply equity needs balancing.  Which is all I've argued.  There's both a decrease in resupply effectiveness (15min instead of 30), and a new limit to how many buildings in supply range are affected - but then the range could be adjusted too, so I don't know what the bottom line +- rebalancing of supp. effectivness is.

The difference between strats in HQ zone and elsewhere is that most of the time the HQ zone is behind enemy lines, and so you can't do jack about those resupply convoys == HQ downtime in practice is as good as guaranteed to be always minimal.  Whereas I think the balance of [downtime/resupply survivability] outside of the HQ area is good enough. 
 No and you must've meant to quote Fester or something, because I clearly say after thinking about it that no resupply is too lopsided.
You think it's a non-issue that the central part of the game's strat system is ignored?  You don't think that's symptom of some dysfunction?
A. because they're not worth it.  Or they would be bombed like hangars and radar are consistently bombed.

B. Because they're not valuable like dot dar antennas and hangars are.  Make them so and they will be minded.

But the dynamics have not changed and when it was easy, ie: relatively risk free, strats were bombed all the time.

What has really changed is there is a greater chance of getting killed. The end results, offensively, are still the same.

I think people used to attack stats more in the past because they like to blow stuff up. Not because they thought it would make a difference.

So, in effect, the strats as they are now, when they are attacked, actually are essentially positive for game play. A single 110 or buff formation cannot leisurely flit about killing the ammo factory all by themselves and have an effect.

I think strats are ignored because people are not looking at the big picture. It's even simpler than strats. When a country is getting rolled, no one porks the attacking country's bases to slow down their offensive. Strats is just a bigger part of that.

I'm just not buying the "make strat more important" argument. I'm seeing a "make strat easier to kill" argument.

HQ is a different matter. No dar sux. Pure and simple. 

What is really wanted is an "industrial complex" that has no effect to a country, is relatively easy to get to, and blows up real good.

It would be easy to bomb. No one would care. And, the attacker would get some token points and their name in lights.


wrongway

[bustr]

Fester, Moot, Grizz,

Sorry if you gents are offended by the generalised use of the word "Fun". The three of you are obviously trying to kick the game up a few notches on the complexity scale. That would be fine if you three were not the exception to the general population rule that most paying customers are here to seek generic uncomplicated "Fun".

Your version of the game would not be rewarding for most of the paying customers who's greatest daily accomplishment is to get off the ground and have fun for a few hours with thier drinking buddies. It still comes back to you want the game changed to reward your personal needs. You assume that because you are who you are, the rest of the player population will be rewarded because it came from your genius. Remember the comment to "This is classic player based game design." by someone.

I've always been amazed that you gentelmen who are obviously a few cylinders more blessed at this simulation than most of it's customers have yet to emulate Hitech and Pyro's history. Creating your own coadly universe to fufill your obvious need for a more nuanced and complex form of the genre. Guess it's easier and less personly costly to pester Hitech trusting to his experience than to compete with him at his level.