new ways to win the war

[matt72078]

Would like to see a map where the objective is something different than taking a certain percentage of the enemies bases.  It's been the same way for years, and it's getting kind of old.  Not to mention it tends to make the players disperse away from each other on the bigger maps and not come together.  Here are some of the ideas I have...

1.  Each country has a main base in the back of their territory.  When that base is captured the war is won.  (I like this idea because it forces everybody to keep moving in one or two directions instead of people attacking ten different bases at once.)

2.  Instead of capturing bases the objective would be to destroy designated targets like a city, town, or strat.  I would also throw in some small targets like trucks and trains so super high-bombers can't kill everything.

3.  Map like the WW1 map with unapproachable bases, and spawn points.  Basically a furball map.  First team to get a certain amount of kills wins.  (I would make the kill count low enough that the map stays up for only a short while.  So the non-furballers don't get too annoyed.)

4.  Kill the CVs map.  Mostly water map where the last country with a CV still floating wins.

Well those are my ideas.  I'm sure they'll never happen but I felt like sharing them here since I'm bored, and don't have a twitter account.

[Wiley]

There was a thread a little while ago that mentioned basically a points system that would result in a war win.

I kind of like the idea of multiple ways to win the war, although the devil's in the details on something like that.  The easiest way to do it becomes the new standard way of doing it.  Maybe make it in such a way that different map types lend themselves to different styles of winning.

I like the concept, but it would require a metric buttload of design effort and critical thought to do well.

Wiley.

[bustr]

Matt,

Winning the war is just a mechanism in place if players want to do it. Other wise, AH is an empty sand box environment with toys laying about and no rules. An Imagineering arena.

Why do you want HiTech to impose rules to force players to focus their efforts into your presentation? Each individual field that can be captured in itself is a mini war zone defined by the active functions assigned to it. You choose to join in the fight at any given field or follow your own compass. Airplane fighting requires two to fight in empty 3D airspace defined by your skill and imagination.

No rules and free will, opposed to the Special Events Arena where teams of players spend weeks and months creating a two sided major war scenario that boils down to a couple of hours of play time for thousands of man hours of their donated time including building maps. Or the AvA where a team of players create two sided scenario that changes out every week including building maps.

The AvA rules are a bit looser and like the MA. The SEA arena offerings impose rules, restrictions and penalties imposed by an authority to keep the players on track for "three hours". So why do you want HiTech to impose an outside dream on customers in the MA who are paying for a vanilla sandbox environment with no rules 24x7? Three hours once a week is about all anyone can impose on our community.

[Volron]

Would like to see a map where the objective is something different than taking a certain percentage of the enemies bases.  It's been the same way for years, and it's getting kind of old.  Not to mention it tends to make the players disperse away from each other on the bigger maps and not come together.  Here are some of the ideas I have...

1.  Each country has a main base in the back of their territory.  When that base is captured the war is won.  (I like this idea because it forces everybody to keep moving in one or two directions instead of people attacking ten different bases at once.)

2.  Instead of capturing bases the objective would be to destroy designated targets like a city, town, or strat.  I would also throw in some small targets like trucks and trains so super high-bombers can't kill everything.

3.  Map like the WW1 map with unapproachable bases, and spawn points.  Basically a furball map.  First team to get a certain amount of kills wins.  (I would make the kill count low enough that the map stays up for only a short while.  So the non-furballers don't get too annoyed.)

4.  Kill the CVs map.  Mostly water map where the last country with a CV still floating wins.

Well those are my ideas.  I'm sure they'll never happen but I felt like sharing them here since I'm bored, and don't have a twitter account.

1: I believe something similar to this was implemented in the past.  AH had to capture bases in an order to the back, but was still the required percentage we have now.  Didn't work so it was dropped.  I am not too sure exactly how the system ran as it was well before my time.  Someone who was around during that time will have much better information.  Hope they chime in.

2: This isn't an overly bad idea, but still missing.  If coupled with the current system in place, maps will stay up longer, but it also means the large maps will almost always be up until the 7 day limit(?) is hit.  Then it's reset.  If small maps were the only maps, then this option could be workable.  Admittedly, I still think that there should be damage to the enemy's strategic field as well as x bases captured.  20% bases with enemy strats at or below 50% on each side, kind of thing.

3: If I want to play War Thunder or World of Warplanes, I'll go there.

4: CV's are extremely easy to knock out.  If a more detailed defensive maneuver system was in-place for them, this option would still not work, but at least would be a tad more valid-ish.  Was your intent to put a limit on land base planes?

[SPKmes]

Open your mind....it isn't imposing more rules...it is offering more options to rotate maps for those so inclined...as it is now there is only two ways to change a map.... win the war or wait a week...
giving a wider variety of options is good... those who want the vanilla experience still have it.

[bustr]

He wants WT style timer based fights that work for two sided conflicts and fast turn arounds. Which seems to be the goto for many once they get bored with the sand box. The other group of bored players describe scenario in their wishes that ultimately turns the MA into the SEA with ridged enforcement of roles for everyone. 

The OP's wish means forcing the rest of the customers into a mold whether they want to be in it or else a tiny few flip every map in record time. Today it takes a hoard, while others can wander off a do what hey want with a very low probability of being forced to do anything about the hoard.

In the end just like not having strategic targets that a single finger salute from 30k bombers can shut down a whole county's fun, and the map is done with. By breaking their legs, wings and poking their eyes out in a single move. While allowing other countries free reign with uber war monster rides. These requests end up giving that ability to a tiny number who are bored, the ability to control the fun of the majority. Constantly dropping the HQ and bailing will seem like nothing after that.

None of you guys ever wonder why HiTech will not implement things like this after 15 years, or do you not care other than you are bored and want what you want?

[pembquist]

I know it's to much work and might have unintended consequences but....how about making uncapturable bases capturable if say all bases with a spawn connection to it were captured. What I'm getting at is the introduction of something dynamic other than down times. I'm not saying the same uncapturable bases as now but new ones laid out with this feature in mind.

[SPKmes]

God you read way way way too far into things..... or perhaps I should read a little harder to see these things

There were a couple of ideas that are not what you are describing at all....
number 3 is the only one close ....

<walks away shaking head in amazement>

[JimmyD3]

I know it's to much work and might have unintended consequences but....how about making uncapturable bases capturable if say all bases with a spawn connection to it were captured. What I'm getting at is the introduction of something dynamic other than down times. I'm not saying the same uncapturable bases as now but new ones laid out with this feature in mind.

Then that "country's player's" can't play. They have no access to aircraft or GV's. 

[jimson]

God you read way way way too far into things..... or perhaps I should read a little harder to see these things

There were a couple of ideas that are not what you are describing at all....
number 3 is the only one close ....

<walks away shaking head in amazement>

Lol, There are those that will ride this game all the way to the scrap heap shooting down any proposed changes or additions complaining that all we need is everyone to play like they supposedly used to years ago.

I always wanted a way for admins to set different parameters for winning the battle to rotate through a number of loaded scenarios.
That would be for cm run arenas. I wouldn't know what to do with the MA.

[pembquist]

Then that "country's player's" can't play. They have no access to aircraft or GV's. 

What? I don't understand.

[Latrobe]

I kind of like the idea of certain bases having a bigger impact on the war than other bases. Like, lets say taking 1 field adds 1.5% to the war win counter. How about if we make one of the large airfields slightly harder to take (more ack? need more buildings dead to WF?) and if your team can capture the base then you get 3% to the war win counter instead of 1.5%. We could have several of these "important bases" around the map. Might make people start focusing on 1 area in order to get to that base instead of spreading the already thin numbers all over the map.

This might be difficult or impossible to do on small maps though since there's only about a dozen bases on each side.  Maybe scale the number of "important bases" to the number of bases on the map? Small maps will only have 1 of these bases, medium maps will have about 3-4, and large maps could have about 10.

[bustr]

Most of the social control experiments you guys want, only work if someone in power is holding a gun to players heads. They don't work in a sandbox full of toys with no rules other than imagination.

Very rarely do any of you account for what happens the other 21-22 hours a day you are not there. These things look like they work well in the SEA because they have players who pre agreed to be there for three hours. Someone with the power to eject them for screwing around. And that it only runs once a week or month for three hours in which you will have a maximum attendance by people who have arranged their lives to make the time.

The MA is a drop in rec center with toys and space to play with them. Other than that you are on your own. The AvA has been trying out many years of social control experiments. The MA still has the 24x7 population.

90% of the MA population never visits these forums. Of the remaining 10%, less than 5% spend any regular time here. And less than 5% of them are usually the most bored and loudest wanting HiTech to change his game at the drop of their bored whims. And of those, some of you aren't even playing the game any more.

[matt72078]

The basic theme of my ideas was to get bigger concentrations of players.  People would gravitate toward higher value targets meaning bigger battles.  It might not mean anything to the prime time players, but this game can be very frustrating during off hours.  Spending twenty minutes chasing a tiny DAR bar only to see it disappear sucks.

[kvuo75]

The basic theme of my ideas was to get bigger concentrations of players.  People would gravitate toward higher value targets meaning bigger battles.  It might not mean anything to the prime time players, but this game can be very frustrating during off hours.  Spending twenty minutes chasing a tiny DAR bar only to see it disappear sucks.

if you want to concentrate players its pretty easy, only have small maps in the rotation