Jump to content


Bases


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Remember bases? (37 members have cast votes)

What's your opinion of bases?

  1. I play GA and I liked bases. (18 votes [48.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.65%

  2. I play GA and I disliked bases. (8 votes [21.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.62%

  3. I play GA and I had no opinion on bases. (1 vote [2.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.70%

  4. I don't play GA and I liked bases. (5 votes [13.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.51%

  5. I don't play GA and I disliked bases. (2 votes [5.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.41%

  6. I don't play GA and I had no opinion on bases. (1 vote [2.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.70%

  7. What are bases?! I wasn't playing then. (2 votes [5.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.41%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Porkins_Jr #1 Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:42 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013
I liked bases, did you? Vote.

Gang_Starr #2 Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:48 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2 battles
  • 3,845
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    04-09-2014
Bases were there so that baddie HFs could rush in, drop 2 bombs and die. And feel like they accomplished something when in reality they were useless to the team.

Tenks


Noreaga #3 Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:50 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 8 battles
  • 3,067
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012

i liked the idea behind bases, but it was a flame to the moths. The reduction of AA strength was not enough to make it worth 1/3 of the team yolo rushing the base, and then the GA's would try. 

 

The new (relative) targets are a big improvement, they added a lot of depth to the GA game. I would love to see bases come back in someway for a reduction in AA(A) accuracy, but you can't spend gold on that so we won't see it.


Nimis obnoxii curare


pyantoryng #4 Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:59 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2232 battles
  • 8,455
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostNoreaga, on 27 June 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

i liked the idea behind bases, but it was a flame to the moths. The reduction of AA strength was not enough to make it worth 1/3 of the team yolo rushing the base, and then the GA's would try. 

 

The new (relative) targets are a big improvement, they added a lot of depth to the GA game. I would love to see bases come back in someway for a reduction in AA(A) accuracy, but you can't spend gold on that so we won't see it.

 

"reduction" was barely noticable though.

 

...and Bf 110E back then carried SC500s...



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Tophatfire #5 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:00 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2,889
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

The way the headquarters could (supposedly) affect AA was interesting, but it was just too tempting to stupid players.  Some would famously rush for the base every single time no matter how much the team pleaded with them to at least wait a minute to let the team gain altitude and regain some boost.  It wound up making the game dumb for both sides when they died right away after accomplishing little and started yelling at everyone for not providing cover.

 

I wouldn't want to see bases come back unless they were changed significantly like with randomized location etc..  And unless a minimum IQ level for GA flying were established first.



DragonMaxx #6 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:02 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 51 battles
  • 375
  • Member since:
    10-29-2012

Instead of bases I would rather see moving targets like tanks, ships, and trains.    That would make it more of a challenge than the static targets we currently have.

 

Also if they would change the placements of the targets so they aren't in the same place every time you start a battle.


Do Not Meddle In the Affairs of Dragons...for You are Crunchy & Good with Ketchup!!


Porkins_Jr #7 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:05 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

I may have been guilty of attacking bases/HQ like a madman but in my defense I was very new to the game.

 

I agree they should have reduced AA fire more - or maybe provided more superiority points.

 

I agree HFs should not attack a base.



Gang_Starr #8 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:07 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2 battles
  • 3,845
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    04-09-2014

View PostDragonMaxx, on 27 June 2016 - 02:02 PM, said:

Instead of bases I would rather see moving targets like tanks, ships, and trains.    That would make it more of a challenge than the static targets we currently have.

 

I remember back in like 1.3 or earlier the warships used to move, then in 1.6 they changed them to stationary, idk why.

Tenks


pyantoryng #9 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:09 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2232 battles
  • 8,455
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGang_Starr, on 27 June 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

 

I remember back in like 1.3 or earlier the warships used to move, then in 1.6 they changed them to stationary, idk why.

 

Ahh...they did move alright...

 

WG stole their screws and gave them to WoWS...



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Porkins_Jr #10 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:11 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

Moving targets is a great idea! When I first started playing I think they moved, but very slowly. Ships and tanks should move a bit faster than that.

 

...or just integrate all 3 games already.



Steel_bomber_ #11 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,519
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-28-2013

It depends where WG is going with this game (if they even know it).

 

In a real war a country has lost the war when all tactical targets have been destroyed.

So in order to play like that the supremacy bar should move up faster when more ground targets have been destroyed. Maybe there should be more (moving) targets for game play like that.

Maybe there should be like 4 main targets all over the enemy map, if they are ALL destroyed.....VICTORY, something like that. (targets could then also be randomised, if they can fix that?)

New map type like, defend your land. There will always be GA with bots!

 

In a real war fighters protect bombers, or attack bombers to prevent their land from being damaged. In this game this is all utopia.

Too many people play for themselves.

So base or not, depends where WG is going with this game.

 


Edited by Steel_bomber_, 27 June 2016 - 06:18 PM.

THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
     
 
            

Porkins_Jr #12 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:24 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 5,280
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

View PostSteel_bomber_, on 27 June 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

It depends where WG is going with this game (if they even know it).

 

In a real war a country has lost the war when all tactical targets have been destroyed.

So in order to play like that the supremacy bar should move up faster when more ground targets have been destroyed. Maybe there should be more (moving) targets for game play like that.

Maybe there should be like 4 main targets all over the enemy map, if they are ALL destroyed.....VICTORY, something like that. (targets could then also be randomised, if they can fix that?)

New map type like, defend your land. There will always be GA with bots!

 

In a real war fighters protect bombers, or attack bombers to prevent their land from being damaged. In this game this is all utopia.

Too many people play for themselves.

So base or not, depends where WG is going with this game.

 

 

I agree 100%. I think your ideas would make the game more fun.

 

You'd have furballs over those bases, as planes try to get air superiority over them so that the GAs could move in.

 

It would encourage HFs to come down out of the stratosphere because enemy GAs might sneak up and destroy their base.


Right now the high planes can ignore anything low until the end of the battle. I don't think that should be the case.



SHOCKOJAMBO #13 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:46 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    11-22-2013
I remember the first time I got to first base. Then second base was good. Then I got to third base and was ready for the home base. Home base I was sket sket sket shooting. I love home base.

Steel_bomber_ #14 Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,519
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-28-2013

View PostSHOCKOJAMBO, on 27 June 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

I remember the first time I got to first base. Then second base was good. Then I got to third base and was ready for the home base. Home base I was sket sket sket shooting. I love home base.

 

:P
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
     
 
            

Jaguardian #15 Posted 27 June 2016 - 07:13 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 178 battles
  • 974
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Bases...good.  They made a skill that a rear gunner can have that targets lowest HP planes.  Would be interesting that if you destroy an enemy base, your AA would then target the lowest HP plane in range.

Texthor #16 Posted 27 June 2016 - 08:55 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7 battles
  • 899
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013
guess what I voted......LOL

Steel_bomber_ #17 Posted 27 June 2016 - 09:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,519
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-28-2013

View PostTexthor, on 27 June 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

guess what I voted......LOL

 

You made a vow to protect IL's when they are being attacked by enemy fighters?
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
     
 
            

Texthor #18 Posted 27 June 2016 - 09:45 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7 battles
  • 899
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013

IL's should be attacking bases......the only reason I can think of that they would be in the game in the first place.  The tanks don't even move, yet very few are BUSTED !!    

And, what's with all the high flying IL's lately ????   Must be trying to up their plane kills............



Rockstone_ #19 Posted 27 June 2016 - 11:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 5 battles
  • 1,013
  • [-BFS-] -BFS-
  • Member since:
    02-18-2012

View PostTexthor, on 27 June 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

IL's should be attacking bases......the only reason I can think of that they would be in the game in the first place.  The tanks don't even move, yet very few are BUSTED !!    

And, what's with all the high flying IL's lately ????   Must be trying to up their plane kills............

 

Probably hunting you.:coin:


                                                                                                                                                                                               

losttwo #20 Posted 27 June 2016 - 11:40 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 5412 battles
  • 13,990
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostTexthor, on 27 June 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

IL's should be attacking bases......the only reason I can think of that they would be in the game in the first place.  The tanks don't even move, yet very few are BUSTED !!    

And, what's with all the high flying IL's lately ????   Must be trying to up their plane kills............

 

View PostRockstone_, on 27 June 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

 

Probably hunting you.:coin:

 

No one ever has to hunt him. He just gets on the tail of an IL and gives you a kill................every match

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users