Author Topic: um.. its boring (Read 819 times)

MOIL · « **Reply #15 on:** September 10, 2004, 10:57:36 PM »

"Stagnant, stale, dead, dying.

Take your pick"

"this new plane limit thing and balanced numebrs thing is making everything stagnate. it takes numbers to take fields and keep them because we all know the main arena is not the place for coordinated attacks.

personally i would like to see maximum variety and fly against all numbers of enemy.

because local air superiority will never be balanced. its the way it is. when your guys get shot down in an even fight you will be outnumbered.

and by the way... the dueling arena is perfect place for a controlled balanced fight.

the MA is supposed to be chaos. I fly the MA looking for chaos.

but the MA to me now is now regulated"

"MA = Major Annoyance
MA = Massive Aversion
MA = Mutual Abhorrence
MA = Mundane Abatement"

"I agree with Cit, I don't mind the changes as they brought something different, but I do miss the chaos and the entertainment that it brought"

I said to myself, Do not make some smart prettythang comment................just let it go

Kev367th · « **Reply #16 on:** September 11, 2004, 02:20:27 AM »

No more regulated than -

1) Double hardness HQ
2) No partially down HQ
3) No night
4) Min fuel 75% all times

All "concessions" made to appease the furballers.

If by boring you mean bases not changing hands as often, then yes (personally I wouldn't call it boring).
But there have been some great furballs last few nights around the 43/44/45 area.
I think one may even have reached a cat 3 furball status!

Maybe it's time to try to keep the two different sides of the community happy. The DA is under utilised, turn it into a furball arena (with map) with 100% fuel, DAR all time etc.
Turn the current MA into a more sim/strategic oriented environment.

Tilt · « **Reply #17 on:** September 11, 2004, 04:08:49 AM »

It is becoming highly regulated IMO.

The mechanisms used are out of sync with "the game"

presently when a side has too many numbers its best ac are denied it.......

however IMO a model reflecting RL would be that a side with more numbers has to

a) share resources more by dividing its populace across more fields

b)using more ammo, fuel, troops and support logistics causes them to rebuild slower.

c) longer supply routes (ie to more fields) causes logistics to rebuild slower.

d) access to ac would only be limited by a strat/ player ratio (then possibly apply the eny thingy)

Strat porking is all but totally lost as a game play feature. It brings little reward in terms of enemy logistics attrition or player score.

Whilst one may remark on the lack of defence I note it to be very easy to take out ammo and troops for all enemy fields surrounding one under attack.

The idea that one ac can effectively render an opposing sides local infantry totally ineffective is just so abstract that the game seems to push its self up a cul de sac. For me the whole "drop ten troops on a map room to capture" thingy needs a radical re think.

Requiring the town prepped (or some sort of prepping) was a step in the right direction but some thought should be given to an air war over a moving front where infantry is in massive excess (in terms of game play "rules" not nessecarily interms of players participating as infantry) rather than infantry seemingly out numbered by ac and gv's.

Kev367th · « **Reply #18 on:** September 11, 2004, 05:23:36 AM »

Good ideas Tilt would love to see how they could be implemented.

Would go along with hardening cv against cannon's/mg's. Ridiculous how a spit can strafe cv and kill main guns. CV group should only be able to be hurt by rockets or bombs.

But I guess you can put that in with current rash of dweebery in the MA at the moment.