How about a sector usage limit based on ENY?

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Baine
and don't address the issue of how a single D9 or F4U can take out an airfield's troops in a single pass and you pretty much have a recipe for stagnent maps.

agreed re this...........

[Furious]

Originally posted by mechanic
...my only motive here was spreading the hordes out a bit and forcing the fight to cover the whole 'front' rather than just one sector containing 80% of the sides player base...

which wouldn't be a problem if 80% of the other side team was there to fight them.

[Lye-El]

What comes to my mind in reading this is what some people concider a problem others don't.

Last night I was at A1 for hours. The FH and the VH only got hit  once in a while. The bad guys kept comeing in. The planes kept flying. The antiaircraft kept shooting. Planes on fire. Pieces falling to the ground. No constant bombers. It was fun for the people there.

You know what was on country channel?

"We're losing bases because of all the people at A1."

And other such comments.

Basically saying "Screw A1 and come down here a play like we want you to play."

I guess they figured all the enemy we had tied up at A1 would log if we left A1 and went to play "their" game.

I am sure some people would have wished to restrict that fight. Too many people over one base. Lets limit it to only 10 aircraft and force them elsewhere for the good of the game.

Everyone there, friend and enemy, could have gone somewhere else at any time, should they so have desired.

Just sayin'

[Eagler]

if an LA7 pilot thought that or had read a message in the buffer stating that LA7's are no longer available from the base he took off from and/or those bases n the surrunding sectors, that la7 pilot would be more likely to fly in a more conservative manner in order to preserve his ride

[mechanic]

i thought it could at least make it to one page

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Baine
It also puts a severe limit on squad ops if only a third of your force can take off from a base cause of a limit.
Limit the number of planes allowed to take off from a field and don't address the issue of how a single D9 or F4U can take out an airfield's troops in a single pass and you pretty much have a recipe for stagnent maps.

It oly limits you if you insist on taking off from a base that already has a horde upping form it. It doesnt stop you from upping another base and hording from that one. It only changes the horde launch point and how many can up in a horde at any one point.

It spreads the planes out over a more even front.

Currently a single plane comming in and taking out troops is the only way for the side being horded to at least slow down the horde.
If it were harder to kill the troops it would only serve to help the horde and create a balance of gameplay that would only be enjoyable for the side doing the hording.

the Game is supposed to be "fun" for everyone. Not just the side that can steamroll with the billion man horde.

Not to mention HUGE furballs absolutely kill framerates for alot of folks here. Untill I just made a few system tweaks to my machine anytime I got anywhere near a large furball my FRs would drop to the low 20's and sometimes even the low teens. And thats with all the settings turned down. In fact during one night last week I had my FRs drop to 7. when I was near a feild that was burning
The Game at that point becomes unplayable.
and I know Im far from alone in this as I hear many
 other people saaying the same thing.

Now its better but not great I still dip into the low to mid 20's now and again but at least its tolerable barely.

Also. doing some sort of ENY thing at the feilds wouldnt force everyone  back a base. just over one on the front line and another furball can be created.

Instead of everyone fighting inbetween two opposing bases it would be four. or six. there would be fighting all along the front line and not just in one spot.

Hordes might actually run into one another instead of  outright avoiding one another and just going up against the least defended feilds(god forbid they actually have to work to take a base) then pounding their chests and slapping each other on the back with the WTGs.  Big whoop. you managed to use 20 people to take a base defended by 2 or 3  IF that many and taking an hour to do it I would hardly say is worth beating your chest over or cause for high 5's

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by Lye-El
What comes to my mind in reading this is what some people concider a problem others don't.

Everyone there, friend and enemy, could have gone somewhere else at any time, should they so have desired.

My point exactly. It would now seem the game was created so a select few could determine just how everyone should play? True or not true?  And I'm not talking about the owners as they have set the game up for players somewhat differently than the ideas here. Or, as a follow on, when someone shows in the arena should they ask where they should be allowed to fly, what planes they can fly? And, who choses the players who will tell you how, when, where and what you will fly? Are they also going to say what country or arena, for that matter, you fly in? Kinda like playing sandlot ball. Chose up sides at the beginning of the night and go from there? Is that what everyones paying for when they show in the arenas to fly?

Please explain as I was under the impression we pay to play the way we wish to.

Last question...how would you feel if a self appointed moderator could meet you at the door and say, "Sorry you can't fly in this arena tonight because we've reached our limit of 100 people per side and we decided that was all we were gonna let in. Go somewhere else, thanks. Oh yeah, the other arenas are only allowing laffies and P40's tonight. Bombers and GV's may be available next week. If you're interested in flying bombers or driving GV's please check back with us in a few days. Have a nice time".

Good discussion, BTW:)

______________
Ren
The Damned

 

[Stang]

I am sick of the whines of "you just want others to play your way" crap, because it is just that, crap.  If you think hordes attacking undefended fields in droves then thumping their chests about their l337 base taking toolshed skills a good thing for the game, then you need your head examined.

Play any way you want, I'll kill you anyway IF I can chase you down in the horde of 30 friendlies you're hiding in.

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by Stang
I am sick of the whines of "you just want others to play your way" crap, because it is just that, crap.

One way whines? I luv it!!!

Play any way you want.....

I happen to agree with that statement but I'm just one player in this discussion. Others don't so you need to direct your whines at them

________________
Ren
The Damned

[mechanic]

its getting off topic now.


its not so much to stop people playing thereown way, just to set rules that WOULD BE DEFINED BY HTC.

its not for anyone.

its to stop the MA gameplay feeling like a quake shoot 'em up alot of the time.


Look at America's Army game online......


awesome graphics, awesome model, great amount of choices when playing.

but it lacks any structure and in the end becomes so repetitive its worthless.

[Tilt]

well the debate seems to be focussing on pro and anti horde choices........

I think the pro horde lobby is really one of pro choice so you end up with anti horde v pro choice.

So what is a horde and when is choice unduly compramised?

Hordes

A momentum bulds up around an attack and folk pile in to join it............ actually this can be fun so anti horde should not remove this source of enjoyment entirely.  There are arguements for limiting the numbers at some point.......taken to extreme the horde scares all opposition away and we end up with huge darbars fighting little dar bars (or no opposition) all over the terrain.

Folk must see this even now.

Trying to find combat with out excessive  numbers inbalance from each side can be difficult.

But how big is a horde? we should stop using silly adjectives like massive, huge, excessive  etc etc and consider numbers. The mission planner restricts missions to (I think currently) 24 folk.

If a field limit of 24 (its an example)was in place then a significant group of 24 could quite easily make a mass attack via horde techniques (pile in to join it)

Missions supporting this attack may be  forced to use rear fields however if you guys do many missions you will note that they nearly always use rear fields any way. (just to get every one sorted)

Most Missions initiate attacks against new targets so they will have capacity in these cases at forward fields if they choose to use them.

Missions are also perfect tools for planning joint attacks against one target from multiple fields.

But if you all look to the terrains we use you will see that  often base layout is triangulated ie there are two fields nearly equidistant from an enemy field. In these cases a field limit will still permit a 2 x field capacity  (1 from each base) to hit a target...which by rights should fall PDQ.

if a side only has a few  fields left then the limit has to allow for that so it has to be inverselly proportional to the number of fields. eg if the minimum limit was 20 then  when

(side #)/(field #- 2?) >20 then the higher number is used. (ie 90 players 5 fields limit = 30)

When is this anti choice. Well always. But when is it unreasonable?

IMO such a system cannot be used to force exact balance, it can only be used to correct some excesses.

If such limits cause players to repeatedly be denied their choice in such a way that the reason is not obvious or apparantly fair then the set up is wrong IMO.


By looking at the map the player should be able to see that there is a chance that a particular  area and therefore their field central to that area may be full already. It should not then be a surprise when the field is "full".

The concept of limited capacity is not new to this world.

Other views have been put forward that the limit be asigned to a zone and also affect eny biased plane choice.

I think if we look at this from the  view of the player being denied his plane choice then there is a strong risk that he/she will not see or understand the reason why (its too complicated too subtle).

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by mechanic
its not so much to stop people playing thereown way, just to set rules that WOULD BE DEFINED BY HTC.

I'm sorry but I must be missing the point. Didn't HiTech already define gameplay rules? Are we not playing by them now? Didn't he throw up arenas, planes, gv's, ships and say, "these are all here for you, use them"?

its not for anyone.

Hmmmm, not sure what you mean there.

its to stop the MA gameplay feeling like a quake shoot 'em up alot of the time.

I still havn't figured out how a game that has such large arenas doesn't offer something for everyone. If you want a 1v1 they can be found. If you want to bomb, that's available, if you want to gv no one's stopping you. If there's 50 people attacking a field who said they had to? Who said they couldn't? Who said you just had to defend it? Think about it for a minute. What difference does it make if 30 people want to go take a field? If you want to start a small war all you need to do is take a fighter or two and attack some field. Someone from the other side will notice and come and fight you. Not 30 guys just 2-3 at first. Those make for nice fights. 2 hours later there may be more of your countrymen and theirs upping to fight,. Now it's progressed into a mini furball. You think its getting to big, with too many people? Go and do it at another field. If you like shooting down bombers do it! If you don't then don't go after them.

One other thing. The thread suggests a limit on how many people can attack or defend a field? If 30 people decide to attack a field why should  only 30 people  be allowed to defend it? What if the the 30 attackers have been playing for 3 years and the 30 defending have been playing 3 months? Boy, that sure sounds like a lot of fun showing how big you are by clubbing baby seals. What's fair odds? Maybe 50 defenders with 3 months experience against 30 attackers? So the 30 attackers should be allowed to attack and grab a base because they have been flying longer?

A lot of people complain they can't find a furball but they are all over the place. A lot of people complain they can't find a 1v1 but there a many every night.

It seems to me that if there are 500 people up flying 350 of them are generals saying we gotta attack this field or defend that field or "How come you're not helping us?" or "We're gonna lose this field if we don't start defending it". Ok, so we lose a field. Is that the end of the world?

One thing about quake....didn't it have thousands and thousands of players with clans and all? Kinda like EQ and those games with an absolutely huge number of subscribers? To us this is a game but to the folks at AH this is a job and a living with families to support, health benefits and retirement. If they could get all of those players flying here by doing some special thing no matter what any exisiting players say, don't you think they would? What do you think TOD is all about? Increasing the number of subscribers.

Look at America's Army game online......

awesome graphics, awesome model, great amount of choices when playing.

LOL, if you have all the money in the world (taxpayers, that is) and you're out to sucker young kids into the Army wouldn't you put up a pretty game for kids to play?It's a cheap way to save on advertising. LOL, I think they even put an age limit on the game for a while. It might still be there. Something about if you're 35 or older you can't come and play. Why? Because they want the young kids to join up.

but it lacks any structure and in the end becomes so repetitive its worthless.

First of all, the military doesn't care if its repetitive they just put it there to interest you into joining the Army, LOL. What a joke that is but, hey! Its got graphics!!!

You can almost say exactly the same about any game. Take any boxed game. You get up and do the same thing over and over until you eventually beat the computer AI. I call it the Lara Croft Syndrome. Over and over and over, ad nauseum. Take a furball at some field, or 1/2 way between fields. There is a continous conveyer belt of planes coming to the neverending ball (almost). They come into the fight at say 8k, they fight to the deck, die and come back. As they are working their way to the deck more planes are coming in from 8k to work their way down to the deck and so on and so on. You don't think that's repetiive?

There is one major difference. You are not playing against an AI. You CAN chose your fights and every fight is different every single time you get into one whether its a furball or a 1v1.  

Isn't the real issue someone has decided "people just ain't playing the way I want them to" but its not their football or game so they post a thread saying, "we should play this way and limit this and that and oh yeah, no bombing my fields"? The only problem with that is not everyone wants to play the game the way the other guy is thinking. Perhaps that is why there ARE so many options of gameplay. So each individual can get up and do his thing either alone or in a group of his chosing and just enjoy the short time they have to fly.
_______________
Ren
The Damned

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Stang

Play any way you want, I'll kill you anyway IF I can chase you down in the horde of 30 friendlies you're hiding in.

You shouldn't have a problem catching me. I'll probably be in an Osti defending. And the turrent gets destroyed pretty easy. It would also mean you are in the attacking horde.  

[mechanic]

Im sorry ren, my solicitor has advised me not to reply to you in any threads.



make it seem how you like, make me seem how you like.

read my original post and take that as my opinion. I see little point to continue duscusion when the little blue writting comes out because it is without reason, and you dont have a clue what im trying to say anyhow.

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by mechanic
Im sorry ren, my solicitor has advised me not to reply to you in any threads.

make it seem how you like, make me seem how you like.

read my original post and take that as my opinion. I see little point to continue duscusion when the little blue writting comes out because it is without reason, and you dont have a clue what im trying to say anyhow.

That help? Sorry about the blue. It just makes it easier for me to review responses to individual statements made so the reply is where it needs to be. Is green ok?

I read your first post. That's why I asked why you, me or any player in the game should have the right to dictate gameplay for everyone. Nothing more. Are you saying but limiting who can fly when, where, what plane, how many, on what map you are not trying to dictate gameplay? I've asked a simple question that you have yet to answer.

Is my asking an honest question about rights of gameplay by a player any more or less a part of this discussion as your ideas of how the game should be played are?

As HiTech said in a previous post, to him a discussion is a debate. Not perhaps my idea but there are always two sides to an idea. You expressed your views which I fully respect. I'd just like to hear why you think you should be able to limit the gameplay of any player. Did you not think that they might be enjoying themselves the way things are now? If only because you're not having fun?

_____________
Ren
The Damned