Furballers Vs. Toolshedders

[Vudak]

Filth, I don't think you're going to find many people who will claim that sinking a manuevering CV from 25k isn't an accomplishment, but I also think you're deluding yourself if you think this is the way that most CVs get sunk.

I have to say I like ahgod69's post that's right above yours.

[BigGun]

Originally posted by Morpheus
And I am tired of hearing "take it to the DA". Before there was a DA, there was an MA. An MA that wasnt based solely on base capture alone. Once base capture came into the picture, and the "idea" behind the game swayed more towards winning this imaginary war rather than dog fighting.

I haven't been around flying Aces High since inception, only since I think about Tour 9. At that time base capture was definately in the picture, at what point did it come into the picture? Must have been pre tour 9.

[Morpheus]

That looks great on paper filth, but it would never fly.

Its just like that "Memorial Flight" someone had not too long ago. Where they asked everyone not to engage as they fly about the MA in their rides of choice. That went ok for about 10 minutes.

[Blammo]

Why not take the simple route:

HTC requires that each map has an area surrounded by 40,000 foot mountains, it only has three bases (one for each side), The bases allow you to only up fighters, all ordinance is disabled and no GVs.  In addition, you make the ack über TM  deadly and accurate to discourage vulching/de-acking.  Furthermore, you make the FHs indestructable.  Clear the areas of trees, make it a flat as possible, put the bases no more that 1 sector apart and the whole area no bigger the two sectors by two sectors.  Finally, you make is so these three fields are not included in the count concerning winning the war.

I know it won't happen, but it would sure settle a few things.

[Tilt]

Seems to me that if buffs get intercepted a little more often then this subject is dead in its boots..............

fact is they are not.........

A point was made that (on some maps) quite often we find everyone (in large groups) on offence and no one on defence.................

Rather than moaning about what one player enjoys as opposed to another, it would be more positive to seek a terrain or gameplay feature that motivates or gives cause to offensive and defensive game play equally.

I cant help but think that whilst land grab is the correct  focus it should not be centred around the aquisition of fixed airfields with attritable tactical objects....the concept is unreal and frankly getting old.

Cities, logistics, transport routes, land armies should be the focus of landgrab and airfields should be vacated or  opened as the "front" moves closer or further away.

Local land grab would be based more upon types of vehicle fields.....or garrison towns/cities and ports...vehicle spawns would concentrate between these and bombing of these targets would assist in final capture.

Encirclement or the isolation of air fields from all of their several logistic source routes (thru capture of these other facilities )would cause those sources to gradually deplete.......until the airfield is lost.......once the airfield is lost to one side then the resources of the opposing side begin to flow in.....


infact the front (in terms of logistic control) would have already have moved past the defending side and the next furball is over the next ground target.

Thus removing tactical porkage of airfields (at airfields) but retaining strategic attrition of general resources.

If land grab moves away from the focus upon the airfield....the vulcher or airfield suicide bomber then does not satisfy the motivation of the land grab......temporary runway suppression has no reward in terms of local capture.

[uberhun]

Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... let's get some things straight.... some of you are under the mistaken idea that there is some form of simbiotic relationship between the mouse wielders and the noble furballers...

There is not... not needed anyways... the noble furballers do not need the base capture mouse wielding "win the war" types... for they most part they are just a way to get hit percentage up... of no real use to a true furballer anyway...

There may be some instances where the attempted base capture benifiets the noble furballer but that is incedental... not really something to strive for..

no.. the relationship is more like that of a leech and it's host...  the pathetic mouse wielders need the noble furballers but the oppossite is not at all true... in fact.. the pathetic mouse weilders are allways harmfull to their host furballers.

If the fields are close together the noble furballers make their own fun with no consideration for the anything but the fight.   Any "participation" by the pathetic mouse wielders is just leech activity.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

So Lazs to understand you correctly. Mouse wielders aka toolshedders are parasitic in nature and serve a diminuitive function in the game?
Just curious Uber.

[AKFokerFoder+]

Originally posted by Blammo
Why not take the simple route:

HTC requires that each map has an area surrounded by 40,000 foot mountains, it only has three bases (one for each side), The bases allow you to only up fighters, all ordinance is disabled and no GVs.  In addition, you make the ack über TM  deadly and accurate to discourage vulching/de-acking.  Furthermore, you make the FHs indestructable.  Clear the areas of trees, make it a flat as possible, put the bases no more that 1 sector apart and the whole area no bigger the two sectors by two sectors.  Finally, you make is so these three fields are not included in the count concerning winning the war.

I know it won't happen, but it would sure settle a few things.

If I made the area, there would be trees everywhere to keep people from ditching. You get shot up, the other guy gets his kill.

But as you pointed out, in all probablility it isn't going to happen

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Tilt
Seems to me that if buffs get intercepted a little more often then this subject is dead in its boots..............

fact is they are not.........

A point was made that (on some maps) quite often we find everyone (in large groups) on offence and no one on defence.................

Rather than moaning about what one player enjoys as opposed to another, it would be more positive to seek a terrain or gameplay feature that motivates or gives cause to offensive and defensive game play equally.

I cant help but think that whilst land grab is the correct  focus it should not be centred around the aquisition of fixed airfields with attritable tactical objects....the concept is unreal and frankly getting old.

Cities, logistics, transport routes, land armies should be the focus of landgrab and airfields should be vacated or  opened as the "front" moves closer or further away.

Local land grab would be based more upon types of vehicle fields.....or garrison towns/cities and ports...vehicle spawns would concentrate between these and bombing of these targets would assist in final capture.

Encirclement or the isolation of air fields from all of their several logistic source routes (thru capture of adjacent )would cause those sources to gradually deplete.......until the airfield is lost.......once the airfield is lost to one side then the resources of the opposing side begin to flow in.....


infact the front (in terms of logistic control) would have already have moved past the defending side and the next furball is over the next ground target.

Thus removing tactical porkage of airfields (at airfields) but retaining strategic attrition of general resources.

If land grab moves away from the focus upon the airfield....the vulcher or airfield suicide bomber then does not satisfy the motivation of the land grab......temporary runway suppression has no reward in terms of local capture.

IMNSHO, the reason that bombers are not as heavily attacked as they could be is due to the fact that the airquake players don't have the patience needed to climb and intercept.  It's more instantly gratifying to take off from a CV, get the gear up, and start twisting and turning.  The furballers have said this many, many times, and I BELIEVE THEM.  I just don't AGREE with them.

I really don't know how TOD will turn out, but I do think that the future of this game is in "better" gameplay elements, such as the strategic system you are suggesting.  I like the basic concept of the game as is--capture of territory through the use of air, land, and sea elements.  I hope that in the future they (HTC) can add depth to the strategic and tactical side of the game, thus improving the challenge I enjoy so much now.

Good thoughts, Tilt!  Somebody at HTC is reading them, and maybe a germ of a Big Idea will come of it.

[Blammo]

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
If I made the area, there would be trees everywhere to keep people from ditching. You get shot up, the other guy gets his kill.

But as you pointed out, in all probablility it isn't going to happen

I didn't think about that aspect of the trees.  Based on that, not only should we have trees, but the terrain should be as rough and uneven as possible.  Then ditching anywhere other than an airfield would be out of the question.

[uberhun]

So this thread represents a cross section of like minded individuals who either favor "furballing" or mouse weilding / Tool shedding and people who do both. Where is the problem here?

[FuBaR]

Furballing is for people with no 1337 thinking skills, toolshedding is for people who  have no virtual combat skills and must use their strategic intelligence to show how good a soldier they are.

quite frankly I prefer my personal category as GOD OF THE INTERNET FLIGHT SIM.

[SuperDud]

Originally posted by uberhun
So this thread represents a cross section of like minded individuals who either favor "furballing" or mouse weilding / Tool shedding and people who do both. Where is the problem here?

Naw uber, this is the same thread that has been in existence since I started playing AW.

[ghi]

<-- furballer and tolshedder, soo what???   should i feel guilty for taking bombs in my plane?

IMOP over 95% of the players,are enjoing both sides of the fun, furbaling /base capture,defence
    Without the"tolshedders " this game would colapse,if the bases would be uncapturable most of the players would cancel acount.

      Who cares about the oppinion of few  dweebs flying in circles intill they puke?!. Keep puking in you spits not on BB

[SuperDud]

Originally posted by ghi
Who cares about the oppinion of few  dweebs flying in circles intill they puke?!. Keep puking in you spits not on BB

YEAH!!! Stick it to them!!!

[AutoPilot]

B: There is a limited planeset in the CT

The way some of these virtual pilots talk on these boards about there skills and owning this person and that person the plane set wouldn't be a problem for them.The CT staff does a wonderful job at keeping the planeset
as equal as possible.

As far as vulching,this will happen no matter what arena you are in.You just have to be smart enough not too take off from a field being vulched.