Author Topic: Furballs vs Shedders: Developmental Perspective (Read 3507 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #120 on:** April 12, 2006, 01:21:26 AM »

Put it this way -
At the moment guys will up buffs to run the vulchers ammo out.

Take away the fact you would never be able to shut down a field, it is quite possible that a base could become uncaptureable.

If a large number of guys just keep rolling over and over again eventually the caps gonna get broken.
Or they'll sit in the tower waitnig for a goon to pop into view, then mass roll.
Chances are one will get up.

Even a fully down base isn't a sure thing as you know.
How many times you been sat over a dead field with no goon for miles, or the guy drops his troops too low, or on the field.

HT made field capturing harder by increasing town sizes, adding hangers that never go down could make thing worse.
Why stop there?
Lets have VH's that are never truly down, each 1000lb removes the better GV's.

So you bomb a field to crap, you still have P40's etc coming out of dead FH's, M16s, Jeeps, M3's rolling out of dead VH's.

Lets have CV's that never truly die, you can always roll something off them.

Hell, lets just do any with base captures altogether huh?

Shaky · « **Reply #121 on:** April 12, 2006, 01:34:22 AM »

Originally posted by Kev367th
Put it this way -
At the moment guys will up buffs to run the vulchers ammo out.

Take away the fact you would never be able to shut down a field, it is quite possible that a base could become uncaptureable.

If a large number of guys just keep rolling over and over again eventually the caps gonna get broken.
Or they'll sit in the tower waitnig for a goon to pop into view, then mass roll.
Chances are one will get up.

The only time the goon typically "pops into view" is when it pops up to drop...a little late to roll a buncha P-40's. And if guys keep rolling over and over agin, should ONE guy negate their efforts at defense? Heck no!

Even a fully down base isn't a sure thing as you know.
How many times you been sat over a dead field with no goon for miles, or the guy drops his troops too low, or on the field.

And a progressive system wouldchange this how? Sorry...if the goon driver aint that bright, its not the defenders fault.

HT made field capturing harder by increasing town sizes, adding hangers that never go down could make thing worse.

How so? And letting 1 or 2 buff drivers and a handful of fighters capture a base defended by many times that many people is a better idea?

Why stop there?
Lets have VH's that are never truly down, each 1000lb removes the better GV's.

So you bomb a field to crap, you still have P40's etc coming out of dead FH's, M16s, Jeeps, M3's rolling out of dead VH's.

Yup, thats the general idea, except the minimum vehicle would be the jeep, so you'd have slow, unwieldy fighters and nice soft jeeps rolling to defend against players in top end fighters. Also note that ALL of the vehicles that would roll at the hangers minimum can be popped by bullets only..so strafe away...no ord required!

Hell, lets just do any with base captures altogether huh?

Actually, the thought was to make a spirited defense MEAN something, and not be a thing that could be shut down totally by one guy in a box of buffs.

Hell, think of the vulch/strafe kills you'd get!

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #122 on:** April 12, 2006, 01:49:46 AM »

Kev, on some maps its already like that. You back 'em up to their 163 bases and it's pretty impossible to overwhelm that with numbers. FH don't stay down long enough given how quick 163's can get to altitude once they come back.

Kev367th · « **Reply #123 on:** April 12, 2006, 10:31:23 AM »

Shaky - It's an unusual way of trying to fix what some consider a problem, but IMO unworkable.

You would have to apply it to CV's also, after all one guy with buffs can ruin a furball by sinking it, or continuously upping 110's etc and strafing it to death.

So now you have a CV that can never be sunk sitting off a base.

Vulch / strafe kills - Don't you think there's enough of this already without introducing a system that encourages it?

With your system in place the game would descend into chaos (more so than it is now), and would encourage even larger hoards.

Shaky · « **Reply #124 on:** April 12, 2006, 10:56:22 AM »

I'm not sure I understand whay you think this would cause the MA to decend into chaos. Please elaborate.

Kev367th · « **Reply #125 on:** April 12, 2006, 11:36:56 AM »

Heres a big reason -

A lot of people already complain about having the same map up for day, after day, after day. Your idea would make it much, much worse.
I can envisage even a single small map lasting all week.

Chaos -
Actually encourages vulching.

Encourages bigger hoards.

Unkillable CV's sitting off fields with LVT's rolling over and over again.

If the country being attacked has a high enugh ENY, hitting hangers could become pointless, thus further annoying the guys who fly Buffs regularly.

Seems like most of the 'solutions' in the thread up to now are aimed at making FT bases 'safe', and then finding a way to justify the solutions for the rest of the MA.

The MA is the MA, if there is a way to make the 3 FT bases relatively safe without affecting other fields, I don't see anyone objecting.
HOWEVER if in order to placate a minority everyone is affected, I can forsee a lot of objections, and a wider divide between the furballers and rest of the community.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #126 on:** April 12, 2006, 11:57:39 AM »

With the exception of the near-reset condition, I'm betting that bases are currently captured with FH intact by a wide margin - even if defended. Likewise, in the current porkable-FH environment, base capture attempts can stall for hours because C47's keep getting shot down - the FH remain up, despite the current ability to completely shut them down.

I don't see how linear degredation of lift capacity makes the current situation any worse.

The biggest objection I see is people being forced to choose between flying "their plane" from a base a sector away, or rejoin the current furball in a lesser plane if the FH get whacked. And, as I think on it, that reason alone will likely be why HT may choose not to do this.

Kev367th · « **Reply #127 on:** April 12, 2006, 12:09:17 PM »

For bases with GV spawns in it wouldn't probably make big deal of difference, but for maps (like this weeks) with a lot of isolated fields it would be a completely different ballgame.

All thats needed is solution to your particular problem that wont affect the rest of the MA players.
If it requires custom fields/tiles it may just mean a longer wait.

Thought of one advantage to the analog idea, but it only applies close to reset -
Usually with the country jumpers the resetting country is ENY'd fairly high.
Usual tactic is to flatten EVERYTHING at the last field need for the reset.
Analog would allow the defending country to keep upping earlier planes.

Advantage - The attacking country will most likely be in earlier planes also due to ENY limits.
Disadvantage - Possibly a single map up for the entire week.

Zazen13 · « **Reply #128 on:** April 12, 2006, 02:06:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Actually the problem isn't hardness of ground targets, it's the fact the damage model is based on 'weight' of round and takes no account of what the structure being destroyed is made of.
Thats why 303's, 50's, etc can all damage the main guns on a cruiser, where in reality they'd do nothing.
What is needed is an overhaul of the damage model, it is the only part of the game that has lagged way behind the rest of it.

Take-
Ord bunkers - I would say should only be able to be damaged by rocks or eggs, GV's next to them take secondary damage.
Troops - Difficult one, but maybe just rocks and eggs again.
Fuel - Everything should be able to damage them, also GV's hiding by them when they are blown up should take secondary damage.
Acks - As they are, but maybe increase the lethality slightly and add more to fields.

As for hardness - Should remain at current levels.

What is needed is the correct weapon for the applicable target.

I agree with that, that's why I said earlier, "Increase hardness, in some way...". By that I meant just make the strategic elements harder to kill in some way. Your idea as outlined here would accomplish that, as well it makes alot of sense from a realism, therefore immersion, point-of-view...As for ack, I believe the gun itself should be harder to kill, it should require an egg or a rocket too, the permanent gun emplacements were typically fortified with concrete and/or sand bags. The rather exposed person operating the gun should be fairly easy to bump out as it is now, a direct hit with several MG rounds or a very close proximity hit by a cannon round should "kill' the current operator, but not the gun itself...

Zazen