How can we keep the small arenas fun?

[Simaril]

Fair enough, Flayed. I didnt check to see who the mission was hitting....no big deal, as far as I'm concerned. Started the thread deliberately avoiding mentioning specific sqiuads, and screwed up when I sad anything about the BOPs -- despite the avatars, the BOPs are not and have not been "the problem".

Honestly I guess I let my disappointment over the MW situation pull me off the main point -- which was (and is) massive side imbalance, not unopposed capture or anything else.

So I apologise for mentioning you guys specifically.






I am concerned that the huge imbalances are destroying the sense of tighter community I so enjoyed when the EW and MW opened. Last night it was the Knights who had a large squad combined operation...and I played Bish trying to defend. (No, I'm not going to make that mistake again: not saying who!)

The steamroll kept the defenders from reaching critical mass. I saw guys log on, do a sortie, and leave. The regulars who a couple weeks ago were chatting on 200, and saluting after deaths, were nowhere to be found. A fulltime Bish who is a Good Guy and a member of a Large Squad himself went on 200 about the situation...and yeah, it DOES stink to be on the recieving end.



So I went to the EW. There were only 20 or so up, but a group had set up their own playground. They decided to keep under 5K, to pass on all HOs, and to not gang. I had a blast there the rest of the night, partly from the flying but mostly from the banter and chat....the  community.


I really hope a solution is found. There has to be a way that large squads can have their own kind of community fun, smaller squads can find places to fly, and unaffiliated can build connections. If that cant happen just between us players, then I hope HT can find the rule set that forces us to do it.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Toad
Your post is not spot on, I'm afraid.

I have never been a Blue Knight, or even a Burger King. I think it's a fine squad with some great people and great cartoon pilots in it but as my avatar suggests, I was 13th TAS until OZ died and then we changed the name to Wardogs.

While you may agree with my posts, don't lose sight of the fact that I think toolshedders have pretty much ruined what was once a fantastic air-to-air combat game and I think large lemming squads have also played a major part in dumbing this game way down.

Do you still agree?

Toad ... He might be confused because of our avatars ... I made the 13th TAS avatar (when I was in the 13th TAS) that Toad uses and created my BK avatar using the same background and "OZ" tag.

[Flayed1]

Yes I think it's the avatar. I even thought you were a BK, guess it would help if I read your sig huh


  Oh and Sim our avatars are more to poke fun and in some cases there is a bit of sarcasm in some of them

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Flayed1
Yes I think it's the avatar. I even thought you were a BK, guess it would help if I read your sig huh

For all intents and purposes ... the 13th TAS and the BKs are the same ... we think the same when it comes to gameplay.

[BugsBunny]

Well, I thought about and I call BS on the idea.  Now people would have to fight to capture a base and win the war.  That is just redicilus.  Why would anyone want to do something like that?

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Flayed1
........snip......

  Oh and Sim our avatars are more to poke fun and in some cases there is a bit of sarcasm in some of them

Yeah, I know....meant to be doing a "wink wink nudge nudge" back, but missed writing with the proper tone -- which I seem to be doing a lot lately....


BOPs have PMs.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by BugsBunny
Well, I thought about and I call BS on the idea.  Now people would have to fight to capture a base and win the war.  That is just redicilus.  Why would anyone want to do something like that?

Crazy concept ... eh ?

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Crazy concept ... eh ?

whacky I am telling you.  One could get a sence of acomplishment after a capture.

[68Ripper]

Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.

What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.

Once one a  field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.

HiTech

That would pretty much limit most of game play to two fields for each country and make base capture almost impossible unless your Bish which usually has a 25 to 50 or more player advantage.

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by 68Ripper
That would pretty much limit most of game play to two fields for each country and make base capture almost impossible unless your Bish which usually has a 25 to 50 or more player advantage.

Stratigery my friend.  You may have to use missions and buffs to desable the sarounding fields.  Quite the oposite will happen.  People will have to deffend the fields around the one under attack.  That field will be always porked and deffence will only be possible from the fields around it.  You can have goon hunting missions, you can have buff missions that mean something other than taking FHs down in some random field, etc.  You may have to actualy organise, think, and fight in that set up.  It may actually be interesting.

[FALCONWING]

Originally posted by Toad
Your post is not spot on, I'm afraid.

I have never been a Blue Knight, or even a Burger King. I think it's a fine squad with some great people and great cartoon pilots in it but as my avatar suggests, I was 13th TAS until OZ died and then we changed the name to Wardogs.

While you may agree with my posts, don't lose sight of the fact that I think toolshedders have pretty much ruined what was once a fantastic air-to-air combat game and I think large lemming squads have also played a major part in dumbing this game way down.

Do you still agree?

As i said before...i agree wholeheartedly with your two earlier posts...

As to thinking you were blue knight..i would have to say your exact same avatar...15,000 posts...witty description under your avatar....would confuse sherlock holmes:rolleyes:   my apologies

and as to your last post...i think any game is what we make of it...if even 20% of the guys who post repeatedly in here assumed some form of leadership in the game, im sure they could have whatever they desired.  

But there is a very big difference between "telling" people what to do and investing the time and energy it requires to actually "lead" people.

[68Ripper]

Originally posted by BugsBunny
Stratigery my friend.  You may have to use missions and buffs to desable the sarounding fields.  Quite the oposite will happen.  People will have to deffend the fields around the one under attack.  That field will be always porked and deffence will only be possible from the fields around it.  You can have goon hunting missions, you can have buff missions that mean something other than taking FHs down in some random field, etc.  You may have to actualy organise, think, and fight in that set up.  It may actually be interesting.

the main gameplay will still be focused on two fields on each side. Cramming everyone into one area and knocking FPS down to zip.

[Stang]

And you toolshedders will have no place to hide muhahaha.  It would be slaughter on a grand scale.

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.

What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.

Once one a  field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.

HiTech

Hey HT,

  I thought about this a while, and I don't think it's the best solution.  First off, what you would be doing is substituting a computer program rule on which base should be attacked next for the strategic sense of the players.  I think that short circuits one of the best aspects of the game, which is that the players develop the strategies used.  Secondly, I think you run the risk of killing off base capture altogether because the base capture just becomes a giant meat grinder where all the base capture guys spend hours trying to get over the top on each other to get a cap on a field and finally take it.  It reminds me more of WWI trench warfare than a WW2 flying game.

  If the object is to stop or severely slow down hordes from taking bases from a side with few players, consider this - automatically adjusting the number of  troops necessary to capture the base.  Maybe we multiply the number of troops needed for each capture by an ENY-like number to determine how many troops are needed to take a base.  For example, if the rook horde is up to an ENY of 4, make it take 40 troops to capture a map room.

  The formulas can be worked out and tested, but what I think it would accomplish is that the horde has to have a progressively higher number of players running goons & M3's around, so fewer players are flying fighters.  This both gives the defenders a better shot at stopping the base capture through goon-hunting, and creates an incentive for the horde to even up the numbers a bit if they don't want to spend the entire night flying flocks of goons around.  Further, you can create some "fog of war" by having each side not know exactly how many troops it will take to get the capture when the "equalization" formula kicks in.

EagleDNY
$.02

[Lazerr]

Stang, the bengals suck man..

accept that dude, life will be much easier the rest of the season for you.