How can we keep the small arenas fun?

[Stang]

Originally posted by Lazerr
FSU sucks wahhhhh  

It's ok Lazer, there's always next year.

[BugsBunny]

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

[Solar10]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
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

Eagle, I like your idea.  Not that that counts for much... I hope HT considers it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by FALCONWING
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.

Indeed.

It's hard work to make people play the way you want them to play. And who would know that better than a toolshedder?

I used to lead people professionally. I don't "lead" people here; I play a game for my own enjoyment.

 

I can see where the avatar is confusing. See Slap's post above.

[MIShill]

I think we need two countries- say, the "Sheep" and the "Wolves". The Wolves could have LaLas & Spit16s & Tempests and the Sheep couldn't. That would even numbers and streamline the whines 0n the BBS.
-MI-

[Stang]

Originally posted by MIShill
I think we need two countries- say, the "Sheep" and the "Wolves". The Wolves could have LaLas & Spit16s & Tempests and the Sheep couldn't. That would even numbers and streamline the whines 0n the BBS.
-MI-

That's what ENY does, in effect.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Toad
Indeed.

It's hard work to make people play the way you want them to play. And who would know that better than a toolshedder?

I used to lead people professionally. I don't "lead" people here; I play a game for my own enjoyment.

 

I can see where the avatar is confusing. See Slap's post above.

I don't get it, toad.  Falc was polite, discussed ideas as an equal to an equal, yet you insist on using the old, loaded names and the same tired arguments.

I thought that (just maybe) we could get past that crap.  Apparently, some of us can't.

[rshubert]

I like Eagledny's idea, and would think that a good way to expand on it would be to make the base ack and other strat "harder".  And the base ack should be more deadly.

Perhaps another change would be to move the map room back onto the base, so that a field needs to be completely destroyed to capture.  This would get rid of the two-man milkrunner base captures.  Add a couple of 5-inchers to the fields, mannable with prox fuses, and watch the fun begin!

[storch]

perhaps what needs to happen is for jamusta's idea of an antihorde to form up and squash the toolshedders.  I just logged off from the AvA, I was enjoying a cruise around this new map which is really a nice piece of work.  congratulations to Dux and his team.  as I'm flying over a friendly port suddenly the ack starts to nail me.  sure enough some retarded toolshedder had just captured the port.  apparently he was there all by his lonesome, practicing for the big leagues when he can bring his perfected game to the main arenas.  another prime candidate for the 90+ member squads.

[Toad]

Originally posted by rshubert
I don't get it, toad.  Falc was polite, discussed ideas as an equal to an equal, yet you insist on using the old, loaded names and the same tired arguments.

I did not attack him; I merely stated my views in accurate, commonly used descriptive terms.

I feel it was highly accurate.

It isn't the fighters who try to "make" others play a certain way. Fighters just fight wherever and whenever they can.

Sadly, it's the other side of the coin that has to have other people play by a certain set of rules as Laz has often pointed out.

It's not an argument; it's an unassailable fact.

The game was not broken until reset/rank/perks became the be-all/end-all of AH.

When it was about attempting to be the best you personally could possibly be it was a much better environment and a much better game.

Resets/Perks/Rank are Fool's Gold; shiny and glittery substitutes for something of real value. They have led AH to this most recent attempt to change the direction of the player base. It won't work because the goal hasn't changed.

I'm sorry if the truth offends.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by Toad
I did not attack him; I merely stated my views in accurate, commonly used descriptive terms.

I feel it was highly accurate.

It isn't the fighters who try to "make" others play a certain way. Fighters just fight wherever and whenever they can.

Sadly, it's the other side of the coin that has to have other people play by a certain set of rules as Laz has often pointed out.

It's not an argument; it's an unassailable fact.

The game was not broken until reset/rank/perks became the be-all/end-all of AH.

When it was about attempting to be the best you personally could possibly be it was a much better environment and a much better game.

Resets/Perks/Rank are Fool's Gold; shiny and glittery substitutes for something of real value. They have led AH to this most recent attempt to change the direction of the player base. It won't work because the goal hasn't changed.

I'm sorry if the truth offends.

What he said.


As an aside, who wants to take turns guessing which squads were in the LWA on the sides with overwhelming numbers?

[Monster0]

Masherbrum made a good point about this need to play a certain side.   Squads forcing rules on members on what country to play.  I believe eny should be used on players and not on planes.  If for example rooks have a +5 adv over the other 2 countries.  Then you disable that country as a selection when you first enter the game.  We will have to select from the other 2 countries.   No need for eny, hardening of hangers or troop capture.  Change the time limit for switching sides to a hour.

[FrodeMk3]

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

     You know, there would be a way around this...5 sets of high buffs drop the hangars, defenders have to up at another field, but not there in time to prevent capture...

That's what happens even at defended fields. Enough numbers would force the issue.

     If we look at the strat game, what does it have in common with Airwarrior, or Warbirds? It hinges on base captures. Now, in RL, territory changes hands based on occupying units, and ZOC(Zones Of Control.) Now, I would propose, maybe the whole problem is that all you have to do, is blow a small town off the map, get some troops in, and the base is now yours, until someone else can return the favor.

      Maybe that is the whole problem. I would propose that we bring in the ZOC's, by having to advance a marker on the ground, or dropped by a goon, along the front. Your frontline would be defined by a string of markers, that you would have to advance BEYOND a base, in order to effect capture. Make it so that you cannot advance a marker more than 5-10k away from another friendly marker, so that you have to move your front forward at some point, or you risk losing continuity of your line. Bases that aren't inside the enemies' line, but not inside the control of yours, would turn inactive and neutral, until somebody advanced their line of markers beyond it.The markers could be emplaced by anything that carries 10 troops(same as a field capture) and would emplaced and activated wherever they were let out...But you would have to have an unbroken line of them, across your front, to enable captures inside your line. If you wish, you could still have field capture hinge on flattening the town and running more troops in, But would not take place without markers emplaced so that the field was inside your front line. You could make the markers a function like troops, with the same availability at fields, with a troop barracks.

     If you don't have your line extending to a friendly field, It doesn't get supply, or hangars stay down, until you get your markers back in place.

     You could use troops to capture or destroy NME markers, and force the line back...Even if your NME captured a field, If you were to destroy his markers, or advance your own past his field, HIS hangars would'nt come back up, or get supply.

     Anyway, I had this brain drizzle, you guys pick it apart, see what you would or would'nt like about it. I've seen some excellent suggestions so far that could be done in the current framework, But it may be that our current strat is what the problem is...We've essentially got an 10-15 year old game play model. Maybe AH2 shows the need for a massive upheaval in the way the strat game is played.

my .02$

[ozrocker]

A way that will end some of the overwhelming one-sided odds. Make a FFA arena, and a gv only arena. HT, ever see how many people go to TT when its current map? A lot. Say what you want, heard many ppl say "This is an Air sim". Fact is, many of us love good tank fights.
A FFA arena would eliminate one-sided fighting. But, IMHO wish it would be back to the old way.
                                                            Oz

[storch]

Originally posted by Toad
I did not attack him; I merely stated my views in accurate, commonly used descriptive terms.

I feel it was highly accurate.

It isn't the fighters who try to "make" others play a certain way. Fighters just fight wherever and whenever they can.

Sadly, it's the other side of the coin that has to have other people play by a certain set of rules as Laz has often pointed out.

It's not an argument; it's an unassailable fact.

The game was not broken until reset/rank/perks became the be-all/end-all of AH.

When it was about attempting to be the best you personally could possibly be it was a much better environment and a much better game.

Resets/Perks/Rank are Fool's Gold; shiny and glittery substitutes for something of real value. They have led AH to this most recent attempt to change the direction of the player base. It won't work because the goal hasn't changed.

I'm sorry if the truth offends.

 I don't think he attacked falconwing.  lighten up shubie.  capture your bases, fly in hordes.  it's your $15.  don't expect everyone to agree with you though.