OK I didnt read the rest of the post on this topic. Half are kissing HiTech rear-end to the point of disbelieve the other half not liking the changes,
For someone who didn't read the stuff, you sure are hasty to arrive to a conclusion that all yay-sayers are a bunch of prettythang-kissers. As if we didn't have our own reasons, right?
HiTech I am going to put this to you straight and forwartd. Dont call theses changes call them the death of squads changes. Instead of people forming squads as one of your selling points in your TV commercials it should say you can form a squad but cant fly with them when you want to.
Squads are a part of the game - it is subject to change with the game if the game itself ever changes. Being in a large squad and having one's own identity as a part of a bigger group can be fun, but that doesn't make any squad's opinion entitled to more than any of what the individual, lone gamer has to say about it. Originally the squads started out small, a way of people of common interest to group together to make the game
more enjoyable, not to become the leviathan of an entity it has become that hampers and objects every change to the game in regards to its own interest.
As far as the balance issue. Well when you created mutliple arenas YOU opened a can of worms. Now when people are getting the butts handed to them they switch areans which in turn cause the side imbalance.
Flawed analogy.
The imbalance in numbers is due to a low arena cap vs. the high demand. Why the demand is so high for the Late-era arena is pretty much evident and obvious, so I won't discuss it any further unless required to do so.
So are you going to make changes so people who are losing have to face and deal with that fact instead of logging off. Come on you can do it. You already taken away our ability to fly with squaddies and friends and restriced as form flying in the arena of our choice.
Just how important it is to fly with people you'll probably never meet offline is not so clear to me. But this sense of friendship and loyalty can be only permitted as far as it doesn't disrupt the fun for other people. Unfortunately, the recent tendencies of the MA has led HT to certain measures which were highly unpopular to the gigantic squads.
When changes happen, not all of it happens for the better for everyone. However, if it will ultimately benefit more people, instead of just making only the mega squads happy, is that not a good thing?
I am sick of hearing the same lame answers. If we dont like the changes then yes we could leave. But if you didnt like the game before you should have left along time ago.
I'm sure the others are as much sick of giving answers to lame questions.
Hitech I went form enjoying the gameplay and having fun to sitting here waiting to fly with squaddies in an arena to be told you cant fly with your squad because I dont think it is fair you outnumber the other guys. Well HiTech stated once more take away peoples choice of logging off because they dont want to lose.
Just what is this with the squads anyway? Is every member blood-related? Is having to change sides or move to other arenas really such a bad thing? Does your relationship with other gamers exist only exclusively with squad members alone?
Just what the heck is this implied "loyalty" to a non-real, fantasy organization within a game?
s Far as people complaining about the Horde. The funny part is you watch one side complain about the horde whilt he people complaining about it are attacking the same country the horde is. The Horde is easy to stop. Shot em down and pork there fields. Bingo Horde Stopped.
The point is to make the horde fight the horde. Stop the horde by crushing them with comparable number of forces. Fight the other guy and beat him down to achieve what you want.
However, the old MA was unable to do that. Mobilization and deployment followed a chaotic pattern of whim. People flock to their friends while avoiding the enemies. Gaining grounds in territorial combat, trying to "win" without fighting any of the actual threats.
Now, if this was a real-war, that would be something worthy of praise. "Winning the war without fighting" - Sun Tzu's ultimate ideal. However, in retrospect, this is also a game. A format of competition. Therefore, people should contend in the air, and must actually fight each other before any amount of victory is achieved, instead of finding some nefarious method of marching into unprotected enemy lands like the Armageddon locust.
If AH2 gave the impression that creating the horde and just barging into a one gigantic milk-run was something to be considered "fun", then I believe that is clearly not what HT had in mind - therefore, he is changing it.
Yes I know dont let my rear end hit the door on the way out. But the sad part of this HiTech and Skuzzy. You are giving up on a Customer Base that has kept you in Business for years and you turned your back on them. Truely Sad. I can leave with the changes made before these. But even these are making me wonder if you had a nervous breakdown or are listneing to people who need to be lined up and shot for there stupidity.
Then are those who object to your opinions and support HT's idea not also a customer base? What are we then, chopped liver? What of the numerous number of veterans who have become sick and tired of the mindless land-grabbing hordes, disappointed at how degenrate the MA has become?
In a sense, AH is trying to go back to its origins without shrinking the game to the small community it was. There are bound to be changes, some good, some bad. Some will work, others will fail, and this cycle will go on until HT finally comes up with a new paradigm to work with the MA. Getting worked up on every change along the way is not gonna help anyone.
ps) The grand irony of all this is that I'm not even a furball guy. I'm a squad-oriented, strat/tactics lovin', roleplaying geek who wants to see the MA run according to realistic warring conditions such as economy, logistics, and attrition rates.
However, despite all that there is no justifying the old MA and how it was. It was neither strategic nor tactical. It deprived the very essence of air combat, and motivated the dweebs to a gigantic land-grab competition by every horde storming into each other's empty back yard.
I like strat and I like cooperation. But that doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between
active tactical cooperation and
instinctive animal herds. There's a clear line of difference between
people who organize themselves to win a war, and
sheep who flock to each other to avoid the wolves.
Anyone who calls that stampede of sheep "cooperation" is clearly out of his mind, because that ain't no "cooperation".
