Author Topic: Tank Town Bases: Capturable vs UnCapturable (Read 5336 times)

DREDger · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:58:10 AM »

I'm curious, what exactly is your reason for being so hell bent on taking them if you think they should be made uncapturable?

Having the center airfields makes it much easier to facilitate the land takes if that is what you are into. Basically gives you one more airfield at a central location to branch away from. They are large airfields, so very hard to pork for ords and troops, not to mention all the hangers. It's inherently obvious, the wider the front you have, more launch points, easier to flank, ect.

Problem is once you take the central airfields, you have to get the VH bases othewise they'll just run M3's and GV's to take it back. (then they call you a griefer in doing so)

I like Bronks idea of making the vbases uncapturable, combined with my idea of no spawn point back to the airfield...essentially isolating TT from rest of map.

xtyger · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:00:03 AM »

As long as each team is left with one field of any kind on the island, that should work.

I don't have much of a problem with anyone taking a v base and then letting it go. Rooks did it the other day to a Knight v base and I got the capture in taking it back in twenty minutes or so.

But this thing of one team taking the whole island is silly.

As an aside, I went up there just a while ago for a few short flights. When I got there, my very own KNIGHTS, were just minutes away from taking the last field on TT Island.

I berated my fellow players with little effect. How humiliating.

Whatever.

DREDger · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:13:23 AM »

When I got there, my very own KNIGHTS, were just minutes away from taking the last field on TT Island.

What a bunch of griefers, bet they win the map before I can get home tonight too.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:13:47 AM »

Capturable.

Donzo · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:43:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDger
I'm curious, what exactly is your reason for being so hell bent on taking them if you think they should be made uncapturable?

Having the center airfields makes it much easier to facilitate the land takes if that is what you are into. Basically gives you one more airfield at a central location to branch away from. They are large airfields, so very hard to pork for ords and troops, not to mention all the hangers. It's inherently obvious, the wider the front you have, more launch points, easier to flank, ect.

If that's the case, why would say something along the lines of "Maybe we should let Bish have their TT base back now."?

You're a griefer plain and simple.

I don't buy your outdated "strategic" reasons for taking TT. Maybe, just maybe, I would buy that logic if the %'s to reset were higher (like when they were 50%). It's back to 40% so your little strat reason is weak.

Gloves · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:51:34 AM »

Uncapturably Capturable.

Glove

DREDger · « **Reply #21 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:57:57 AM »

You're a griefer plain and simple

WHAAAAAAA!!!!!

Donzo · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:59:48 AM »

A childish one at that.

jhookt · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:04:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDger
You're a griefer plain and simple

WHAAAAAAA!!!!!

a well thought out response, clearly you have thought out your argument and have vocalized it to the best of your ability

Masherbrum · « **Reply #24 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:07:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
You trolled in the other thread you started, are you bored?

This has been proven DREDger. Move along now.

DREDger · « **Reply #25 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:10:24 PM »

jhookt, did you have an opinion either way, capturable vs uncapturable?

Same for u Masherbrum, the title of this post and question are for those interested in this topic. If you are not interested in contributing to or voicing an opinion on, kindly refrain from posting here.

Bronk · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:13:09 PM »

Just because you can do something doesn't make it OK.

Multi accounts to use to spot missions/CVs/single out players for attack.

Is this also ok with you Dredger?

Bronk

Donzo · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:15:55 PM »

Bronk I don't think that DRED is taking any questions that require thought.

(Unless of course you answer his question first, then it's up in the air as to whether or not you'll get a response)

DREDger · « **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:16:02 PM »

Is this also ok with you Dredger?

<--smells stinky bait...ponders it....moves along.

Simaril · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:16:52 PM »

Whether its intended to be (stinky) bait or not, it's a fair question.

Wonder how many wanting TT V-bases uncapturable felt the same way about the A-bases in Donut's fightertown?

Remember that HT's goal seems to be to get all types of players to pursue their interests alongside each other -- which is why he didnt like FT, and said it "slipped by" him. (That implied that he would have nixed it if I realized what was up.) When the griefers were porking FT, HT wanted us kids in the sandbox to settle it between ourselves.

In general, HT does not look favorably on players asking for rule changes to accomplish things (like defending your own bases) that they could do themselves (like defending your own bases).