Author Topic: Idea to encourage returning home alive (Read 3276 times)

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #60 on:** July 10, 2001, 10:34:00 AM »

There is entirely too many base captures going on for me to even remotely believe that they are as impossible as you make them out to be mandoble.

Cite scenarios all you want. The truth is they are just that... scenarios. For every one where a base wasn't taken on a coordinated effort, there is a story where a base was taken on a coordinated effort. There are no guarantees... though it seems some would rather push in that direction.

Delaying respawning has nothing to do with "what about if the FH come back up". It has to do with "its easier for us to maintain air superiority directly over a base". That is it. Pure and simple. This is a tool to make fighter supression at a field easier. Wow.. hardly any need to get those pesky FHs anymore.

The bases were made more difficult to take down for a reason. They were too easy before.

AKDejaVu

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #61 on:** July 10, 2001, 10:34:00 AM »

ROFLOL Wulfe, this is comic. Do you really read??????? Cmon, try again, I know you are able to read the entire message. Having these 11 players is almost impossible, and anything less includes a random factor, even the 11 team could fail due a single flak spawning before VH is down.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #62 on:** July 10, 2001, 10:37:00 AM »

Mandoble, read very very carefully. You are SUPPOSED TO FREAKING PLAN FOR THE UNEXPECTED. IF YOU DO NOT YOU WILL NOT CAPTURE THE BASE. DO NOT GO INTO IT EXPECTING IT TO BE A CAKEWALK.

When the AKs are up and are determined to capture a base, it takes 10 of us max to get it barring an unforseen high cap.

Now lets say this single flak on the field spawns before the VH goes down. Take all the hangars down, bomb the flak. MAN! This is getting easier by the second.

What other scenarios do you want me to tell you? We are quite proficient at capturing fields, we've run into just about every scenario. I'm sure I can guide you to the light without imposing your penalty unto everyone in the arena because you simply did not plan out the attack.
-SW

Pepe · « **Reply #63 on:** July 10, 2001, 10:45:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SWulfe:

So I guess that because I'm opposed to your idea, and I have offered several reasons as to why it's a bad idea and as to why this idea does not do anything other than hurt the game I am abrasive and violent.
-SW

I think this pretty much proves that you need a new pair of glasses....and improved guessing abilities

On the thread subject, Ok, I see that a lot of people here thinks that a minute delay in respawn is a too aggressive measure, and a restricting one, thus unadvisable. In my opininion, is not such a hard punishment (if it's a punishment at all), but point taken.

Cheers,

Pepe

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #64 on:** July 10, 2001, 10:47:00 AM »

Then explain to me what this means:
"Being less abrasive and violent than you does not grant that I will not be supporting them with less faith unless anyone proves me I'm wrong. Quite much the opposite."

Who's them? Supporting what? Less faith in who or what? Proves you wrong in what?

This sentence just doesn't make sense to me.
-SW

Pepe · « **Reply #65 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:09:00 AM »

SW

Again and again and again, I DO NOT want to impose anything. Just have the same right than you to give away Ideas or whatever that, in my particular view, would improve this game. Being less abrasive and violent than you does not grant that I will not be supporting them with less faith unless anyone proves me I'm wrong. Quite much the opposite.

Perhaps if you take the whole sentence, it would make sense. It might be my english, as well. If, after reading that, still does not make sense, tell me. I will try to make it clearer

Cheers,

Pepe

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:13:00 AM »

The general thrust of this thread is one side wanting to make field captures even easier than they already are.

The other side is making the case that an organized properly planned strike makes it easy enough already.

Interestingly enough, the proponents of "easier capture" are mostly the guys that have posted in other threads asking for things that require more cooperation among players, more strategy, more planning, etc., etc.

However, NOW they want less of those things.

...gotta love it.

Pepe · « **Reply #67 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:25:00 AM »

Toad,

It's not a matter of coordination or easy capture. It's simply that I find the current situation unfair, and unrelated to a simulation. Of course, If you appeal to the game nature of this game/sim, I have to concede. In terms of simulation, not.

hehehe, and I love it too

Cheers,

Pepe

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:34:00 AM »

I totally disagree Pepe.

That is not what I'm seeing in this thread.

Simulation? Than you should be rejoicing that it takes a combined, well-planned effort by several players to take a field.

Ten guys can easily take a field if it's done right. Timing, coordination, skill; all are required.

Yet the thrust of the respawn complaints is AWAY from those things.

I see you and Mandoble trying to be on two opposite sides of a position at the same time.

Making field capture easier by limiting spawning isn't going to generate the things you otherwise seem to value in a "simulation".

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #69 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:38:00 AM »

Let me put it this way:

One knights dies at the hand of a bishop fighter, this bishop fighter is controlled by let's say Toad. I am the Knight that dies. My virtual pilot dies, so now I reup controlled a different pilot entity but for the same country and I am still alive in the real world but am controlling another knight "entity" in this virtual world war.
-SW

Pepe · « **Reply #70 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:45:00 AM »

Toad,

I am not talking about base captures. This thread relates to a perhaps too simple (and in your eyes, wrong) way of encouraging flying to live. Point taken from a majority that seems to consider this encouraging as punitive, restrictive and undesirable. The thing derived to the base capture aspect. I am not supporting the minute delay to favour field capture.

I certainly think there is lot of room left to improve with regards to field capture/damage. On a quick list, hangar damage/recovery model, bomb damage model, and, of course, instant irrestricted spawning. I think I've been quite consistent with this. And has no relation with teamwork, not even with the ease of capturing a base. I would support (strongly support) strengthening the hangars by a big deal, given a progressive damage and related spawn capability is modelled, and bomb damage is revisited. I support making airfields hard to capture, and teamwork. I fail to see where I am in both sides of a position.

If I am playing and having fun here is because its sim side. You will never find me supporting the opposite.

Cheers,

Pepe

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #71 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:49:00 AM »

Pepe, you know it is not your english ;D

Toad, you are wrong. It is not logical to need 11 or more players to take an initially "undefended" base and needing only one respawner to defend it if someone fails to close a single hanger. If attack should be carefully planned, sized and timed then I ask the same for the defense. The defenders should also keep CAPs over their bases, for example. If the defense fails to stop the attackers, then it is simply ridiculous to base an effective defense in what IMO is a playability "hole": the respawn.

Imagine the same "spawn" characteristic applied to a LANC downed over your base. You kill the LANC and the LANC respawns in the air near your base and ready to drop the bombs again until you destroy the BHs of its origin base.

My point is that the efforts needed to take a base are absolutelly enormous compared to the efforts needed to defend it in the wrong way, respawning.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #72 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:50:00 AM »

If this were baseball, Mandoble would be so far in left field he would no longer be in the stadium.
-SW

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #73 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:56:00 AM »

SWulfe, I suppose your last point is to "simulate" the numbers, so more than a single real defender (the spawner) is in that base. Ok, then apply the same to the attackers... ...but, if an attacking LANC is downed he must to spend 15 minutes more to get to that base again ... So, the "numbers" argument is only valid for the defenders? We simulate six (for example) and only SIX attackers but infinite defenders???

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #74 on:** July 10, 2001, 11:58:00 AM »

What's so hard to understand about that?

It's only unlimited if you screw the pooch and don't get all the Fighter Hangars down. You can leave the Bomber Hangars up, but kill the ammo bunkers and fuel tanks.

You ARE at THEIR field, I'd expect a lot of defenders at someone elses field when you are far away from your field.

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this scenario.
-SW