...Your answer is to disrupt thier game play, because they disrupted yours. Yeah, that is going to make everyone happy.
Roy, You know and have met me, we've had our disagreements, but generally thy are semantic. <S> sir, and I fully respect you, and I know you respect anyone who is cordial, un-combatant, and generally peaceful / logical.
I think what my cohort is trying to bring up is exactly what I have quoted from you.
Look at from the view point of TW9 if you may (player Z). Player X found a way to disrupt player Z's preference in game play. Player X called out of course, and did get accomplices, but the end result is the disruption of player Z's ideal.
Now in the past the great post by Dale about the "war" being there to promote dogfights, and game play is legend. We veterans especially know the meaning and desire of HTC as a company that provides us hours, no days of fun. What complicates this is the direction some players have taken.
There is no doubt that over the years the player base has changed a bit. Many older aged veterans have left, though like myself still post (I WISH I could play but can’t afford at this time in my life). Even though, the game play is what it is. Some players want to achieve goal X, others goal Z. Going back a long, long way I remember those goals being mutually productive.
I’ll go a ways back here, I apologize for the length. Back with a map like Mindanao, yes it was a bit lopsided in country neutrality, but anyone who played can remember the complexity near the middle of the map. The “furballers” had to be there to distract the fight, the base takers had to be there to capture the city… but I am reminiscing.
I almost suggest since the AKDESERT map the “mass mission” started to take place. Not a tool of attrition, but a tool of necessity due to the large difference in base altitudes. Now back then the map was great for providing mutual attack zones, and areas for “pure” dogfighting, but I still feel it was a transition to something “different”.
Over the years the conflict between “furballers” and “mission” players has evolved into a virtual war, each thinking the other is less important to the game. Game is actually a strong word. I know some players go WAY beyond what constitutes playing a PC “game”. There are others (mainly veterans… who call it a “game” [lower case]). This dichotomy of player base has to be not only confusing, but unintelligible. The desire to encourage new players, yet retain veterans to help said new players is a dilemma that honestly is infuriating.
That all said I don’t see you proposing a realistic solution in any of your posts. One thing said, rand repeated is “go to the arena which caters to his/her stype of play”. Yet you are deflecting the question and not offering a real solution. Which arena are you suggesting? If you truly are saying “go to the DA” then why not come out and say that? I am guessing here, but you can’t formally suggest the DA because you know it doesn’t offer the solution said player is asking for. You seem to be suggestion a course of action that is invisible to many of us. If you have a concrete suggestion I know many here would appreciate it, beyond that I can say I think your words quoted are falling on deaf ears.
The catch 22 of your post I originally quoted is that there is currently no game mechanic available for TW9 to disrupt the game play of those who intentionally disrupt his. Let’s pose a hypothetical there are 4 of each on each side. 4 “TW9’s”; and 4 “others”. Caught in the middle unspoken are the players who make enough to show a full bar of radar in the sector on the map in question. That sounds like 20+ players minimum; if I understand the map correctly. Now the “others” think that group of possibly 20 players could be better used attacking / defending a base somewhere else on the map. Those “others” have it in their ability to disrupt the conflict in question with or without help. Possibly they ask for help, possibly they don’t. Either way those 4 (on the same country, acting of their own accord regardless to objection) effected the game play of 4 (minimum) of their country-mates.
Remember now that was a minority (based on the amount of players AH requires to show a “full” bar radar in a sector for 2 sides) effecting the game play of many (upwards of 20 counting both sides on estimate). You mention “disrupt thier game play, because they disrupted yours” I am sorry Roy but I have to ask you the pivotal question (And with due all respect you are being facetious):
How can “player TW9” honestly disrupt the game play of player “other”? As I mentioned I a posing a hypothetical situation, but the basis is the same. There almost seems to be no true answer. I guess what I am bringing up here is a fundamental flaw, or caveat that says “HTC wants players, proceed at your own risk”.
I don’t imagine Dale, you, Doug, or anyone is of that mindset; though you are in the business of making money and I don’t fault you for that. I have a plethora of ideas on matters like this, and I will be sending you an email in a day or so; but until then please read what I said, and take it to heart. I know there are many players you want, and many you’d like to keep. Please think about that and all of this when you make decisions.
<S>
