Dear players of this silly game :

[mensa180]

Best EskimoJoe post to date.

[Lusche]

The problem is, once anything will get changed, adjusted or fixed, a group of players will appear on scene and immediately claim HT's has appeased some other group of players. I personally feel such a behaviour is more detrimental to the game than anything else.
And HiTech's job is not being made easier by the fact that where nice this game, being a MMOG, was a rarity once... but today it's like standing in the middle of a huge amusement parks, with lots of other HUGE attractions trying to capture the attention of us "kids".

s for euro players that whined constantly? I see your point.
[/quote]

^^^--- This is exactly the kind of crap I mentioned earlier:

The problem is, once anything will get changed, adjusted or fixed, a group of players will appear on scene and immediately claim HT's has appeased some other group of players. I personally feel such a behaviour is more detrimental to the game than anything else.

[Lusche]

Ahh like changing the arena caps for euro players that whined constantly? I see your point.

^^^
This is exactly the kind of crap I mentioned earlier:

The problem is, once anything will get changed, adjusted or fixed, a group of players will appear on scene and immediately claim HT's has appeased some other group of players. I personally feel such a behaviour is more detrimental to the game than anything else.

[Wizer]

[/quote
 

[grizz441]

I agree with what your saying Grizz, but Im looking at it at totally different perspective. Im sure (hypotheticly) if somehow new players emerged in the game of baseball where they were hitting 20 home runs a game that the league will then take a hard look at changing it and making it further. Yes people go to watch and hope for home runs, but dont you think the "glory" of the home run would be diminished if people saw so many a game? My argument is that balance is set NOW and give it time to put into effect to where soon, this system is easymode like the old setup

So you're saying that eventually, a conclusion can be made on balance after a certain period of time?  I agree, but I say we have far surpassed that time.  I really like Lusche's graph on base captures vs man hours because it takes limited data we have access to as players and gives us an indirect, yet accurate depiction of what is actually occuring in the game.  Kudos to thinking outside the box and deciding to look at those two variables.  Now, who is to say how many man hours it should take to capture a base?  That is open to interpretation but is probably tied into the frequency at which a war reset occurs.  How often should war resets occur?  Once a week?  Once a month?  NEVER?  Since resets are occurring at a much reduced rate now, the balance has clearly shifted towards the non goal oriented side of the game.  This cannot be argued.  However, Is that a bad thing?  Well, that depends.  What do the majority of the players want?  How do you find out what the majority of the players want?  Are subscriptions on the decline/incline?  It all of a sudden becomes a complex issue with limited data on knowing how it will be received.  I think, scratch that, I KNOW, through the pulse of this game that there are a lot of people unhappy and not having fun since the town/radar updates.  I'm certain some are clinging onto their subscriptions with hope that HiTech will see the problem, and make the appropriate changes to help make the game fun for them again.  To sum up this aimless post, the game has been proven "unbalanced" by the level of dissatisfaction in the player base with statistical data to also support it.

P.S.

A happy Win the War Crowd makes for a happy Furballer Crowd.  This concept is the ticket to a flourishing game.
It's a shame that most furballers do not even realize this.

[68ZooM]

So you're saying that eventually, a conclusion can be made on balance after a certain period of time?  I agree, but I say we have far surpassed that time.  I really like Lusche's graph on base captures vs man hours because it takes limited data we have access to as players and gives us an indirect, yet accurate depiction of what is actually occuring in the game.  Kudos to thinking outside the box and deciding to look at those two variables.  Now, who is to say how many man hours it should take to capture a base?  That is open to interpretation but is probably tied into the frequency at which a war reset occurs.  How often should war resets occur?  Once a week?  Once a month?  NEVER?  Since resets are occurring at a much reduced rate now, the balance has clearly shifted towards the non goal oriented side of the game.  This cannot be argued.  However, Is that a bad thing?  Well, that depends.  What do the majority of the players want?  How do you find out what the majority of the players want?  Are subscriptions on the decline/incline?  It all of a sudden becomes a complex issue with limited data on knowing how it will be received.  I think, scratch that, I KNOW, through the pulse of this game that there are a lot of people unhappy and not having fun since the town/radar updates.  I'm certain some are clinging onto their subscriptions with hope that HiTech will see the problem, and make the appropriate changes to help make the game fun for them again.  To sum up this aimless post, the game has been proven "unbalanced" by the level of dissatisfaction in the player base with statistical data to also support it.

P.S.

A happy Win the War Crowd makes for a happy Furballer Crowd.  This concept is the ticket to a flourishing game.
It's a shame that most furballers do not even realize this.

+1 Grizz gets it,  furrballing will not exist on it's own, go look at the DA , it's the offspring of what happens when countries take bases ( or try to) i think now when countries try to take bases, it's attracting alot of people but it turns into a furrball when no one wants to help take the field, just a few are really trying, the rest just want to furrball and it pisses off the ones who want to take the base, I've seen it many times and I'm sure most have, the game cant live without the " win the war crowd" its the bread and butter,  do we really want a "fighters only game" ?   

[lunatic1]

even ithough i don't think i've ever whined here but,i do reserve the right to whine when and about.

[oTRALFZo]

First off, We need to find a name for the forgotten category of players that like killing red things. Tanks, planes whatever.
We get too caught up in this "furballer" vs "landgrabber" mentality and both dont get along because both groups refuse to believe that there is fun in both styles of play.
I can never be a "true" furballer. I like stopping rushes, thwarting missions and basicly just being a true pain in the arse to the other players. I can totaly understand and respect the need of the landgrabbers to have fun and be able to play their game. My problem is when that aspect "takes over" what the game is about.
I agree we do need balance and give people their fun. I just think most here are weak to subside to the fact that they give up too easily. Put it this way..HTC decides to remove the auto-takeoff for some reason why he chooses too.
Now you have a majority of the players that cant get off the ground. Would this suck? of course!!. Would I then throw my joystick across the room like a screaming banshee, threaten to quit with hate letters directed to the HTC staff?..NO, I would deal with it best I could KNOWING the playing feild is leveled because now EVERYONE has to learn it.

This isnt a "furballers" game, nor is it a "landgrabbers" game. Im sorry I cant be sympathetic because I knnow bases can STILL be taken. Rooks went on a tear last night and took 5 in under 4 minutes each. Just learn HOW and the world is your oyster.

[Dadsguns]

Don't be a fool and gauge the game based upon how many base captures there have been.  In the past there were so many since they were so easy to do, they are not that easy any more and should not be as easy as before.
The mere fact of getting 40-50 man missions noe are not a guarantee anymore when you can up and defend against it.  

When you see nearly an entire side noe in a mission, that's sad. Where is anyone going to get a fight when every single person on a side is busy in a whack o mole mission?

Towns are bigger, but so are the hordes that try to sneak a base, equally so are the amount of people that actually defend against the noe hordes now as compared to the past since that is where the fights are now, so yes it equals a fight and it equals less base capture success.

What about that is not proportional?   How is that unfair?  

You put a few good sticks in the right place and it will surely make a world of difference in this game wouldn't you agree?  


Tral you make a valid point, what about those of us that don't care about either land grabbers or furballing till you puke, I enjoy busting incoming missions at alt or noe and pissing off the other guy.  I have no sympathy for that style of gameplay or players that only have a one framed mind on what this game offers for you to do.  

There are no such thing as land grabbers and furballers, its just those that fight and those that don't know how.  Period.

[Lusche]

The belance is something beyond the possible rate of captures.

The other thread was titled: "The Town Capture Stalemate.". And I think the title is wrong. Towns can still be captured. It's just much harde. And no, I don't think that alone is wrong either.
The problem is just arising on a higher level: The difficulty of winning the war. And this difficulty has increased by a magnitude due to the combination of several factors: A) town capture difficulty, B) Four different LW arenas, the two peak arenas being up less than 1/3rd of the time they used to be.
The net result is much less map rotation (which is particular bad if you are stuck with a map that doesn't support your fav style of play - for example GVs), and one carrot less for the game population.


And yes, we DO need carrots. On a pure individual combat level, the majority of players is just cannon fodder for a very small number of "gifted" vets. Capturing bases, holding real estate, and ultimately winning the war is giving them a goal to fight, and ultimately die for. It gives them a feeling of "win" even when they get killed a dozen times in the process. They are helping their team.
Keep in mind, the kind of player that has read countless books on air combat for tens of years before stumbling into this game is getting rarer & rarer. The kind of player that had a passion for WWII planes that will let him endure nothing but total "defeat" and cartoon humiliation is getting rarer. For more and more players, this game will be just that. Another game. And there is no way to prevent that.

With the current setup, the "war" aspect has in fact been largely removed. We once had it way too easy, with up to several resets per day by extreme hording. Then the rules were changed and enhanced overall gameplay. Now the environment has changed, and the old rules simply do not fit anymore.

[oTRALFZo]

By no means would ever favor a end all event that will encourage war winning. By this I mean a single capture of a HQ would mean the end of it.

I would totaly be in favor of reseting maps and have sides win by margian like you implied Lusche. If thats the golden carrot that makes everyone happy..then so be it.
As far as towns..leave them be. Leave the down time and keep it a challenge. Everyone wants to be a pioneer of tactics so here is your time to shine. The 50-110, nik and typh missions are way past their primes so time to develope new tactics.

[Dadsguns]

The belance is something beyond the possible rate of captures.

......The difficulty of winning the war. And this difficulty has increased by a magnitude due to the combination of several factors: A) town capture difficulty, B) Four different LW arenas, the two peak arenas being up less than 1/3rd of the time they used to be.
The net result is much less map rotation (which is particular bad if you are stuck with a map that doesn't support your fav style of play - for example GVs), and one carrot less for the game population.


And yes, we DO need carrots. On a pure individual combat level, the majority of players is just cannon fodder .......

This difficulty you speak of resetting the map or win da warz is just the resistance that has developed to a tactic that is also no longer effective as it was in the past.  

What I am arguing is, that now we have people that not only know how to defend but are willing to defend against a noe base taking horde, when they are unsuccessful they rant that its too hard to take a base because that tactic of merely showing up with 50 guys no longer works when you have guys upping to defend against it more so than you did in the past.

When noe's were ran in the past you would see usually 1 player maybe two up to defend since it was usually a lost cause 20 vs 1, but now players are willing to take that risk and fight it out and not let them steal it.  

Yes to a carrot, but not a whole cake.  

[Lusche]

This difficulty you speak of resetting the map or win da warz is just the resistance that has developed to a tactic that is also no longer effective as it was in the past.

This statement is simply wrong, as it is completely ignoring all the factors that I mentioned above. To win the war is more diffcult. It's not only different. It's not only requiring different, better tactics. It totally ignores you have less than 1/3rd of the time available for example. We have the same conditions to be met for a map reset, but the framework has been changed massively

[Dadsguns]

This statement is simply wrong, as it is completely ignoring all the factors that I mentioned above. To win the war is more diffcult. It's not only different. It's not only requiring different, better tactics. It totally ignores you have less than 1/3rd of the time available for example. We have the same conditions to be met for a map reset, but the framework has been changed massively

Yes I agree there is change and with your statement above. Maybe I failed to mention in a way that yes defending against it has made a difference that was not accounted for in your statement.  

All of the above you mentioned is correct, as long as nobody ups to defends you will be successful regardless.  If defenders get up the chance of being successful will dramatically drop.  

As said, players are more apt to defend now than before which has greatly impacted the success rate of base captures as well as the changes that have been created.

[LLogann]

I don't find that to be completely true, or perhaps you mistook him.....  There was a time DadsGuns and I were closer and I think he is pointing out the good ole NOE tactics and taking 2 sets of Lancs to drop a town fast, with the help of a couple of cannon birds.  

That tactic IS no longer effective.  

This statement is simply wrong, as it is completely ignoring all the factors that I mentioned above. To win the war is more diffcult. It's not only different. It's not only requiring different, better tactics. It totally ignores you have less than 1/3rd of the time available for example. We have the same conditions to be met for a map reset, but the framework has been changed massively

This difficulty you speak of resetting the map or win da warz is just the resistance that has developed to a tactic that is also no longer effective as it was in the past.  

EDIT:

Or what he said.....

Yes I agree there is change and with your statement above. Maybe I failed to mention in a way that yes defending against it has made a difference that was not accounted for in your statement. 

All of the above you mentioned is correct, as long as nobody ups to defends you will be successful regardless.  If defenders get up the chance of being successful will dramatically drop. 

As said, players are more apt to defend now than before which has greatly impacted the success rate of base captures as well as the changes that have been created.