Is this what Hitech wants?

[Crash Orange]

Again, your wrong.  And you entitled to your twisted logic no matter how you want to quantify and justify having 40 extra players on a side, there is nothing fair about it when eny has little or no effect.    

There is no twisting.

Say there are 140 rooks, 100 nits, and 100 bish on. Not a single bish and nit are fighting each other, all 200 of them are attacking the 140 rooks. Who has the numerical advantage?

If you say the rooks, you are either considerably less educated than Jethro Bodine, or just being stubborn and refusing to admit plain and obvious fact.

The rooks are outnumbered almost 3-2 in that situation. Giving them a high ENY would only make things worse.

[LLogann]

You didn't really listen to what he said though Chief.........  I may have a bias, but I do find that if Bish has 40 more than the others, the others are both concentrating on Bish.  That is actually a natural reaction that behavioral psychos would talk to you until your head falls off about.  

Again, your wrong.  And you entitled to your twisted logic no matter how you want to quantify and justify having 40 extra players on a side, there is nothing fair about it when eny has little or no effect.    

[Dadsguns]

There is no twisting.

Say there are 140 rooks, 100 nits, and 100 bish on. Not a single bish and nit are fighting each other, all 200 of them are attacking the 140 rooks. Who has the numerical advantage?

If you say the rooks, you are either considerably less educated than Jethro Bodine, or just being stubborn and refusing to admit plain and obvious fact.

The rooks are outnumbered almost 3-2 in that situation. Giving them a high ENY would only make things worse.

Your a broken record, again get out of your box your in and see the light.  I used that same argument years ago until I got out of my box too.  

You cannot assume that the other two sides only will fight bish, it happens to all sides.  

I have yet to hear you answer the question of having this same advantage against the lowest side and both sides ganging the lower side, would that still be fair in your eyes?

[Crash Orange]

Like I said... you don't have to answer it. Hell, the way you are refusing to answer it is answer enough for me.

The answer, and the only answer, I am giving you is that it is a stupid, pointless question because it asks what will happen when something that will never happen, happens. It's like asking what will happen when 2 + 2 = 7. The only correct answer to such an ignorant question is "That will never happen, so your question is meaningless."

Anything else you want to conclude is your own imagination.

[Crash Orange]

You're right, I'm stubbornly refusing to admit that I'm spouting plain and obvious nonsense, claiming that a side that's outnumbered 3-2 has a numerical advantage.

Thank you.

[moot]

In my opinion, the difference is irrelevant.

Whether it is a individual in a chess match,
a company in the market place,
or a football team on the field,
or an AH team in the arena,
failure to perform in a competitive environment should lead to consequences that might not be pleasant at that moment.

iow players are responsible for other players (in)action.  I don't think so.  
Agreed on everything else.

It is depending on which poster you are referring too.  Some have a believe that the horde CAN NOT be effectively countered or matched.  Rolex was implying that it could.  I was supporting his assertion with sarcasm.  

Ok but jest aside it's beside the point.  We can go back and forth till we agree it's a good jest but in the end's the same conclusion- it misses the point: playing the game so that you're beating the other side not by fighting em but by denying em the ability to fight.  

You can beat someone flat out, denying all his attempts and decapitating him asap.  Or you can seek out all his attempts, play his game by his rules in each of those attempts, and then defeat him. Rinse repeat for all his possible attempts; this is a more complete victory IMO.  Somewhere in between you have the kind of guaranteed war winning that's rich with both strategy and tactics that I'm suggesting.

Myself I don't care either way. Adapt or die's always been how I see it.

[Dadsguns]

Thank you for not making me look like more of a fool than I am, I pretend to have years of experience at real warfare and just for your information having 40 players to help me rule the world is what I deem as fair gaming practices.
I love you daddy...

No, Thank you......  

[Ten60]

So there's nothing to argue about, you plainly say you don't care if the other side gets zero gameplay out of your missions.  Making the other side feel good = strawman Agreed

Doesn't sound like that's what you meant to write.  I can't tell what you mean.Sarcasm.  It's not our fault everyone just wants to tell us it is.

If you have no escort?  Sure.  Yes "I" have killed plenty of "guys like you". I've done a few tours where I had three figure kill tallies against bombers. You're wrong if you think I'm motivated for this argument because I've got something to prove. It's not about me and not really about you in particular either.Your tally line makes no difference in this conversation so don't bring it up like you're some superman stick.  The argument is people trying to call another persons style of play inferior of unfair.  Work up some gumption form up a horde interceptor wing and stop us.  Otherwise just stop trying to impose your empirical view upon us common people.

Prolly no such thing as a perfect analogy. Analogies only emphasize a particular similarity.  The boxing analogy only illustrates one thing: victory without peril, base capture without a fight, people sitting in front of their computers effectively as spectators.I get what your analogy attempted to emphasize, you just did a poor job of thinking it through.

Doesnt sound like you understand my argument.  I don't want you to do anything, I'm only arguing the pros and cons of different scenarios.  Your impression that I'm a furballer is mostly ok, and what do furballers do?  They kill players, not buildings.  As far as I'm privately concerned the you guys are just targets, but like I said this isn't about what I like.  The objective is to clear up some misunderstandings on both sides even if I'm probably a little biased towards detailing the tactical side. For the millionth time, we all get what ludicrous version of the game you want us to conform to.  'Little biased' is an understatement you haven't given a single argument for 'hordlings' have you?

Non sequitur, or how to warp an analogy's meaning.I didn't warp anything.  You can't make an analogy that doesn't completely make sense.  It's like if I say your style is a fork and mines a spoon.  Well, ok they are different styles of silverware and different styles of gameplay analogy=true.  Other than that it makes NO SENSE.  In my analogy it directly correlates to what the 'horde' opposition actually wants us to do (not put forth our best effort so the other team can play along for a bit longer) while yours is just a rabid generalization.  Admit that it was a poor choice and what I responded to you demonstrates that.

More derailed analogy and back to square one, you're essentially saying the game is all about you, and that you're ok with waging war against unoccupied buildings and conquering empty territory, that getting a fight while racking up the real estate is not an objective.  I did say you guys had the strategic side down pat but I guess it's too hard to take a compliment at face value.A compliment in the face of numerous insults...  I can't believe I missed it.  Capping bases irregardless of their defensive compliment is a part of them game that we choose to enjoy.  We like teamwork, practice, improving in all skills (not just dog-fighting), making an objective and goal, setting sail and ACHIEVING IT.  It's our choice to play the game play content we want to and we don't hassle you about yours.

Yes obviously.  I didn't say strategic had no place in the game, only that you couldn't (not yet anyway) expect to not rub a non negligible chunk of the players the wrong way if you basically deny them any tactical answer to your strategic action.  I also said and say that big uncontested missions are boring but that's just some opinionated coloring to my actual argumentsThere is a tactical answer, but as normal since it isn't convenient for you it's an invalid answer.  Don't like the 'horde' come and stop it.  I'm sure you'd get plenty of fun and enjoyment over running through us like a knife through warm butter (that analogy works because it makes complete sense, not just a generalization) and watching us run and subsequently steam from the agony of our failure.  I have a lot of fun and satisfaction over taking bases no matter the number.  It's enjoyable to succeed and achieve MY goals and objectives.

I'd appreciate the WTG and I mostly agree with the sentiment but it just hides the misunderstanding at the root of this argument:  Players like me don't care about names in lights - it's not the destination but the road that matters to us.  We don't care if you win the war or if we beat you.  We just want to have a good fight out of it.  Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you ask) we don't have any hierarchy like you guys.  So in that respect you're preaching to the choir - we don't want to tell others what to do, even less than you do.  That's not true about all "furballers" but there's a good number of us and if you make the argument personal you ought to know that. 
"Crying" = strawman
"fooling around" :    What... And you're not fooling around in front of your computer?If I didn't know better I'd think you're starting to come around...  It's very hallmark of you to enjoy the scenery of your journey.  At the base of this whole discussion is people want us to not play how we like to play and imagine that this is the 'Even the kid who eats his boogers gets a Trophy' League.

In fact you don'tDo too.

Where did I pretend to have such authority?  I'm not concerned with crap or how much esteem you have for me, only what makes sense. I'm just reasoning that you would still have your strategic success if you changed the plan a little so that there was some actual air combat involved instead of a colonization swarm.  You could allow some tactical resistance while still denying any significant strategic attempts.  If you pull the rug from under the feet of an oppfor that's disorganized because e.g. it's nothing but players who don't know each other, you're not gonna get much tactical level resistance and consequently definitely nothing at strat level.By making a prolonged argument supporting the 'horde' haters you are precisely telling us your opinion on how we 'should' play.  "A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem."  Keywords there are 'optimal' and 'achieving'.  It is against the definition of rationality - otherwise known as reason - and in reality completely illogical to act in the manner of which you contend.  In fact sound logic would conclude that if we wanted to achieve a base grab, the use of high number of attackers will both increase our chance of success, as well as, intimidate and detract the enemy from achieving successful intervention.

Yes this is basically mostly a tragedy of the commons argument.  But youll miss the mark if you ignore mine and others arguments and tunnel vision on the abstract ethics of 'tragedy of the commons'Could be a plausible outcome, except we get reset maps, and new people stream in over time so I'm not to sure where the depletion of resource is.

But like I said if you see nothing wrong with conquering territory with zero resistance, that's fine too.  I think you're pooping where you eat, even if only a little, but it's your call.
Objective achieved.  As for the pooping comment...  lol

January 2009.Here's where you show your true colors.  New players are no longer entitled to their opinion.  In fact if anyone with a completely inaccurate timestamp on their profile disagrees with you, they automatically know more about everything than you do and again you are inferior.  Patronizing another player only proves that your arrogance actually hinders your point of view and your intelligence.  That is the true tragedy here, that your own self image is to large for you to see that there even is a fence.

I won't comment anyone else's remarks mostly because I'm not reading this entire thread AGAIN to understand their point and for you to recurse.

And yes history in the game is almost totally irrespective to someone's credibility.But it was enough to berate Vudu15.

I'm done trying to defend myself or anyone else in this game who wants to 'horde' and mostly because I think threads that are 3 pages long and take 30 min to organize are excessive....  BY A LOT.  If you want to go on feel free, I'd be happy to read your response and disagree silently.

[kvuo75]

i dont sweat hordes.. they'll get bored eventually, doing nothing but killing buildings and ack and maybe sharing 2 or 3 kills between 30 people cant be that fun for very long.. I know i got sick of it after about a year of being a hordelet myself.  

[Crash Orange]

Just to make this perfectly clear: I have NEVER claimed to have real-war experience.

[Dadsguns]

Like I said... you don't have to answer it. Hell, the way you are refusing to answer it is answer enough for me.

I would just love to know why you think it is fun - I have never had it explained to me in a way that really resonated with me.

Your a broken record, again get out of your box your in and see the light.  I used that same argument years ago until I got out of my box too.  

You cannot assume that the other two sides only will fight bish, it happens to all sides.  

I have yet to hear you answer the question of having this same advantage against the lowest side and both sides ganging the lower side, would that still be fair in your eyes?

^^He didnt answer my question either.  

[Ten60]

Wabbit kick me in the nuts for saying so, but I reckon that's a bad analogy because it's set up as a 1:1.  

His chess analogy being 1:1 was a bad analogy, but your boxing one wasn't???  Guess boxing's a team sport now.

[CptTrips]

let's just for sake of argument say you COULD play chess worth a crap, in fact you are an international grandmaster! Would you have fun playing in a tournament for those  ranked under 800?

How much am I charging for my appearence?  

I'm guessing probably not, because of how you answered the football analogy, but it is a different way of saying the same thing.

I think we mostly agree here in the context of the overall team balance in the arena.  I have no problem have crushing local numerical superiority if the enemy fails to pull their head out and up sufficient defence.  

In fact, I think the difference between you and I may be as simple as your analogy - you seem to think of this game as a competition where the 'opposition' deserves to be crushed, and hopefully in a manner that would discourage them from ever having the temerity to challenge you again

Nope.  It isn't about challenging me again.  Its about doing the same stupid things again that got them beat.  If they are man enough, they'll take their beating without typing a word of complaint on the bbs or chan200, and instead put their energies on figuring out how to get even.  The absolute most you should ever say, even after the most humiliating, crushing beatdown is "Good shooting" or "Good game."  Anything more than that, and you're just a woman whining.

Let me ask you a different question, related to your chess analogy. Lets say you aren't playing in a tournament, just a friendly series of games against someone that you are clearly better than. Do you ever get to the point where you'd give up pieces (play a piece or two down) just so the other player might have more fun, and to make the game more challenging? Or would you just have more fun winning crushing victory after victory - and perhaps telling your opponent to 'quit crying' if he suggested you play a knight down next game?

Well, I'm going to want to separate the context.  Practicing and training vs competition.

If I am "practicing" or "training" with someone I may set up various scenarios specifically for training purposes.  I might let him set pieces back so we can play back thru a part of the game without having to start completely over.  It is clear and stated that we are in training mode.  

When we start to play a real game, all bets are off and I am 100% effort, no mercy, no holding back.  

When I was a kid I played a lot of tennis.  I was fairly good.  I had a friend who was a couple of years older.  One time when we were playing I realized he had basically given me a game to keep the match going.  It took some pressing before he admitted it.  I took great pains to explain to him how unacceptable that was.  I don't think I ever played him again.  Training is one thing.  Competition is another and I expect my opponent to give 110%.  Whether its chess, checkers, tennis, or AH, I expect my opponents to play like their life depended on it.  Nor would I slack off one bit for any possible reason.  If you beat me, rest assured, YOU BEAT ME!

To me, INTENSITY, is what is fun.


Now don't get the idea I go around crushing people.  Usually I'm the one getting crushed, but the principle is the same, and besides...I can dream can't I?

,
Wab

[moot]

so don't bring it up like you're some superman stick. 

.... I said it wasn't bragging. Just showing it makes no difference to me IE I'm not arguing from emotion like you seem to be, EG "hatred" etc.  Ive been arguing about as dispassionately as you could.

The argument is people trying to call another persons style of play inferior of unfair.

You said as much. Unless you think think denying the other side any gameplay is fair. 
Inferiority has nothing to do with anything, there's no such thing

Work up some gumption form up a horde interceptor wing and stop us. 

Gumption's got nothing to do with it

Otherwise just stop trying to impose your empirical view upon us common people.

So merely proposing an argument is imposing? 
Never argued anyone's inferior or more or less common.  That's just FUD

.I get what your analogy attempted to emphasize, you just did a poor job of thinking it through.

meaningless tit for tat

  'Little biased' is an understatement you haven't given a single argument for 'hordlings' have you?

Sure I can.  Strategic and tactical gameplay, you can't have one without the other.  Pretty sure I'd said so already and your real problem is you don't really want to argue this but make sure that everyone knows you guys are the good guys and the other guys are bad guys.  Which is the kind of thing that perpetuates bickering in these toolsheder/furballer arguments and... Fine, carry on if that's what you're after.   

A compliment in the face of numerous insults...
Here's where you show your true colors.  New players are no longer entitled to their opinion.
  Patronizing another player only proves that your arrogance actually hinders your point of view and your intelligence.  That is the true tragedy here, that your own self image is to large for you to see that there even is a fence.

  Why bother....

In fact sound logic would conclude that if we wanted to achieve a base grab, the use of high number of attackers will both increase our chance of success, as well as, intimidate and detract the enemy from achieving successful intervention.

This is the only piece worth remembering.  Have fun becoming the next big time war winners.  Edit- and that's not condescension either.  Really, fly what you love and love what you fly.  My impression is that that's all that can be said because an up front honest discussion is not possible. I'm not going to not call things as I see em, e.g. that someone is wrong when he says he knows a lot of us old players who've been on both "sides" of this issue "can't look over the fence and see what anyone else is talkin about".   Why don't you wait ten years and then have some guy who just joined tell you you can't consider something you know nothing about because you've never done, when in fact you were doing it all the time a few years earlier.

But it was enough to berate Vudu15.

FYI you can't pretend to know what someone thinks when you missed the previous 10 years.  Which is what Vudu was saying- he knows "people like us" (and note from the start I'd said I wasn't arguing this personally (neither you guys nor me) but debating the general dynamics going on in the game) "cant look over the fence and see what anyone else is talkin about." which is what I'm doing here, trying to clarify the reasonable parts of "furballer" (as if there was such a homogeneous "side") pov.  But I see now it's a waste of time. e.g.

New players are no longer entitled to their opinion.

I said the exact opposite. 

[moot]

His chess analogy being 1:1 was a bad analogy, but your boxing one wasn't???  Guess boxing's a team sport now.

Lemme say it again:  the point was that a boxing match where there's no fighting is not entertaining, whereas one where there actually is some contest, is.  That the analogy can be used another way than was meant it is beside the point. 
The point I wasn't making that you bring up: The incongruity between horde and non-horde oppfor is exactly what I'm saying.  Wabbit is characterizing the defending swarm of uncoordinated players as if it were as single-minded as a chess opponent, but it isn't.

Since you've made this not about the dynamics of furballing and hording, but a personal thing, here's my take on the whole thing:  I personally don't care what happens in the game.  I see red guys, I kill em.  It's a calamity that you "don't get" what a good fight's about, and that so many players will even argue that there's nothing wrong with turning the game into something more rather than less of a spectator sport, but it makes no difference to me.  I already have what I want: planes I can flog and bad guys to fight with.