Dec 30th- Battle of Midway (very short Icon event)

[CAP1]

I am quite uneducated when it comes to the maps.  At some point, I'd love to create one/come up with one... But.... is it possible to have CV's randomly positioned?

Like, the Midway map.... Most of us are so used to it being a couple different ways.  Would it be possible to limit change sides to like 72 hours and also have the CV's in the map position themselves at a random point when the map is first brought up?

 limiting side changing in here would be a very bad idea. people in here routinely switch in order to keep the sides somewhat even.

 i do think that perhaps the cv's should be on some sort of auto-pilot, to prevent grouping them all too close together, or hiding.

 we ran night awhile ago., i think it was 5 minutes each hour? was pretty cool, although very hard.

 winds don't have to be heavy.....just 5 or possibly 10kts. have them varying with altitude, in both direction, and intensity. while this would make fighting a bit harder, it would also add incredibly to the challenge.

[jimson]

The CV's can be positioned and locked down in a short patrol.

The issue is how do you decide they are close enough to prevent long flights without being too close? Also, then players can't position them for an assault, and Lvt's are the only troop carriers.

As far as night goes, players can adjust their gamma and basically make it day again for them, leaving those who don't know this trick in a disadvantage.

[CAP1]

The CV's can be positioned and locked down in a short patrol.

The issue is how do you decide they are close enough to prevent long flights without being too close? Also, then players can't position them for an assault, and Lvt's are the only troop carriers.

As far as night goes, players can adjust their gamma and basically make it day again for them, leaving those who don't know this trick in a disadvantage.

 hhmm.......how about assigning certain cv's as capable of assaulting the base? this way, each could be moved within it's own box? or am i over complicating things now?

[trwagner1]

limiting side changing in here would be a very bad idea. people in here routinely switch in order to keep the sides somewhat even.

 i do think that perhaps the cv's should be on some sort of auto-pilot, to prevent grouping them all too close together, or hiding.

 we ran night awhile ago., i think it was 5 minutes each hour? was pretty cool, although very hard.

 winds don't have to be heavy.....just 5 or possibly 10kts. have them varying with altitude, in both direction, and intensity. while this would make fighting a bit harder, it would also add incredibly to the challenge.

Educate me please.  Not trying to be sarcastic or anything.... still trying to fathom the side switching philosophy. 

We have a map.  It has objectives.  Each side has it's own objectives in order to "win" a map.....

Perhaps I'm perceiving this wrong.... achieving the map objective is wrong?

So, a side is lopsided.  If the AvA arena is here for a week, then it gets reset back to the same map!

I have never understood the side switching philosophy.  Sorry, no offense.  I ask and people tell their side but I still don't understand the point.  I once had someone say "it's about the fight".  Well if that's true, don't we have an arena for fighting with your aircraft of choice?  (DA).  Since we do, then it should be about the map.... and 1 side achieving it's objective.   And, if you think about it, if you discourage those who fight for the map objective, then how do you "even the sides" for that unbalance?

We have an arena for pure fight... but everyone seems to badmouth trying to fight to achieve a map objective and I don't understand that. If having a map objective is wrong, then why have them?

Again, sorry, no disrespect intended.  Still trying to understand after years of asking.

[CAP1]

Educate me please.  Not trying to be sarcastic or anything.... still trying to fathom the side switching philosophy. 

We have a map.  It has objectives.  Each side has it's own objectives in order to "win" a map.....

Perhaps I'm perceiving this wrong.... achieving the map objective is wrong?

So, a side is lopsided.  If the AvA arena is here for a week, then it gets reset back to the same map!

I have never understood the side switching philosophy.  Sorry, no offense.  I ask and people tell their side but I still don't understand the point.  I once had someone say "it's about the fight".  Well if that's true, don't we have an arena for fighting with your aircraft of choice?  (DA).  Since we do, then it should be about the map.... and 1 side achieving it's objective.   And, if you think about it, if you discourage those who fight for the map objective, then how do you "even the sides" for that unbalance?

We have an arena for pure fight... but everyone seems to badmouth trying to fight to achieve a map objective and I don't understand that. If having a map objective is wrong, then why have them?

Again, sorry, no disrespect intended.  Still trying to understand after years of asking.

 there is nothing wrong with achieving the objective. but.....suppose you're the only one flying axis. you've got 7 f4f's constantly hammering you, as the allied cv's continuously shell your newly taken land base. you're about to lose it, and there's nothing you can do, due to the overwhelming numbers against you.
 in the main arenas, there would normally be nothing done. in here, some of those guys flying allied will switch to axis in order to keep the sides somewhat even, and make it fun fights for everyone. we all do it. there's been nights that i've gone back and forth a couple of times.

[jimson]

hhmm.......how about assigning certain cv's as capable of assaulting the base? this way, each could be moved within it's own box? or am i over complicating things now?

Well there are no individual settings for CV's, even for one side or the other. They can be set only as all player controllable or not.

Trwagner, you have hit upon the age old issue.

I only speak for myself and not the staff at large, but I believe that while dogfights can occur in a strategic game, a strategic game cannot occur in a dogfight game.

I like to include some objectives for those who favor a teamwork oriented strategic game but there is nothing to prevent players from only dog fighting if they wish to.

That creates some difficulty in trying to prevent the objectives from being steamrolled when there is little opposition in the arena. That can sometimes kill the ability for there to be dogfights, if all the bases are taken etc.

This is something we haven't been able to resolve. There are times that there will be intervention to keep the arena playable.

We allow unlimited side switching so that players can voluntarily choose the low numbers side to keep it more balanced. It would be great if we had a large enough population that allowed for side loyalty and there are some players who do, but the negative effects of a 3-2 or greater imbalance are much more severe in an arena that only has tens of players in it as opposed to one that has hundreds.

[Oldman731]

We have a map.  It has objectives.  Each side has it's own objectives in order to "win" a map.....

There is no "win the map" in the AvA.  Unlike the MAs, the map will not reset, and the arena just gets porked until a staffer can get in to set it up again.  Consequently the staffers set more limited goals for their setups.

- oldman

[trwagner1]

There is no "win the map" in the AvA.  Unlike the MAs, the map will not reset, and the arena just gets porked until a staffer can get in to set it up again.  Consequently the staffers set more limited goals for their setups.

- oldman

Then, why have an objective?  

If there's no objective for the battle, then it's nothing but a glorified DA...  If there's no objective, then what's the point?

[trwagner1]

limiting side changing in here would be a very bad idea. people in here routinely switch in order to keep the sides somewhat even.

 i do think that perhaps the cv's should be on some sort of auto-pilot, to prevent grouping them all too close together, or hiding.

 we ran night awhile ago., i think it was 5 minutes each hour? was pretty cool, although very hard.

 winds don't have to be heavy.....just 5 or possibly 10kts. have them varying with altitude, in both direction, and intensity. while this would make fighting a bit harder, it would also add incredibly to the challenge.

I like t hat thought!  i like some wind/weather now and then

[trwagner1]

I understand that scenario all too well.  But, I have never been able to trust anyone switching sides like that in a regular arena.  As soon as their times up, they switch, CV gets reported/attacked, etc.

let's leave the discussion as it is, we agree to disagree   

no need to clutter this forum with that discussion

[trwagner1]

Well there are no individual settings for CV's, even for one side or the other. They can be set only as all player controllable or not.

Trwagner, you have hit upon the age old issue.

I only speak for myself and not the staff at large, but I believe that while dogfights can occur in a strategic game, a strategic game cannot occur in a dogfight game.

I like to include some objectives for those who favor a teamwork oriented strategic game but there is nothing to prevent players from only dog fighting if they wish to.

That creates some difficulty in trying to prevent the objectives from being steamrolled when there is little opposition in the arena. That can sometimes kill the ability for there to be dogfights, if all the bases are taken etc.

This is something we haven't been able to resolve. There are times that there will be intervention to keep the arena playable.

We allow unlimited side switching so that players can voluntarily choose the low numbers side to keep it more balanced. It would be great if we had a large enough population that allowed for side loyalty and there are some players who do, but the negative effects of a 3-2 or greater imbalance are much more severe in an arena that only has tens of players in it as opposed to one that has hundreds.

I understand that scenario all too well.  But, I have never been able to trust anyone switching sides like that in a regular arena.  As soon as their times up, they switch, CV gets reported/attacked, etc.  I run into that constantly.

[CAP1]

let's leave the discussion as it is, we agree to disagree   

no need to clutter this forum with that discussion

 i don't think anyone thinks it's clutter.

 you'll find that 90% of those here that switch are trustworthy. there's not a single one of us that'll say we're better than the average ma player......but yet we are a different "type" of player.

[trwagner1]

i don't think anyone thinks it's clutter.

 you'll find that 90% of those here that switch are trustworthy. there's not a single one of us that'll say we're better than the average ma player......but yet we are a different "type" of player.

Well, with AvA I agree.  95% of those who fly AvA are stand up folks.

But in other arenas..... 

[trwagner1]

Let me put it another way I guess.... for the 3 MA's, I fly and expect some furballing.  For late war, I always expect furballing.  If I want to engage anyone and test my (weak as they are) skills in air combat, i go to the DA.  For the AvA arena, i like the people, I like the maps, and I try to follow the objectives of all the maps but ESPECIALLY the AvA map because the objectives are usually very specific.  When the objectives are very specific, it [can] be very difficult when you are on track and someone switch sides.  But, I recognize the other side of the coin as you mentioned before.  I guess we're all different.  When a map starts, whatever side I start with on a new AvA map, I try to stick with that side until the new map.  That's just my preference.  I recognize everyone else's I just struggle with the notion of "balancing" sides by changing sides.  To me, this means "make it fair" or that the emphasis is on the fight rather than the objective and then I think... DA.  That's just me.   

[CAP1]

well to be honest, i generally fly allied. i just like the allied rides. i only switch if i have to. when i made the channel dash set, i flew some axis aircraft off line, just to be sure that we could get 109's and stukas off the decks of a cv. i like the zeek sometimes too, 'cause that thing can turn on a dime, and give ya nine cents change.