Bring Back the Base Puffy Ack

[waystin2]

It is how I and the Pigs approach it.  Fighter sweep, press them back to their field, if they do not up or hide in ack, then switch to attack on field and take it from them.  I have little interest in dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting.  It is always more interesting when there is something to be fought over (base defense or base capture attempt).  It adds multiple dimensions to game play. 

[shoresroad]

I enjoy all the aspects of this game, shrinking maps will make it more predictable and less interesting.

+1

My three favorite maps are Ozkansas, Tagma, and Compello.  I like to furball...a couple of days a week.  But then I also like to run bombers to the Strats and I don't want to have to climb back and forth to get to altitude on a small map, or sneak around just trying to find a safe route for the climb out.  I think the furball is not the end-all for many players and what I'm reading in this thread is "we need to force furballs."  Why can't they be voluntary.  Put out a call on 200 and all those who want to furball will be there in a heartbeat.

[dedalos]

It is how I and the Pigs approach it.  Fighter sweep, press them back to their field, if they do not up or hide in ack, then switch to attack on field and take it from them.  I have little interest in dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting.  It is always more interesting when there is something to be fought over (base defense or base capture attempt).  It adds multiple dimensions to game play. 

So winning against a human is less exciting than winning against a building. 

[waystin2]

So winning against a human is less exciting than winning against a building. 

Loaded question.  Of course not.  Let me clarify: dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting is just that and grows quickly stale for me.  Breaking buildings repeatedly without a resulting fight nets the same thing for me as dogfighting endlessly with no real result.  Total Boredom. 

Dogfighting to push an enemy horde off of a field, or to attack their field is exciting as there are stakes involved. If there is no base defense/capture attempts going on, then there is no involvement of the ground aspect of the game, there is no use of the peripheral operations of the game (supply, field and ship guns, observation aircraft for GV's, GV fights, bombers, degradation of enemy abilities, running troops, protecting heavies, carrier operations, etc.)  I enjoy the chaos of a full blown fight and find it more satisfying when everything is in play.  More complex, more variables, never no what is going to happen type fun.  Again this is just my take on what is enjoyable for me.  I'll be the first to pull off of a Knight horde and go do my own thing as sharing red guys is no fun. 

I have never been a furballer or base take, more of a hybrid type player that prefers the base taking aspect of the game to create a great fight.  Think of me as a fur-taker.  LOL

[Randy1]

. . .It is always more interesting when there is something to be fought over (base defense or base capture attempt).  It adds multiple dimensions to game play. 

Hear, hear  . . .  hear, hear

[SirNuke]

allow air spawns at 3k high combat speed

[Brooke]

All of you guys talking about how smaller maps aren't needed or how all that is needed is a change in behavior, etc. -- you obviously don't fly at, say, 2 am Eastern time or later.

At 2 am Eastern or later, there can be times with almost nothing going on.  1 person over there milk running bases all by himself (who might as well be playing off line); 2 people over there milling around trying to find each other for a dogfight;  1 person over here who took off when the sector counters showed maybe a couple of people up, but those couple of people were returning to base, so once he's spent the time to get up and get away from his base, there is no longer anyone around him.

And it's not because the number of players is too low -- it is because the *density* of players is too low.

Air Warrior had 1/10th the players of AH, but even with about 6 people up, it was fun to fly because its maps were tiny.

We don't need smaller playing area when there are 300 people up.  We do need a smaller playing area when there are 50 people up.

[mechanic]

I fly in Euro timezone often, I don't think smaller maps are the answer. Just a reason or the desire to fight away from the bases for those who do like dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting. The reason I thought this game was all about. Not sure how dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting could ever be boring.

[ntrudr]

To reply to the OP.  The best way to stop vulching at your field is to fly to the enemy field.  It is amazing how quickly the conga line of red stops.  Just 2 or 3 fighters at 12-15 k over the enemy field stops or significantly slows the enemy attack.  When it comes to the Bish horde, puffy ack will be meaningless.   Puffy ack sucks even more than bomber laser 50s that have a 1.5k range.

[mechanic]

I doin't want to stop being vulched, I want to stop having no option but to vulch myself because all the fights are at the enemy field

[Drane]

It is becoming more and more clear to me that the biggest factor in the lack of equal sided furballs is that one side always pushes in to the other's field and then invariably the team on the back foot loses numbers quite fast...vulch fest.

Hey batfink I just submitted a film for the topic "Films Needed" that shows you upping at a vulched field in a situation you describe here. Maybe you'll be in one of HiTechs promo films. 

I remember having the puffy ack at fields. I like what you're asking but maybe ack not quite as strong as the current cv ack.

[bagrat]

If they wana add a few more manable puffy ak guns fine, but I don't much care for going back to getting killed by the computer's dead shot accuracy.

[ghi]

I like getting A-20's up from swarmed bases.  Floor it right out of the hangar and see if I can kill anyone before I go down, hoping that some folks get in Wirbs and more A-20's.  It is great fun.  Sometimes it works out as more and more people come in on defense to do the same.  Sometimes it doesn't, and I just get shot down again and again until the base is taken.  But there is no lack of action. 

Il2  in f3 was better than A20 for this job and more fun

[Gman]

I prefer to fight in the same manner as Batfink/Mechanic, and agree with his idea.  I think that a combination of the puffy ack/better defenses at the bases, combined with a scaling back of the size of the maps a little as well as the number of bases will promote better gameplay.  It would take a MUCH more deliberate effort to take a base, and bring back a lot of the fights "in the middle" that the game used to be about long ago.

I think if it was instituted by HTC, even as a trial for a week or in a separate "trial MA", it would be accepted in short order by a large majority of the players.  Everyone seems to have a complaint about something, and when this happens in any community, ANY change is usually a good thing.  

I think that's what I would like to see - a "trial MA" with smaller maps with less bases, and much better defenses for the bases in close.  The adding of the guns at VH bases was one thing, but nothing was done to bolster the AA systems at the regular fields.  More auto ack in the 37mm range, and more auto puffy 88mm and 5" type guns, and even some more manned guns, would push the fights where there are say less than a dozen players just hovering near the capped base picking guys off easily as they up.   I've done it, we've all done it, even those of us who prefer to fight in the middle zone away from bases.  This way, guys on the deck will have more room to get up to fighting alt, get a bit of equalization E wise with the guys hovering over the bases, and generally make things a little more fair.  I realize it isn't "realistic", but who cares, I'd rather have a game with some change in the dynamic now and then and less consideration regarding how WW2 went.

[Lusche]

I prefer to fight in the same manner as Batfink/Mechanic, and agree with his idea.  I think that a combination of the puffy ack/better defenses at the bases, combined with a scaling back of the size of the maps a little as well as the number of bases will promote better gameplay.  It would take a MUCH more deliberate effort to take a base, and bring back a lot of the fights "in the middle" that the game used to be about long ago.

Much better defenses at the bases = greater difficulty to capture = bigger hordes, more 'surprise raids', more grab'n'smash. It's a very delictate balance.

I really doubt that you can 'force' the majority of players to change their very basic gameplay by such a measure.