White Flag...No white Flag

[1stpar3]

Bustr,

First, let me also say that I think it's great that you are creating new maps and helping to keep the game updated and fresh.  Keep up the great work!

That said, I have to side with Rodent and encourage you to reconsider an increase in "on field map-room" bases.  The idea that those base types create great fights has not at all been my experience.  What I have seen is that they are great (read: easy) for attackers, but horrible for defenders, which in no way protracts a fight.

The requirement for capture of those fields is simply dropping the VH and de-acking.  This can be done (and has been done) by a single player (with some luck and little resistance).  Once de-acked the only thing for the attackers to do is hover over the field and hope for uppers that they can vulch.  This is usually the nature of the "fight" at those fields once the VH is down.  The only time I have seen a protracted fight at one of these fields was when the ack or VH were kept up (neither of which is easy to do, as those are soft targets).  Usually these "fights" are simply a vulch-fest for the attackers or no fight at all, with little resistance able to be made.  There is also virtually no requirement or role for bombers or ships when attacking those field types, again limiting the nature of those "fights". 

On the other hand, I have seen protracted fights at bases where the towns are some distance away from the field.  The distance between the airfield and town (capture point) seems to creates more space for defenders to up, allowing for an air defense even if the attacks arrive unopposed.  The ones that allow for a ground defense spawning to town from an adjacent field also seem to help.  These layouts are where you tend to see longer protracted fights, in my experience.

I'm concerned that increasing the number of those fields is just a recipe for creating more vulch-fests or unopposed base takes. Again, this is just my opinion based on my experience (so completely anecdotal).  But I can say with confidence that a map with a large number of bases with on-field map-rooms and no towns will be one of the least popular maps for me.

My two cents...

<S>
Kingpin

While I bow to your experience, as you have been here longer than I have been.....I have experienced the opposite as you. For me, the fights for these bases have been all of my most memorable experiences in this new era of ACESHIGH True, sometimes these bases are NOT very well defended, but WHEN THEY ARE....AWESOME. As far as my experience towards these bases...and the lower number of players...seems that every gun and/or hanger is out of sinc. It really ups the Adrenalin when it is almost over and a gun or hanger pops! Guess that like just about every thing else....The beauty is in the eye of the beholder? I hope you are wrong in you assessment, only time will tell I guess? I do understand your point though! Its hard to get excited about a base defense when the field is capped. Every one has an opinion, mine is positive towards these bases, BUT respect the contrary, I still do!  I would even go further than you, as far as distance to town from spawn and or field. The "drive time" could be extended some what, as to mimic the basic time(No climb, get there asap) for defense. Eh...I love you guys and hate to see any of my family have issues!

[bustr]

Our game is not the game of 10 years ago which most vets color their present perceptions against and do nothing to lead by example as a group with that play style for the current generation. Instead they complain to how the current generation is killing the game with their play style while vulching and picking along side of them.

Until the player base shifts from playing the current game as individuals in a first person shooter type game, or like super mario brothers with bazookas, the map room on the field is designing the game for that attention span of gnat type of play. If no one is there to defend, the feild is gone and the players can get on with the game. If defenders are there, it depends on the defenders and the country's interest as a whole to defend it. Since most air combat today is vulch, pick and run. Then rinse and repeat, the map room on the field sets up that scenario which the current generation of AH players prefer over the style of 10 years ago happily aided by the vets from that time.

I'm not building terrains for the trainers or the vets from 10 years ago, I'm building terrains by observing how my terrains are utilized and what the paying customers want to do with their time.

If you vets want the game to return to the play style of 10 years ago, get your collective act together and lead as a cohesive group showing the current generation how to play this game as more than a twitch and jerk FPS shootem up game. The catch 22 is 10 years ago the game was dominated by cohesive groups playing a self organized simulation to capture land. Today all those vets yell at the new kids to play the game like ten years ago but, don't organize themselves anymore to play like 10 years ago. Everyone wants someone else to do the heavy lifting and organizing that was the hallmark of this game 10 years ago.   

[Kingpin]

Since most air combat today is vulch, pick and run. Then rinse and repeat, the map room on the field sets up that scenario which the current generation of AH players prefer

You're saying your objective in base/map design is to make it easier to vulch, pick and run??? 

I fail to see how that improves gameplay or creates "protracted fights".  It seems to me that designing bases to make it easier to vulch and pick is spiting the game, not trying to help it.

I seriously hope HTC takes a good hard look at that before approving such a design.

My two cents...

<S>
KP

[Kingpin]

I love you guys and hate to see any of my family have issues!

Thanks, 1stpar.  First of all, Bustr and I aren't fighting; we simply have different opinions, which is what forum discussion is for.  I respect what he does and that he volunteers his time to contribute to the community.  We need more like him!

I'm glad to hear you are having fun and your experience with those types of fields has been different.  I have simply found that putting the capture point on the field makes the objective (or requirement)  closing everything on the field.  That to me does nothing to promote combat/fights.  Yes, it can create some tension for the attackers but I have to ask myself: do I want a game that is about fighting a timer, or do I want a game that is about fighting other players?

I agree with you that ANY base that is defended (either in the air or on the ground) usually creates a fun protracted fight.  So, that should mean that making bases MORE defendable should improve combat, not the other way around.  Making it easier to close, vulch and pick defenders does just the opposite, which is my issue with Bustr's suggestion.

No offense to Bustr at all, as I think what he is contributing to the game is incredibly valuable.   

Thanks for your feedback as well!

<S>
KP

[bustr]

When all the veterans sitting on their kesters waiting for someone else to get off their own kester first and run initiatives like field captures the way all of them remember how to from 10 years ago. And they start taking down towns in one pass with several boxes of bombers like they know exactly how from 10 years ago. Then clean up with jabo targeting vehicles and the vehicle hangers supporting the spawns from ten years ago. I will build terrains differently. My newest terrain will have 50\50 in each country town or map room on the field to speed up game play since I have tested it for today's generation of players. Just like I've tested shortening the distance between feilds to get away from the decade old formula to slow down initiatives by setting feilds 1-2 sectors apart.

All of the terrains built to slow down capture initiatives from ten years ago in rotation do exactly that "too well today".

Build a terrain and get it into rotation, then spend 6 moths to a year observing how your terrain is utilized. I've had two to observe over that time. Better yet start out questioning the current terrain configurations and why they were created the way they were ten years ago. Then question the conventional wisdom of how players play the game then versus now. Then build tests into your terrains to question the decade old conventional wisdom while testing for how players play the game today.

You gents are stuck in the past a decade ago when you argue about how players utilize terrains today. 

[Kingpin]

You gents are stuck in the past a decade ago when you argue about how players utilize terrains today.

Again, please explain how your goal of adding bases that are easier to cap, vulch & pick at is better for AH gameplay.

I have participated in and helped organize base-takes and base-defenses working with a variety of current players and squad-members on all 3 sides, including your own, on all the maps old and new.  I am stating how the current terrains are played today based on my own current observations. 

Categorizing long-term players as people who "sit on their keisters" (correct spelling) simply because they don't make maps, and using that as reasoning to completely dismiss their observations, seems counter-productive.  If your only answer to constructive criticism is to insult long-time players or say "make your own map", then perhaps you shouldn't be posting about your map designs.

Since you brought it up, I agree with the idea of having more bases that are closer together to promote faster action.  I simply object to a capture dynamic that makes it easier (even a requirement) to deack a field and "easier to vulch and pick" as you put it.

<S>
KP