ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..

[lazs2]

We never seem to get much change in current maps once they are put into service but... if... say in the next year, someone resets this one and... someone else is working on a new map...

please make a lot more of the fields closer together... not a huge amount but say.. 3/4 of a sector apart?   A small amount would make a huge difference in how quickly you got to the fight and the quality of the fight.

Right now, the fights center around the fields... yu are either in the huge goup that is attacking the field (flying over a sector to get to it) or... the group that is defending (buzzing around your ack or getting vultched)

Closer fields would mean more people would venture out from their ack to meet the raiders and the fights would be more between fields than at fields.   A huge improvement in gameplay for furballers.

Guess the problem is... furballers aren't map makers.. I know I'm not but.. if a map maker thinks that these far apart fields are "something for everyone".... you are mistaken.
lazs

[oboe]

Has any mapmaker experimented with varying the density of fields?    That is, it sounds like all the fields on Trinity are approximately equal distance apart.   Might be interesting to have a terrain with "pockets" of closely-spaced fields, and areas of more normally spaced fields.

[Dux]

That's not a bad idea, Lazs. Perhaps have frontline airfields be fighter-only, with bomber bases deeper "in country".

The only problem is... closer bases will be captured all that much quicker, so a country that has its act together will quickly overrun all those nearby bases, leaving the defenders to make the long flights.

Very hard to make an even-sided potpourri map when the dynamics of ownership can change so unpredictably.

I don't think it would guarantee that "more people would venture out from their ack to meet the raiders and the fights would be more between fields than at fields"... Human nature is human nature, independent of geography.

[Rude]

It's not near as bad as the Pizza map in this regard....I gave Dale the perfect map terrain layout which would bring bliss to the MA for all....he told me I'm a putz.

Personally, I'm finding fights within a short drive....half a tank in a spitV won't get ya far....still, Lazs has a valid point....would be nice to have some closer fields installed.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the new effort and that of course means all of you should be happy as well.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by lazs2
Closer fields would mean more people would venture out from their ack to meet the raiders and the fights would be more between fields than at fields. A huge improvement in gameplay for furballers.

I've never understood the logic behind this.  Virtually ever furball I've been in has been those that hang back (majority) and wait for a few enemy to come through, those that fight right in the middle, and the few that blast through the middle engaging thost that hung back.  It really seems this would promote the "hang back" mentality just a little more because the ack would be there to help protect straglers.

Basically, I just can't see being closer to your ack as a way to encourage people to drift even farther away.  If you shorten the distance between fields, you move the fights closer to the fields.  Whomever gains the initial upper hand will be even closer to a vulch session.  Those that lose it, will be even closer to their ack.

The maps do not cause many of the anomilies you see when trying to furball.  The players do.

MiniD

[ccvi]

Originally posted by lazs2
Right now, the fights center around the fields... yu are either in the huge goup that is attacking the field (flying over a sector to get to it) or... the group that is defending (buzzing around your ack or getting vultched)

That's just because radar ranges are far too short. Doesn't give defenders the opportunity to get to alt.

[Furious]

lazs-

on this map i disagree with you.  the longer distances seem slow down the building battlers.  

they can each suicide a fuel tank many times less per hour.  the fields stay open longer.


F.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Furious
lon this map i disagree with you.  the longer distances seem slow down the building battlers.  

they can each suicide a fuel tank many times less per hour.  the fields stay open longer.

From what I've seen, it hasn't slowed the building battlers so much as it's spread them out. Instead of beating a single base down to take it, it's become more useful to beat the adjacent fields lightly to reduce the amount of support that they can provide, while keeping the field they're attacking as intact as possible so that they can field-hop to the next one.

[lazs2]

deja...minid.. I think the proof that you are wrong is quite simple... look at the CV fights when the CV is close to a base or another CV.... these are by far the best furball action with the fights happening somewhere in the center and see sawing back and forth.  When you see the cv a sector of more from any opposition the effect is that same as with fields... people hang back and don't fight but suicider building battlers try to pork the cv or field.

shiva is correct... the building battlers still pork fuel and hangers and such and move on... they can't get enough support to actually take fields so they tend to just go on  a building battling orgy... pretty much unopposed.

And yes.... I would love to see the radar range extended if we have to have these long distances between fields... as it is... the home team not onlyu has the ack advantage but the dar advantage too..  very little incentive to venture out.
lazs

[J_A_B]

I like this new map far better than the dung heap otherwise known as AKDESERT, but I still agree with Lazs--the bases in most AH maps1 tend to be a bit too far apart.    I'm here for air combat, not to fly around looking at the pretty scenery.

And I also agree with his statement that people will fly more bravely when dying isn't so annoying (read:  don't have to take as logn to get back to the fight).

With the upcomming "mission arena" which will doubtlessly suit those pilots who enjoy longer-duration missions, there's little reason NOT to design arena maps for AH2 with closer airfields since the pilots seeking quick action will be all who remain in the Arena for the most part.  As with Lazs, I feel the optimum distance would be about 2/3 to 3/4 of a sector.

J_A_B

[Voss]

[wetrat]

The fields being a sector apart don't really bother me, but I suppose it may make a difference in the quality of the fights. I've just assumed the drop in quality I've noticed is because I'm used to flying rook, where there generally isn't one or two massive hordes, and the knits seem to like teamwork (god knows why, it's BORING ). The biggest problem is people porking the field while in the process of taking bases. The only time porking fuel is necessary is when we need to cripple the base, but won't be able to take it. I guess I'll just be flying a lot more 152's on trinity...

[lazs2]

if you fly 152's and d9's and p51's... it's not a factor.
lazs

[J_A_B]

So I don't count lazs?

J_A_B

[Chairboy]

It appears to me that if you are one of the following:

1. Bomber
2. PT boat driver
3. GV driver
4. Goonie driver
5. HQ attacker

then you do not count to lazs.