Author Topic: ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..  (Read 1903 times)

Offline MadBirdCZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
      • http://home.worldonline.cz/~cz088436/
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2003, 02:54:48 AM »
Never really supported Lazs's ideas... And not gonna do that now neither...

TRINITY is IMO the best map we have had in AH so far (maybe except for the beta map but that one is in my heart for nostalgic reasons...). And Trinity is the best map as it is -> WITH bases separated as they are.

From all similar posts I think that Lazs's ultimate dream is a single base with no ack and 3 runways (1 for each country) because it seems that only this close is enough for him.

With bases separated like they are now even in a short legged plane you still have enough flight time to climb, get 3 kills and RTB.... At least it works for me and I really don't think that putting bases closer would do any good... Well maybe for those 'Quakers' who really do not care whether they die or not...

Right now, Trinity seems to be the only very well balanced map around... And a good looking one too...

Offline NoBaddy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
      • http://www.damned.org
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2003, 07:23:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by MadBirdCZ
TRINITY is IMO the best map we have had in AH so far (maybe except for the beta map but that one is in my heart for nostalgic reasons...). And Trinity is the best map as it is -> WITH bases separated as they are.



Funny you should mention the beta map. Just in case you hadn't noticed, Trinity began life as the beta map.
NoBaddy (NB)

Flying since before there was virtual durt!!
"Ego is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2003, 08:27:17 AM »
jab.. no.. don't know what you fly but late war planes don't really need bases closer

chairboy... about right but then.. u don't have much use for furballs either.

deja.. I think DMF summed it up.. it is a two part thing... first, the shorter time to the fight is preferable..  second.. if both sides are within reasonable distance of getting back to the safety of their ack they will "venture out" more toward the middle.

Look... the GV fields are nice little close groups and they have close spawn points.. Why?  because they are slow and could never make it back if they weren't close.   Early war planes need some closer fields    People would use the closer fields to up in early war/ good turners and... you gotta get close to use said planes hence... furball

The CV's are just proof.. All they are is a set of fields that are closer than normal.   Look at how many are enjoying them.   Look at how the fights are developing at them.

This map works better than the horrible pizza because it increases population density artifically... It is one huge bottleneck.  This also makes it allmost impossible to reset.   It also has some features that make it one of the best CV maps   The cv part of the map is saving it for us furballers.  

I have no idea why the fields are farther apart than ever on this map but I would suspect that the designers were not interested in furballs.  

fortunately... people are using the cv's for furballs instead of strat.

madbird... despite what you think is my "ultimate dream".... all I want is what i have asked for.   Try not to read too much into it.  It seems to cause you distress.
lazs

Offline NoBaddy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
      • http://www.damned.org
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2003, 08:50:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no idea why the fields are farther apart than ever on this map but I would suspect that the designers were not interested in furballs.  

lazs


Laz..

The designer was interested in trying to 'please' the most players possible. The map seems to have accomplished that goal. Unfortunately, you can't please everyone :( .
NoBaddy (NB)

Flying since before there was virtual durt!!
"Ego is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2003, 09:15:32 AM »
Ok... sorry to upset you but... What was your theory on "pleasing" the furballers which, even you will no doubt admit, amount to a sizable portion of the playerbase?   What "feature" of the ma is for the furballers?

Second part... How does making the fields even farther apart than normal help gameplay in your opinion?   And... did you expect the CV's to be used as furball centers?

The map is miles ahead of the horrible pizza tho.   I like allmost every single feature of the map except that is so unfriendly to early war planes.   I think that some more close fields (you threw the GV guys a bone) would have been great...  I also thing that failing that.... more and tougher CV's would be great... this is the best CV map of the bunch.

Sorry I can't tell you that every single feature is perfect.   I would say tho that it is a very good map.   Better than most and... in some cases... the best of all maps so far.
lazs

Offline Revvin

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1724
      • http://www.ch-hangar.com
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2003, 10:24:05 AM »
Quote
The designer was interested in trying to 'please' the most players possible. The map seems to have accomplished that goal.


You did a great job! symetrical yet interesting with a bit of somethign for everyone. I felt perhaps the Pizza map designers tried to hard to outright please everyone which is perhaps why it's not as universely liked where as you seem to have struck on the right blend for your work.

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2003, 10:50:03 AM »
If you wanted an area where you could furball to your heart's content, then I think that you could adapt the Trinity design to what you want; all you would need to do is to expand the central crater a llittle and make 'platforms' along the inner edge of the crater wall and put three custom-built small fields in, each with no vehicle hangar, no bomber hangars (replace bomber hangars with fighter hangars), and no ammo bunkers). Custom-configure the fields so that both GVs and ordnance are disabled. Make sure that there are no remote GV spawns to these fields.

Without bombers, you eliminate C-47s as a capture tool, and with no remote spawns, it makes driving GVs in to capture a long and tedious process. With no ordnance available, it makes closing fields or clearing the town to capture them a more laborious process, and again the lack of remote spawns makes sending GVs in to do it rather painful, as well as the position on elevated plateau.

Unfortunately, it does give fighters access to the GV crater, and there are enough planes with heavy cannon armament to be able to take down VHs, which dilutes the intention of having a region of the map that's plane-free.

Offline MadBirdCZ

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
      • http://home.worldonline.cz/~cz088436/
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2003, 11:12:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
madbird... despite what you think is my "ultimate dream".... all I want is what i have asked for.   Try not to read too much into it.  It seems to cause you distress.
lazs


It's not about distress... Its about me almost suffocating because of laughing too hard while reading yet another your post with the same theme... :D

Offline sax

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
      • http://www.13thtas.com
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2003, 11:21:07 AM »
Like Lazs says, most maps don't have any fields that have quick access to a decent furball.
Fly an early model plane 15 min to a fight only to get picked off by the dozen or so 15k cons can get boring quick.
The maps just need some tweaking so they can accomdate all styles of flying.
Don't see any whining here , just pointing out where some improvements could be made.

Offline NoBaddy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
      • http://www.damned.org
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2003, 11:29:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... sorry to upset you but... What was your theory on "pleasing" the furballers which, even you will no doubt admit, amount to a sizable portion of the playerbase?   What "feature" of the ma is for the furballers?

Second part... How does making the fields even farther apart than normal help gameplay in your opinion?   And... did you expect the CV's to be used as furball centers?

The map is miles ahead of the horrible pizza tho.   I like allmost every single feature of the map except that is so unfriendly to early war planes.   I think that some more close fields (you threw the GV guys a bone) would have been great...  I also thing that failing that.... more and tougher CV's would be great... this is the best CV map of the bunch.

Sorry I can't tell you that every single feature is perfect.   I would say tho that it is a very good map.   Better than most and... in some cases... the best of all maps so far.
lazs


Lazs...

No sweat. I'm not upset. In fact, I am happy as a doodle bug in deep toejame :D. I just wish there was some way to please everyone. Unfortunately, it is the game more than any map that is furballer unfriendly. As it has gotten larger, it has become more about conquest than furballs. This map attempts to slow the conquest part of the game and still allow for plenty of action. Unfortunately, to do this, I had to limit the BigMac type action (note..once you pass the mountains, the majority of the terrain is flat). A direct result of putting fields closer together would be the faster capture of those fields.

Shiva had an interesting idea about putting airfields in the crater like has been done with the gv fields. If you look at what has happened with planes flying into the crater on Trinity, you will see that disabling bombers and ord at these fields would not prevent their capture (I've said it before...and I will say it again...No matter how nice your pool is, there is ALWAYS some dweeb willing to go out of his way to pee in it :D).

The only way to get you what you really want is to disable gvs, bombers and field captures. The only realistic solution is a Furball Arena. I thought this is what the CT was for. But, it seems to be a non-scenerio Historic arena these days (not that this is a bad thing :)). Do you think we could populate a Furball Arena??
« Last Edit: February 13, 2003, 11:33:21 AM by NoBaddy »
NoBaddy (NB)

Flying since before there was virtual durt!!
"Ego is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."

Offline Don

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2003, 11:44:35 AM »
The Map legend on Trinity indicates that a sector is 25 miles. I don't see how this is a major problem. I like a furball as much as the next guy but, to fly 25 miles to get anywhere in an a/c is nothing. Now if it were dueling LVTz I could see the point; those things are VERY slow.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2003, 11:58:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Do you think we could populate a Furball Arena??


Maybe.

What's the standard for successful "population"?

I'll wager that a "furball" type arena would draw more than the CT does on an average night, if it was setup correctly.

Heck. I'll wager the CT could draw way more than it does if the rulers would just put in normal icons and radar. They have decent maps and matchups in there, just no players. I'd probably play it a lot with "normal" settings.

While the dar isn't a big deal with me at all, I know it is for some.

The "reverse icon" philosophy though has always seemed the absolute pinnacle of lunacy.

You take away icons where in RL you could probably distinguish friend from foe but where the game shows a black dot.

Then in close, where in RL you would EASILY determine IFF, plane type and pilot's eye color and the game does pretty well at this also,  they make icons available.

Somehow this is better. :)

With 500+ in the arenas in US Prime Time, I think there's room to experiment with an alternate arena. Shoot if it steadily drew 50, just 10% it'd be easily equal to or even more popular than the CT.

Just my .02.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline popeye

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3708
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2003, 12:02:23 PM »
So, why don't people use the DA for a Furball Arena?
KONG

Where is Major Kong?!?

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
DMF said what I was thinking.........
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2003, 12:07:32 PM »
Yeah, the fields could be closer together, but is that really gonna be a "cure"?
I would hope so, but I think not.....too many times I've seen guys just hovering in the friendly ack umbrella over their field, even when they outnumber their opponents.  Frustrating as heck when you are in the mood for a good furrball, you've flown over to party with your opponents, and they only wanna ack hug.
I wish HT could code the airfields like the fleets, i.e. make one guy able to take "control" of the field defenses, BUT, make it where the acks fired at anything and everything that was near, friend and foe alike.  That might make folks wanna exit the airspace over their field if there was a risk of getting their butt shot down by "friendly fire".  
'Course, the "base commander" could put the acks on "safe" mode so they don't fire anything, saving his comrades from being blasted out of the sky, but opening up a vulch environment.....hehehe.  
I mainly just wish HT would put about 6 fields pretty close together where you could furrball to your hearts content, and that folks would just up and rush into the fight..........but there are always gonna be those who just wanna play it safe, cowering under their umbrella of acks..........
Hey, I can dream, can't I?  ;)

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
ok.. i know we can't change current maps but..
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2003, 12:08:38 PM »
I think that if the fields were closer together, the fuel, FH and dar would just be knocked out quicker.   The strat-intelligentsia would just roll over 'em.


Seems lately that noone wants to fight.  They only come away from their base after they have grabbed to 20k.  Either that or its a mishun herd.  

This behaviour has traditionally been a rook behaviour, and probably with good reason.  But the knits are doing it now too.  And with the numbers on their side.  Pathetic.  Maybe the bish do it too, I don't know.  Levi would probably know best.

What would be nice to try would be a fighter town, similar to the tank town we have on trinity.  Just put the 3 fields in a traingle with 20 mile legs and make the fields immune to enemy fire and have no ack.  Everybody meets in the middle.


...anyway, as soon as i can perfect the ubiquitous, "dive 10,000ft to try for a HO, miss the HO and then run away" move I'll probably be much happier.


F.