Author Topic: Fighter Town (Read 4819 times)

NoBaddy · « **Reply #45 on:** April 13, 2003, 10:07:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
A plea before it is finalized.

Without bombers or ord, the GV's are essentially safe from air attack. That is absolutely fine by me. Let the tread guys have their fun.

Please put a bloody moat around the Tank Town however, so that the GV's don't pork the Fighter Town aspect. I would also disable GV's at Fighter Town bases and keep all spawn points for GV's off the Fighter Town side of the moat.

Something for everyone, eh? Tank Town free of air attack, Fighter Town free of GV's and the world outside this Shangri-La a free for all that includes all features for the rest of the players.

Just my .02. Thanks, NB.

Toad...

Unfortunately, all fields have to be captureable (this is straight from the Grand High Muckitty Muck of AH).

Thus, if I make them too hard to capture, they will be too hard to recapture when you lose them. ...and you will lose them. If tank town has done anything, it has convinced me of the adaptiblity of dweebs. At any given time, you can find 2 to 10 dweebs flying there and harassing the gvs. I know why they do it and I find it to be sad.

What I am thinking is to have the airfields capable of spawning gvs to the gv fields (so they could be recaptured). The gv fields would not spawn to the airfields. BUT, would be with in about 15 minutes drive time. This would mean that sometimes, the fighter geeks would have to "pick up a gun" and defend the field.

Something that I haven't heard the FT proponents talk about is porking. It happened in AW and it will happen here. Just as there are dweebs willing to climb to 20k to jack with the tankers, there will be dweebs willing (hell, drooling) at the prospect of trashing FT. Maybe it is one of the things where when you get farther from the event, it's easier to remember the good and easier to forget the bad. I remember plenty of porking, ganging and vulching at FT.

All that being said...feel free to drop me a note if you have suggestions or would like to help.

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 13, 2003, 10:16:46 AM »

I actually think the fields should be easier to capture... the old WB one of landing at the base to capture was great... have the front move quickly... with closer fields you can up further back and fight the next wave or recapture.... not much time to sit and vultch (or do nothing). A little action wouldn't hurt us.
lazs

NoBaddy · « **Reply #47 on:** April 13, 2003, 10:18:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
"Just curious, how do you figure that?"

Because the "misshun lemmings" and the "it's a war!" hamsters will more than likely all be in the shiney new mishun arena where they can score lots of valuble points and win stuff.

I've been doing this for five years now. I don't fly around in a virtual spit because I think I can win a war; or earn loads of points, I do it because I actualy enjoy the act of virtual air to air combat in of and by it's self; and strat, field capture, field porkage and assault by overwhelming numbers get in the way of that.

Seeker...

AH2 won't change the MA one bit. In AW the MA stood for "Melee Arena". Here...different name, same concept. It is simply bad business to try and limit folks too much. With that in mind, what makes anyone think that a structured, mission oriented arena is going to impact the average ganging/milk & pork dweeb one bit?

I see the usage of the mission arena as being similar to the FR in AW. I would expect about 10% (probably no more than 20%) of the players to be there at any given time. The MA is still where the 'warm bodies' will be

.

lazs2 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 13, 2003, 10:34:13 AM »

If the fighter dweebs (furballers?) have to "pick up a gun" or do nothing for 15 minutes they will simply wander off...

The concept that strat is not important or, that it is important in a much different way, to furballers is one that has allways escaped map makers. furballers don't care so much for strat or, who wins the war, as they do that the "strat" provide good fights that develop quickly.

good strat (for furballers)for example would be fields that were closer together and easy to capture.... land at em to capture... there would allways be a melee.... you couldn't help it hardly unless you gave it some thought and took off from a couple of fields back but then.... why wouldn't yu go to the missun arena if that was your mindset?

In WB they had full and relaxed realism and it had nothing to do with "missuns"... more to do with learning curve... I don't think it takes less skill to furball... probly more... and... I know that most furballers are even more concerned about FM's than strat guys. We live em... we get to go up against em more.... we would be insulted if the "missun" arena was more "realistic" so far as the planes go.
lazs

NoBaddy · « **Reply #49 on:** April 13, 2003, 11:15:56 AM »

Lazs...

So, what you want seems to be close fields, no captures, no strat and no bombers. Guess what? Your complaint isn't really with the map makers...it's with the programmer/game designer. What you want isn't going to happen in the MA. You can thank the great unwashed masses and AH's success for that. I can put some fields closer together. However, I have no say in the way the game is structured and I have to attempt to take everyone into account when designing a terrain...not just one group. Do I think I was successful with Trinity? No. However, it was an improvement over its predecessor. Hopefully, the next will come closer to meeting everyone's desires.

Hell, instead of complaining about what others do, why not design something yourself? Your quick (and constant) critisism doesn't really accomplish much. If you can come up with a workable solution, I would be more than happy to assist you in any way that I can. Try working with the map makers instead of just sitting out side throwing rocks at them.

Hornet · « **Reply #50 on:** April 13, 2003, 11:50:26 AM »

keep pluggin away NB, you'll get it

lazs2 · « **Reply #51 on:** April 13, 2003, 12:00:24 PM »

no bad.. you should probly read what I write if you are gonna tell me what I want.

I have never asked for uncapturable fields... twice in this thread alone I have asked for closer fields THAT WERE EASIER TO CAPTURE. Maybe even like the old WB way of landing your plane caused field capture.

so far... every new map has been a disaster for the action crowd. The latest "bug fix" of not being able to land at an enemy base seemed pointed right at taking the fun away from furballers even more. How? well... furballers don't like to be "captured".... they don't like giving kills to people who don't deserve (didn't do any work for) them... they also don't like flying more than a sector back.... you have effectively doubled the flight time when you (figuratively you) make it a death to land at an enemy base.

lazs

Silat · « **Reply #52 on:** April 13, 2003, 12:26:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
[__________________

yeah jakal... and your whole line of thought is dependant on mine. without me... you don't even have anything to say.... now that must really suck for you.

no baddy.... don't even know who you are... real drag that I effect you so much tho. You may have noticed that more than a couple of people have "mentioned" that the fields were a "little" far apart and that there was no place for early war planes and... well... that... infinity is stale as hell and so is every big map that comes out... seems the bigger the map... the less there is for early war planes... doesn't that seem a little odd?

like I said... don't know who you are but if you are the guy responsible for infinity then you deserve to have somebody who flys furballs get under your skin.... heck... if you didn't have a guilty conscience it wouldn't bother ya. If I was wrong it wouldn't bother ya. If it slows you down that I comment .... then.... I don't know what to tell ya bud... It sure can't be that yu spend so much time countering my whines.. Maybe you could hire ol "one track jakal" for that chore and free up some of your time?
lazs
lazs [/B]

Hmmm I know many that like the map. :} If fact its a vocal few that dont like it....
Thankyou NB for all the work you have done.
Maybe soon Laz will bring forth his map for us all to look at:}

SirLoin · « **Reply #53 on:** April 13, 2003, 12:29:25 PM »

I would like to see ord and troops in FT disabled...have acks regenereate 1 minute after killed...and disable vehicles..Keep it a Fighter Town.

if you can't change ack's regeneration..then have 1 vh per base for field defense only.

And make them large bases.

Thnx for accepting input NB.

NoBaddy · « **Reply #54 on:** April 13, 2003, 12:51:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
no bad.. you should probly read what I write if you are gonna tell me what I want.

I have never asked for uncapturable fields... twice in this thread alone I have asked for closer fields THAT WERE EASIER TO CAPTURE. Maybe even like the old WB way of landing your plane caused field capture.

lazs

Lazs...

I can say the same to you....read what I wrote

. How the game works is not a function of map making. You will have to take that up with HT.

BTW, I will stand by my offer. You come up with a doable terrain and I will help you make it.

Oh...and I didn't mean to imply that you were preventing me from working on terrains. The point I was trying to make is that positive critisism is generally more effective that a constant drone of "this sux". The truth is, I mostly ignore what you post in threads pertaining to terrains these days (which explains how I missed your post that Lew quoted

). This is not intended as an insult to you. It is simply that after the first week of posts on Trinity, you really haven't had anything new to add.

NoBaddy · « **Reply #55 on:** April 13, 2003, 02:08:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
I would like to see ord and troops in FT disabled...have acks regenereate 1 minute after killed...and disable vehicles..Keep it a Fighter Town.

if you can't change ack's regeneration..then have 1 vh per base for field defense only.

And make them large bases.

Thnx for accepting input NB.

I'm not positive, but, I believe down time for things is an arena wide setting.

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** April 13, 2003, 04:58:30 PM »

Laz, NB is "good people". He's trying to help.

NB, Laz is "good people" too. He's trying to help in a different way.

OK?

Now, I see a lot of what you're saying NB. But I'm confused about this part:

Quote

What I am thinking is to have the airfields capable of spawning gvs to the gv fields (so they could be recaptured). The gv fields would not spawn to the airfields. BUT, would be with in about 15 minutes drive time. This would mean that sometimes, the fighter geeks would have to "pick up a gun" and defend the field.

If the ord is disabled at the FT airfields, and the tanks come clanking in from the V-fields...... how will the fighter guys "pick up a gun"? I'll admit I'm not the best in this game, but I've seen some really good guys in my squad get shredded by the ring mount 30 cal on a tank turret before they could do any damage to the rear of a Panzer with 6 .50's. Ya gotta have bombs and rocks to kill armor and stand much of a chance.

Or are you saying a guy that went to FT to furball may have to jump in a vehicle to defend his chance at furballing?

What did I misunderstand there?

NoBaddy · « **Reply #57 on:** April 13, 2003, 05:21:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Laz, NB is "good people". He's trying to help.

NB, Laz is "good people" too. He's trying to help in a different way.

OK?

Now, I see a lot of what you're saying NB. But I'm confused about this part:

If the ord is disabled at the FT airfields, and the tanks come clanking in from the V-fields...... how will the fighter guys "pick up a gun"? I'll admit I'm not the best in this game, but I've seen some really good guys in my squad get shredded by the ring mount 30 cal on a tank turret before they could do any damage to the rear of a Panzer with 6 .50's. Ya gotta have bombs and rocks to kill armor and stand much of a chance.

Or are you saying a guy that went to FT to furball may have to jump in a vehicle to defend his chance at furballing?

What did I misunderstand there?

Toad...

I dint just fall off the flak panzer yesterday (it was a week ago and I'm feeling MUCH better now

). I know Lazs is good folks and I know he is trying to help. I'm just trying to say that once you have been agreed with, it is counter productive (even bad manners) to keep harping on the subject. Hell, I agree with him, in large part and have said that I will address the issue in the next terrain.

The "pick up a gun" refers to driving a gv to defend the field. It is the only way I can see for it to work. If ord is enabled, every dweeb and his sister will be harassing the gvs constantly. My current train of thought says I should disable troops at the forward gv fields. However, I am not sure I can (and I know Dale is outta town so I can't ask

). I will call tomorrow and find out if it is possible to do what I want to do.

Just had a thought..(and it's not like that happens often

). I could put a shore battery at each field to cover part of the route in. This would be effective until they figure out where to drive to avoid it

.

Lazerus1 · « **Reply #58 on:** April 13, 2003, 07:04:04 PM »

In the DA: V37-V40 is tank town.

A41-A43 is fighter town.

You already have what you are asking for, utilize it.

~~NB, keep up the good work.~~

Jackal1 · « **Reply #59 on:** April 13, 2003, 07:08:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yeah jakal... and your whole line of thought is dependant on mine. without me... you don't even have anything to say.... now that must really suck for you.
lazs

ROFLMAO Well Lez, I do believe you overate your importance (gasp). I would more likely compare you to an old, wore out talking doll toy. One that only has one verse left, but still a hoot to yank it`s string occasionaly.