Where Fur and Strat Collide...

[Toad]

Pretty obvious what you don't get.

[lazs2]

creamo... no need to "pour" over your stats... you don't have much there.

skuzzy..  I agree with you .  Would you not say that the large new maps were indeed a change in the way the fields were spaced?   The maps were designed with no thought to a large segment of the community.   The furballers... the maps promote only one style of gameplay.   late war fast planes and steamrollering and gangbanging.  

A "change" to these maps would actually only be a step back to the better gameplay for all (more choice) that we had with the smaller maps.  It is not just the dedicated furballers that complain about these maps... they are bad for even the occassional furballer... they remove the choice you claim to espouse.

Think about it... as toad says... how does moving fields closer together, changing vehicle bases to airbases and adding cv's hurt the gameplay of anyone?   The reverse is obviously not true... the big maps are proof.   moving the fields farther apart makes for and early war/slow plane unfriendly arena.

Note the "challenge" this month was in Pee 47's (might as well been in ee 51's or dee 9's)   It wasn't the "zeke challenge"   the arenas are idealy suited right now for hiding, cherry picking and steamrollering in a few planes that are fast.

The arenas not only remove gameplay and variety of gameplay but they promote the lack of variety in planes used.   Why bother to model new early war planes for the MA?

The maps are moving away from choice.... we are advocating moving back toward choice.   those who would oppose us are the enemy of choice... look at their gameplay style... these are the guys you don't invite to parties.  The coin and stamp collectors of flight sims.... the sky accountants.
lazs

[Zanth]

Originally posted by Revvin
The same small group continually belittle anyone who does'nt fly their way, you either fly too high, too timid or you attack fields or strat objects. It's a sad reflection on the community and even sadder that these types of post are allowed to continue by HTC when their only function is to cause division of the community. There's enough room in the arena's for all of us to play the way we like so why bring the battle from the arena's into the forums?

It has always been this way, it ain't gonna change.  It isn't good for the game, but it is allowed - free country I guess.

(Even when as i replied I note laz making fun of this month's challenge.  Nice huh?)

[lazs2]

so znth....why do YOU supposse that the "challenge" was in pee 47's and not zekes?   Do you see what the challenge does to the arena?    believe me... the real ridicule of the "challenge" happened in the MA  where p47's were taunted by allmost everyone for their timid cherry picking.

Why not have a 262 challenge?  do you not think such a challenge would ruin gameplay for a large segment of MA dwellers?   It's a matter of degree.

A "zeke" challenge would not harm anyones enjoyment of the arena.   I feel it would also make those who don't normally fly slow planes aware of how biased the maps are getting against slow planes.
lazs

[Jackal1]

And then Humpy The Wonder Pooch (a.k.a.  Laz) lived happily ever after in The Land Of Ankle.
The End

[beet1e]

Lazs - I despair of you. On the one hand you claim to champion the interests of all, with your "More Choices" manifesto. But this is a smokescreen. Later on, you are dismissive and condemnatory of some players.

those who would oppose us are the enemy of choice... look at their gameplay style... these are the guys you don't invite to parties. The coin and stamp collectors of flight sims.... the sky accountants.

What you really mean is that you would help the cause of only those who agree with you, and fly YOUR way. Who it the "us" you speak of in that sentence? Well, I have news for you. Those "sky accountants" and "coin collectors" pay their $14.95/month just like you. But that's not good enough for you, is it? You're really only interested in helping out the guys that will play YOUR way - nobody else, and all others are consigned to your virtual dustbin of sky accountants etc. Next time, set light to a tyre or tire. They smoke well. This smokescreen was so pathetic anyone could see through it.

[Zippatuh]

Originally posted by Skuzzy

...It is getting tiresome seeing detractors crawl out of the woodwork to ruin a good discussion though...

...Changing a terrain to force certain play styles is the same as mandating players to play a certain way...

Hmmmm…  The title was where “Fur and Strat” collide right?

Basically the only thing I see is “furballers’ and straters’ colliding.  An exchange in passionate beliefs by both groups, I think you’re getting a little to PC and need not to worry about it so much sheesh.

Changing a terrain will mandate how people play?  Yeah, like making it 50 miles to a fight?  Seems like you’re pretty much mandating how I play.  Switching vehicle fields out with airfields is not going to change the game of the strat player.  Or at least I fail to see the great impact it would have on the “war”.

MAW’s,

In the end of it all if you guys are together and doing what you like as a group and enjoy it great!  That is indeed the purpose of a game is to after all have fun and enjoy it with your friends.  Your size and squad directives have definitely made an impact on game play and the tide at which the war turns.

Having more fields and being closer together though would not diminish that impact on the “war”.  It only gives more options for another player who isn’t interested in the shifting of the front lines.

I’m not sure if I consider myself a furballer but I certainly lost interest in the tides of war a long time ago.  That may have been a result from my drop in online time.  I joined the 13th after or near the end of the “furball” experiment that persists somewhat today.  Anything lower than 10K and I feel like I’m walking.  I only started agreeing with all the “furball” changes when I log on for an hour and it takes me 10-15 minutes to find a fight.

I’m in it for the fight and so are quite a few others I would imagine.  Even when I was waging war I wanted to take a break and find a good fight.  Now imagine you’re only on 10 hours instead of 40 (like I was).  Where’s the fight man, that’s all I’m concerned with and I really don’t see how that affects your war.

[Mini D]

I remember this giant fight on NDIsle one day.  A CV was right off the shore of the airfield just south of it.  There were perhaps 30 people on both sides in one of the biggest furballs I've ever seen.  As the CV got nearer to the field, the gunners leveled the base and the aircraft eventually got the ack at the field.  There was some vulching, but the numbers were so high that people still got airborne.  The guys showing up with P-51's loved this becaused every pass they made on the runway resulted in a kill before they climbed back above the fight.

At least 10 C-47s tried to make it into the field but the numbers were just too great for them to launch drunks.  Then the vulchers started getting the upper hand.  Me and my squadies loaded up jabo fighters and took out the port and captured it, meeting minimal defenses (comparitively) as only 5 or 6 fighters broke off to engage us... most still tried vulching at the field.  We got the CV 5 minutes later.

Man... those people who were there just for the furball were pissed.  We ruined their fun and they spent the next half an hour on channel 1 and the next 3 days on the BBS telling us about it.  Nevermind that the field they were attacking was leveled and de-acked and being vulched...

Strat and furballing is not exclusive.  They compliment each other.  Defending/attacking the extremes makes both sides look ignorant.

MiniD

[FortyDog]

Zippatuh

I agree with you whole heartedly.  This all started due to MAW's killing of a CV we saw as detrimental to our country.  We had no idea the CV was there for the edification of furballers.  As I explained earlier, on squad nights, MAW either defends our country or attacks the enemies country in an attempt to take their bases.  On this particular night (a squad night) we had just taken a base very near where this enemy CV was located and saw it as a threat.  I sent our bomber squad to kill it.  This was not an attack for points or for glory or to stop the furballers.  It was simply an attack to get rid of a threat.  Now, I for one love furballs.  Several times I've brought up the subjuct of a fightertown for these maps.  Why not place 3 bases, uncapturable, no bombers, no GVs with 35k to 50k mountains surrounding them right in the middle of the map next to GV town just for the furballers.  I'd spend a lot of non squad nights there I guarantee you.  It would also please the furballers and in no way impact those who prefer to attack and take enemy bases.  Skuzzy or HT, you should look into this.  This would please both sides.

40DogMAW
CO MAW Headquarters

[Skuzzy]

Zip, you took what I said from a perspective I was not intending.  My comments were very general in nature.

The "fighter town" idea in the MA will not work.  Once you lock some fields from being able to be captured, then there is no way to win the war (i.e. reset the terrain).

If I am following this correctly, it appears some would have an airplane only terrain, with no strat, with fields close together to expedite the initial contact.  Is this close?

[CptTrips]

If I am following this correctly, it appears some would have an airplane only terrain, with no strat, with fields close together to expedite the initial contact. Is this close?

Sounds like the DA to me.  


Wab

[rshubert]

Get thee hence unto the Duelling Arena, thou noble Knight of the Air, and the thou shalt Joust and Melee unto the contentment of thy innermost heart.  Verily.

[Apache]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Zip, you took what I said from a perspective I was not intending.  My comments were very general in nature.

The "fighter town" idea in the MA will not work.  Once you lock some fields from being able to be captured, then there is no way to win the war (i.e. reset the terrain).

If I am following this correctly, it appears some would have an airplane only terrain, with no strat, with fields close together to expedite the initial contact.  Is this close?

Not even. Additionally, those who subsequently used your current remarks as a platform are wrong as well.

We want parity. Simple. AH is now too far to the left.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Zip, you took what I said from a perspective I was not intending.  My comments were very general in nature.

The "fighter town" idea in the MA will not work.  Once you lock some fields from being able to be captured, then there is no way to win the war (i.e. reset the terrain).

If I am following this correctly, it appears some would have an airplane only terrain, with no strat, with fields close together to expedite the initial contact.  Is this close?

Skuzzy ... answer me this ...

If a section of a map were to have 40,000 ft mountains all around it ... kinda like a volcano ... and it was off in an obscure corner of the map.

Inside this volcano are 3 airfields, equi-distance from each other and nestled up against the volcano wall. Flight distance to each base or the center of the volcano is almost 1 sector apart.

Each of these airfields ARE capturable, BUT ack is indestructable at both the airfields and the towns. That way there is no de-acking an airfield and town, so if drunks were dropped, they would always be killed and vulching would be discouraged. In effect, these base are virtually un-capturable, but logically within the game they are capturable. Is ack strength and ack destruction settable on a field basis or is it arena based ?

Now inorder for an MA war to be won, one country needs to be reduced to 1 field. So, if were down to 2 fields, 1 of those fields would be in the regular map area, and 1 would be in the volcano ... once the airfield/vehicle base was captured in the regular map area, the war has been won.

Is this possible ? Does this fall within the game architecture ?

[Apache]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Skuzzy ... answer me this ...

If a section of a map were to have 40,000 ft mountains all around it ... kinda like a volcano ... and it was off in an obscure corner of the map.

Inside this volcano are 3 airfields, equi-distance from each other and nestled up against the volcano wall. Flight distance to each base or the center of the volcano is almost 1 sector apart.

Each of these airfields ARE capturable, BUT ack is indestructable at both the airfields and the towns. That way there is no de-acking an airfield and town, so if drunks were dropped, they would always be killed and vulching would be discouraged. In effect, these base are virtually un-capturable, but logically within the game they are capturable. Is ack strength and ack destruction settable on a field basis or is it arena based ?

Now inorder for an MA war to be won, one country needs to be reduced to 1 field. So, if were down to 2 fields, 1 of those fields would be in the regular map area, and 1 would be in the volcano ... once the airfield/vehicle base was captured in the regular map area, the war has been won.

Is this possible ? Does this fall within the game architecture ?

Dang slap. Thats it! What possible reason would anyone have a problem with that? Good show old bean. (thats for beet1e)