Author Topic: Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted  (Read 5299 times)

Offline Zippatuh

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2003, 07:49:33 AM »
Well, I want it harder to capture a field.  If you need organization or numbers to capture a field so much the better.

Make the town 4 times the size it is now.
Put a GV hanger at the town.
Put manable acks at the town.
Have the fields closer together.

It may promote the steamroller but it will also keep the base in friendly hands longer and possibly promote a better longer furball at the right fields.  It also may give the furball a chance to survive the base capture a bit longer.  Bishops (was knights) 214 was a good example on Trinity last night.

It was the best fight around but someone was finally able to capture it, I’m assuming, by sneaking a goon in because there were multiple cons at the field.  Had it been more difficult to capture the fight would have continued longer.

I see beetle’s seeing black helicopters again.

Offline T0J0

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
Re: Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2003, 08:03:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bullethead
While I was at the Con, quite a few people (Grimm, Slapshot, and Ghostdancer that I recall--there were more but I was drunk) said they believed that capturing fields was too easy.  This bothered me because I try to make arena maps, and help others with their maps, and of course I want to make a quality product.  I'm concerned enough to ask you all for your opinions on the matter.  Not just whether you think it's too easy at present, but what can be done about it, and what the long-term effects of any corrective measures would be.

Before you all sound off, let me start the ball rolling with my own opinions.....

As AH has evolved, HTC has made field captures harder and harder.  That's why fields have gotten more acks over time and we now have towns at airfields, etc.  And at first capturing fields with towns was more difficult than before.  So why is it now "too easy" when HTC hasn't changed the system recently?

I believe I can answer that question.  The changes HTC has made have all been along the lines of requiring more people to take the field than before.  There are more acks and more hangars, and the town requires you to control a larger volume of airspace, etc.  So IMHO, since the last round of changes, the AH population has simply learned what needs to be done, and to band together into attack groups large enough to have a reasonably good chance of quick success in airfield captures.  And now we've been operating that way long enough that it's become routine, so airfield captures appear easy again.

In considering the above, there are some important issues to take into account.  IMHO, the most important is the organization of the attackers.  If you have a squad of guys divided up amongst the various tasks that need to be performed, and they have the discipline to do their jobs and not sneak off to steal vulches, you'll usually find field captures relatively easy.  OTOH, a much larger number of disorganized freelancers might not ever capture the field vs. the same opposition.  

I think this will always be the case, no matter what changes are made to the system.  No matter what's done to make field captures harder, the organized pilots will figure out the optimum attack method and go do it routinely, so that it eventually seems easy to them.  They're organized now and no changes to the system will make them lose their organization.  

Thus, IMHO, tweaking the difficulty of field captures will only affect the disorganized rabble.  In 2 ways.  First, and most likely, increases in capture difficulty will cause corresponding increases in the size of dweeb herds mobbing fields.  Every level of difficulty can be overcome by throwing enough bodies at it.  Second, some of the rabble may join squads or form their own, and thus achieve the organization necessary to make captures fairly routine.  

So at the bottom line, increasing field capture difficulty creates a Darwinian force that compels pilots to form larger and more organized groups.  This means that a greater percentage of the arena population will be engaged in field captures than before, leaving fewer for other things like furballing, battles in the GV areas, and lone wolf fodder.  Now combine that with the big maps and their huge frontages.  That gives you an even higher likelihood of large forces doing unopposed landgrabs, because the pilots must be more concentrated than now, but have the same huge area to cover.

Having said all that, let's assume that somehow increasing capture difficulty is still desirable.  Without a major overhaul of the system by HTC, there's only so much that map-makers can do.  We can't change the basic system with towns and all that.  All we can do is add more work to do, and/or make it more dangerous.  Basically, we can redesign airfield layouts, add some buildings and acks, and sometimes make individual objects harder to kill.  But we can't make really substantial changes or the strat system won't work right.

Here's an incomplete list of some possible changes, to show those of you who don't make maps what I'm talking about:
  • Have 2 or more VHs at each field, and give the GVs a spawn right near the town(s)
  • Have more acks and/or more mannable acks
  • Have more town buildings, or multiple towns in different areas (still only 1 maproom however)
  • Require more drunks to capture a field (although I don't really like this one)
  • Put fields about 10-15 miles apart instead of 20-30, so reinforcements can arrive sooner (although this gives you about Pizza's number of fields on Baltic's area)


Of these sorts of changes, my preferences start at the top and go down.  I think having several VHs would be a very good thing in general.  A few more acks would be OK as well.  But beyond that, I think we start running into trouble.  NOTE:  on a related issue, it would be easy to add more fuel, ammo, and barracks to fields to make them harder to pork.

Anyway, that's how I see it.  I'd like to hear what you all think. [/B]



Many hours of wasted time on a subject that few Quakers care about....

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2003, 08:19:35 AM »
Yep.. make em a lot easier to capture and closer together.

This would make the battle flow more.  People would be funneled into the fight by choice and there would be choice.   If the fields were closer you could take off from further back if you wanted to defend... fights would develop between fields.

vultching would actually be less... it would not be smart to vultch if the next field back was launching fighters and they were coming in above you.  

more sense of "community"... as I have said in the past.. closer fields that are easier to capture are the ONLY way that the strat sissies and noble furballers can co-exist.   If I am in the thick of the fight then the strat guys think that I am "helping" them with field capture...

New players will have an easier time of it and enjoy the game more since they can get lost in the crowded fight and maybe get a lucky shot or two in rather than be either vulch bait or go on long, boring, missuns to now where to do nothing like they do now.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2003, 08:22:50 AM »
tojo... Are you talking about the religion or the game?  If it is the religion please tell me how it has to do with the suject.   If it is the game then.... as I understand it... the "quakers" are the strat sissies?   Isn't quake a game about teamwork and capture the flag with things like power ups (rearm refuel) and lots of Ai objects to kill and blow up?

lazs

Offline SLO

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2548
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2003, 08:41:19 AM »
let me give you a diff. view.....

we are 4 guys fighting our way to a rook base.....

as usual Crooks like there 20k alt. adv......

so we go under said Perchers...and kill the low flyin crooks....

deacked the base....but didn't touch any fuels.

now 20k perchers come down and die....we rtb

now coming back....we see crooks taking off from the base 1 sector away.....NO ONE WAS VULCHING THERE FIELD...no fuel was porked.....

guess what I did on my next run.....yes yes...I porked there 'allow me my 20k perch base':D

Some gotta learn how to defend before even suggesting what we can do to make it harder or easier to capture bases....:rolleyes:

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2003, 08:44:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by beet1e
-  to take shelter from the salvo of rotting vegetables?  ;)


While I'm sure we'd have an enjoyable afternoon quaffing ale, this is exactly why I'm going to have to ask you to move about 20 yards to the side........

I think you're going to end up with far more veggies than I. In fact, you'll be hosting a salad dinner for 200 before this is over, I think.

;)
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 lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2003, 08:54:36 AM »
slo... your post was nonsense.   What are you talking about?  We are talking about what is happening in the arena these days... as we speak.  Not what you dreamed last night or wish was happening.

We are talking about how the game is nothing but a steamroller that sets up a vultch.   maybe the steamrollers get a kill or two and maybe, probably they don't... they mostlyu just waste a lot of time and no one has much fun.

closer fields and easier capture would add fun, action and choice.  You would still have 20K perchers and you could still be one if you desired... there would be more variety in the planes you met in the arena.   More people would be involved in the fight.   The fights would be more even with a better and easier chance to return to base if you ran out of ammo, fuel or were damaged.
lazs

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2003, 08:56:50 AM »
There's nothing wrong with needing many people to capture a base. Nor is there something wrong with taking out key strategical field objects such as radar, VH, fules, and sometimes ordnance.


 The complaints and frustrations are coming from this fact:

* The improper and uninspiring use of air power, is in truth the most preferred method of field capture.


 People don't mind when a really large mission strike comes in. Yeah sure, we laugh and make fun of how those dweebs in other country have organized people, but the defenders usually gather huge numbers to counter the attack as well.

 In those situations, people take it for granted that there will be damage to a field. Huge numbers of attackers ensure that some of the field objects will be pounded. But that's ok. Being able to gather that many people into a single mission, is something to be admired. No gripes with that. Also, defenders think of ways to counter the mission, to defend the field.

 Rallying defenders, sending out search calls for enemy goons, is all a part of a fun process. In reality, these missions are actually easier to stop than the really dangerous kamikaze bozos - missions have structure, they make sense, you can think and analyze it, and also counter it. Some missions even have signatures on 'em - you see it, and you immediately know who made that mission. You recall his habits, and then counter it.

 
 ...

 No, the large scale porking missions are not the reason why people get angry about field porkage.

 The really frustrating thing is this: when about equal number of fighters on both sides are in the air, but one side still has overall numbers advantage in total.

 It goes like this....

 The A2A fights are great, but the side with numbers advantage keeps sending in these dweebs or newbies one by one, continuously, to the enemy field. You see a Typhoon, or a P-51D coming in from about 16k. The defenders see that, and some try to intercept. But the fediddlein' latewar planes are so fast that even with 2k+ payload strapped on, they outdive may planes. The bozo ignores everyone, alone jumps into the field, into the ack, lobs everything his got on one fuel tank, kills the fuel tank, and then augers in.

 Then, in a few minutes, another same type of bozo drops in, jumps into a situation that he knows he won't survive from, ignores enemy defenses, goes straight to the field, kills a radar/ordnance bunker/fuel tank/town building or whatever, and then augers.

 Then, in a few minutes again, this another bozo in NOE B-17 or a Lanc pops out of nowhere, flies 1k over the field, sprays bombs everywhere, manages to knock a few objects since he's spraying 42 thousand pounds worth of bombs!, and then augers in.

 That's what really gets people frustrated. Massive raids can be stopped, or, at least countered. However, individual bozos doing the 9.11 terrorist impression, can never, ever be stopped.

 You don't feel bad when the enemy organizes a big mission, and you fight and try hard to stop that, but fail. You know you've done your best, and you know it was bad odds - you chose to fight, and that is satisfying.

 However, you feel like shi* when you know that the enemy fighters haven't really done anything inspiring. Not particularly many, nor are they particularly skilled. Not well organized either.

 It was just a plain type of fight for local air power, but your field gets closed down, and your ability to fight is demolished.

 Why? Because the conga line of uncatchable suicidal dweebs in their late-war planes with mega bomb loads come in one by one in an interval of minutes - they come from all directions, all altitudes, and auger into the field like a moth to a flame, but taking at least one field object with them in their demise.

 So, you and your friends talk of grabbing alt, dragging tactics, prepare for good engagement, but what you see is while you're fighting one chump slips past you and your friends and takes something out. You begin to feel stupid - why bother with trying to fight when the dweebs avoid fight by all means?

 You, and your experienced band of fellows, who invested a lot of time and effort to learn ACM, correct methods of field attack and stuff, are totally helpless and incompetent against the average dweeb with no fear of death!!  

 That's why people get mad. Look what happens when experienced people group together and attack a field - when they succeed, they do it beautifully. But in many occassions, they fail - they try hard, but they are stopped. Fantastic A2A engagements, noble endeavors, missed timing, many stuff comes up to ruin the perfect capture attempt. Each of the situations being presented, is what makes it so fun!

 But look what happens in a large scale furball - I know, you know, everyone know what's gonna happen. The fights are fun, but the outcome is so dull. After a few minutes, one turd dives in and kills something. Then your field gets smashed. It's friggin' inefficient, and takes longer time, but ultimately, the dweebey kamikaze method of field capture works better than any carefully planned mission.


 ..

 So, the point here, is removing the power from the dweeb's hands.

* Place light perks on late war planes with heavy bomb loads and lightning speeds - suiciding in those planes will cost you.

* Promote the usage of mid-war planes with the "real average" ordnance - most usually a single 500lbs bomb. It's free, but it's limited in power - it's gonna take six, seven consecutive suicides of more than four dweebs within a 15 minute period, to close down a small field. Besides, you don't get to spray two~three bombs and four~ten rockets. You've only got one 500lbs bomb. You want to help your team? Then learn how to bomb right.

* Promote the usage of dedicated jabo planes - specialized roles of attack planes to add variety in field attacks. These planes are very much more vulnerable than those late-war fighter-bombers. They, can be stopped and intercepted.


 Basically, we have to neuter the individual dweeb by making it costly to kamikaze something, or at least greatly reduce the effectiveness of kamikaze by decreasing average payload a fighter carries.

 The key is to make field captures hard for the people who aren't doing it right.. a certain area with lot of bozos, will almost never see any fluctuation in the front line. Their incompetency will deny them the opportunity of field porkage, or capture. It's not about making it hard for everyone.


ps) Oh, the radar range needs to be widened, too. By the time you see a group of dots, its already too late to stop them.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2003, 09:07:36 AM by Kweassa »

Offline gofaster

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6622
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2003, 09:09:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I do like your idea of having 2 vehicle hangers and a spawn point to the town.  Maybe also adding a manned ack gun in the town as well.  I also think there should be mannable 88mm acks that can fire both AA and AT rounds at each field to compliment the existing 37mm manned acks.  Maybe even add a few .50 cal machine gun emplacements in addition to the 88mm and 37mm gun emplacements.


Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!

A single F4U-1D or P47 or P-38 or Typhoon can take down a VH, de-ack a field, and level most of the town.  Another player can finish the job and another guy can bring in the troops.  If winning WW2 was that easy, it wouldn't have taken until 1945 for it to end.

A mannable gun in the city would help tremendously.  A VH spawn near (near, not in) the town would help a bit more but that assumes that the VH is still up by then.  I think it would work better if there were individual vehicle bases at a distance from the town set up with spawn points to support the airfield and town.  Kind of like a Maginot Line with 1 airfield supported by 2 or 3 vehicle bases.  It would certainly give the vehicle bases a bit more value in the game.

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2003, 09:20:01 AM »
Hmmm ... 2 guys from the same squad with completely different theorys ... The "Toad Theory" and the "Zippatuh Theory" ... both I think present 2 valid scenarios.

I am with the "Zippatuh Theory".

If one side develops a big "steamroller", they could roll over a front with ease, which would never allow the building of a good furball. I could see that everytime a good furball might start, it would be quickly extinguished with an easy base capture. This would promote more timidness and less pilots having to engage the enemy ... not good.

The "Toad Theory" present a valid argument.

I don't really think that making the capture more difficult will cause larger "hordes".

The "hordes" as they are now, are quite large anyways, and to get more than what already participate, I believe, would have to be on the scale of the recent RJO ... organization ... which is hard to come by in AH.

The "horde" mentality within AH only builds as the task gets easier ... opportunistic and timid pilots taking advantage of hiding in larger numbers and getting their occasional kill or vultch.

I think making field capture more difficult would cause the "horde" to dissapate if a capture were not very organized and imminate ... the timid would be forced to engage or be bored to death from flying to target and RTB without engaging.

Making fields harder to capture would allow defenders to up and furballers to move foward toward the attacking base and create a stall point that could eventually build into a full blown furball.

If the "horde" decided to move on, so could the defense and eventually the capture could take place (what the strat guys want) or a major fullball could be developed (what the furballers want). Anything in between these 2 scenarios does satisfy both genre at the same time.

Making the capture harder ...

Make towns larger.
Add more mannable ack (not AI) at the field and the town.
5 inch guns would be a good addition.
2 Vehicle Hangers per field (4000 pounds to kill)
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2003, 09:21:27 AM »
Kweassa, you're description of what is going on (it goes like this...) is right on the money.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2003, 09:54:14 AM »
kwea.. your description is accurate but... making fields harder is not gonna stop the behavior.   dweebiness "look at me"  behavior is impossible to stop if it is possible or if it has an "affect".

The harder you make it to take a field the more the suicide porkers will smash into stuff to get attention... the timid players and strat guys will hang back (or even encourage)  and wait till the no talent suiciders have done their damage.  

The real problem as I see it is that the fields are too far apart as it is and with the simple act of porking the fuel.... the distance is doubled or trippled...  The horde hits an undefended or lightly defended field... loses the first wave of suiciders who manage to kill the ack and fuel and then the timid horde circles above the field hoping someone is dumb enough to try to up so that the 10 of em can fight over who gets to vultch him.

making fields harder to capture simply means that more will be porked and useless...   As it is most of the playing tiome in AH is a bunch of timid steamrollers circling a porked field waiting for a goon followed by a hearty round of backslapping.
lazs

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2003, 10:09:06 AM »
"The harder you make it to take a field the more the suicide porkers will smash into stuff to get attention... the timid players and strat guys will hang back (or even encourage) and wait till the no talent suiciders have done their damage."

Lazs ... I think the inverse just might happen if fields were harder to take/pork.

Suiciders do it now because it only takes one run (of a few) to get the job done. If they had to make multiple flights to accomplish the same task as they do now in one run, they might get discouraged. As for the timid guys hanging above, if the field ack is not so easily taken down, and people can still up from the field, they just might be forced to fight or run back home bored.

"making fields harder to capture simply means that more will be porked and useless..."

It can't be any worse than it alreadly is.
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline T0J0

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2003, 10:10:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
tojo... Are you talking about the religion or the game?  If it is the religion please tell me how it has to do with the suject.   If it is the game then.... as I understand it... the "quakers" are the strat sissies?   Isn't quake a game about teamwork and capture the flag with things like power ups (rearm refuel) and lots of Ai objects to kill and blow up?

lazs


Obviously not the religion,  but you were being witty understood.

The Quake that I experienced had nothing to do with strategy or teamwork.. I equate the term Quaker to the non strat furball only types..
I.E.
1. Auger rather than land
2. complain when a carrier is sank
3.  no interest in building battling
4. only interested in the quick kill and short fly times..
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
 I enjoy a good Quake death match once in awhile..

0J0T

Offline Rude

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
Capturing Fields: Opinions Wanted
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2003, 10:25:35 AM »
Well...I'm not an expert, but think about this.....

AWDOS....circa 1990....Field Capture....drop bombs on field and land field within 5 minutes...result? Field capture.

Sounds too easy? Well, what it brought to the arena was a constant fight....lower alt engagements.....flowing enemy lines...a sense of anything is possible.

You logged on to find ferocious fights and lots of action....not what we have now.

WARBIRDS....circa 1996....very much the same.....great fights easily found.

ACES HIGH....circa early tours.....simple filed capture bred lots of action and a fluid front line....deep attacks were more than a hope.

Sadly, none of this will probably change....I seem to remember similar discussions about some feeling that field capture was too easy....we've made our bed I suppose.

Kweassa was correct in his assessment of current field capture woes....still, I doubt anything will change, especially anything that would take us back to the way it was.