Author Topic: ROOKS, this is not the way to go  (Read 2723 times)

Offline Grimm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1015
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #60 on: September 10, 2003, 10:30:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad


In the beginning, in the Beta, there was the fight. It was great fun, it was constant fun. And then came the requests that took away from the fight.



I think your making a huge assumption.   You seem to be under the impression that Hitech had no vision of where he wanted AcesHigh to go...   So he turned to this message board and turned to those that wanted strat targets.    

I think your selling Dale short...    He has been working toward a very complete game since day one.  

I will agree some gameplay changes might be in order,  but I think your fooling yourself to think its guys with bombs that have caused all these problems.

Offline Grimm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1015
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #61 on: September 10, 2003, 11:19:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rude
TOD will be the playground for you and others in the future...the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested


I would guess the MA would stay the same as always.  Hitech has never said that TOD was to attract people from the MA.

Its not supposed to be a Strat Guy arena.  Its something all together new.

It was geared to interest a new type of player....

I dont see TOD changing anything in MA.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #62 on: September 10, 2003, 11:24:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
yes... it really is that simple.
...as it has to be for you to be able to understand it - Muhahahaha! :D ;)

Ah, Mr. Toad. :D I think field spacing has been done to death, but there are two reasons that I have reservations about inadequate field spacing. The slow climbing B&Z not-very-manoeuvrable planes like the P47 that thrive at high alt but suck in the weeds are easy targets for LA7 cherrypickers that currently race in from 5 minutes away on the children's maps. Your proposals might reduce that 5 minutes even further. The second reason is the lamers that can't defend their base from the point of attack, by which I mean that instead of taking off from the field under attack, they'll up cherrypickers from next door and come in at 20K rather than fight at 10K. I have a film of that very scenario that I shot last night.
Quote
The only "strat" issue I have is fuel. It's simply moronic to be able to marginalize a large part of the planeset. Adjust the multiplier, add 50 tanks, make it tougher.. whatever. But at least make it so that 25% gives a decent sortie time.
What you want is for fuel porkage to have no effect. I don't want a game in which bombs are dumbed down any more than you would be prepared for every third round in your .50 cals to be a blank.

I'm glad you like the CT. I do too - much more gentlemanly in there. But in Europe, the low numbers problem is often there.
Quote
Tell me.. what other things do Laz or NP want hardened? I'm under the impression they don't give a hoot about "strat" either.
Lazs wants bombs to be perked, so bombing would be harder - (ie. more difficult) because you'd have to earn the perks. Bombing/buffing is a dangerous business, and many perks would be lost. As for Nopoop, he wants fighter hangars to be hardened. He doesn't like it when jabos come in and level the FH because then he can't fly his Spit V. This is perceived as a "reduction in the available choices". Well of course it is, and that's the whole bleedin' point. When one of you guys shoots off someone's horizontal stab, that guys choices are reduced. What's the difference? Nopoop also wanted HQ to be "hardened". FFS! It's already a long journey for the buffs to make, and you could always up fighters to defend against it. There's plenty of bardar warning, as the enemy buffs progress sector by sector. But no, that is not good enough. You had to have the Me163. But even that is not enough. The HQ needs to be harder. :rolleyes: Oh, I forgot - defending the HQ is "not fun". That explains everything. Never mind...
Quote
Doesn't change that fact that you continually cry about the "big three" and then promote gameplay that encourages P-51 use.
Bollocks, Mr. Toad. If you are alluding to the fact that a P51 goes further than other planes on 25% fuel, I don't buy it - by which I mean I don't think that's the reason we see so many P51s. I don't worry too much about fuel porkage because if the enemy captures that porked base, with 25% fuel they won't be able to put it to much use, and it may be recaptured quite easily. Take off from somewhere else. So no-one's forcing anyone else to fly the P51. You will never see me in a P51 - or an LA7, or a Spit ix, or a N1K, or a Yak9U for that matter. No. The P51 is overused because it's easy. But the thing about easy planes is that they're often flown by idiots, so they're easy targets - hence those stats. :D

Speaking of Tomato, she's just sent me a text message to say that she's on her way. So I'll have to go now.

Toodle-Pip.
:cool:
« Last Edit: September 10, 2003, 11:28:39 AM by beet1e »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #63 on: September 10, 2003, 12:18:55 PM »
Jeez, Beet, do you read what you write?

First you tell us that close fields are bad for slow climbing B&Z not-very-manoeuvrable planes right after you tell us just to take off from one field back. Duh?

Then you're afraid of cherry pickers that will up from fields right next door but, obviously, if they're right next door they won't get very high. Are you just afraid of anyone above you or what?

If fuel porkage makes a large portion of the planeset unviable, yeah, I think it should be changed.

Maybe you can dream up some other type of strat target that affects your basetaking, steamroller, suicide auger march to glory "strategy". Then you can bomb that and inhibit what needs inhibiting... the steamroller suicide march. See, do a bit of thinking.. it's NOT the early war planes that are causing you your present unhappiness with the lack of "meaningful strat". In almost every case, the early war planes are pretty useless in the present strat environment. Yet the fuel reduction affects them to the highest degree.

As for the 51, now most of TAS only flies them when the fuel is short. That's the sole consideration there.

Now, do tell me what this "meaningful strat" is. Please give examples. Do you actually have any useful ideas to gain your goal?
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 MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #64 on: September 10, 2003, 01:28:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
that is a strat guy and timid score guy thing... furballers only want opportunity... a place to furball.


Every map has always one or more furball places for those valiant enough to get there crying "I'm an hero, I'm an hero" while spraying just to be dead 2 mins later.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2003, 02:16:13 PM »
mandoble... those parts that aren't gibirish...... are wrong.
lazs

Offline Honch

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
      • http://www.wesayni.com
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2003, 02:20:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
Because people would rather vulch and game their score than fight against the country with the most people on. It's pretty lame.


LOL - glad to see that you'd never participate in this lamosity.

Offline Grimm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1015
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #67 on: September 10, 2003, 02:35:27 PM »
So,   I guess Im missing something.....

If there was no Strat... No Capture... etc...    

Then it would all be about Air Combat,  and this would benifit the early war planes?    I am not understanding.

Dont you think most players would just take the late war hot rods and fight?     You would see more Energy Fighting and more BnZ fighting over the top of the poor souls in the Early war planes.  

Then the complaint would,  "I cant TnB in my early war ride, because of all the the Late War planes.    Hitech please give us some AAA or something to even things out and let me fly the way I want too"

Offline Midnight

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1809
      • http://www.brauncomustangs.org
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #68 on: September 10, 2003, 02:44:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
....As for the DA, note the absence of a Map. If there was a decent "airplane fight" map in there, like say the CT Slot or FinRus map, if there was a way to disable the unnecessary "griefer" stuff like GV's and if it was allowed to set the fuel multiplier so that 25% was enough for a decent amount of travel/fighting time, then I'd rarely if ever darken the MA door again...


Map? WTF kind of excuse is that crap? Really, that is a lame excuse, Toad. If all that matters is the air-to-air, plane-vs-plane fight, why does the map make a difference? The DA has three airfields clase together that make for a quick flight to a middle area that could become a huge furball and stay that way forever and ever. No killing of hangers or fuel or anything else that would effect the fight. You don't sound like you're concerned with the scenery, so what kind of terrain do you want this furball to be in? Fin=Rus isn't so much different than any other terrain, nor is slot... hell evey terrain is basically the same when your fighting in a small area anyhow.

Other than that, I'm done with this never ending debate for the time being.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #69 on: September 10, 2003, 02:51:19 PM »
Well, I guess when you usually fight at 20K, you don't realize that a good terrain can add a lot to a fight. Canyons, ridges, bases closer together, numerous bases... stuff like that.

Leaving?

Guess you just weren't able to find many differences in B&Z and vultching from the attackers point of view?
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 MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #70 on: September 10, 2003, 03:14:29 PM »
So, if you hammer with your 109E over a rocket climbing La7, you are vulching the La7. But if you kill a lo and slo 109E with a sea level screaming La7, then that is ok. Even more, If you come with all the lemming horde behind to do some furballing with 3 alone enemies, then that is ok also, much more ok when the lemming horde comes from a nearby CV poofing every defender with these wonder "defensive" guns.

Offline Grizzly

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #71 on: September 10, 2003, 04:16:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Midnight

Still to this day, I wonder why the "furballers" don't use the DA more often. There is a 100% endless fight oppurtunity there at the "Furball bowl" where everyone could yank and bank to their heart's content with no one ever able to ruin the fight by killing thier field or strating the fuel.

Why then, does this not get utilized?



I like a good multi-plane dogfight as much as most other pilots, I just would like to have some other changing objectives to why the fight is happening, a reason why a huge battle is raging on a certain part of the map. When it's the same nonsense every day, my interest starts fading.


The word furball is often misused. A furball is a large group of fighters seeking only to kill other fighters. There does not have to be a reason for it other than the fight itself. This can certainly take place in the training or dueling arena. But being seperated from the MA has always limited the number of players there. Perhaps one reason this is so is that players can soon grow weary of this mindless slaughter,

But there is another type of game play the focuses on fighter combat, such as you refer to at the end of your message. This type of game play can and often involves a furball, but with an objective. And strat also plays a role. This objective can be the same as the arena capture objective, just on a smaller scale. A fight can go on all night over the destruction or capture of just one or a few bases. This is the main type of game play that fighter jocks talk about, and this cannot be relegated to a seperate arena.

All complaints about game play (vulching, B&Z, T&B, bombing, strat, land grab, milk running, gang banging, base porking, suicide jabo, etc.) have been constantly argued about for going on twenty years now, with no resolution in sight. And each are valid if the customer enjoys it.

What I would like to focus on is not which game style is better, but how each might be played with the least disruption on the others. The situation at hand places one type of game play above all others, at the expense of the others. Certainly, we will never end the whining and taunting (nor should we because it's fun), but we should be able to make some improvements in balance.

I have one more comment, mostly in response to NoBaddy. Yes, the Main Arena is there for open game play and chaos is expected. There are other venues for realistic play. But the MA arena is also there for practice and honing of skills. This means we should promote fighting, ACM, strat and team work. Unfortunately, the present situation promotes conflict avoidal and massive land grab by the most effective means available (which isn't fighting). It deprives players of their learning opportunities and does nothing to stimulate their taste for the more realistic opportunities.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #72 on: September 10, 2003, 06:22:04 PM »
Intermittently, I think we're on the same page. ;)

Quote
Originally posted by Grizzly
What I would like to focus on is not which game style is better, but how each might be played with the least disruption on the others.


However, it's pretty clear that the very intent of what passes for strategy here focuses directly on disrupting the play of others. I'm not being judgemental here; I'm just saying "that's the point of strat". For example a buff raid to the enemy HQ has the intention of disrupting enemy play by denying them radar.

Now, losing some or all of the "strategic" objects may or may not bother individual players. For example, losing troop capability would go totally unnoticed in my case.

But it's clear that it's tough for all "types" to be accomodated without disruption.


Quote
Originally posted by Grizzly

Unfortunately, the present situation promotes conflict avoidal and massive land grab by the most effective means available (which isn't fighting).  


Totally agree. That's why I asked Beet1e for examples of "meaningful strat". Haven't heard any examples/suggestions so far from his side of the board.
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 Grimm

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1015
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #73 on: September 10, 2003, 10:19:22 PM »
Toad,

Ill pipe in with 2 Good forms of Strat attacks that dont effect guys that just wish for some good air Combat.   I say Air Combat,  because not all Air Combat is a Furball.  Some of it actually pits 1 or 2 pilots against simular numbers, some where above the 2K.  

First you mentioned,  Troops/Barracks.   This effects fighters very little,  and really counter acts Base Capture.   It slows the steam roller and leaves guys the capturing guys Capping the field for a long time while a long range goon arrives.

Second would be Ordinance,  This also does not effect the fighters out looking for some action.   It does also effect the rate at which those cruical Fuel Toolsheds fall.   Take out ordinance near the front lines, and you might hold off the porkers a bit longer.  

I will add this as well,  destroy the main Strat Target for those types,   Grunt Training and Ordinance Factory and you slow any rebuilding of those strats as well.   Add the City into the mix and you can keep them all down longer.

I stand with those that say that Fuel Strat is a mess.

Offline Grizzly

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
ROOKS, this is not the way to go
« Reply #74 on: September 11, 2003, 12:20:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad

However, it's pretty clear that the very intent of what passes for strategy here focuses directly on disrupting the play of others. I'm not being judgemental here; I'm just saying "that's the point of strat". For example a buff raid to the enemy HQ has the intention of disrupting enemy play by denying them radar.
 


I don't know, I can't remember having radar for such a long time I'm not sure what it is  =o/

Something that slows down an enemy isn't so bad, if he has a base to operate from that isn't capped by 50 red planes. But it does get a bit perplexing when your country's strat bases are located deeply within enemy territory.