Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Damionte on July 10, 2008, 12:09:47 AM
-
The continued debate and evolution of the AvA.
I do not feel I am being out of line or telling most of you what you don't already know, in that the current AvA is still not working. We have not yet found the balance between the dog fighters and the war fighters. We're closer I think than most others, but it's still not there.
Let me define my difference between the dog fighters and war fighters so as not to fall into any of your own definitions.
To me the dog fighters are in the game for the fight. That's what they play aces high for. Nothing else matters but the fight. In fact I believe most long time players are this type of player. (Though not necessarily because it is the way the majority think. This is simply the only environment Aces High II has provided. Thus the work on Combat Tour. To try and reach those other players that aces high is not serving in it's current form.)
I do not feel all of the dog fighters care NOTHING of the war effort. Otherwise you probably wouldn't be in the AvA trying to fight it. In the end though the war takes a back seat to the fighting in it.
The War fighters though are also not completely in it for just the war. (Not the majority of them I feel.) I'm pretty sure that most war fighters also enjoy the fight, but feel more along the lines that I do. That a fight should have a purpose. Constant fighting for no gain for some ends up just as boring as a milk run with no opposition.
The current set up favors the war fighters. There is no reward/consequence to air to air engagements. There is only a reward for or gain from the attack or defense of the ground targets. Fighter sweeps don't do anything at all. They don't even tie up fighters from air to ground. Pilots who are bothering to come up and meet an air sweep were not going out on a JABO mission anyway.
It is clear that you're not going to get dog fighters to care about the war background enough to do it all of the time. This is evident from some of the arguments around the boards, as well as the lack of interest in the war past the first week or so.
Because the two play styles are not playing for the same reasons we have huge arguments over plane choice, and field locations, mission planning, and execution. We just generally get a lot of bad blood over things we would otherwise not really need to argue about.
Keeping with the cater to all philosophy I recommend that air to air kills be given some small weight in determining victory conditions and country economy figures. This won't necessarily bring the two styles closer to fighting the same way, but it might just a little.
-
An example from last night.
Axis JG11 and Allied 49th FG met last night in a large engagement.
With the current rules of war, JG11 won the battle despite losing all but 1 of their aircraft to the 49th, who took only a few losses. They flew in anmd did 70% damage to an allied strat before the 49mh caught them.
For this sortie JG11 had come up to attack a strat. The 49th had upped only looking for a good dog fight. Thus JG11 flew un-opposed to hit a strat. The 49th pounced on them from above as they came off their bombing run and that was pretty much it. The 49th came in with a position advantage and formed into fighting groups. JG11 was a bit scattered having just come of a strat. The outcome of the air battle from that point was never really in doubt.
Now I can't really fault the 49th commanders for that move. Had JG11 actually ignored the war and been upping to dogfight, and the 49th had stayed low to intercept a perceived JABO raid to protect the strats, the tables would have been turned.
The 49th commanders are dog fighters. That's what they're in this arena for. The scoring though doesn't cater to this mindset. Which is a significant portion of the current AHII player base. I say make 25% of the damage tally be based off of kills tallied during a week. Won't necessarily change the play style of the dog fighters but at least then they'll be having SOME impact on the war. This way the war fighters and dog fighters will have a little less to argue about.
-
There was a dogfight in that instance, where defenders tried to intercept attackers. That's how it normally works. That's how almost every fight I've been in goes, beside MA furballs- all of the good, realistic, group on group engagements I've been on happen because of attackers being intercepted by defenders.
Dog fighters do have an impact on the war- they kill attackers.
Remember, fighters, by definition, are defensive weapons. There is no reason for fighters to exist other than to kill attacking aircraft.
That's one of the reasons Germany lost the war- Hitler didn't like fighters, he liked bombers- he saw fighters as defensive weapons, and he wanted to focus on the offense. This is why he insisted that the Me262 be designed primarily as a bomber, which greatly delayed its arrival to the front as an interceptor, as a defensive weapon, as a 'cowards tool'.
-
There was a dogfight in that instance, where defenders tried to intercept attackers. That's how it normally works. That's how almost every fight I've been in goes, beside MA furballs- all of the good, realistic, group on group engagements I've been on happen because of attackers being intercepted by defenders.
Except the allied fighters did not go up to intercept the axis fighters. They also failed to inceptor those fighters. They caught them after they had already delivered their ord.
As a defender I have rarely managed to catch an incoming air craft before they get to their target. And I am putting a lot of effort into it. Flying long CAP missions over strat targets at times. In the hopes that I happen to be in the right place at the right time when someone comes in to hit it.
On offense I flew nearly 30 missions attacking axis targets in the first two rounds. I was not intercepted before hitting my target one time. Not once. Oh I was shot down a lot, but never before reaching my target and usually most of the damage is done by ground fire.
I say this to emphasize how difficult it is to do an intercept unsupported in these arena's. Most people have stopped trying. They simply do what the 49th did last night. They flew in the general direction of JG11, hoping to get into a dog fight. If we're not all fighting the war why fight the war.
Don't kill the war though, that loses another group of players. Give everyone though a way to contribute to the war even if just a little bit.
-
Except the allied fighters did not go up to intercept the axis fighters. They also failed to inceptor those fighters. They caught them after they had already delivered their ord.
As a defender I have rarely managed to catch an incoming air craft before they get to their target. And I am putting a lot of effort into it. Flying long CAP missions over strat targets at times. In the hopes that I happen to be in the right place at the right time when someone comes in to hit it.
You're preaching to the choir here. Believe me, I know how hard it is to intercept the attacking party before they make it to target.
I also know that jabo missions like JG11 both runs and intercepts usually turn into EXTREMELY fun group vs. group dogfights
-
Yeah I did have some fun last night. Actually came away with 3 kills and an assist. My first kills while flying with the squadron as a group. Normally when I am flying with the rest of t e squad I either get shot down, or just come up blank. But last night I landed kills in all three of our engagements.
YET.......
In the end most of the fun for me was sapped since we failed in the strategic realm in our engagements. I am a war fighter type. If there's no point to the battle I am fighting then the amount of kills I got does nothing for me.
I came to the AvA because it was advertised as a place we could come and fly real missions against an opponent doing the same.
For many of us, the reverse complaint to the milk running is that pilots are up there not contributing to the war. It's why I ask that we allow air to air kills to have a meaning. In real life they had meaning. An aircraft you shot down today doesn't come back tomorrow to bite you in the butt. In the game though they're just cartoon planes and they get right back up. Not only does it not add take resources from the other side when you shoot down an attacking plane that has dropped ord already, you are actually making it easier for them to come back and hit your strats again by giving them the free ride home.
If air to air kills counted it would also get rid of some of the dunk and dive types.
-
I must respectfully disagree. We are what you'd define as "dog fighters" and we've had more realistic engagements in the AvA the last two months than two years in the MAs (or old AvA). To be honest we don't really care who "wins" the war (as a "war fighter" would) as to us the war is just a mechanism to facilitate these types of engagments.
It sounds like you're in the middle, you want the realistic engagements as a "dog fighter" but also have them scored as a "war fighter". Nothing wrong with that and it is a valid point, but if you are purely into the fight the AvA is a lot of fun during prime time.
-
I say this to emphasize how difficult it is to do an intercept unsupported in these arena's. Most people have stopped trying. They simply do what the 49th did last night. They flew in the general direction of JG11, hoping to get into a dog fight. If we're not all fighting the war why fight the war.
Don't kill the war though, that loses another group of players. Give everyone though a way to contribute to the war even if just a little bit.
You're really talking out the side of your head and should chill out. We flew a sweep that turned into an intercept as soon as we could figure out what the intentions of the large Bardar we'd been watching for 15 minutes. This fighter sweep was the second of two formal squad missions that night the first being a strike on a strat target in support of the DA WAR The leadership of the 49th has an obligation to it's members to try and make it fun for everyone. Like I said our first mission was strike on a strat target with a diversionary flight to try and help it succeed.
The second mission a Fighter sweep that became an intercept mission. Two missions, two different types... This way both the war fighters and the furballers get a mission to enjoy.
No I never will run head long at low alt out under an large enemy bardar I know nothing about. Remember there were no other Allies in the area, nobody was giving us any info on the Bardar. So I approached the larger formation with alt and caution. Forgive me for not serving you guys up on a platter.
One other thing I enjoy both the furballing and the war fighting. I don't enjoy the current war setup because it's not a war, theres no objectives to take, it's just porking the other side. It's more like a game of vandalizing your neighbors house than slinking off in the dark thinking you achieved something.
-
I don't enjoy the current war setup because it's not a war, theres no objectives to take, it's just porking the other side. It's more like a game of vandalizing your neighbors house then slinking off in the dark thinking you achieved something.
I am becoming a Shifty groupie.
This arena would be dead if it wasn't for a few die hard squads.
The current AVA is too limiting in playing style and scope. Hitech and Pyro have learned what works over the years. We would be wise to copy the MA setup but with Axis/Allied plane sets and smaller maps until the population increases.
Bring back base capture. It focuses the fight and caters to all playing styles.
Stop messing with extreme weather, pilots in wwII would be grounded in the stuff we have seen lately. It isn't fun once you get past the novelty of it. Put in some haze or clouds once in a while, but not to the point that it is currently.
Smaller maps. How many nights have we seen 1 team up north and another team down south porking strats?
The CM's should work as a team and be open in dealing with the community.
There is a good group of players that want to play in an Axis vs. Allies environment but the AVA has been pushing most of them away by following the singular vision of 1 CM for over a month. BOA is really a game for 3 guys. 1 referee (Fork) and the 2 leaders of the sides that sweat out the cash and plane placements. Then it is a 2 week contest of who can kill the most strats. Dogfighters quickly get bored. Base capture guys are left out. GV'rs get to watch the grass grow.
Let's open this Arena up. The potential is great if we can get out of our own way.
S!
-
I fully agree, the only limitations are fitting a 2-sided setup into a 3-sided arena and the ability to control base capture so it doesn't completely disrupt the arena. These desires and limitations is basically the whole premise behind my trying to develop what I'm calling the "Campaign Series" <- shameless plug
-
An example from last night.
Axis JG11 and Allied 49th FG met last night in a large engagement.
These are becoming the only engagements. Not much for the rest of us to do. This is slowly becoming a couple of big squads fighting it out.
Venom
-
shifty try and pay attention to the point of the post/thread. Just because you see your name in something doesn't mean it's an attack on you or your squadron.
Trukk try not to get caught up in the terms. They're not the point. You respectfully disagreed, then described your self in the exact same way I did. I am not trying to push one agenda over the other.
As I said in the post I was simply using that engagement as an example. An example of the fact that the current set up is not doing what it was intended to do. Foster good fights on a regular basis. a4944 pointed it out. The only ones really able to get in good regular fights are the big squads, when their squad nights coincide. Basically any time we get enough pilots in the same area to make the dar bar get real big.
The rest of the time we're all just running around chasing ghosts.
The second side effect I am trying to help find a solution for is that even when these two big dar bars meet, if one side is fighting within the parameters of the scenario they're going to put themselves at a disadvantage. (Isn't this why the FSO has so many rules about when and where we must attack?)
My point again is that there is currently too much emphasis on the strats. Which takes away from the fun for pretty much everyone other than hard core JABO folks, and probably the heavy bomber pilots. Both of whom are decently sized minorities in the current AHII player community. Until kills count for something we will not be able to blend the war/dog fighters.
I'm, not saying this is a fix all solution. We still have other problems that need to be addressed most of which though are already being debated in other threads, this is just one of them.
-
There is a good group of players that want to play in an Axis vs. Allies environment but the AVA has been pushing most of them away by following the singular vision of 1 CM for over a month. BOA is really a game for 3 guys. 1 referee (Fork) and the 2 leaders of the sides that sweat out the cash and plane placements. Then it is a 2 week contest of who can kill the most strats. Dogfighters quickly get bored. Base capture guys are left out. GV'rs get to watch the grass grow.
Let's open this Arena up. The potential is great if we can get out of our own way.
S!
:rock
-
shifty try and pay attention to the point of the post/thread. Just because you see your name in something doesn't mean it's an attack on you or your squadron.
Maybe you need to pay attention. Your assumptions about me, my preferences, or what we were trying to accomplish Tuesday are all wrong. In fact one of the e-mails I put to the squadron announcing plans for Tuesday contained the words we need to do our part for the war effort in it. Like I said you're talking out of the side of your head. You don't want my input in this thread, then don't mention me unless you're sure of what your'e talking about.
-
This arena would be dead if it wasn't for a few die hard squads.
The arena was dead before the change in direction.
The current AVA is too limiting in playing style and scope. Hitech and Pyro have learned what works over the years. We would be wise to copy the MA setup but with Axis/Allied plane sets and smaller maps until the population increases.
Maybe so, most everyone agrees it needs to be better but its a start. I do not agree that a 5th MA is the way to go however. Whens the last time you heard some one complain about getting locked out of the EW because of arena caps?
Stop messing with extreme weather, pilots in wwII would be grounded in the stuff we have seen lately. It isn't fun once you get past the novelty of it. Put in some haze or clouds once in a while, but not to the point that it is currently.
Noted
Smaller maps. How many nights have we seen 1 team up north and another team down south porking strats?
Keep in mind we only have so many maps to choose from and most are not designed with the AvA in mind.
The CM's should work as a team and be open in dealing with the community.
To say we are not open to the community is ridiculous.
There is a good group of players that want to play in an Axis vs. Allies environment but the AVA has been pushing most of them away by following the singular vision of 1 CM for over a month. BOA is really a game for 3 guys. 1 referee (Fork) and the 2 leaders of the sides that sweat out the cash and plane placements.
Wrong again.
Then it is a 2 week contest of who can kill the most strats. Dogfighters quickly get bored. Base capture guys are left out. GV'rs get to watch the grass grow.
Dogfigters do quikly get bored with how things are playing out in the arena. Thats a two way street however, the Staff can take as much input as possible and try to provide the enviorment for good fights. It does not mean its going to happen.
Shifty sumed up what I feel these "wars" should be not too long ago. They should be a backdrop for the fighting, not the focus of the arena.
-
Shifty it's not about rather you are doing your duty or not. You shouldn't have to purposely run one of your missions off the books. That's what we're trying to find solutions for. The point of the thread is trying to help YOU!
The current set up does not yet foster the types of fights you're looking for. If two sides want to get up and fight they can go to any other arena and get it done easier than they can in the AvA. I'm not attacking you, I'm looking for more ways to make it easier for you to have the types of fights you want to have. while still giving the war fighter types and strat guys the piece of mind that your contributing to the war effort every time you go up.
I'm trying to bring the two sides closer together.
Before the current set up you guys had a furballers only type of environment. You could up anywhere you wanted and have your fights. That didn't work though. Apparently not everyone is into that and the numbers were low because of it. The current set up though has gone to far in the other direction. Now its all about the strats and there's no place in it for the dog fighters. Have to keep chipping away at it till we find more of a balance.
-
The arena was dead before the change in direction.
The current AVA is too limiting in playing style and scope. Hitech and Pyro have learned what works over the years. We would be wise to copy the MA setup but with Axis/Allied plane sets and smaller maps until the population increases.
Maybe so, most everyone agrees it needs to be better but its a start. I do not agree that a 5th MA is the way to go however. Whens the last time you heard some one complain about getting locked out of the EW because of arena caps?
Stop messing with extreme weather, pilots in wwII would be grounded in the stuff we have seen lately. It isn't fun once you get past the novelty of it. Put in some haze or clouds once in a while, but not to the point that it is currently.
Noted
Smaller maps. How many nights have we seen 1 team up north and another team down south porking strats?
Keep in mind we only have so many maps to choose from and most are not designed with the AvA in mind.
The CM's should work as a team and be open in dealing with the community.
To say we are not open to the community is ridiculous.
There is a good group of players that want to play in an Axis vs. Allies environment but the AVA has been pushing most of them away by following the singular vision of 1 CM for over a month. BOA is really a game for 3 guys. 1 referee (Fork) and the 2 leaders of the sides that sweat out the cash and plane placements.
Wrong again.
Then it is a 2 week contest of who can kill the most strats. Dogfighters quickly get bored. Base capture guys are left out. GV'rs get to watch the grass grow.
Dogfigters do quikly get bored with how things are playing out in the arena. Thats a two way street however, the Staff can take as much input as possible and try to provide the enviorment for good fights. It does not mean its going to happen.
Shifty sumed up what I feel these "wars" should be not too long ago. They should be a backdrop for the fighting, not the focus of the arena.
Well said slash!! :)
-
Ok before we get any more off the focus of the thread let me restate the point and the idea behind it.
Can we make air to air kills count, for the purpose of economy/victory conditions ex cetera ?
Is that possible? If that's not possible then the war won't work. EVER !
It doesn't matter what else we try to balance in. As long as there is no consequence/reward for being shot down the entire war scenario won't get off the ground. Without the war scenario you lose half your player base. Just as many pilots feel the opposite of Slash and shifty. Endless pointless dog fighting is just as boring to us, as it is fun for you guys. Many of us need a better reason to shoot the other guy down than "He's in the air."
-
The issue with that will be if the kills are legit or not. Some one vulches a buddy 30 times a night and we have nice new can of worms.
Keep in mind that just because some of you guys ideas cannot be done for whatever reason, it doesnt mean it was a bad idea.
-
Ok before we get any more off the focus of the thread let me restate the point and the idea behind it.
Can we make air to air kills count, for the purpose of economy/victory conditions ex cetera ?
Is that possible?
I like this idea, or at least make deaths count, would limit the bomb and bail mentality.
shamus
-
Ok before we get any more off the focus of the thread let me restate the point and the idea behind it.
Can we make air to air kills count, for the purpose of economy/victory conditions ex cetera ?
Is that possible? If that's not possible then the war won't work. EVER !
It doesn't matter what else we try to balance in. As long as there is no consequence/reward for being shot down the entire war scenario won't get off the ground.
One possible solution would be allow only so many of each type aircraft for the war. At the end of a frame the losses are bumped against the Strat %. From there you start limiting them by number of bases available or by perking them. If the losses ever exceed from the total number allowed according to the Strat %. They are pulled from the setup.
This is just off the top of my head and may do nothing more than open a can of worms I have not had time to consider.
-
Yeah the vulch a friend win at any cost mentality could be a problem.
Why I suggest limiting the impact.
We could break down total points by objective. Like scoring in some school courses.
For instance say 25% of your total total points would be based on your sides... kill to death ratio for instance.
Unless you had like a dozen guys or more doing the vulch a friend thing we shouldn't see a huge impact on the numbers. I believe even then that we have tools to be able to catch those cheating in this way. Or at least the ones that are registered anyway. We generally know who is on what side. We get stats at the end of a tour on what people flew and what they killed. If you see an allied player at the end of the war who has 20 sorties in a 109k-4 you know somethign fishy is going on.
I'm not sure just how detailed a report you guys get at the end of a frame. Basing that suggestion mostly off what I hear you guys talking about.
Freaking cheaters suck. Messing it up for the rest of us. Sure I suppose unregistered players could do it, but will they really put up this much effort over a long period of time to unbalance the AvA which they obviously don't actually care about.
Does the idea have enough merit to try it out? We could deal with the impact of cheaters as we go.
-
Can we make air to air kills count, for the purpose of economy/victory conditions ex cetera ?
I have always thought this should count for something in the AvA, and it's absolutely necessary if we want the AvA to be a step up above the divebombing lancs of the MA.
-
It has a lot of merit, no doubt. What else are we here for if not the fight?
-
Trukk try not to get caught up in the terms. They're not the point. You respectfully disagreed, then described your self in the exact same way I did. I am not trying to push one agenda over the other.
As I said in the post I was simply using that engagement as an example. An example of the fact that the current set up is not doing what it was intended to do. Foster good fights on a regular basis.
I didn't mean to imply that you were pushing an agenda, just that as a "dog fighter" squad (or what I'd refer to as simulation vs war game focused), we are getting "good fights on a regular basis", and having a lots of fun. Maybe the difference is that we are big enough that we do attract the opposition, where a singleton wouldn't.
-
I have always thought this should count for something in the AvA, and it's absolutely necessary if we want the AvA to be a step up above the divebombing lancs of the MA.
I wish every aircraft was perked and you started off the campain with a certain amount of perk points. That way if you don't bring your aircraft home, you'd soon be limited to the lowest aircraft available.
-
I wish every aircraft was perked and you started off the campain with a certain amount of perk points. That way if you don't bring your aircraft home, you'd soon be limited to the lowest aircraft available.
That is another good idea.
-
I wish every aircraft was perked and you started off the campain with a certain amount of perk points. That way if you don't bring your aircraft home, you'd soon be limited to the lowest aircraft available.
so, after one night, I'd be relegated to a Sopwith Camel? :D
This has legs from my point of view
-
I wish every aircraft was perked and you started off the campain with a certain amount of perk points. That way if you don't bring your aircraft home, you'd soon be limited to the lowest aircraft available.
That is a good idea
-
Especially since it's so easy to get perks by milking targets in attack mode... :noid
-
I wish every aircraft was perked and you started off the campain with a certain amount of perk points. That way if you don't bring your aircraft home, you'd soon be limited to the lowest aircraft available.
I don't like "punishment" systems in a game. I prefer the awards system of MA for perk points. This system says if you are not very good, you can't even fly good or even average planes, you have to fly the worst planes available. The alternative is to avoid fighte all-together or be ultra-conservative in picking fights. We need to encourage more air-to-air fighting and I don't see how this perk system would encourage people to engage in good fights.
Venom
-
Both ideas of kill:death ratios or the perk system sound good.
I also do see Venom's arguement. New pilots to the game who may be interested in more historical fights will get tired of loosing EVERY single fight because they will be in the worst plane possible. I understand the arguement, but however since we have stated since the begining, we cant make EVERYONE happy. Whatever set up we chose will make the majority happy, but there will be those who will get pushed away, thats how it will always be in our arena if we stick to the realism.
-
Destroying aircraft does not have to punish the pilot, but it should have an effect on the campaign in the ava, even if only for evaluating which side wins at the end of the week.
-
I understand the arguement, but however since we have stated since the begining, we cant make EVERYONE happy. Whatever set up we chose will make the majority happy, but there will be those who will get pushed away, thats how it will always be in our arena if we stick to the realism.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I like Bugs suggestions best so far. It seems to have something for everyone. It has a war element, GV element, capture element, rolling planeset element, and it will encurage good low alt sustained fights for objectives.
Venom
-
What was bugs suggestion?
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,239877.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,239877.0.html)
Thats Bugs idea.
-
I don't like "punishment" systems in a game. I prefer the awards system of MA for perk points. This system says if you are not very good, you can't even fly good or even average planes, you have to fly the worst planes available. The alternative is to avoid fighte all-together or be ultra-conservative in picking fights. We need to encourage more air-to-air fighting and I don't see how this perk system would encourage people to engage in good fights.
Venom
Ahh, but it will if it makes both sides fly in groups. It would mean that guy that takes off in a single vic of 17s has more to lose than if he waits for a few more pilots to group up with for more protection. A group of 4 or 5 vics of 17s flying in close formation backs a HUGE difference in defense than flying lone wolf. Throw in a few fighters flying escort and we have a pretty good battle goind on.
-
Good point. What draws people together are numbers.
My idea of points for kills though isn't so much about growing the numbers, as it is about finding more ways for the two types of players to get along better.
-
a thought that didn't die of loneliness occurred to me tonight that, perhaps, some of the squads could keep an eye on the roster and state their intentions to players that can be, for the lack of a better phrase, trusted. I wouldn't mind Oldman, Slash, Stampf, Shifty, Bug, etc, noticing me on and shooting me a pm saying 'dicho we're doing unptiscrunch out of wheretheheckever want to join or can you go try to do X'. Over time the players that cant be trusted or want to play lone wolf will wind up weeding themselves out and the fights might (heavy emphasis on the word 'might') wind up focusing on the maps. Just a thought for consumption that's not fully fleshed out.
-
We kinda already do that. Besides the point isn't to weed out the lone wolves anyway.
-
Anyone else here think the current AvA map is too big for the number of players we have? I think a map that's half the size would be fine.
-
It probably would, but it doesn't mean that map exists or is readily available or would work in the AvA environment.
-
We could make a whole bunch of bases neutral/knight.
-
Now there's an idea! :aok
-
Now there's an idea! :aok
That is an interesting idea. I guess you can tell which red fields are neutral by the little icons next to the bases. Only question I've got is whether there's a map-porking effect if people start capturing the neutral bases. I think that the map can withstand a certain amount of that, but at some point taking neutral bases porks the map in AvA. Anyone know what that point is?
- oldman
-
We kinda already do that. Besides the point isn't to weed out the lone wolves anyway.
Poor phrasing... not weed out the lone wolves but give them an idea where the sheep are.
-
We could make a whole bunch of bases neutral/knight.
Two thumbs up! :aok :aok
Venom
-
We could make a whole bunch of bases neutral/knight.
What would that accomplish?
Is that part of the making the maps smaller idea?
-
What would that accomplish?
Is that part of the making the maps smaller idea?
More concentrated fight area.
-
maybe we could make gateways, that warp you to a certain sector. "wrinkle in time" anyone?? how about stargate hehehe that way the large maps will be smaller. :)
-
I wouldn't chuckle too much about that concept Jeager. Like it or not, that's exactly how CT is going to work.