Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Simaril on April 10, 2006, 11:07:37 AM
-
posted because we all know this topic needs another thread.....:lol
It occurred to me as i read through yet another polarized Mr. Bomberguy vs Mr. Fiighterguy pooo slinging contest, that most all the writers were thinking like experienced players evaluating gameplay from their experienced perspective. While understandable, doing so misses a crucial point.
HTC sees gameplay in a broader perspective -- one that considers player recruitment, player development, and THEN skilled player preferences -- as part of a continuum. For the busiiness to succeed, all three components HAVE TO be addressed in a way that keeps 'em having fun at each stage. And, it seems to me, HTC has to keep them all happy in the same arena at the same time or else the arena numbers would drop too low.
I'll use my expeience as an example. AH marks my first serious attempt at a flight sim, after my lack of ACM kept stalling tries at boxed sims. Those two years have seen me go from hopelessly bad, to being able to hold my own on occasion even against some good players. But I bet I wouldnt have stayed in if it werent for bombers, jabos, and scoring. (No, not that kind!)
With my head routinely being handed to me, I tried fighting in hordes and with massive alt advantage....and I'd spend time buffing in milk runs. The score system let me feel like I was improving, and I could delude myself into thinking I was getting good when I saw my "rank" dropping. When I started to "get it" in AtA, I could use the KPD to mark my progress in staying alive. It was only later, when I realized that rank chasing (for many players) was more a function of online time + gamesmanship than skill, that I played more and more for the fight -- and I could have fun (tho not yet florish) at that.
I've noticed many others follow a similar trajectory, with or woithout the added attraction of GVs. I think many who get addicted and stick it out end up fighter guys, though some just like buffing/GVs for their own sake.
Either way, bombers, base captures, and score chasing are part of the evolution of an AH player. Buffing and base capture are essential, necessary part of AH continuing to succeed.
If it were all furballers all the time, the new guys would have a much lower retention rate because few newbs like being someone elses hamburger for months on end. Lower retnetion rate means fewer players, and with essentially fixed expenses that means the furballers would be carrying a prohibitive cost load. High costs mean even some good furballers with tighter finances dont play...and the circle gets tighter.
This is not a recipe for business or gameplay success.
So, I argue that AH does need this full range of play options to retain newbs until they're good and addicted. With time, many (tho not all, of course) will end up part of the furballer's fights. If the componenets with shorter learning curves were neutered, AH's survival as a business would likely be less secure.
So we all should stop yammering about the different styles. It makes far more sense to accept the differences, and work to maintain significant social pressure to channel the evolving players away from individual ACTS -- like dropping FHs at FT -- that are dysfunctional to gameplay.
-
And thus the request for the uncapturable FT option on all maps.
When folks finally get through the early stages and get to the point that they play "more and more for the fight", it would be nice if there was a place in the MA to go and do that.
-
I agree with you, Simaril, for the most part. My first ever squadron was a huge bomber squadron, although I was part of the escort contingent I recall the same pattern for all new players. The fundamental point is that of education. While it is true newer players frustrated at attempting to surmount the HUGE learning curve of AH generally relegate themselves to the less challenging aspects of game-play, that should, in no way, be construed as an excuse to conduct themselves in an anti-social/anti-fun manner.
Single noobs in single buff formations is not what is causing the problems. What is causing the problems is a systematic and concerted effort by many newer players and many veterans (who know better) in buffs and jabos attempting and often succeeding to all but erase furballs and meaningfull protracted fights from the maps, including those at formal fightertowns...The only way to mitigate this behavior is to, in various ways, make it known through education that ruining fights for its own sake is frowned upon and not conducive to respect from peers.
Obviously, if new players daunted at the prospect of 6 months+ of getting smacked around in a fighter choose to do other things it is in the best interest of the game and HTC to not discourage buffing and GV'ing. I totally agree with that in the interest of long-term customer retention. Buffing and bombing (with a buff or fighter/bomber) is not the problem per se. The problem is a substantial sub-section of the buff/bombing/jaboing community, who really know better, have taken it upon themselves to misuse their tools to the point where it is drastically interfering and often eliminating the potential for those who strictly enjoy fightering from doing so. If that 'griefing' sub-section is allowed to continue to set this horrible example for the rather large recent influx of new players who are also buffing/bombing/jaboing we are setting a nasty precident that bodes ill for the future of AH and fightering in general...
So, this furball vs. toolshedding debate while perhaps appearing on the surface to be a noob vs. veteran issue really isn't. It is really an issue of trying to break this cycle of veteran, griefing toolshedders breeding an entire generation of newer players who think it is 'cool' to arbitrarily drop FHs, FTs and ruin fights...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Toad
And thus the request for the uncapturable FT option on all maps.
When folks finally get through the early stages and get to the point that they play "more and more for the fight", it would be nice if there was a place in the MA to go and do that.
I agree in the unique situation of FT's some hard-coding that makes them un-capturable would be a good idea. I hate the principle of hard-coded solutions to community behavioral problems in general, however. A large part of the appeal of AH is the virtually un-restricted open-endedness of gameplay. Obviously, there will always be some that abuse that open-endedness to grief. But, that is a behavioral issue, not a coding issue. If we ask HiTech to hard-code solutions to community behavioral problems we are really admitting, as a community, we have failed to set and enforce, by whatever means necessary, rudimentary standards of acceptable conduct. That is not to say, we as a community, cannot at some future point ask him to step in to help. I just think we should exhaust all of our options as a community to solve behavioral problems first before we resort to heavy-handed, restrictive, hard-coded solutions...
Zazen
-
I don't believe there is any "community" enforcement available to ensure "acceptable standards of behavior".
By definition, Griefers strive to provide unacceptable standards of behavior. It is their raison d'etre; it's what gives them the feeling of success.
What options do you have? Squelch them? They relish the idea. Excoriate them on the BBS? More proof of their success, taken as a trophy.
The options in the game allow Griefing; it basically cannot be stopped by the players.
Oh, I suppose if a huge number of players banded together and focused on incipient griefing, you could reduce it. However, even in that event the Griefers win.... other players have been forced to pay attention to them and acknowledge them.
Nope. I don't think this problem can be addressed by the community. It could, however, be relatively easily addressed by HTC. TT's and FT's within rings of 50K mountains, devoid of ord and troops solves the problem. Wouldn't need more than a sector or two of terrain and the "reset" conditions could be adusted to take these bases into account as nulls.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
posted because we all know this topic needs another thread.....:lol
It occurred to me as i read through yet another polarized Mr. Bomberguy vs Mr. Fiighterguy pooo slinging contest, that most all the writers were thinking like experienced players evaluating gameplay from their experienced perspective. While understandable, doing so misses a crucial point.
HTC sees gameplay in a broader perspective -- one that considers player recruitment, player development, and THEN skilled player preferences -- as part of a continuum. For the busiiness to succeed, all three components HAVE TO be addressed in a way that keeps 'em having fun at each stage. And, it seems to me, HTC has to keep them all happy in the same arena at the same time or else the arena numbers would drop too low.
...
Well, one problem is that in too many cases player development stops because the "easy way" works so well.
A newbie will likely get his 1st kill from a HO. And his 2nd. And his 5th. But that's such an easy skill to hone, compared to real ACM, that there's a whole breed who seem to know nothing else.
A newbie will likely get his 1st multi-kill mission from vultching. And his 2nd. And his 5th. But zooming the runway is likewise easier than, like, thinking and there's now a whole breed who do nothing else than buzz fields.
Ahhh ... but there is a mode switch in there which we're forgetting. At first the newbie is thrilled to get that 1st kill and that 1st multi-kill landing. Once he repeats it a few times, that rush is gone - it's under his belt. But what's this? Hey, I get just as many perks and ranks for HO and vultch kills! Why bother with anything else?
And there are parallels for bomber and Jobo guys too. These aren't communal issues as much as basic human behavioral ones - the "path of least resistence" to what the game declares as an "objective." And that declaration can be as subtle as the mere existence of a K/D ratio in the score sheet.
The point of this example is that at some point the game mechanics have to step in and guide players towards an intended path. It needs to balance a reasonable bar setting for newbies so they don't get discouraged with not nerfing things down or rewarding newb-esque techniques to the point where the game descends to their level. That someone can more or less auger into a barracks and ruin a base capture attempt for 20+ people is one such example.
Shaky's proposal for linear base damage is the best idea I've seen to address the toolshedder issue. And something as simple as "no perks for ground kills" (you still get the kill, of course) could give players incentive to at least consider a trade beyond vultching - without robbing the newbs of anything. You don't get perks for manouever kills, afterall, and those are usually come under more duress than vultching.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe there is any "community" enforcement available to ensure "acceptable standards of behavior".
By definition, Griefers strive to provide unacceptable standards of behavior. It is their raison d'etre; it's what gives them the feeling of success.
I hate that until recently I would have argued that you were incorrect on this point. But, I fear you may actually be correct now. I hate to think that the entire concept of 'community' as we knew it has devolved to this sad and sorry state...
Zazen
-
Is it too hard to just play the game and enjoy it your own way in a responsible manner?
All these threads dealing with "My way is better than yours" is getting down right retarded. IMHO you people are thinking way too hard about a game that is meant to keep you from thinking too hard about the stuff in life that really matters. This game is not something in life that really matters. For me, if and when I log in I don't care what you're doing. I jump in to the first thing that looks fun and start playing. Why should I care about what some middle aged over weight, smelly arm chair general is doing in a game 100's of miles a way?
I think some of you people have a little too much time on your hands.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Is it too hard to just play the game and enjoy it your own way in a responsible manner?
Here's an example.
There's one map I truly enjoy, the one with the FT.
It provides that which I seek in this game.
I'd love to log in and play it.
However, it's rarely up and, lately, when it is, the FT portion has been neutralized by pointless base capture.
In short, I'd like to just play the game and enjoy it my own way but that is becoming increasingly difficult.
-
Toad, I understand what you're getting at. The bases up there need to be reworked so only fighters and flacks can be used there. Flacks to help keep away the vulchers.
As far as me and this game is concerned, I'm probably gone for good anyways, so my 2 cents probably isn't worth that.
I am simply saying, that in no way one player completely deny another player the ability to do what he or she wants to do at any given moment. Its just not possible.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
All these threads dealing with "My way is better than yours" is getting down right retarded. IMHO you people are thinking way too hard about a game that is meant to keep you from thinking too hard about the stuff in life that really matters.
You are absolutely right on this point Morph, which is why HTC should coad methods of deterring antisocial behavior and encouraging the type of play HE wants.
Reducing the ability to pork, yet still give a valid reason to run bombers that contribute to the overall objective of the game is one way to do this.
Another is to reduce the incentive to do noting but vulch.
These two items, IMHO, are the two biggest antisocial elements in the game. But who know, HTC may consider those who do nothing but furball on the deck in spits and other twisty planes also detrimential to the overal purpose of gameplay :D
-
Morph,
Your a dweeb pushbutton peelot now. Talk to me when you got a prop on your nose and not a jet up your arse! :D
-
I find it sorta weird that I can take a 190A5 to a small airfield, drop the egg on the radar, take out the manned ack with the rockets, kill the rest of the ack with cannon, kill the troops, destroy the two ammo bunkers, and still have ammo left to vulch with (for a few minutes anyway, until I'm bingo fuel). I don't think that's quite realistic (but it IS fun). Maybe HTC could make things at a base harder to kill...?
-
soon, but not soon enough they will give us rotors on our heads. :D
-
You are absolutely right on this point Morph, which is why HTC should coad methods of deterring antisocial behavior and encouraging the type of play HE wants.
LOL! yeah ok.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe there is any "community" enforcement available to ensure "acceptable standards of behavior".
By definition, Griefers strive to provide unacceptable standards of behavior. It is their raison d'etre; it's what gives them the feeling of success.
What options do you have? Squelch them? They relish the idea. Excoriate them on the BBS? More proof of their success, taken as a trophy.
...
I think the community can handle the corner cases ... like capturing FT and TT and hiding CV's.
But the porkage which goes on all the time has become ingrained into the game and requires changes in the MA to take away the "tools" and rewards that drive the antics.
As long as one player in a Tiffy or La-7 can disbale troops and ord at a base (or 2 or 3), or take down all FH at a base with a formation of Lancs, this stuff will never stop. It's a griefers paradase - they have multiple ways to screw things up for many, many people ... all the time.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think the community can handle the corner cases ... like capturing FT and TT and hiding CV's.
But the porkage which goes on all the time has become ingrained into the game and requires changes in the MA to take away the "tools" and rewards that drive the antics.
As long as one player in a Tiffy or La-7 can disbale troops and ord at a base (or 2 or 3), or take down all FH at a base with a formation of Lancs, this stuff will never stop. It's a griefers paradase - they have multiple ways to screw things up for many, many people ... all the time.
I like Ph's idea as a bandaid fix, just make everything at fields 3 times as 'hard' as it is now. It may not prevent griefing altogether, but it will take 3 times as many of them 3 times as long as it does now...
Zazen
-
Make a relaxed realism arena. Make the full realism settings to blow stuff up alot higher. Maybe even keep Donut up in the full realism arena because its so popular. Maybe less people in the FR arena, but it would give a choice.
-
HT is NOT going to go for a "two arena" setup.
I'd bet the ranch on that one.
-
You'll never get away from the fact it is now a 'win the war' game.
Given that when FT map is up less than a 1/4 of each side seems to be there, I would say the overwhelming majority of people seem to play the 'win the war' side of things.
Now if FT is to be made uncapturable, I want -
The GV area -
Where VH's can't be destroyed.
Where eggs have no effect on GV's.
And that still wouldn't stop someone flying an IL2 in to strafe guys.
Will it happen, I doubt it, same goes for uncapturable FT.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Given that when FT map is up less than a 1/4 of each side seems to be there
I'd have to disagree there. Seems more like 2/3's to me. Add up the people actually fighting and then the 20 or 30 griefers trying to pork and/or capture it, at the very least it's 1/2. Of course when the map gets milkrun close to the point of reset alot leave FT to try to save it, maybe that's where your 1/4 comes from..
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I've noticed many others follow a similar trajectory, with or woithout the added attraction of GVs. I think many who get addicted and stick it out end up fighter guys, though some just like buffing/GVs for their own sake.
Probably snipped a bit too much but I think you've got a point. Heard Lazerus say he started off as a buff pilot for a long time, and pretty sure I've heard Morph say the same? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Heck, when I first crawled onto this beach, first words out of my mouth were "DOES ANYONE NEED A GUNNER??????????" :lol
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Now if FT is to be made uncapturable, I want -
The GV area -
Where VH's can't be destroyed.
Where eggs have no effect on GV's.
And that still wouldn't stop someone flying an IL2 in to strafe guys.
Will it happen, I doubt it, same goes for uncapturable FT.
No one is asking for FH's that can't be destroyed. I'm asking for a place where the fields can't be captured and ord is disabled. I see no reason why a TT area couldn't be handled in the same way.
No one is asking for a place where aircraft can't be shot down by GV's either.
Re-read it.
TT's and FT's within rings of 50K mountains, devoid of ord and troops solves the problem. Wouldn't need more than a sector or two of terrain and the "reset" conditions could be adusted to take these bases into account as nulls.
You'd get a blocked off TT with no ord or troops. You'd get a TT with no aircraft while FT would have to put up with GV's from the Airfield VH.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
I'd have to disagree there. Seems more like 2/3's to me. Add up the people actually fighting and then the 20 or 30 griefers trying to pork and/or capture it, at the very least it's 1/2. Of course when the map gets milkrun close to the point of reset alot leave FT to try to save it, maybe that's where your 1/4 comes from..
Zazen
No way is 2/3 of the logged on players at FT.
Even a quick glimpse at the darbars on the map shows that your WAY off.
Always more full darbars all over the map.
I stand by around 1/4.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
No way is 2/3 of the logged on players at FT.
Even a quick glimpse at the darbars on the map shows that your WAY off.
Always more full darbars all over the map.
I stand by around 1/4.
Ummm Kev, do you realize dar bars are relative numeric indicators? Meaning a full dar bar could be 10 people or 1000 people? It's a graphical numeric comparison of friendlies to enemies within a given sector... So, 10 people in a sector vs. noone would be a full dar bar and 100 friendlies vs. 100 enemies at FT would just be one full dar bar vs. another full dar bar...So, the dar bars for a sector with 10 enemy and 5 friendly would look the exact same as a sector with 100 enemy and 50 friendly, it would be a full dar bar vs. half a dar bar...In other words, all full dar bars are not created equal....So, you looking at the map and seeing 2 full dar bars at FT and 8 full dar bars elsewhere on the map does not mean there's 4 times as many people elsewhere on the map than at FT...Those two bars at FT could represent 200 people and the 8 full bars elsewhere could represent 80 people total, it's all in relative proportion to forces arrayed within a given sector...
(I'm just using arbitrary numbers for explanation purposes)
Zazen
-
Yes I realise and it still doesn't change my opinion.
Looking around the FT map there are always way more playing the 'land grab' / 'win the war' game.
Would have thoguht the CT would have been a perfect arena for furballers, no land grabbing just historical matchups.
Anyway as I said, the uncapturable base thing wont happen, if it's at all possible.
I would guess it is an arena setting and not possible on individual bases.
Map designers/CM's would have a better idea.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
No way is 2/3 of the logged on players at FT.
Even a quick glimpse at the darbars on the map shows that your WAY off.
Always more full darbars all over the map.
I stand by around 1/4.
Lesse ... on an average night there's usually between 350 and 400 people in the MA during peak hours. No way there's even 200 people packed into FT. If there were, frame rates would plummet and there'd be all manner of whinage about "you give us FT but the frames are so bad we can't use it."
I'd say 1/4 is a very generous estimate.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Lesse ... on an average night there's usually between 350 and 400 people in the MA during peak hours. No way there's even 200 people packed into FT. If there were, frame rates would plummet and there'd be all manner of whinage about "you give us FT but the frames are so bad we can't use it."
I'd say 1/4 is a very generous estimate.
Framerates do get chunky at FT during prime-time...Especially if the fight within visual range contains more than 50 planes. The numbers only affect FR's at FT that are within visual range of one another. So there could very well be 200 people there, all totalled, people in GV's, buffs alting away from the center lake, planes at various stages of taking off and RTB'ing, PT boats (groan) and fighters furballing, vulching, porking, etc. spread throughout the 3 base area, but not all of them anywhere close to within visual range of one another...I can assure you, as someone who lives there when Donut is up, during prime-time there is waaay more than 100 total people at FT...200 would probably be about right for peak hours...assuming of course no toolshedding griefers have ruined it already...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
...200 would probably be about right for peak hours...assuming of course no toolshedding griefers have ruined it already...
(http://www.gonzoville.com/share/files/1/Files/BeatDeadHorse.gif)
-
Funny Dok you say Zaz is beating a dead horse, but yet here you stand with you stick taking your whacks. You don't like the topic, go away and STFU. You guys keep crying about the same old topic, here is a news flash.. IF you don't post the topic goes away. :aok ;)
I would think it is evenly split. FT always has a large number of participants. If it didn't you guys wouldn't even be here trying to say it doesn't. Even if it doesn't there are at least 50 to 100 people prime time, so whay wouldn't HT want to accomodate them as well as you tool heros. You have the rest of the frilkin map, do you really need three more bases to play your game. Sheeesh.
Would have thoguht the CT would have been a perfect arena for furballers, no land grabbing just historical matchups.
Again, other arenas don't work well because people gravitate to the MA. Why, cause that is where everyone is and goes.
But then I could make an equally narrow sighted statement and say, I would think Offline play would be perfect for you tool shedders. Same incorrect logic.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Funny Dok you say Zaz is beating a dead horse, but yet here you stand with you stick taking your whacks. You don't like the topic, go away and STFU. You guys keep crying about the same old topic, here is a news flash.. IF you don't post the topic goes away. :aok ;)
Haha, no kidding mars. Dok reminds me of a little kid with a scab on his knee that just can't stop picking at it, even if doing so is painfull and makes it bleed, he just can't help himself. Then once it gets inflamed and infected he tries to blame others for his discomfort..:lol
Zazen
-
Originally posted by mars01
I would think it is evenly split. FT always has a large number of participants. If it didn't you guys wouldn't even be here trying to say it doesn't. Even if it doesn't there are at least 50 to 100 people prime time, so whay wouldn't HT want to accomodate them as well as you tool heros. You have the rest of the frilkin map, do you really need three more bases to play your game. Sheeesh.
Well considering prime time now has in excess of 500 players usually, I would hardly say 50 to 100 is an 'even split'.
In fact you've just reduced my estimate of 1/4, down to 1/5 maximum.
So the question becomes -
Is it economically sound for HT to spend the time changing code to accomodate around 20% (maximum) of the players?
Or spend his time on other parts of the game affecting 80% of the players?
Know what I'd be doing.
Don't get me wrong, I just think the time required to change the code wouldn't be worth it with other projects (TOD, bug-fixes, patches etc) ongoing.
-
LOL kev,
That is an guesstimate, I have no hard numbers, nor have I been able to log enough hours.
"Even if it doesn't there are at least 50 to 100 people prime time"
I said at least because I am not counting cons I am fighting. But from my limited time there I think there are plenty that enjoy FT to make it worth the effort.
Now if you are saying all of HTC will forget about all the old loyal customers as he tries to develope TOD for the new ones then that will be a mistake.
-
I would say a 100+ is about right for FT. Players are popping in & out of FT all the time. Furballers & toolshedders alike. I think most "capture" players are like me... they like to get low and turn & burn at times too. So odds are 98% all players would like to see an FT on all the maps.
Where this discussion falls apart for me is the so called Furballs outside of FT areas... it looks to me that some think that anytime a fuball forms it needs to be "off limits" to capture attacks. So they can have their fun without anyone bugging them. On that I am having a hard time feeling the love for...
So the sooner we get more maps with FT on them the happier we will all be.
CAVALRY
-
Originally posted by mars01
LOL kev,
That is an guesstimate, I have no hard numbers, nor have I been able to log enough hours.
"Even if it doesn't there are at least 50 to 100 people prime time"
I said at least because I am not counting cons I am fighting. But from my limited time there I think there are plenty that enjoy FT to make it worth the effort.
Now if you are saying all of HTC will forget about all the old loyal customers as he tries to develope TOD for the new ones then that will be a mistake.
Understood it was guesstimate, and I don't think you're far off.
Not a question of forgetting, but prioritising. Where do you put your main effort / resources?
Only a small company after all.
-
Originally posted by CAV
IWhere this discussion falls apart for me is the so called Furballs outside of FT areas... it looks to me that some think that anytime a fuball forms it needs to be "off limits" to capture attacks. So they can have their fun without anyone bugging them. On that I am having a hard time feeling the love for...
CAVALRY
That's not it at all actually. The problem is the toolshedding griefers floating around heavy (bomber or jabo) dropping FH's that are not attempting or part of any capture attempt at all. We have no problems with base capturing in and of itself even if it means the end of a good fight. To the victor go the spoils and whatnot...The problem is griefers who are toolshedding FHs down for the sole reason of ending good fights for which they have some irrational contempt...
Zazen
-
That's not it at all actually. The problem is the toolshedding griefers floating around heavy (bomber or jabo) dropping FH's that are not attempting or part of any capture attempt at all. I have no problems with base capturing in and of itself even if it means the end of a good fight. To the victor go the spoils and whatnot...The problem is griefers who are toolshedding FHs down for the sole reason of ending good fights for which they have some irrational contempt...
I would have to agree with this. The question is, the guys that have no intention of capturing a base but drop the hangers... What camp are they in Griefers or Toolshedders?
-
I think alot of them are either new, trying stuff out, or bored, or thinking they are helping, or they tried to get a goon in twice and the fighters werent keeping the enemy down, so they took the matter in their own hands.
This is like the 20th thread in the past two weeks on the matter. The fact is, no matter how much people complain, or try to teach people to take the town first and the hangers as a last resort, there will always be Mike4673 that will come into the game and just go bomb stuff.
The best thing to do is accept that this is the design of the game at the moment, and hopefully future changes will allow fights to continue during base capture attempts.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
The fact is, no matter how much people complain, or try to teach people to take the town first and the hangers as a last resort, there will always be Mike4673 that will come into the game and just go bomb stuff.
The problem isn't random noob #786214 acting alone and with random incompetance befitting a newbie. The problem is the highly co-ordinated effort to grief FHs/fights for it's own sake by noobs who are having their puppet strings operated by a few veteran players who definately know better, but do it anyway just to get some attention and watermelon on other's fun. The part that needs to be balanced by HTC is the incredibly disproportionate negative impact a relatively small fraction of the community is having on a much larger fraction.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by mars01
Funny Dok you say Zaz is beating a dead horse, but yet here you stand with you stick taking your whacks. You don't like the topic, go away and STFU. You guys keep crying about the same old topic, here is a news flash.. IF you don't post the topic goes away. :aok ;)
Read the thread ... carefully ... I'd let it drop ... Your Hero is the one who let his agenda creep back into things ... and now, once he has another follower - especially a BK (he's a groupie, you know), he's cranking up the personal attacks again, with you as his ally.
Soooo ... now that a couple of BK's say that FT usually is around 100 people, what say ye, Zazen? Lets see that awesome New Math kick in.
This thread was making progress, but Your Hero has to keep slinging the same rhetoric which just side tracks things into the argument he wants to prolong and into getting his agenda forwarded. That's NOT the same as trying to find a solution which works for everyone, that's just trying to get "your way."
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
T... The problem is the highly co-ordinated effort to grief FHs/fights for it's own sake by noobs who are having their puppet strings operated by a few veteran players who definately know better, but do it anyway just to get some attention and watermelon on other's fun. ...
See what I mean, Mars?
-
Solutions that work for everyone have been proposed many times.
It's that implementation phase..............
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
That's not it at all actually. The problem is the toolshedding griefers floating around heavy (bomber or jabo) dropping FH's that are not attempting or part of any capture attempt at all.
What exactly is your method for determining that hangers are being dropped for a caputre or not?
Is it a pre-determined period of time?
"Damn! Hangers down. I'll wait 2 minutes to see if the base is captured, if not I'm gonna be pissed because they are just dropping the hangers to spoil my fun!"
With so much going on, how in the he11 can you determine why some hangers were dropped? Maybe some inside knowledge as to if there are any goons otw?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Solutions that work for everyone have been proposed many times.
It's that implementation phase..............
Yeah ... and until CT is out (and patched a couple times) this is all moot because HTC doesn't likely have resources to work on the MA now.
But some small things ...like removing ord and troops from FT ... cranking hardness on ground targets ... those are just arena settings. That could be done.
-
Most guys trying to take a base want the FH/BH's useable for the next attack. The thing is few attacks go as planned...
1) The attack comes in... drops the VH.
2) kills the AAA.
3) Starts working the town.
4) Caps the base...
All looks well.... But fighters are upping faster than the cap can kill, Goons are having a hard time getting in.
To many fighters are getting up for the attack to work....
Attacking force goes to plan B.... Dropping the FH's stopping the uppers.
Goons goes in... base is taken.
Happens each night in the MA.... How do you tell the who the griefers are?
Most all furballs start as a base capture attack right? Do attacks have to stop if a furball forms?
I was thinking a fix for this.......
Why do we need to kill the town at all to take a base? Maybe just make it that the town can't be at a 100%, some part of the town has to be down for the troops to count.
And why not up the number troops needed to take a target... I do not know what good number is but say 100 troops (10 goons loads) no time limits for the capture. Once you get the right number of troops in it is your. Harden the things on the base some. Fix the other targets (factories) so they have more of an effect on game play. (type of planes, Ammo, Fuel, etc) So the buff driver have a reason to fly.
Now you you no longer need to kill everthing on a base to capture it... but if needed it can be... just harder to do. Missions goes from killing and capping a base, to covering goons to target area. No need to bomb the place to the ground.... just AAA, GV's stuff's.
So furballs still happen, maybe larger ones, Captures still happen just a new way to do it.
But what do I know...
CAVALRY
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
But some small things ...like removing ord and troops from FT ... cranking hardness on ground targets ... those are just arena settings. That could be done.
I actually think this might be enough. (Include TT with FT in the ord/troops thing tho)
And indeed...it's just arena settings.
So why is it not done already?
I think the reason may be that HT does not see it the same way you or I do, perhaps.
-
Cav ... because what'd happen then is you make base capture "easy" enough to be griefable. You'd have furballs going on and they'd sneak in M3's and Osties and take the entire base right under the furball. You'd only need 2 people.
Toad ... I dunno why ... some of these changes seem pretty obvious improvements ... FT seems like a no-brainer ... but we don't see the stats HT does on player influx.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
What exactly is your method for determining that hangers are being dropped for a caputre or not?
[
No CAP, no troops, town is completely up, VH and ack are still up. Yet they come and drop FHs. Then instead of attempting capture after they've killed the fight there they then just take their eggs to wherever another fight is and ruin that too, rinse n' repeat ad infinitum...
Zazen
-
because what'd happen then is you make base capture "easy" enough to be griefable. You'd have furballs going on and they'd sneak in M3's and Osties and take the entire base right under the furball. You'd only need 2 people
I do not think a 100 troops into the target is all that EZ.
FT is off limits to attack... I am OK with that. But in the main battle area of the MA.... Why is a attack going in under a Furball and taking base "in the main battle area" a bad thing? I am talking bases outside of any FT on the maps.
CAVALRY
-
Originally posted by CAV
I do not think a 100 troops into the target is all that EZ.
FT is off limits to attack... I am OK with that. But in the main battle area of the MA.... Why is a attack going in under a Furball and taking base "in the main battle area" a bad thing? I am talking bases outside of any FT on the maps.
Ooops ... my bad ... just saw the part about reducing the number of buildings to kill.
What you propose would work in theory, but look how much trouble it is getting just one guy to fly a goon sometimes.
-
So the question becomes -
Is it economically sound for HT to spend the time changing code to accomodate around 20% (maximum) of the players?
Or spend his time on other parts of the game affecting 80% of the players?
No coad needs to be changed to satisfy at least 99% of the problem currently in FT ... as I see it
1) Disable all ordinance and troops at all FT fields.
This elimnates JABOs from griefing and it also will prevent the resupply of C-47s with troops if the base was taken from an attack outside of FT.
2)Disable all bombers at all FT fields.
This might be overkill, cause if there is no ordinance, you can't lift a bomber, but disable them anyway.
3) Disable all GVs at all FT fields ... with the exception of M-16s, Jeeps, and Ostwinds.
This effectively allows each field to put up and anti-vulch crew if needed.
These changes, I don't believe require any coading changes, and in effect neuters all FT fields from causing grief on themselfs.
These changes still allows the fields to be taken from attacks that start from the outside of FT, if needed to win the war, but it will have to be a real concerted effort to accomplish the capture.
If a FT field does get captured, then an organized effort (like the one the Karaya pulled off) will be needed to get things back in order.
-
You forgot:
Make FT FH's unkillable
Prevents bombers from outside FT from killing FH.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
You forgot:
Make FT FH's unkillable
Prevents bombers from outside FT from killing FH.
Is that setting available on a per field basis ?
or ... make all FT fields large fields. That would require some serious effort from the outside to take out all FHs at a large field.
Is AAA lethality a per field setting ? If so, crank it up to max at each FT field.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
What exactly is your method for determining that hangers are being dropped for a caputre or not?
Is it a pre-determined period of time?
"Damn! Hangers down. I'll wait 2 minutes to see if the base is captured, if not I'm gonna be pissed because they are just dropping the hangers to spoil my fun!"
With so much going on, how in the he11 can you determine why some hangers were dropped? Maybe some inside knowledge as to if there are any goons otw?
Easy ... you can tell what by what they brought to the party.
If its just bombers bombing FHs, with no escort, cap fighters, and town killers in tow ... you can almost bet the farm that this is not a capture attempt.
If its just JABOs (and auger after releasing ord), with no cap fighters and town killers in tow ... you can almost bet the farm that this is not a capture attempt.
-
FT is off limits to attack... I am OK with that. But in the main battle area of the MA.... Why is a attack going in under a Furball and taking base "in the main battle area" a bad thing? I am talking bases outside of any FT on the maps.
It's not, it's just frustrating when the map has not FT.
As many have stated 99.999% of the furballers have no problem when the fur stops flying because a group took the field. Yes it sucks, but we understand that others are playing their game and we'll accept that.
It's not the base taking that is the problem it is the maroons that just come in and drop the hangers without any intention or knowledge of a pending capture.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Is that setting available on a per field basis ?
or ... make all FT fields large fields. That would require some serious effort from the outside to take out all FHs at a large field.
Is AAA lethality a per field setting ? If so, crank it up to max at each FT field.
I think FT are all large fields already?
Making hangars unkillable may not be an arena setting, but it should be a terrain setting that's pretty easy to change (i.e. make the required bomb tonnage for those building ID's way high). Probably take longer to recompile the terrain file than make the actual changes.
Cranking AAA lethality would just lead to more defensive play - it'd become easier to hide in the ack than shoot people down. Better to crank down the rebuild time. If that's possible on a per-field basis. Then shooting out the acks only has a very limited return for the risk.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yeah ... and until CT is out (and patched a couple times) this is all moot because HTC doesn't likely have resources to work on the MA now.
But some small things ...like removing ord and troops from FT ... cranking hardness on ground targets ... those are just arena settings. That could be done.
So the hardness etc should be cranked up for three bases, side effect being that it affects EVERY base on the map? ( Arena setting )
So 80% should have to put up with changes to satisfy 20%?
I would assume removing ord etc from fields would require a 'custom' tile, as I don't believe it is removeable on a base by base case.
Map designers would have a better grip on this part of it.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
So the hardness etc should be cranked up for three bases, side effect being that it affects EVERY base on the map? ( Arena setting )
So 80% should have to put up with changes to satisfy 20%?
Increasing base hardness overall would improve the whole game for everyone. Especially on small maps, it would make fights and the small maps last longer. It would also make heavy bombers more necessary and in doing so less stigmatized. Dropping the key functionality of a base with a single heavy fighter would become impractical (as it should be).
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Increasing base hardness overall would improve the whole game for everyone. Especially on small maps, it would make fights and the small maps last longer. It would also make heavy bombers more necessary and in doing so less stigmatized. Dropping the key functionality of a base with a single heavy fighter would become impractical (as it should be).
Zazen
Of course this is the response I was expecting.
A good excuse for getting your own way, and imposing your minority groups wants on the majority.
IF the changes can be done on a base by base basis, I'd say go for it. But NOTHING should affect the rest of MA fields.
-
Cranking AAA lethality would just lead to more defensive play - it'd become easier to hide in the ack than shoot people down.
From all the times that I have partaken in the FT fun ... the action has always been over the lake and never really close to a field.
If the fight is pushed back to a field, then I have no problem with people lingering in the laser super-duper ack due to the fact that if they are starting to pick people off at bases ... then the vulch light has been lit, and thats not what FT is about either. It would cause them to back off back to the middle of the lake ... where the fight belongs.
The super-duper ack would be more for the tardz that lift an La-7 ... scream across the lake and thru the furball ... hoping that they can pick off somebody just lifting for that one or two SPECIAL killz ... leet.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Of course this is the response I was expecting.
A good excuse for getting your own way, and imposing your minority groups wants on the majority.
Don't confuse an excuse for excellent reasoning...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Don't confuse an excuse for excellent reasoning...
Zazen
If changes can made be to FT bases and them ALONE, go for it.
NOTHING should affect the rest of MA fields.
And yes it is an excuse for trying to get your own way.
Maybe then we can get the rest of the MA fields back to 25% fuel porking.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Of course this is the response I was expecting.
A good excuse for getting your own way, and imposing your minority groups wants on the majority.
IF the changes can be done on a base by base basis, I'd say go for it. But NOTHING should affect the rest of MA fields.
Listen ... Zazen is an individual ... one of many in AH and on this BBS.
Do not confuse for one second that he speaks for a group, nor should you confuse me as speaking for a group ... much like I don't consider you speaking for a group. We speak for ourselfs.
Yes there are groups of people who agree on the points that are brought forth in these threads ... but no one elected just one individual to speak for them all.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
So the hardness etc should be cranked up for three bases, side effect being that it affects EVERY base on the map? ( Arena setting )
So 80% should have to put up with changes to satisfy 20%?
I would assume removing ord etc from fields would require a 'custom' tile, as I don't believe it is removeable on a base by base case.
Map designers would have a better grip on this part of it.
For FT I'd say make FH pretty much unkillable. I'm pretty sure it's possible to disable ord at a base with arena settings - that's something scenarios would want so I'll wager it's in there - no map change needed.
But for an arena-wide setting I think making ord, bar, AAA all require at least rockets to take out is a step in the right direction. That reduces the porking ability of Jabos a lot.
I still like Shaky's idea best of all - it'd work well everywhere.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Don't confuse an excuse for excellent reasoning...
(http://www.gonzoville.com/share/files/1/Files/LotFB.jpg)
-
Cranking AAA lethality would just lead to more defensive play - it'd become easier to hide in the ack than shoot people down.
In FT this shouldn't be much of a problem because most people are there to fight. If a group gets pushed back to their field and the pursuers keep the press-on then they should get killed. This will allow time for the fur to move back to middle or at least away from the base.
-
One important fact you guys seem to be forgetting...the last time there was a major community problem with the FT fields on donut, donut was not seen for how long? And the threats not to see donut again...ever?
HTC has pretty much established, by that action, that they do not want to split the community into either seperate arenas, or seperate parts of the same arena. This kinda gives you an idea of the kind of gameplay they envision for the MA. Thus, its in everybodies intrest, but especially the twisty plane crowd, to work towards a solution that HTC will actually listen to, and implement.
-
Originally posted by mars01
In FT this shouldn't be much of a problem because most people are there to fight. If a group gets pushed back to their field and the pursuers keep the press-on then they should get killed. This will allow time for the fur to move back to middle or at least away from the base.
Precisely, this is the whole reason I took it upon myself to master the 37mm and help others master it. To push fights away from fields and create furballs and fun fights for everyone where there would otherwise just be vulching...
Zazen
-
Shaky a FT on all maps with the non code changes that have been mentioned will solve this problem. The fact that HT has not done this already tells me he either doesn't care about or see this as an issue or he likes the friction.
Honestly I wish he would go one way or the other. I.E. solve the problem as in above or kill things like donut. At least if he does the latter then I can just leave AH and move on. The way it is now my squaddies and the hope that things will eventually be changed and get better, once CT is done, is the only thing keeping me hanging on.
-
Originally posted by mars01
It's not, it's just frustrating when the map has not FT.
As many have stated 99.999% of the furballers have no problem when the fur stops flying because a group took the field. Yes it sucks, but we understand that others are playing their game and we'll accept that.
It's not the base taking that is the problem it is the maroons that just come in and drop the hangers without any intention or knowledge of a pending capture.
For sake of argument, if the person who dropped the hangers thought he was doing so to squelch a base capture event, it would look like griefing to you but is really part of the "war."
That is, someone logs on, sees a "furball" close to a base, assumes the other side is attempting a capture and his side is defending well. To help with the defense, and to initiate a counter-attack, he tries to drop the fighter hangers from the perceived attacking field.
On small maps, I just don't see how you could possibly hope to distinguish the "chosen furball fields" from base captures gone awry, and therefore could not properly devine someone's intentions when they drop FHs.
-
Yeah I agree that is one of the grey areas and I accept that. But that is not what is happening every time. IMO that is why a FT on each map is such a great solution.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
NOTHING should affect the rest of MA fields.
As if the current gameplay in the rest MA is worth preserving.
Aces Horde?
Hordewarrior?
Steamroll and Conquer?
The whole game needs a gameplay/strat tuneup, in addition to dedicated FT/TT on every map.
Something for everyone.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
One important fact you guys seem to be forgetting...the last time there was a major community problem with the FT fields on donut, donut was not seen for how long? And the threats not to see donut again...ever?
HTC has pretty much established, by that action, that they do not want to split the community into either seperate arenas, or seperate parts of the same arena. This kinda gives you an idea of the kind of gameplay they envision for the MA. Thus, its in everybodies intrest, but especially the twisty plane crowd, to work towards a solution that HTC will actually listen to, and implement.
If that were true, and the fact that every other thread created within the last 2-3 weeks is causing more discussion (note the word discussion) on the subject, HT would have slammed the hammer long ago and "donut" would not be a reality.
I believe that he is carefully watching the discussion and will eventually weigh in on the subject ... I hope ... one way or another.
Thus, its in everybodies intrest, but especially the twisty plane crowd ...
What's up with that ? ... I believe that the twist crowd has tried every which way but loose to come up with a solution (much like the posts above) that could be implemented to satisfy all.
What have the non-twisty plane crowd added to solve the problem ? ... please point out all their ideas ... outside of ... go to the DA.
Simplest solution ... stay the heck away from FT unless you coming to join in the "fight" (Air to Air combat), but we all know that that is not possible due to the nature of some to have to "grief" to get their jollys in this game.
-
Originally posted by E25280
For sake of argument, if the person who dropped the hangers thought he was doing so to squelch a base capture event, it would look like griefing to you but is really part of the "war."
That is, someone logs on, sees a "furball" close to a base, assumes the other side is attempting a capture and his side is defending well. To help with the defense, and to initiate a counter-attack, he tries to drop the fighter hangers from the perceived attacking field.
On small maps, I just don't see how you could possibly hope to distinguish the "chosen furball fields" from base captures gone awry, and therefore could not properly devine someone's intentions when they drop FHs.
Good point.
The answer is simple ... fly in the fur for a little while and judge if this is really fur flying or it's a botched/stalled capture attempt. Also, get in the air and ask some fellow countrymen ... is this a botched capture or is this just a furball ? Depending on the answer you get, make your decision.
If I was flying in furball and you asked on vox or country text ... I would tell ya what I though and would recommend to leave it alone, or go bomb them and slow them down.
Simple ... right ?
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
If that were true, and the fact that every other thread created within the last 2-3 weeks is causing more discussion (note the word discussion) on the subject, HT would have slammed the hammer long ago and "donut" would not be a reality.
I believe that he is carefully watching the discussion and will eventually weigh in on the subject ... I hope ... one way or another.
That's exactly right. HiTech/HTC reads all these posts. They aggressively edit/delete/close posts/threads they feel contribute nothing to the community and/or the development of the game. The fact that HTC is not intervening to end this discussion is proof positive they see some redeeming value in it from a future game development perspective...This is their corporate website, they would not allow threads with no actual or potential value to the game continue to exist.
Wether they can glean any ideas from these discussions that they deem worthy of future implimentation only time will tell. But, aside from the odd back-handed personal slights I feel there is alot of constructive posting on this issue and some great ideas for making better an already very fine game. The whole reason we are having this problem is largely due to a very large recent influx of new players not privy to long since established community standards of conduct, so it's all good, for us and HTC, in the end...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Good point.
The answer is simple ... fly in the fur for a little while and judge if this is really fur flying or it's a botched/stalled capture attempt. Also, get in the air and ask some fellow countrymen ... is this a botched capture or is this just a furball ? Depending on the answer you get, make your decision.
If I was flying in furball and you asked on vox or country text ... I would tell ya what I though and would recommend to leave it alone, or go bomb them and slow them down.
Simple ... right ?
In theory, sure. Then . . .
5 people tell you they're just furballing. 7 people say "drop the hangers". 4 people say "I dunno, I just got here". 1 person a half sector away says "I'm in a goon, I need cover." 6 people don't respond. 2 begin whining because during all that, they couldn't hear the "check six" calls. Besides all that, you have to decide what the other side is truly thinking as well. So in practice . . .
I suppose I could have just said, "In the small maps, I don't think there is a such thing as a pure furball."
-
I suppose I could have just said, "In the small maps, I don't think there is a such thing as a pure furball."
BINGO! Now your getting it.
And that is the problem. There used to be.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Precisely, this is the whole reason I took it upon myself to master the 37mm and help others master it. To push fights away from fields and create furballs and fun fights for everyone where there would otherwise just be vulching...
You let your fuballing minions go off to die while you sat in your luxurious AAA bunker?
Blashpemer!
Cardinal Fang, fetch the Comfy Chair!
(http://www.montypythonpages.com/pictures/gilliam_redbig_sm.jpg)
... but, really, we all know that's not the "whole reason" ...
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
... The fact that HTC is not intervening to end this discussion is proof positive they see some redeeming value in it from a future game development perspective... This is their corporate website, they would not allow threads with no actual or potential value to the game continue to exist. ...
Like the various BK threads.
Maybe HT just needs a good laugh once in a while.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As if the current gameplay in the rest MA is worth preserving.
Aces Horde?
Hordewarrior?
Steamroll and Conquer?
Doesn't matter, your missing the point.
If thats the way the majority want to play, thats the way they'll play, like it or not.
Any changes to FT's on maps should not affect the way the majority seem to want to play the game.
Just because their style of play doesn't sit well with you doesn't make them wrong and you right.
OR vice versa.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
If thats the way the majority want to play, thats the way they'll play, like it or not.
Nor does it mean that HT can't see what a clusterfox it is and reshape gameplay as he sees fit.
Clearly it needs some reshaping. Surely you are not so ostrich as to be unable to see that?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Like the various BK threads.
The BK threads are an interesting commentary on the vagaries of group dynamics within the game. I find them quite interesting as does HiTech I am sure...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Doesn't matter, your missing the point.
If thats the way the majority want to play, thats the way they'll play, like it or not.
Any changes to FT's on maps should not affect the way the majority seem to want to play the game.
Just because their style of play doesn't sit well with you doesn't make them wrong and you right.
OR vice versa.
But ask the next question. Why do they want to play that way? Because it's easy and, more importantly, it works. The fact that it works is not something that community standards can change. It's the mechanics of the MA. And you're right, they've needed a overhaul for a while.
But at this moment in time HTC is more focused on CT. I don't think any of us know what the impact of that will be. But I'll give you furballers something scary to ponder:
When scenarios first cranked up, players who fell in love with that format started looking at the MA's as merely places to practice. Since CT centers on group operations, think about what happens to the MA if it catches on. All these new mini-hordes of land-grabbin', hangar-bustin', sheep-pokin' Ubergenerals pouring into the MA. Practicing their craft. Not caring about anything but getting their bombers to target and popping every ground structure. Or going up in gruppes of 190's and B&Z'ing every low furball to dust.
... And ya ... tell me ... over and over and over again, my friend ... ya can't believe ... we're on the eve ... of destruction.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nor does it mean that HT can't see what a clusterfox it is and reshape gameplay as he sees fit.
Clearly it needs some reshaping. Surely you are not so ostrich as to be unable to see that?
Doesn't matter what I see or what I think is wrong.
If the majority of players are happy with things the way they are, or playing the game the way they do, who am I to force my style of play of them.
The gist of the whole thread is our way is the right way of playing AH2, the majority is wrong, therefore our changes should be implemented EVEN if it affects the everyone else.
As I said IF the changes proposed can be implemented in FT WITHOUT altering anything else then I don't see why it shouldn't happen.
I just don't think without custom tiles / fields it is possible, plus the conditions for resetting the map would also need changing.
Why would he alter gameplay when it seems the majority as happy with things the way they are?
[edit] Had an idea. One of the problems is guys in their uber boosted late war rides cherry picking furballs from what I can gather.
Why not support the inclusion of mist / fog in the game. From what I recall the Saturday HT tried it out on the MA it was impossible to sit at high alt and see the low alt cons below. This would get a large backing from the general players.
Make it random times, random durations.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Doesn't matter what I see or what I think is wrong.
If the majority of players are happy with things the way they are, or playing the game the way they do, who am I to force my style of play of them.
I think you are over-simplifying the role of the game developer. While noone will really know for certain what the majority is/wants, short of a 1 vote per paid account poll on each and every issue it's safe to say HiTech has a grand vision.
If anything was learned from AW it was complacency is fatal. It was developmental complacency that initially opened the door for a market for AH in the first place and coined the infamous phrase from developers, "Coming in 2 weeks", which is like a bar with a sign that says, "Free Beer Tomorrow".
As we saw with the ENY thingy there are changes that we asked for, there are changes that occur as a result of HiTech's grand vision of the evolution of the game and there are changes we get not because we want them per se, but because we need them for our own collective good, HTC's and ours as a community...Discussions like these can be a catalyst for any or all 3 types of changes. AH is not a democracy, the community is expanding and changing demographically, HiTech has a finger on the pulse of the game, these forums are one way for him to more fully understand what changes are needed amidst this game in constant flux.
So, while these discussions may seem like a pissing contest, they really serve an important purpose. In a very real way we, as representatives of the community who choose to participate on these forums, along with HiTech and his staff, are actively partipipating in the dynamic evolutionary development of this product. Without discussions such as these and participation on these forums HiTech and staff would have to do alot of guessing about what works and what doesn't in the game which is tricky business for an ever-changing massively multi-player game. We take the guess-work out of the development cycle in effect making HTC the best game developer they can be...
Zazen
-
"What is causing the problems is a systematic and concerted effort by many newer players and many veterans (who know better) in buffs and jabos attempting and often succeeding to all but erase furballs and meaningfull protracted fights from the maps, including those at formal fightertowns..."
I read zazens reply up to that point. Paranoid, ignorant, arrogant, geez - There really isnt anything he could possibly ever say that could erase that evaluation. The maps we play on have quite a few bases, with a variety of vehicles/planes and spawn points. Somebody who wants to fly around in a bomber while online has just as mucha right to do it as someone who prefers fighters. How anyone could be so stupid as to think that AH2 was designed only for them escapes me.
The darwinian element of the original thread is so arrogant and ridiculous I can't believe I made it as far as Zazens reply. Your 19th century logic is boring in the extreme.
There is a dueling arena for anyone who wants protracted 1v1 fights. DOn't bore the rest of us with your silly accusations and moronic logic
The "fighter town" you are so proud of doesn't provide protracted 1v1 and it has nothing to do with idiots trying to bomb the hangars. The word "Furball" and the expression "protracted duel" simply don't belong in the same sentence. A furball has nothing to do with ACM's, dueling, or anything else.
A furball is for lazy dweebs who for whatever reason aren't interested in participating in the game with everyone else. Thats cool - do whatever you want - but somehow bringing skill level, experience, evolution, etc into your stupid argument is just, well, nonsense. Of course I'm wasting my breath here, because many of you don't function at a high enough level to understand what I'm talking about.
-
Agreed Zazen, the difference is the majority of players wanted some kind of change regarding countries with overwhelming numbers.
I'm sure if changes can be made to FT that doesn't affect the rest of the arena you'll get them...eventually.
They have a lot on their plate at the moment.
Will disagree with one point - I think we CAN safely say that the people who fly in FT are definately in the minority of the AH population. I think the 100 or so guesstimate is pretty much in the ballpark, and thats out of 500+ players overall.
-
Originally posted by shiningpathb4me
[BA furball has nothing to do with ACM's, dueling, or anything else.
A furball is for lazy dweebs who for whatever reason aren't interested in participating in the game with everyone else. [/B]
WoW! so much anger and ignorance all at once, freaky!!
Put down the crack-pipe and step away slowly with your hands up! :O
I don't know (or care) who you are or what planet you're from but......;)
I think we've un-masked one of the culprits that eggs FHs to kill fights simply because of some irrational disdain for people who enjoy air to air combat for it's own sake...:aok
Zazen
-
What's up with that ? ... I believe that the twist crowd has tried every which way but loose to come up with a solution (much like the posts above) that could be implemented to satisfy all.
[/B]
I've made several suggestions, as DoK has...neither of us are "furball" types....we used to call them "SpitDweebs" :)
Changing the FH drops to analog (to use DoKs term) and ensuring that you will always be able to up some type of fighter (yes, even a P40) will go a long way to guaranteeing close, intense fights that involve ALL players...and thats the best type of game play.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Will disagree with one point - I think we CAN safely say that the people who fly in FT are definately in the minority of the AH population. I think the 100 or so guesstimate is pretty much in the ballpark, and thats out of 500+ players overall.
Short of flying around and getting a head-count there's no way I can further argue that point. But, the FT problem is just an extreme example of a greater problem. The problem is it's too easy to render fields useless. One heavy fighter with no regard for his ultimate virtual fate should not be able to render a field all but useless. One bomber pilot with griefing on his mind should not be able to, from a prohibitively high altitude, end the fight for 50+ players. These issues need to be resolved, the FT issue only effects one map, for a few days, once every 8 weeks. The other issues I just mentioned effect every map, every day, all the time, 365 days a year and it's the core source of the problems as they are represented in the Toolshed vs. Furballer debate...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Short of flying around and getting a head-count there's no way I can further argue that point. ...
Less than 24 hours ago you said:
"I can assure you, as someone who lives there when Donut is up, during prime-time there is waaay more than 100 total people at FT...200 would probably be about right for peak hours"
I actually agree with most of the rest of your last post, though.
Still, once again you been:
(http://www.gonzoville.com/share/files/1/Files/pwned7.jpg)
-
The solution is 3 or 4 FT's and TT's per map. If the hangers are dropped at one, then the action can move to the next and so on, till 3 hours later everyones back where they started, kind of like musical chairs.
HT could code in a trigger when fighting becomes impossible for one side - my humble suggestion would be the Benny Hill chase theme instead of the air raid siren, which goes off at the bishrooknit bases and lets everyone know it's time to move on.
-
Zazen -
Let me turn the tables on you.
The main complaint is a small number of griefers can disrupt yours and others fun in FT.
If the changes suggested can only be applied arena wide, your group is doing exactly the same the even larger contingent of MA players if they don't want the changes.
Thats is so hypocritcal on so many levels it is beyond belief.
-
Originally posted by Trikky
The solution is 3 or 4 FT's and TT's per map. If the hangers are dropped at one, then the action can move to the next and so on, till 3 hours later everyones back where they started, kind of like musical chairs.
HT could code in a trigger when fighting becomes impossible for one side - my humble suggestion would be the Benny Hill chase theme instead of the air raid siren, which goes off at the bishrooknit bases and lets everyone know it's time to move on.
But then ve haff a FT gap. Ve need a Doomsday Device zo thet if vun FT goes down, all of MA planes explode and all players lose 100 perks.
(http://www.scripting.com/images/2001/10/25/strangelove.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Less than 24 hours ago you said:
I actually agree with most of the rest of your last post, though.
Still, once again you been:
As I stated originally my guesstimate was just that, obviously I did not fly around and count cons, that would be a silly waste of time. I made an educated guess based on alot of direct experience both as an observer and a direct participant at FT and elsewhere on the map. The educated guesses of others was based on alot less direct data collection than my guess...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Zazen -
Let me turn the tables on you.
The main complaint is a small number of griefers can disrupt yours and others fun in FT.
If the changes suggested can only be applied arena wide, your group is doing exactly the same the even larger contingent of MA players if they don't want the changes.
Thats is so hypocritcal on so many levels it is beyond belief.
It's not up to us to decide what's best for the game, that's HiTech's exclusive domain. The responsiblity we have as conscientious members of the community is to voice our concerns, articulate them and any conceivable solutions to them we can think of. If there is any good reason why making bases, in some way, harder overall would be bad for the game I'd love to hear it. So far I have not heard one reason why that would be a bad thing, but alot of great reasons why it would be a good thing. Assuming someone can concoct some reason why the hardening solution would adversely effect their niche of the community it is their responsibility to discuss it openly so a mutually amicable compromise can be reached...This is the basic tenet of problem solving and resolution...No one can speak for the mystical majority which cannot be quantified, we can only speak for ourselves and trust HiTech to do what's best for the game leaving the dis-enfranchised, if any, to adapt as necessary...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
It's not up to us to decide what's best for the game, that's HiTech's exclusive domain. The responsiblity we have as conscientious members of the community is to voice our concerns, articulate them and any conceivable solutions to them we can think of. If there is any good reason why making bases, in some way, harder overall would be bad for the game I'd love to hear it. So far I have not heard one reason why that would be a bad thing, but alot of great reasons why it would be a good thing. Assuming someone can concoct some reason why the hardening solution would adversely effect their niche of the community it is their responsibility to discuss it openly so a mututally beneifical compromise can be reached...This is the basic tenet of problem solving and resolution...No one can speak for the mystical majority which cannot be quantified, we can only speak for ourselves and trust HiTech to do what's best...
Zazen
Maybe you haven't heard one reason against is because most are happy with things the way they are?
Compromise is to make the changes on a field by field basis, that way both sides are happy.
Not to affect one group arena wide for the sake of 3 bases.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
As I stated originally my guesstimate was just that, obviously I did not fly around and count cons, that would be a silly waste of time. I made an educated guess based on alot of direct experience both as an observer and a direct participant at FT and elsewhere on the map. The educated guesses of others was based on alot less direct data collection than my guess...
You did NOT pose it as a guess. You said you "lived" in FT and could guarantee that it was more than 100 people. If you meant a guesstimate you should have stated it as such. That's all ... just say "It seems like more than 100 to me" instead of "I guarantee it's waay more than 100." Even the people arguing with you have the sense to present their observations that way.
It has nothing to do with what you base it on, it has everything to do with your presenting your grossly exagerated estimate as being fact.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Maybe you haven't heard one reason against is because most are happy with things the way they are?
Compromise is to make the changes on a field by field basis, that way both sides are happy.
Not to affect one group arena wide for the sake of 3 bases.
As I said earlier, FT is a drop in the bucket as far as this debate is concerned. FT exists for only a few days once every 8 weeks or so. The greater problem is the relative ease that fields can be rendered un-playable and/or useless. Fields can be rendered useless by one person with great ease. The reason is, in a nutshell, the individual strategic elements that comprise a field are too soft, too easily killed and vulnerable, without a reasonable chance for pre-emptive intervention, to a single individual determined to grief....Hardening the bases is an easy, obvious, and direct solution to the problem. Advocating that simply because you perceive a portion of the community is content with bases being easily crippled is not a real reason why they should not be hardened...The same people could very well end up being content with them in their hardened state as well, perhaps we'll find out if that is indeed the case...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by shiningpathb4me
"What is causing the problems is a systematic and concerted effort by many newer players and many veterans (who know better) in buffs and jabos attempting and often succeeding to all but erase furballs and meaningfull protracted fights from the maps, including those at formal fightertowns..."
I read zazens reply up to that point. Paranoid, ignorant, arrogant, geez - There really isnt anything he could possibly ever say that could erase that evaluation. The maps we play on have quite a few bases, with a variety of vehicles/planes and spawn points. Somebody who wants to fly around in a bomber while online has just as mucha right to do it as someone who prefers fighters. How anyone could be so stupid as to think that AH2 was designed only for them escapes me.
The darwinian element of the original thread is so arrogant and ridiculous I can't believe I made it as far as Zazens reply. Your 19th century logic is boring in the extreme.
There is a dueling arena for anyone who wants protracted 1v1 fights. DOn't bore the rest of us with your silly accusations and moronic logic
The "fighter town" you are so proud of doesn't provide protracted 1v1 and it has nothing to do with idiots trying to bomb the hangars. The word "Furball" and the expression "protracted duel" simply don't belong in the same sentence. A furball has nothing to do with ACM's, dueling, or anything else.
A furball is for lazy dweebs who for whatever reason aren't interested in participating in the game with everyone else. Thats cool - do whatever you want - but somehow bringing skill level, experience, evolution, etc into your stupid argument is just, well, nonsense. Of course I'm wasting my breath here, because many of you don't function at a high enough level to understand what I'm talking about.
By far one of the most accurate posts on this topic yet. :aok
-
Originally posted by Donzo
By far one of the most accurate posts on this topic yet. :aok
I agree.
He probably thinks I'm an a-hole, but he writes well and with great clarity.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
By far one of the most accurate posts on this topic yet. :aok
(http://whiteafrican.com/wp-content/FLAMEWAR.gif)
Here we go again.......
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
You did NOT pose it as a guess. You said you "lived" in FT and could guarantee that it was more than 100 people.
Fact twisting does not make it true, saying I guarentee it was over 100 people, means I don't know how many exactly (guessing), but during prime-time it's more than 100. If I knew exactly I would have said there are an average of 182.54667 people...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
1) Disable all ordinance and troops at all FT fields.
This would be a pain to do on HTC end Im thinking.
2)Disable all bombers at all FT fields.
Very easy to be done. I dont know why it hasnt been tried.
3) Disable all GVs at all FT fields ... with the exception of M-16s, Jeeps, and Ostwinds.
Again, very easy to do.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Fact twisting does not make it true ...
Ahahahaha ... you just pwn3d yourself!
(http://www.gonzoville.com/share/files/1/Files/absolutely_owned.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
As I said earlier, FT is a drop in the bucket as far as this debate is concerned. FT exists for only a few days once every 8 weeks or so. The greater problem is the relative ease that fields can be rendered un-playable and/or useless. Fields can be rendered useless by one person with great ease. The reason is, in a nutshell, the individual strategic elements that comprise a field are too soft, too easily killed and vulnerable, without a reasonable chance for pre-emptive intervention, to a single individual determined to grief....Hardening the bases is an easy, obvious, and direct solution to the problem. Advocating that simply because you perceive a portion of the community is content with bases being easily crippled is not a real reason why they should not be hardened...The same people could very well end up being content with them in their hardened state as well, perhaps we'll find out if that is indeed the case...
Zazen
Actually the problem isn't hardness of ground targets, it's the fact the damage model is based on 'weight' of round and takes no account of what the structure being destroyed is made of.
Thats why 303's, 50's, etc can all damage the main guns on a cruiser, where in reality they'd do nothing.
What is needed is an overhaul of the damage model, it is the only part of the game that has lagged way behind the rest of it.
Take-
Ord bunkers - I would say should only be able to be damaged by rocks or eggs, GV's next to them take secondary damage.
Troops - Difficult one, but maybe just rocks and eggs again.
Fuel - Everything should be able to damage them, also GV's hiding by them when they are blown up should take secondary damage.
Acks - As they are, but maybe increase the lethality slightly and add more to fields.
As for hardness - Should remain at current levels.
What is needed is the correct weapon for the applicable target.
-
Originally posted by shiningpathb4me
"What is causing the problems is a systematic and concerted effort by many newer players and many veterans (who know better) in buffs and jabos attempting and often succeeding to all but erase furballs and meaningfull protracted fights from the maps, including those at formal fightertowns..."
I read zazens reply up to that point. Paranoid, ignorant, arrogant, geez - There really isnt anything he could possibly ever say that could erase that evaluation. The maps we play on have quite a few bases, with a variety of vehicles/planes and spawn points. Somebody who wants to fly around in a bomber while online has just as mucha right to do it as someone who prefers fighters. How anyone could be so stupid as to think that AH2 was designed only for them escapes me.
The darwinian element of the original thread is so arrogant and ridiculous I can't believe I made it as far as Zazens reply. Your 19th century logic is boring in the extreme.
There is a dueling arena for anyone who wants protracted 1v1 fights. DOn't bore the rest of us with your silly accusations and moronic logic
The "fighter town" you are so proud of doesn't provide protracted 1v1 and it has nothing to do with idiots trying to bomb the hangars. The word "Furball" and the expression "protracted duel" simply don't belong in the same sentence. A furball has nothing to do with ACM's, dueling, or anything else.
A furball is for lazy dweebs who for whatever reason aren't interested in participating in the game with everyone else. Thats cool - do whatever you want - but somehow bringing skill level, experience, evolution, etc into your stupid argument is just, well, nonsense. Of course I'm wasting my breath here, because many of you don't function at a high enough level to understand what I'm talking about.
As HT once said ...
clueless dolt
-
Originally posted by Shaky
I've made several suggestions, as DoK has...neither of us are "furball" types....we used to call them "SpitDweebs" :)
Changing the FH drops to analog (to use DoKs term) and ensuring that you will always be able to up some type of fighter (yes, even a P40) will go a long way to guaranteeing close, intense fights that involve ALL players...and thats the best type of game play.
Shaky ... sorry I must of missed that one ... please direct me towards it.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
As I said IF the changes proposed can be implemented in FT WITHOUT altering anything else then I don't see why it shouldn't happen.
Conversly ...
IF the changes proposed CAN'T be implemented in FT WITHOUT altering anything else then they SHOULDN'T happen.
I would want any changes to change the dynamics of all of the MA ... that just wouldn't be right.
If any changes that can be made, on a per field basis, without upsetting the larger MA, that could aid in quelling the situation, then it should be TRIED.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Shaky ... sorry I must of missed that one ... please direct me towards it.
Its over on the wish list now...forget which of the threads here I posted it on....but here's a copy:
Change in Fields Damage Coad.
OK, so I doubt anyone from HTC wants to get involved in the flame-fests over ont he Gen Disc board, I'll repost this here....this is based on the idea that the core design of the MA is a "base taking" game.....
Its possible to use portions of that design to make ofher player experiences less than enjoyable. A prime example of that is the porkers that continually roam the landscape, porking troop, ord, and hangers just to see things go "boom".
These porkers are not a reason to eliminate the core designs of the game, however they may be a reason to modify them. It is possible to keep aircraft on a field supressed without dropping the FH's , so why should the porkers have the ability to drop them completely?
Bombing the FHs should reduce the effetiveness of fighters coming up, but not eleimiate them. How to reduce effectiveness? Dunno...perhaps by limiting the types that can come up based on the damage done.
Suggestion:
5000 lbs damage: ENY<7 disabled
10000 lbs damage: ENY<15 disabled
20000 lbs damage: ENY<35 Disabled
Ordie and troops should operate the same way. Imagine if troops were damaged to the extent that you could only load 2 troops . Well..jeeps would get a lotta use then, wouldn't they?
Other things to keep in mind wityh this basic proposal....damage to each hanger should be looked at on an individual basis, so that the ENY limit on the field should be based on the LEAST damaged hanger of a type and not on the total amount of hanger damage done to a field.
This means that crippling a field so that only high ENY fighters may lift will take coordination and teamwork, especially the larget fields. The bombage/ENY damage may have to be adjusted based on that...for example, perhaps 2000 lbs of ord could drop 1 hanger 1 step, meaning it would take 4 fighters worth of ordie to drop all the hangers of a small field 1 step, 5 fighters for a med, and 7 fighters for a large.
Also notice that crippling a large field would now be a MAJOR undertaking, requiring the coopertaion of 20-30 fighter type aircraft to knock the hagers down to high ENY planes...but still, even after that, the defenders would be able to do aomething besides fly IL2's. Of course, this means trying to get a P40 up from under the vulch, but some guys would try
-
Don't see the analogue FH's as an answer.
Can't really see the point, whats the difference if your being vulched in an IL2 or P40?
Plus getting enough guys to lift at once you could possibly make fields completely uncapturable.
Remember how hard VHs were when the bug crept in that allowed you to roll a plane from a VBase (even with VH's down).
That was just a VBase.
Plus with the added complication of ENY restrictions it makes it even more unfeasable.
You could theoretically get to a point where the ENY was that high, hitting FH's was totally pointless.
My solution is to make the structures only damagable by the appopriate weapon, i.e. no more 110's strafing down hangers, only ord should damage it.
No more machine gun or cannon rounds hurting cruisers etc.
-
Just a thought..... the horde has it's origins in making capture harder and harder.
Before "capture" was "hardened" you had to defend against small bands making flanking attacks.
Now capture has become a horde activity.
Did that really improve the gameplay?
I don't think so. Used to be fun to sneak low level with just a few guys and capture a rear area base. Doesn't happen much at all now.........
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Don't see the analogue FH's as an answer.
Can't really see the point, whats the difference if your being vulched in an IL2 or P40?
Plus getting enough guys to lift at once you could possibly make fields completely uncapturable.
Remember how hard VHs were when the bug crept in that allowed you to roll a plane from a VBase (even with VH's down).
That was just a VBase.
Plus with the added complication of ENY restrictions it makes it even more unfeasable.
You could theoretically get to a point where the ENY was that high, hitting FH's was totally pointless.
My solution is to make the structures only damagable by the appopriate weapon, i.e. no more 110's strafing down hangers, only ord should damage it.
No more machine gun or cannon rounds hurting cruisers etc.
Thats true ... a vulch is a vulch no matter what plane you lift, but this idea does thwarth the griefers who come only to take out fighter hangers to stop the fight all together.
At least with this idea, one could lift such planes as early model P-47s, early model P-38s, etc. and not just A-20s or IL-2s.
I like it Shaky ... :aok
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just a thought..... the horde has it's origins in making capture harder and harder.
Before "capture" was "hardened" you had to defend against small bands making flanking attacks.
Now capture has become a horde activity.
Did that really improve the gameplay?
I don't think so. Used to be fun to sneak low level with just a few guys and capture a rear area base. Doesn't happen much at all now.........
Because it's a lot harder now.
Making the towns that much bigger all but put an end to it.
Talking towns, another misake (IMO) was changing town ack so it no longer fires at GV's.
Now a single M3 can sneak in, kill the two acks and re-capture a freshly down town.
Before this the acks would kill the M3.
Most of the 'small team' sneaks now only occur when there are not many people on, so theres less people watching the map for flashing towns/bases.
Slapshot - Won't happen, you could make bases impossible to capture. You think theres hoards now, the analog FHs would only encourage even larger hoards.
-
Originally posted by Toad
...
I don't think so. Used to be fun to sneak low level with just a few guys and capture a rear area base. Doesn't happen much at all now.........
Wow ... has this discussion ever come full circle ... wasn't it about 3 days ago people were griping about how the LCA did just that?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
...
Slapshot - Won't happen, you could make bases impossible to capture. You think theres hoards now, the analog FHs would only encourage even larger hoards.
Hang on ... are you saying that a base can't be taken if the FH are intact now?
-
Slapshot - Won't happen, you could make bases impossible to capture. You think theres hoards now, the analog FHs would only encourage even larger hoards.
Could they get any worse or any larger than they are now ... I don't think so.
Dok ... I believe he means that with the FHs up, there is always a chance that someone COULD launch and spoil the capture ... this is what he means by impossible ... streching it a little bit, by I understand his point.
-
You know, I just watched a video online last night that sort of summed up this whole argument...
You see, in the video there's a family filming their dog sitting there, looking all cute. Right next to the dog is this monkey who's looking at the camera, almost as though he's waiting for a signal from the filmer. As soon as the film starts the monkey grabs the dog's tail and gives it a yank. The dog goes after the monkey, but it's too quick; it runs away and jumps into a tree, swinging around to get into position for another BnZ pass. As soon as the fog turns around, the monkey's back, grabbing the dog's leg... and then he's OFF again, into the tree!
To me, it sums this whole argument up. Whichever side you're on you feel like that poor dog being buggered by the monkey. That little **** comes BnZing up, grabs your tail, and then he's gone, grabbing alt... Or bombing your FH...
There's too much :cry ing going on about this. Too many people getting :furious over cartoon airplanes and different playing styles. I don't ever recall seing this sort of vitriol going on at the AW forums when someone hit the Spit factory or took the capturable bases in the center of the map. If the LCA, admitted "noobs" almost every one, think they've changed something by starting to up massive buff formations to blast fields back to the stone age, hell, let them think it. Whining about their accomplishments is actually gayer than their accomplishments.
So, in the end, it boils down to this: This is sort of like politics. You're either in a red state or a blue one. But guess what? Neither side is better than the other because they're both out to screw you in one way or another. The toolshedders are out to drop hangars, while the furballers are going to whine and cry and holler on range if you steal a kill or pop in front of their guns or bomb something on the field that isn't supposed to be bombed.
So stop feeling like that poor dog and start feeling like the people with the camera. You know they got one helluva laugh out of that monkey buggering their dog! :aok
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Slapshot - Won't happen, you could make bases impossible to capture. You think theres hoards now, the analog FHs would only encourage even larger hoards.
Could they get any worse or any larger than they are now ... I don't think so.
Dok ... I believe he means that with the FHs up, there is always a chance that someone COULD launch and spoil the capture ... this is what he means by impossible ... streching it a little bit, by I understand his point.
OK ... what he really means is it would remove the sure-thing capture situation where all hangars are down and nothing can possibly lift to defend.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK ... what he really means is it would remove the sure-thing capture situation where all hangars are down and nothing can possibly lift to defend.
This is why I read to the end of the thread before I reply anymore...DoK hit just what my point was going to be.
The small player sneak is going to be just what it always has been since numbers here got big....hit the town, hit the ack, sneak in a goon. 1 guy upping screws that up now. No one upping and you get the sneak in...no difference between my suggestion and the way it is now.
Changing field damage to a progressive damage model does a couple things:
1: Enables fighters to up no matter what the damage...OK, so its a ENY 40+ fighter, its still a fighter!
2: Encourages the need for more TEAMWORK when capturing bases. You can't relax after the VH and FH are down, you have to keep that vulch on, watch that goon, keep the pressure on till the field rolls over.
3: Puts a BAD hurt on "griefers", who only want to drop FHs to piss people off. People will still be pissed if they can't up their SpitXVI's and LA7's but IMHO, thats a GOOD thing! :D
4: Encourages the use of a more varied planeset. Can't up the LA7? Grab a 51B! Try something different, and get BACK in that furball! Also, depending on how its coaded with the VH's and such, you might always be able to get a jeep out of the hanger to help with field defense. Think this will stop a capture? Heck, jeeps pop real easy with a strafing run, so if you don't see it and it kills your troopies, whose fault is that?
As for the argument that it makes captures "too hard", well, 1 guy 30k up in a flight of lancs should NOT be the sole "make or break" part of a base capture, the way it is now. With a progressive damage system, its still VERY important to knock the hangers back in the face of a determined defense in order to degrade the fighters and vehicles to the point where the CAP can handle them.
Look at what happens now when a base is hotly contested...the fight gets pushed back over the base and the vulch is on. If the vulch gets to be overwhelmed by numbers of guys trying to up, then a buff comes in and drops the hanger. That ONE buff has just negated the efforts of 20 guys trying to up and defend. Thats not right. You want to take a base with 20 guys defending...better bring 20 guys with you.
-
Put it this way -
At the moment guys will up buffs to run the vulchers ammo out.
Take away the fact you would never be able to shut down a field, it is quite possible that a base could become uncaptureable.
If a large number of guys just keep rolling over and over again eventually the caps gonna get broken.
Or they'll sit in the tower waitnig for a goon to pop into view, then mass roll.
Chances are one will get up.
Even a fully down base isn't a sure thing as you know.
How many times you been sat over a dead field with no goon for miles, or the guy drops his troops too low, or on the field.
HT made field capturing harder by increasing town sizes, adding hangers that never go down could make thing worse.
Why stop there?
Lets have VH's that are never truly down, each 1000lb removes the better GV's.
So you bomb a field to crap, you still have P40's etc coming out of dead FH's, M16s, Jeeps, M3's rolling out of dead VH's.
Lets have CV's that never truly die, you can always roll something off them.
Hell, lets just do any with base captures altogether huh?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Put it this way -
At the moment guys will up buffs to run the vulchers ammo out.
Take away the fact you would never be able to shut down a field, it is quite possible that a base could become uncaptureable.
If a large number of guys just keep rolling over and over again eventually the caps gonna get broken.
Or they'll sit in the tower waitnig for a goon to pop into view, then mass roll.
Chances are one will get up.
The only time the goon typically "pops into view" is when it pops up to drop...a little late to roll a buncha P-40's. And if guys keep rolling over and over agin, should ONE guy negate their efforts at defense? Heck no!
Even a fully down base isn't a sure thing as you know.
How many times you been sat over a dead field with no goon for miles, or the guy drops his troops too low, or on the field.
And a progressive system wouldchange this how? Sorry...if the goon driver aint that bright, its not the defenders fault.
HT made field capturing harder by increasing town sizes, adding hangers that never go down could make thing worse.
How so? And letting 1 or 2 buff drivers and a handful of fighters capture a base defended by many times that many people is a better idea?
Why stop there?
Lets have VH's that are never truly down, each 1000lb removes the better GV's.
So you bomb a field to crap, you still have P40's etc coming out of dead FH's, M16s, Jeeps, M3's rolling out of dead VH's.
Yup, thats the general idea, except the minimum vehicle would be the jeep, so you'd have slow, unwieldy fighters and nice soft jeeps rolling to defend against players in top end fighters. Also note that ALL of the vehicles that would roll at the hangers minimum can be popped by bullets only..so strafe away...no ord required!
Hell, lets just do any with base captures altogether huh?
Actually, the thought was to make a spirited defense MEAN something, and not be a thing that could be shut down totally by one guy in a box of buffs.
Hell, think of the vulch/strafe kills you'd get! :)
-
Kev, on some maps its already like that. You back 'em up to their 163 bases and it's pretty impossible to overwhelm that with numbers. FH don't stay down long enough given how quick 163's can get to altitude once they come back.
-
Shaky - It's an unusual way of trying to fix what some consider a problem, but IMO unworkable.
You would have to apply it to CV's also, after all one guy with buffs can ruin a furball by sinking it, or continuously upping 110's etc and strafing it to death.
So now you have a CV that can never be sunk sitting off a base.
Vulch / strafe kills - Don't you think there's enough of this already without introducing a system that encourages it?
With your system in place the game would descend into chaos (more so than it is now), and would encourage even larger hoards.
-
I'm not sure I understand whay you think this would cause the MA to decend into chaos. Please elaborate.
-
Heres a big reason -
A lot of people already complain about having the same map up for day, after day, after day. Your idea would make it much, much worse.
I can envisage even a single small map lasting all week.
Chaos -
Actually encourages vulching.
Encourages bigger hoards.
Unkillable CV's sitting off fields with LVT's rolling over and over again.
If the country being attacked has a high enugh ENY, hitting hangers could become pointless, thus further annoying the guys who fly Buffs regularly.
Seems like most of the 'solutions' in the thread up to now are aimed at making FT bases 'safe', and then finding a way to justify the solutions for the rest of the MA.
The MA is the MA, if there is a way to make the 3 FT bases relatively safe without affecting other fields, I don't see anyone objecting.
HOWEVER if in order to placate a minority everyone is affected, I can forsee a lot of objections, and a wider divide between the furballers and rest of the community.
-
With the exception of the near-reset condition, I'm betting that bases are currently captured with FH intact by a wide margin - even if defended. Likewise, in the current porkable-FH environment, base capture attempts can stall for hours because C47's keep getting shot down - the FH remain up, despite the current ability to completely shut them down.
I don't see how linear degredation of lift capacity makes the current situation any worse.
The biggest objection I see is people being forced to choose between flying "their plane" from a base a sector away, or rejoin the current furball in a lesser plane if the FH get whacked. And, as I think on it, that reason alone will likely be why HT may choose not to do this.
-
For bases with GV spawns in it wouldn't probably make big deal of difference, but for maps (like this weeks) with a lot of isolated fields it would be a completely different ballgame.
All thats needed is solution to your particular problem that wont affect the rest of the MA players.
If it requires custom fields/tiles it may just mean a longer wait.
Thought of one advantage to the analog idea, but it only applies close to reset -
Usually with the country jumpers the resetting country is ENY'd fairly high.
Usual tactic is to flatten EVERYTHING at the last field need for the reset.
Analog would allow the defending country to keep upping earlier planes.
Advantage - The attacking country will most likely be in earlier planes also due to ENY limits.
Disadvantage - Possibly a single map up for the entire week.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Actually the problem isn't hardness of ground targets, it's the fact the damage model is based on 'weight' of round and takes no account of what the structure being destroyed is made of.
Thats why 303's, 50's, etc can all damage the main guns on a cruiser, where in reality they'd do nothing.
What is needed is an overhaul of the damage model, it is the only part of the game that has lagged way behind the rest of it.
Take-
Ord bunkers - I would say should only be able to be damaged by rocks or eggs, GV's next to them take secondary damage.
Troops - Difficult one, but maybe just rocks and eggs again.
Fuel - Everything should be able to damage them, also GV's hiding by them when they are blown up should take secondary damage.
Acks - As they are, but maybe increase the lethality slightly and add more to fields.
As for hardness - Should remain at current levels.
What is needed is the correct weapon for the applicable target.
I agree with that, that's why I said earlier, "Increase hardness, in some way...". By that I meant just make the strategic elements harder to kill in some way. Your idea as outlined here would accomplish that, as well it makes alot of sense from a realism, therefore immersion, point-of-view...As for ack, I believe the gun itself should be harder to kill, it should require an egg or a rocket too, the permanent gun emplacements were typically fortified with concrete and/or sand bags. The rather exposed person operating the gun should be fairly easy to bump out as it is now, a direct hit with several MG rounds or a very close proximity hit by a cannon round should "kill' the current operator, but not the gun itself...
Zazen