Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Simaril on October 12, 2006, 09:47:33 AM
-
It seems that the small arenas are trending towards effectively 2 countries. Both EW and MW had one side with hige advantage (maybe 50%), another that was competitive but outnumbered (say 35%) and the last with rediculously low numbers.
In MW last night I saw 45 rooks, 24 bish, 5 knights.
I figured, what the heck, and played the 2 country game -- switched from Nits to Bish. I located a certain very large squad, and upped in their zone for an expected fight against the Rooks. I engaged a few, got some assists, and finally succumbed to a perked tiffy...
But the Large Squad had disappeared. I located them on the other side of the map, doing a base capture mission unopposed. I trailed their mission.... and helped take down some ack, grabbed another assist.
Only after I landed did I realise that I had just helped capture a base from the low side Nits-- who had climbed all the way to 7 players. Meanwhile, the Large Squad was upping to take another Nit base. I left.
Since we see these imbalances, wouldnt it be nice for:
1) the high sides to readjust themselves (after all, the rooks were low side in the EW...a few movers would have changed the entire flavor of the MW), either by changing countries or arenas?
2) and, for the two highest sides to at least try to fight each other, instead of worsening the disparity by milkrunning unopposed against a country that simply can't fight bacK? There were more players in the Large Squad mission than there were on the entire low side COUNTRY!
-
the MWA last night was rediculous. I guess the rooks were having fun milkrunning, but it wasn't a fun night to be a nit.
obviously relying on the player base to keep the sides even isn't working. It's not that I feel that "even sides" is the holy grail for good, fun gameplay, but it certainly helps. My main beef since the changes simply boils down to time spent looking for a fight versus time spent actually fighting. Since "the change" I've been spending more and more time looking. it's getting old...
a fighter town might help...
-
Only solution is to cap the LWA to 200 (or some other small number) and not create new LWA when full. It will force people to go to the other arenas. HT would need to get some disk space to store all the posts about it in this BBS and a new web server, though.
Otherwise, we will end up with 3 CTs with a squad in each acting as if they own the arena and milk run bases freely (with the ocasional break to vulch some guy that happened to wonder in there)
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
the MWA last night was rediculous. I guess the rooks were having fun milkrunning, but it wasn't a fun night to be a nit.
obviously relying on the player base to keep the sides even isn't working. It's not that I feel that "even sides" is the holy grail for good, fun gameplay, but it certainly helps. My main beef since the changes simply boils down to time spent looking for a fight versus time spent actually fighting. Since "the change" I've been spending more and more time looking. it's getting old...
a fighter town might help...
I agree, to much time looking and not enough time fighting. It is getting old. EWA and MWA seem about useless most of the time, and I don't really care to much for what goes on most of the time in the LWA. I hate to say, but I'm getting board with it all. Maybe a fighter town would help????
I struggle looking to find balance to this game. It is either way to much or not enough. Sometimes I find myself just staring at the map wishing something would change.
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Only solution is to cap the LWA to 200 (or some other small number) and not create new LWA when full. It will force people to go to the other arenas. HT would need to get some disk space to store all the posts about it in this BBS and a new web server, though.
Otherwise, we will end up with 3 CTs with a squad in each acting as if they own the arena and milk run bases freely (with the ocasional break to vulch some guy that happened to wonder in there)
I dont think that forcing people into one arena is going 2 play over well with most of us
-
they been tellin HTC for the longest time it needs to b just 2 countries.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I dont think that forcing people into one arena is going 2 play over well with most of us
Maybe we wouldn't have to force them. If the bases were closer together in EWA and MWA, wouldn't this make more people want to go there and take some of the pressure off the LWA?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I dont think that forcing people into one arena is going 2 play over well with most of us
I totaly agree, but that seems to be the only solution if HT does not want to change things back.
-
If out-numbered just join the side with the biggest numbers. Eventually there will be no enemy and people will balance themselves out if they want to have an combat. It works fine in the AVA.
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
I totaly agree, but that seems to be the only solution if HT does not want to change things back.
There IS another solution.
Maybe those who lead groups -- either as Squad COs or as "thought leaders" who can influence opinion -- could suggest that their groups move around to maintain balance. If the group is wedded to a chess piece, there is absolutely no reason why they couldnt shift from an arena where their chess piece is dominant, to one where they are on the lower side. If players want to stay in a particular arena, they could move to another country.
Either way, sides that are more balanced are more fun for everyone. (Note that sides dont even have to be perfectly even, just within Texas spittin' range.)
Of course, this may not happen. It appears that some Large Squads prefer to attack where they know they will win (like the infamous BOPs did last night), rather than enter the fray with equal DAR bars.
Ganging up on an empty country would seem to be about as satisfying as being a player on the Ohio State Buckeyes and defeating a local PeeWee football team...but to each his own, I suppose.
-
It appears that some Large Squads prefer to attack where they know they will win (like the infamous BOPs did last night), rather than enter the fray with equal DAR bars.
I agree that taking unoccupyed bases is fun and easy just not as fun as taking a base that is being heavily defended, and when you took the base it was easy cuz you just smashed all the defenders and steamrolled over everything.Those were the days of AH-1 and the ROCKSTAR missions.
Any more a lot of squad boast of thier numbers and ability to capture a field but in reality when the opposite country puts up a good defense some of the Bold BAse Takers find themselves alone in a sky full of red icons because all of the " people in the big SQUAD mission " have now started attacking another empty field.I have flown in a lot of missions in the past with the largest squads of all 3 country's and what i just described happens alot.One of the best squads to fly in a mission with is the FreeBird's, those guys know how to take a base, right along with the 327th Steele Talons.
-
If it was reduced to just two countries, a large squad in EW could still have a lopsided balance. It could still be 7 vs. 35.
Changing to two countries would do nothing.
How hard would it be to impliment AI fighter sweeps to suppliment the out numbered sides? Maybe allow a fighter drone/wingman for the weaker sides? The code/technology exists, it would be just like the bombers. You could toggle back and forth between planes, the enemy swarm wouldn't know which plane was smart, and a few players could work this to their advantage facing a swarm.
Maybe the field auto-ack accuracy could be inversely proportional to your numerical advantage.
-
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
-
You could still get steamrollered by a mob. I don't see that changing anything.
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
You could still get steamrollered by a mob. I don't see that changing anything.
I agree. I think something like the ENY is needed, but instead of restricting the available planes if the sides are way unbalanced it restricted how many pilots could launch. In other words, once any side has x% (50%? 100%?) MORE than any other side, simply not let anyone from that side launch a sortie until one of them lands.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
GREAT IDEA ... but ... once a field is captured ... the next captureable field should be a random field somewhere else on the front ... not the next one back ... that would only further cause concentration to one area on the map.
Causing the "next" base to move would require the attackers to re-group somewhere else ... giving the team that was attacked time to re-group as well.
Also, the next base available for capture would only be known (on the map) by the attackers ... the ones getting attacked would have to figure it out by seeing where the next concentrated attack was.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
There you go!!!! No chance of steam rolling since the war guys will know where to go and stop the enemy, the furball guys will know where to go find a fight, the ground deffecnce/war guys will know where to go, and the anti-horde guys will know where to find a horde to destroy. I think it would even work for the EWA and MWA since it would make it easyer to find where the few bud guys are. :aok It could even make possible the reduction of the uper limit in the arenas. Worth a try I think.
Actually, since taking a base would now mean something since you have to put up a fight for it, it may even get some more people helping the war effort.
-
I dont think the issue should be forced by limiting a person in game to actually not being able to play. Limiting the available planes is one way, providing incentive to build up highly inflated perk points is another.
The bottom line is people need to be willing to change sides to even the game out. I was on one night in MW as rook when the bish had +30, the nits had 7, and we rooks had 5. Of course a certain unamed mega squad was boosting bish numbers to better than 3.5 to 1 overall and was attacking fields of the least defended country making an actual ratio of 6 to 1. What was spectacular to me was the WTGs and Attaboys these guys were giving each other after taking undefended bases in a game where they had such a clear superiority in numbers. Was really a dumb moment in the life of the game for me.
Even it out.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
the MWA last night was rediculous. I guess the rooks were having fun milkrunning, but it wasn't a fun night to be a nit.
obviously relying on the player base to keep the sides even isn't working. It's not that I feel that "even sides" is the holy grail for good, fun gameplay, but it certainly helps. My main beef since the changes simply boils down to time spent looking for a fight versus time spent actually fighting. Since "the change" I've been spending more and more time looking. it's getting old...
a fighter town might help...
Yeah ... it was REALLY COOL watching the Rooks roll over the 5 Knights ... brought tears to my eyes watching the precision and speed at which they took bases.
When I joined the arena ... Bish were down, so I switched to them ... then the Knights went into the barrel ... I didn't stay on long enough (1 hour) to switch to the Knights ... else I would have.
Plenty of people are switching sides, I have seen it, it's the large squads that are still causing the imbalance when they ALL join a side ... and then they feel the need to steamroll the lowest side ... sad to see.
-
seems like it would further limit choice ht :(
bring back the big maps :D
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
There you go!!!! No chance of steam rolling since the war guys will know where to go and stop the enemy, the furball guys will know where to go find a fight, the ground deffecnce/war guys will know where to go, and the anti-horde guys will know where to find a horde to destroy. I think it would even work for the EWA and MWA since it would make it easyer to find where the few bud guys are. :aok It could even make possible the reduction of the uper limit in the arenas. Worth a try I think.
Actually, since taking a base would now mean something since you have to put up a fight for it, it may even get some more people helping the war effort.
I don't know Bugs ... In the current setup ... After a capture, 99% of the time I could tell you exactly what field will be next on the hording highway ... they think "straight line". Make them move and re-group ... some might drop off and/or get bored waiting for all the lemmings to get things together ... which might take some of the steam out of the steam roller.
-
What if the strat targets were capturable instead of the bases. Use the zone in reverse. Capture all the strats for a zone and then all the bases in that zone change hands. Increase the troop capture to 20 or 30 and time limit to get the troops in the map room. add vehicle spawn points to the strats. Might need to add additional ack (auto and manable) to the strat sites
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The bottom line is people need to be willing to change sides to even the game out.
Won't happen so long as the stated goal of the game is winning the reset. As these boards have shown over the past few weeks, there are a lot of goal-oriented people playing AH.
- oldman
-
i like HT's idea, it may not solve all the issues, but i don't see any reason to not try it. i think it is a good step to help concentrate forces on a map in a way to promote more actual fighting.
maybe also consider linking fields together. add some strat for those strat guys. for example, maybe at the start you have 5 fields to choose to attack. after you take a base, maybe you get 1, 2, or 3 other options to choose from depending on map, location of field, and altitude. (not added on to the 5 original options). maybe even the amount of players on a side can affect allowable base.
maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options. you could take it even farther if imbalance is to great than the country with lowest number of players could not have a base taken by a country who has huge number advantage.
just a couple of thoughts, no idea of the time consumption on HTC's part for any of this. but as i said, it's worth a shot, and probably stepping towards a solution. vast
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
What if the strat targets were capturable instead of the bases. Use the zone in reverse. Capture all the strats for a zone and then all the bases in that zone change hands. Increase the troop capture to 20 or 30 and time limit to get the troops in the map room. add vehicle spawn points to the strats. Might need to add additional ack (auto and manable) to the strat sites
Interesting.......I could see a form of this being very cool...
and ht, i very much disagree with your idea and really hope it doesnt happen...lets get away from the direction of "limitation"
-
maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options. you could take it even farther if imbalance is to great than the country with lowest number of players could not have a base taken by a country who has huge number advantage.
WOW ... nice twist on the idea ... I like it !!!
(http://www2.incredimail.com/english/images/order/smiley.gif)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I dont think the issue should be forced by limiting a person in game to actually not being able to play. Limiting the available planes is one way, providing incentive to build up highly inflated perk points is another.
The bottom line is people need to be willing to change sides to even the game out. I was on one night in MW as rook when the bish had +30, the nits had 7, and we rooks had 5. Of course a certain unamed mega squad was boosting bish numbers to better than 3.5 to 1 overall and was attacking fields of the least defended country making an actual ratio of 6 to 1. What was spectacular to me was the WTGs and Attaboys these guys were giving each other after taking undefended bases in a game where they had such a clear superiority in numbers. Was really a dumb moment in the life of the game for me.
Even it out.
(I'm assuming you were responding to my suggestion...)
Nothing I suggested would result in people not being able to play. They can wait till a slot opens up (someone lands/dies) or switch sides.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options. you could take it even farther if imbalance is to great than the country with lowest number of players could not have a base taken by a country who has huge number advantage.
WOW ... nice twist on the idea ... I like it !!!
You could even take it another step and similar to the ENY settings. the fewer numbers a country has the stronger their bases/CVs are. IE: strat and base/town objects require more ord to bring down. Their bases would require more troops to take, and/or the side that has the most numbers their strats and base/Cv objects would be weaker and require less troops to capture.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Won't happen so long as the stated goal of the game is winning the reset. As these boards have shown over the past few weeks, there are a lot of goal-oriented people playing AH.
- oldman
NOTE: Oldman, I quoted your article to talk about "resets" as well, don't think I'm singling you out please. That is not the intention here. <>
I see Rooks dogged on more than other's and am frankly tired of it.
I have more or less flown Rooks since I joined because Boxboy28 got me into the game, and I joined his squad "Nazgul".
Now right after this "new system" was implemented. The squad I used to fly with "47 Ronin" (has since disbanded) would switch to the lowest numbered country. But, after we would switch a certain "someone" would PM us and ask us why we would "have the gall to attack Rooks"? So then the question we asked ourselves is this: "Why switch to fight a country with higher numbers if those guys are going to whine about getting vulched, ganged, etc.?"
Also, if some are courteous enough to switch and help "even out the numbers" they should at least be treated with some respect. We were snubbed by a couple of Knights (when we switched there were two on). We were on the Mindanao map and had 27 leveled with the help of a "BG" member. We couldn't another person to goon it. So again we asked ourselves "Why bother switching if the chesspiece is in effect?"
I switched and flew Bish and winged with either the BK's or BoP's, never had an issue. I wasn't considered "a Rook spy, etc". I never told them, "Hey their CV is over thisa way, follow me!" I don't give a damn who I shoot down in this GAME. Point is, too many people have too much loyalty to a damn chesspiece. Yeah, BoP's and other squad's, you should be a little more "forgiving to bend the rules" you may have to help curtail this. (Not to meant as a slight, just a reminder that if it is your squad night, try and even things out is all.)
So now that those are out of the way, I haven't been in the MA since Friday night. I noticed last week however, that the darbar and flashing bases between Bish and Knights were eliminated. Rooks were on the short stack all last week and getting ganged on top of it. I never came in here right away and "Whah, this isn't fair that they are doing this, when we are doing that!" Again, I shoot down with no malice, and will get shot down less. Storch and a few of us went into the MWA, and stopped "Grim's Reapers and friends" from getting a High alt base next to our HQ. I just find it funny some are going to come in here bashing "rookland" when there are 30 rooks, 20 Knights and 10 Bish on. The story NOT BEING TOLD is 30 Rooks are more or less fighting 30 cons.
MY opinion (I realize that some who have been here longer, usually get results):
1.) What about eliminating the "Reset". None of us should "NEED" free perks. Take that aspect away. I have enough perks to fiddle around with. Or just take away the "free perks".
2.) Eliminate the Chesspiece. Number the Countries and lose all "WHAH, I fly this chesspiece because it harkens back to WB or AW days, WHAH". Act like adults instead of spoiled little brats having a toy taken away from you.
3.) Harden the armor of Field Gun's and strat's. I enjoy shooting down suckers trying to pad their score while vulching and watch them whine about something they could have dropped prior to vulching. Troops and supplies should be more difficult to destroy, as should BUNKERS by design.
Those Three things (especially 2) will have a more resounding impact on gameplay and lead to more whining about something else.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
30 rooks, 20 Knights and 10 Bish
that I could (almost) live with. Last night in the MWA, however, it was more like 60 rooks, 20 bish and 7 knights.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
that I could (almost) live with. Last night in the MWA, however, it was more like 60 rooks, 20 bish and 7 knights.
Again, this "favoring" varies from day to day. I guess I'll start taking screenshots supporting my findings.
But that being said, something still needs to be done, and a couple of my suggestions, should curb the whining for a day.
Also, those 60 Rooks are more than likely fighting both the Bish and Knights. Again, for the last week or so I haven't seen much Bish/Knight fighting.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I don't know Bugs ... In the current setup ... After a capture, 99% of the time I could tell you exactly what field will be next on the hording highway ... they think "straight line". Make them move and re-group ... some might drop off and/or get bored waiting for all the lemmings to get things together ... which might take some of the steam out of the steam roller.
I think thats what I meant but maybe I did not word it right. I like the idea, or atlist giving it a try. I like the idea of aplying something like ENY for the number of fields you can capture. The higher the ENY the less bases available to you for capture, or something like that.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Again, this "favoring" varies from day to day. I guess I'll start taking screenshots supporting my findings.
But that being said, something still needs to be done, and a couple of my suggestions, should curb the whining for a day.
Also, those 60 Rooks are more than likely fighting both the Bish and Knights. Again, for the last week or so I haven't seen much Bish/Knight fighting.
Not last night ... Rooks were rolling the Knights in a seal cub clubbing frenzy ... to "WiNz Ze W@rZ" ... it was laughable.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
This would solve the "milkrunning" problem in an underpopulated arena. But in an arena with higher numbers (Ex. LWA on Friday nights), with say with 40 on each side at the same base, it might lead to gridlock / frustration and all associated whining (not to mention my poor Frame Rates!). I like Plucks take:
Originally posted by pluck
maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options.
It might be "easier" to implement if the number of capturable bases was purely dependant on the defending side's numbers. 15 or fewer, 1 base per front, 16-30, 2 bases per front, etc. (obviously just throwing numbers, don't know that those would be the correct ones).
But even then you end up eliminating the "hail mary" play or sneak captures where a small group goes NOE to a base deep behind the front to either stir up trouble or take pressure off the front (knights used to do this quite often in the past, it seemed). So, to the point others have made, it may be considered "overly limiting" by some of the more "strategic thinkers", leaving only the brute force method as a viable option.
Out of curiosity, would the captureable bases be known to both sides? Just the attacking side? (OMG -- hopefully not just the defending side! "Town is flat! Don't know why the troops didnt take!" :O )
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Not last night ... Rooks were rolling the Knights in a seal cub clubbing frenzy ... to "WiNz Ze W@rZ" ... it was laughable.
Again, in my first post I said it varies.
I enjoy "sneaking a base" more than "steamrolling" one.
The Late Mjollnir and myself would OFTEN capture bases with just an M3 and a Tiger, each us of taking turns.
-
I got an idea...up a base back, get some alt and kill them. LW lately has been a blast to be a rook...yes the outnumbered rooks. Ive seen the 150 bish, 120 nits and 80 rooks...so what? more to kill.:aok
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
If you could find a way to do that, but have the frontline bases have no ord, so bombers had to come further it may not be bad. If not, Im afraid it would just channel the mob and they would be happy taking one at a time faster than they could be defended.
-
Actually, HT's idea is kind of smart.
By only having one base capturable at a time, it would force the hoards to meet. Basically, it would funnel the fights to that field. It would make it much easier to defend, and would ALSO make it muuuuch harder to take a field. Everybody would know what field is being attacked, and would be able to mount a defense.
Not sure it would work, but a most interesting idea. This way the furball types, and the strat types, and the capture types would all be mixed together at the one field.
It MIGHT be worth a try.
Follow up... How would vbases and ports fit into this equasion?
BTW, I ALWAYS have said that the side #'s should not affect ENY, but the hardness of the strats. If rooks have high #'s, their strat should die easier, and stay dead longer. If rooks have low #'s, their strat should be tougher to kill, and reup faster.
Example.
Rooks 80
Bish 50
Knits 10
Rooks FH/BH/VH hardness would drop to say 1.2-1.5k to kill and stay down 25min instead of 15.
Bish FH/BH/VH harness would drop to 1.8k ish to kill and stay down for 19min instead of 15.
Knights FH/BH/VH harness would raise to 3k ish to kill, and stay down for 10min instead of 15.
This way, it would be easy to stop the hoards in their tracks with some quick strat runs. Would also be tough to take a field if the town and VH keeps popin' up in 8-10 min. Hmmm.... more ord/ammo to kill town buildings would also be added into this. I am LIKIN' this more and more. By doing this, the hoard's #'s are offset by how much tougher it is to kill stuff, and keep it dead because it reups much faster.
This would promote side balancing I would think. Would you rather fly for the side that it takes 3k to kill a vh or 1k? Would you rather be on the team where vh's up every 10min or 30? Hmmmmm......
BUT the 1 field thing HT suggested is good 2.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
BTW, I ALWAYS have said that the side #'s should not affect ENY, but the hardness of the strats. If rooks have high #'s, their strat should die easier, and stay dead longer. If rooks have low #'s, their strat should be tougher to kill, and reup faster.
Example.
Rooks 80
Bish 50
Knits 10
Rooks FH/BH/VH hardness would drop to say 1.2-1.5k to kill and stay down 25min instead of 15.
Bish FH/BH/VH harness would drop to 1.8k ish to kill and stay down for 19min instead of 15.
Knights FH/BH/VH harness would raise to 3k ish to kill, and stay down for 10min instead of 15.
This way, it would be easy to stop the hoards in their tracks with some quick strat runs. Would also be tough to take a field if the town and VH keeps popin' up in 8-10 min. Hmmm.... more ord/ammo to kill town buildings would also be added into this. I am LIKIN' this more and more. By doing this, the hoard's #'s are offset by how much tougher it is to kill stuff, and keep it dead because it reups much faster.
This would promote side balancing I would think. Would you rather fly for the side that it takes 3k to kill a vh or 1k? Would you rather be on the team where vh's up every 10min or 30? Hmmmmm......
IMHO, this has potential... encourages self-evening of teams and accounts for the die-hard loyalists.
-
I also like HiTech's theme, with the riffs contributed by Lute, Slap, and Pluck.
ENY was unpopular because it struck to the core of gameplay, directly limiting what you could fly in this FLYING game. These proposals, on the other hand, leave full choice of planes...so you can still fly what you want. Instead, these ideas turn things that are purely gameplay negatives (the side imbalances, difficulty focusing play with small arena numbers) and turns them into strategic elements.
Here's a suggestion to tie these threads together, and maybe even add more depth to the strategic components of the game.
1. Use the existing zone lines for capturable blocks, as well as for repair/resupply. Only bases inside an eligible zone enter the pool for capturable bases, and the entire zone must be captured before another zone opens up. The zone base must be the last one taken.
2. A balancing formula would adjust both the number of bases vulnerable to capture, and to lesser degree the hardness of the town buildings. I suspect varying troop requirements would be far to difficult to accomodate on a mission, and hangars are too easy to bypass when the swarm has 10x more vulchers than they need for CAP.
I'd suggest the formula compare force ratios between country PAIRS rather than the overall arena. That way the group with 50 has a practical incentive to attack the side with 35 (1.5 ratio) instead of the one with 5 (10.0 ratio).
3. Vulnerable bases would be marked for both attackers and defenders. Random assignment might help diffuse the attackers, but since it also diffuses defenders -- and there are fewer of them -- it would likely be counterproductive. Instead, make thinking ahead MORE important by using the current "board" to determine the next base available. Add the ranges from enemy bases to friendly ones; whatever base has the lowest sum is vulnerable. Predictable effects reward planning.
4. Town building hardness would vary only by 50% either way. So, at the worst, the Goliath horde would need 1.5 times normal ammo, and the few Davids would see buildings drop with half the usual.
So how would this work out?
Others have pointed out how the fighting would be concentrated, so the defenders would know where they needed to be. But, they'd also have to choose...if they tried to draw off enemies by attacking elsewhere, they'd weaken their defense. If they attacked, it would be easier and faster to take a base than now.
Taking bases would shift the vulnerable one, by altering the distance lines in a predictable way...so planning, rather than hording, gets favored.
The zone base could be a fizzle...or, occasionally, might be The Mother of All Battles. Although surrounded, the other bases are easier to pork since they dint have friendly strat to resupply...
I think this has a lot of potential, both to deal with the balance in new arenas, add to strategic depth, and maybe even to replace the ENY
-
1) I like hitech's idea...good place to start!!!
2) restore the old arena numbers please...go ahead and keep the others...but the last 6 months beofre the switch..numbers were fairly even and large maps lasted almost all week without a reset!!!
3) Sim..you are getting stale...you start by saying there were 60 rooks and 20 bish and 5 knits...then it suudenly becomes "a certain large bish squads fault" that they dont fly against superior numbered rooks for you. AND (even though 60 rooks didnt switch countries) it becomes again the fault of "a certain large bish squad" that they didnt fix an unfixable solution. Instead they winged and had fun as they could...likely didnt whine on 200...and didnt run in here to post on the "unfairness" of the rooks.
Please try to start looking for real solutions that dont include YOU telling others how to be fair...ty
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
Unlike other posters I think this would NOT allow the steamroll to roll on. Because all the defenders would have to do is pork troops for the two-three enemy bases around the designated capturable field and there won't be any base captures going on at all.
Unless the hoard redirects resources to running field supplies in. Maybe they'd rather switch at least some players to a country that still has troops available to make captures.
-
Creating new arenas was not the solution imo. The hording is even worst in the early and mid war arenas. WMLute and HiTech have come up with some good solutions.
I believe seperating us was not a great idea. Shoot I only ask for One sector where all 3 countries can meet. Take ord and bombers away from fields and limit it to early war planes. Not an arena all to myself :<
One arena that has all three options (ew,mw and lw) within it. It's all about the map and the position of fields. Fester started understand this in the maps he created. Especially the one he limited furball island to ew no ord and bomber.
Those few days we saw a change in game play. Great example was tuning to 200 and seeing all the and gf. People began to only play on furball island and you only heard a few complaints. From those that didn't play on furball island. 200 plays a big part in my game so I tend to log on the bigger arena.
-
"Please try to start looking for real solutions that dont include YOU telling others how to be fair...ty"
Sims suggestions looked to me like options open for discussion rather than him directing someone.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is let's keep it civil and on topic rather than attacking each other for once.
-
My opinion, for what it's worth, is let's keep it civil and on topic rather than attacking each other for once
but it's all about them them them them!!!!!
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
...snip....
3) Sim..you are getting stale...you start by saying there were 60 rooks and 20 bish and 5 knits...then it suudenly becomes "a certain large bish squads fault" that they dont fly against superior numbered rooks for you. AND (even though 60 rooks didnt switch countries) it becomes again the fault of "a certain large bish squad" that they didnt fix an unfixable solution. Instead they winged and had fun as they could...likely didnt whine on 200...and didnt run in here to post on the "unfairness" of the rooks.
Please try to start looking for real solutions that dont include YOU telling others how to be fair...ty
Falc:
Not looking to get into attack mode here. Please actually look at what I said...I have not assigned "fault" or "blame" in ANY of the posts in this thread. I have said "to each his own" and "wouldnt it be nice if..." Neither of those are whines, and neither are attacks. I started by suggesting the Rooks could have changed arenas; you imply that you agree in your comments about an "unfixable" situation. What exactly are you mad about?
Some guys think the only solutions will come when HiTech changes the rules; I think we players can solve the imbalances ourselves, and I've tried to have a rational discussion about how we can do that. There's nothing more to it than that.
My posts on this topic have from first to last focused on one point: Good manners and good sportsmanship include considering how your actions affect others.
If I've gotten vehement, its because I simply cant understand why a simple application of the Golden Rule is so stinking difficult -- and if that message sounds "stale," well, I'm guilty as charged.
In fairness, you must admit that members of your squad have claimed in the past that they attack the strong side, and dont milk run the hopelessly outmatched one. Last night they did the opposite...which is, as I said, OK if thats what floats your boat.
And if that sounds like "blame" to you....well, to quote the Bard, "Methinks thou dost protest too much"!
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Won't happen so long as the stated goal of the game is winning the reset. As these boards have shown over the past few weeks, there are a lot of goal-oriented people playing AH.
- oldman
Exactly.
In all of the suggestions in this thread, the goal remains the same. The only differences are slight changes to the maze the participants have to negotiate to reach the goal.
As a result, I don't think you'll see any major changes in player behavior.
Reward a behavior and you will get more of that behavior. That's what has led us to where were are now. We reward behaviors that essentially ensure poor overall gameplay.
Basically, we need to reward behaviors that provide better gameplay. Then we'll get more of those.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Basically, we need to reward behaviors that provide better gameplay. Then we'll get more of those.
Any suggestions?
-
Originally posted by Sweet2th
but it's all about them them them them!!!!!
"minemineminemineminemineminem inemineminemineminemineminemi nemineminemineminemineminemin emineminemineminemineminemine minemineminemine"
;)
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Any suggestions?
Yep.
But I've been around the game and the BBS long enough to realize that to post them here would have absolutely no effect on the game and would only start a "mud" slinging match on the BBS.
It shouldn't be too hard to imagine a few things if you think about what you actually want out of the game.
In short, why do you play? What gives you true personal satisfaction when you play?
Then think about what would encourage more of those situations.
-
I don't know if the idea would help or not... I am suspicious when so many toolsheders and griefers like it tho.
I think that in the early war at least, we need to have some new maps with the fields at the minimum (3/4 sector) setting.
I honestly don't care if the milkrunners are taking fields so long as there are close fields with good furballs.
HT's idea might be the answer tho.... don't pretend to know... I have a feeling that if it forced the milkrunners to fight.... they wouldn't like it and would do their best to work around that... as some have said... kill supplies or troops or whatever instead of the field in question... anything they can hit on a milkrun.
I mean... they have been avoiding any fighting all this time and embracing the milkrun... Why would they want to embrace a good battle with the change?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
last night in the MWA there were 30 bish when I logged on. 15 being from a toolshedder/griefer squad who were basically rolling over bases on the nit front which was undefended. as long as there are players who are rewarded for killing buildings and "winning the war" the nature of the game will not change. frankly it's becoming old, perhaps there should be a toolshedders arena and they could all fly in clockwise circles perpetually avoiding fights and killing each other's toolsheds.
-
ahh where to start...steamrolling bases is a newb tactic, they enjoy it for a while ( 2 years or so AH time). They get vets who tag along to rack up kills using said newbs as bait. I did it..everyone did it for a while, it was fun but every player develops past this eventually. AH has grown so much that the player base has turned into 50% ( just a guess) newb. This is why there is so much conflict now IMO..I do think its a great idea HTC, you now have some leeway (success) to try some new things.
I have watched the early and midwar arenas get lower and lower numbers unfortunately..when there IS a good number its often lopsided, and most are steamrolling bases..
just a sugg...Implement your idea using early and mid as testing areas, leave the late alone. This will give some focus to the 10 "knights" online defending VS 40 "rooks"...or implement in LW only and see how many switch to early or mid just to capture..
Than u have two testing areas to watch us guniea pig addicts scream at each other :P
I love the fact you guys are making an effort
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I figured, what the heck, and played the 2 country game -- switched from Nits to Bish. I located a certain very large squad, and upped in their zone for an expected fight against the Rooks. I engaged a few, got some assists, and finally succumbed to a perked tiffy...
But the Large Squad had disappeared. I located them on the other side of the map, doing a base capture mission unopposed. I trailed their mission.... and helped take down some ack, grabbed another assist.
Only after I landed did I realise that I had just helped capture a base from the low side Nits-- who had climbed all the way to 7 players. Meanwhile, the Large Squad was upping to take another Nit base. I left.
Since we see these imbalances, wouldnt it be nice for:
1) the high sides to readjust themselves (after all, the rooks were low side in the EW...a few movers would have changed the entire flavor of the MW), either by changing countries or arenas?
2) and, for the two highest sides to at least try to fight each other, instead of worsening the disparity by milkrunning unopposed against a country that simply can't fight bacK? There were more players in the Large Squad mission than there were on the entire low side COUNTRY!
AND (i dont know how to double quote)
"Of course, this may not happen. It appears that some Large Squads prefer to attack where they know they will win (like the infamous BOPs did last night), rather than enter the fray with equal DAR bars." -simaril
Gee simaril....i dont think i protest too much...perhaps you would rather i ignore YOUR own comments and not protest at all? please feel free to reread YOUR own posts and see what other large squads YOU mentioned? i again find it intriguing that you NEVER name any other squad in your posts event though that night there were at least two rook squads in action on the way imbalanced side..and i dont see you calling out any of those players for not adhering to your standard of game play???
And for your information...half the bops were in LW1..only about 12 guys were in MW...i kept in private text with them through squad ch to see if they needed our help...they responded "No..the rooks are rolling everyone...knits are in truble..down to 7 bases now." I went over and we retook 2 rook bases...
So i hate to muddle your muddied thought process with strategy...but when a country is rolling both other countries...then (in that situation) taking a few knit bases will nudge the rooks away from resetting bish to focus on knits...i understand you feel above the strategic (i.e. winning the war) side of the game but it exists and is rewarded under the current system by both the scoring and perk systems. no amount of "swapping partners" will fix this...
i again commend hitech for considering ideas of disrupting hording and allowing undermanned countries the ability to focus on only a few frontline bases. i have posted numerous suggestions including doing away with the concept of "winning a war".
Until the proper "carrot" is removed, then i suspect simaril will continue to focus on and beat the wrong horse. forgive me if at times i get tired of being beaten via senseless random posts and choose to respond. always seems to be one of three people...
:p
-
And TOAD!!
i never thought i would so wholeheartedly agree with a BK...but your two posts were spot on!!!:aok
the other thing to rememebr is that only a handful..if that...of the guys that "pay the bills" bother to read or post in here...one must change the nature of what is rewarded in the game if you want the masses to change their behaviors...
LOVE the idea of AI being assigned to make up for the discrepencies in numbers...dont know if that program is at the stage where 20+ AI can run at the same time??
-
Sim I was on at the time you were helping us with that base and after we took it we started on the Vbase NE of it and had several nits foil our capture. It was only after we took that Vbase and started rolling GV's tward the next that I happened to look at the country status tab and actually asked on squad vox
"Why the heck are we attacking Nits?"
I don't think any of us actually looked at the stats befor embarking on that first mission.. Maybe HT should put a country status bar in the tower so you would always see the country #'s in tower..
I know this won't fix all the steem roll type play but it might help. I know I try not to roll the low #'d side if I know they are the low #'d side unless we are really even with an oposing side and are going for reset.
But if you don't think to check the country stat tab you can make a mistake. Like last night, and after we realized that the nits were so out #'d we started taking rook fields. 2 or 3 at least by the time I logged off.
And I must say your finger pointing to us BOPs is a bit unfair... I didn't see any rooks changing sides... In fact they continued on thier merry way taking near undefended Nit fields long after we had realized our mistake and started hitting them. So please lay off of us. We do try to be fair for the most part... Also I was a bit surprised to see you over there helping out sir. Maybe next time it will be under better circumstances, or how ever you spell it :)
-
Its the players that make the game- good or bad. HTC just sets up the playing field, we are responsible for the play.
Right now there or more large squads that get their jollies going into small arenas and making gameplay completely lopsided, than there are squads that come in & check out the numbers and choose to even things up. HTC can only do so much. When Bops, Ltars, and the like, decide they want to use their masses to dominate an arena by using large numbers and taking undefended bases- well this is what we get. ENJOY!
:aok
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
And TOAD!!
i never thought i would so wholeheartedly agree with a BK...but your two posts were spot on!!!:aok
the other thing to rememebr is that only a handful..if that...of the guys that "pay the bills" bother to read or post in here...one must change the nature of what is rewarded in the game if you want the masses to change their behaviors...
LOVE the idea of AI being assigned to make up for the discrepencies in numbers...dont know if that program is at the stage where 20+ AI can run at the same time??
When I USED to brag about this game to people I knew, one of the high points was "every plane you see in the game is another actual person, at their computer, flying their plane". Although I havent bragged about the game for some time now..........
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
And TOAD!!
i never thought i would so wholeheartedly agree with a BK...but your two posts were spot on!!!:aok
Your post is not spot on, I'm afraid.
I have never been a Blue Knight, or even a Burger King. I think it's a fine squad with some great people and great cartoon pilots in it but as my avatar suggests, I was 13th TAS until OZ died and then we changed the name to Wardogs.
While you may agree with my posts, don't lose sight of the fact that I think toolshedders have pretty much ruined what was once a fantastic air-to-air combat game and I think large lemming squads have also played a major part in dumbing this game way down.
Do you still agree?
-
Originally posted by Atoon
"every plane you see in the game is another actual person, at their computer, flying their plane".
I feel reasonably certain you won't see AI in the AH public online arenas; more likely it will be CT only.
In a way, I think that's too bad. While I certainly prefer to fight other people, I think it's also true that the AI is far closer to a fighter pilot personality than 90% of the current online players.
In short, I imagine CTAI001's little silicon heart beats a cpu cycle quicker and when examined under an electron microscope all the tiny little electrons actually show a :) when CTAI0001 detects an enemy to engage.
At the present time, CTAI001 is one of the relatively few that is fun to engage. I haven't seen him run from a fight yet.
-
Fair enough, Flayed. I didnt check to see who the mission was hitting....no big deal, as far as I'm concerned. Started the thread deliberately avoiding mentioning specific sqiuads, and screwed up when I sad anything about the BOPs -- despite the avatars, the BOPs are not and have not been "the problem".
Honestly I guess I let my disappointment over the MW situation pull me off the main point -- which was (and is) massive side imbalance, not unopposed capture or anything else.
So I apologise for mentioning you guys specifically.
I am concerned that the huge imbalances are destroying the sense of tighter community I so enjoyed when the EW and MW opened. Last night it was the Knights who had a large squad combined operation...and I played Bish trying to defend. (No, I'm not going to make that mistake again: not saying who!)
The steamroll kept the defenders from reaching critical mass. I saw guys log on, do a sortie, and leave. The regulars who a couple weeks ago were chatting on 200, and saluting after deaths, were nowhere to be found. A fulltime Bish who is a Good Guy and a member of a Large Squad himself went on 200 about the situation...and yeah, it DOES stink to be on the recieving end.
So I went to the EW. There were only 20 or so up, but a group had set up their own playground. They decided to keep under 5K, to pass on all HOs, and to not gang. I had a blast there the rest of the night, partly from the flying but mostly from the banter and chat....the community.
I really hope a solution is found. There has to be a way that large squads can have their own kind of community fun, smaller squads can find places to fly, and unaffiliated can build connections. If that cant happen just between us players, then I hope HT can find the rule set that forces us to do it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Your post is not spot on, I'm afraid.
I have never been a Blue Knight, or even a Burger King. I think it's a fine squad with some great people and great cartoon pilots in it but as my avatar suggests, I was 13th TAS until OZ died and then we changed the name to Wardogs.
While you may agree with my posts, don't lose sight of the fact that I think toolshedders have pretty much ruined what was once a fantastic air-to-air combat game and I think large lemming squads have also played a major part in dumbing this game way down.
Do you still agree?
Toad ... He might be confused because of our avatars ... I made the 13th TAS avatar (when I was in the 13th TAS) that Toad uses and created my BK avatar using the same background and "OZ" tag.
-
Yes I think it's the avatar. I even thought you were a BK, guess it would help if I read your sig huh :)
Oh and Sim our avatars are more to poke fun and in some cases there is a bit of sarcasm in some of them :)
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
Yes I think it's the avatar. I even thought you were a BK, guess it would help if I read your sig huh :)
For all intents and purposes ... the 13th TAS and the BKs are the same ... we think the same when it comes to gameplay.
-
Well, I thought about and I call BS on the idea. Now people would have to fight to capture a base and win the war. That is just redicilus. Why would anyone want to do something like that?
:noid
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
........snip......
Oh and Sim our avatars are more to poke fun and in some cases there is a bit of sarcasm in some of them :)
Yeah, I know....meant to be doing a "wink wink nudge nudge" back, but missed writing with the proper tone -- which I seem to be doing a lot lately....:confused:
BOPs have PMs.
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Well, I thought about and I call BS on the idea. Now people would have to fight to capture a base and win the war. That is just redicilus. Why would anyone want to do something like that?
:noid
Crazy concept ... eh ?
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Crazy concept ... eh ?
whacky I am telling you. One could get a sence of acomplishment after a capture. :furious
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
That would pretty much limit most of game play to two fields for each country and make base capture almost impossible unless your Bish which usually has a 25 to 50 or more player advantage.
-
Originally posted by 68Ripper
That would pretty much limit most of game play to two fields for each country and make base capture almost impossible unless your Bish which usually has a 25 to 50 or more player advantage.
Stratigery my friend. You may have to use missions and buffs to desable the sarounding fields. Quite the oposite will happen. People will have to deffend the fields around the one under attack. That field will be always porked and deffence will only be possible from the fields around it. You can have goon hunting missions, you can have buff missions that mean something other than taking FHs down in some random field, etc. You may have to actualy organise, think, and fight in that set up. It may actually be interesting.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Your post is not spot on, I'm afraid.
I have never been a Blue Knight, or even a Burger King. I think it's a fine squad with some great people and great cartoon pilots in it but as my avatar suggests, I was 13th TAS until OZ died and then we changed the name to Wardogs.
While you may agree with my posts, don't lose sight of the fact that I think toolshedders have pretty much ruined what was once a fantastic air-to-air combat game and I think large lemming squads have also played a major part in dumbing this game way down.
Do you still agree?
As i said before...i agree wholeheartedly with your two earlier posts...
As to thinking you were blue knight..i would have to say your exact same avatar...15,000 posts...witty description under your avatar....would confuse sherlock holmes:rolleyes: my apologies
and as to your last post...i think any game is what we make of it...if even 20% of the guys who post repeatedly in here assumed some form of leadership in the game, im sure they could have whatever they desired.
But there is a very big difference between "telling" people what to do and investing the time and energy it requires to actually "lead" people.:O
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Stratigery my friend. You may have to use missions and buffs to desable the sarounding fields. Quite the oposite will happen. People will have to deffend the fields around the one under attack. That field will be always porked and deffence will only be possible from the fields around it. You can have goon hunting missions, you can have buff missions that mean something other than taking FHs down in some random field, etc. You may have to actualy organise, think, and fight in that set up. It may actually be interesting.
:huh
the main gameplay will still be focused on two fields on each side. Cramming everyone into one area and knocking FPS down to zip.
-
And you toolshedders will have no place to hide muhahaha. It would be slaughter on a grand scale.
:t
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
Hey HT,
I thought about this a while, and I don't think it's the best solution. First off, what you would be doing is substituting a computer program rule on which base should be attacked next for the strategic sense of the players. I think that short circuits one of the best aspects of the game, which is that the players develop the strategies used. Secondly, I think you run the risk of killing off base capture altogether because the base capture just becomes a giant meat grinder where all the base capture guys spend hours trying to get over the top on each other to get a cap on a field and finally take it. It reminds me more of WWI trench warfare than a WW2 flying game.
If the object is to stop or severely slow down hordes from taking bases from a side with few players, consider this - automatically adjusting the number of troops necessary to capture the base. Maybe we multiply the number of troops needed for each capture by an ENY-like number to determine how many troops are needed to take a base. For example, if the rook horde is up to an ENY of 4, make it take 40 troops to capture a map room.
The formulas can be worked out and tested, but what I think it would accomplish is that the horde has to have a progressively higher number of players running goons & M3's around, so fewer players are flying fighters. This both gives the defenders a better shot at stopping the base capture through goon-hunting, and creates an incentive for the horde to even up the numbers a bit if they don't want to spend the entire night flying flocks of goons around. Further, you can create some "fog of war" by having each side not know exactly how many troops it will take to get the capture when the "equalization" formula kicks in.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Stang, the bengals suck man..
accept that dude, life will be much easier the rest of the season for you.;)
-
Originally posted by Lazerr
:cry FSU sucks wahhhhh :cry
It's ok Lazer, there's always next year.
;)
-
Originally posted by Stang
And you toolshedders will have no place to hide muhahaha. It would be slaughter on a grand scale.
:t
:O :rofl
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Hey HT,
I thought about this a while, and I don't think it's the best solution. First off, what you would be doing is substituting a computer program rule on which base should be attacked next for the strategic sense of the players. I think that short circuits one of the best aspects of the game, which is that the players develop the strategies used. Secondly, I think you run the risk of killing off base capture altogether because the base capture just becomes a giant meat grinder where all the base capture guys spend hours trying to get over the top on each other to get a cap on a field and finally take it. It reminds me more of WWI trench warfare than a WW2 flying game.
If the object is to stop or severely slow down hordes from taking bases from a side with few players, consider this - automatically adjusting the number of troops necessary to capture the base. Maybe we multiply the number of troops needed for each capture by an ENY-like number to determine how many troops are needed to take a base. For example, if the rook horde is up to an ENY of 4, make it take 40 troops to capture a map room.
The formulas can be worked out and tested, but what I think it would accomplish is that the horde has to have a progressively higher number of players running goons & M3's around, so fewer players are flying fighters. This both gives the defenders a better shot at stopping the base capture through goon-hunting, and creates an incentive for the horde to even up the numbers a bit if they don't want to spend the entire night flying flocks of goons around. Further, you can create some "fog of war" by having each side not know exactly how many troops it will take to get the capture when the "equalization" formula kicks in.
EagleDNY
$.02
Eagle, I like your idea. Not that that counts for much... I hope HT considers it.
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
But there is a very big difference between "telling" people what to do and investing the time and energy it requires to actually "lead" people.:O
Indeed.
It's hard work to make people play the way you want them to play. And who would know that better than a toolshedder?
I used to lead people professionally. I don't "lead" people here; I play a game for my own enjoyment.
I can see where the avatar is confusing. See Slap's post above.
-
I think we need two countries- say, the "Sheep" and the "Wolves". The Wolves could have LaLas & Spit16s & Tempests and the Sheep couldn't. That would even numbers and streamline the whines 0n the BBS.
-MI-
-
Originally posted by MIShill
I think we need two countries- say, the "Sheep" and the "Wolves". The Wolves could have LaLas & Spit16s & Tempests and the Sheep couldn't. That would even numbers and streamline the whines 0n the BBS.
-MI-
That's what ENY does, in effect.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed.
It's hard work to make people play the way you want them to play. And who would know that better than a toolshedder?
I used to lead people professionally. I don't "lead" people here; I play a game for my own enjoyment.
I can see where the avatar is confusing. See Slap's post above.
I don't get it, toad. Falc was polite, discussed ideas as an equal to an equal, yet you insist on using the old, loaded names and the same tired arguments.
I thought that (just maybe) we could get past that crap. Apparently, some of us can't.
-
I like Eagledny's idea, and would think that a good way to expand on it would be to make the base ack and other strat "harder". And the base ack should be more deadly.
Perhaps another change would be to move the map room back onto the base, so that a field needs to be completely destroyed to capture. This would get rid of the two-man milkrunner base captures. Add a couple of 5-inchers to the fields, mannable with prox fuses, and watch the fun begin!
-
perhaps what needs to happen is for jamusta's idea of an antihorde to form up and squash the toolshedders. I just logged off from the AvA, I was enjoying a cruise around this new map which is really a nice piece of work. congratulations to Dux and his team. as I'm flying over a friendly port suddenly the ack starts to nail me. sure enough some retarded toolshedder had just captured the port. apparently he was there all by his lonesome, practicing for the big leagues when he can bring his perfected game to the main arenas. another prime candidate for the 90+ member squads.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
I don't get it, toad. Falc was polite, discussed ideas as an equal to an equal, yet you insist on using the old, loaded names and the same tired arguments.
I did not attack him; I merely stated my views in accurate, commonly used descriptive terms.
I feel it was highly accurate.
It isn't the fighters who try to "make" others play a certain way. Fighters just fight wherever and whenever they can.
Sadly, it's the other side of the coin that has to have other people play by a certain set of rules as Laz has often pointed out.
It's not an argument; it's an unassailable fact.
The game was not broken until reset/rank/perks became the be-all/end-all of AH.
When it was about attempting to be the best you personally could possibly be it was a much better environment and a much better game.
Resets/Perks/Rank are Fool's Gold; shiny and glittery substitutes for something of real value. They have led AH to this most recent attempt to change the direction of the player base. It won't work because the goal hasn't changed.
I'm sorry if the truth offends.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I did not attack him; I merely stated my views in accurate, commonly used descriptive terms.
I feel it was highly accurate.
It isn't the fighters who try to "make" others play a certain way. Fighters just fight wherever and whenever they can.
Sadly, it's the other side of the coin that has to have other people play by a certain set of rules as Laz has often pointed out.
It's not an argument; it's an unassailable fact.
The game was not broken until reset/rank/perks became the be-all/end-all of AH.
When it was about attempting to be the best you personally could possibly be it was a much better environment and a much better game.
Resets/Perks/Rank are Fool's Gold; shiny and glittery substitutes for something of real value. They have led AH to this most recent attempt to change the direction of the player base. It won't work because the goal hasn't changed.
I'm sorry if the truth offends.
What he said.
As an aside, who wants to take turns guessing which squads were in the LWA on the sides with overwhelming numbers?
-
Masherbrum made a good point about this need to play a certain side. Squads forcing rules on members on what country to play. I believe eny should be used on players and not on planes. If for example rooks have a +5 adv over the other 2 countries. Then you disable that country as a selection when you first enter the game. We will have to select from the other 2 countries. No need for eny, hardening of hangers or troop capture. Change the time limit for switching sides to a hour.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
You know, there would be a way around this...5 sets of high buffs drop the hangars, defenders have to up at another field, but not there in time to prevent capture...
That's what happens even at defended fields. Enough numbers would force the issue.
If we look at the strat game, what does it have in common with Airwarrior, or Warbirds? It hinges on base captures. Now, in RL, territory changes hands based on occupying units, and ZOC(Zones Of Control.) Now, I would propose, maybe the whole problem is that all you have to do, is blow a small town off the map, get some troops in, and the base is now yours, until someone else can return the favor.
Maybe that is the whole problem. I would propose that we bring in the ZOC's, by having to advance a marker on the ground, or dropped by a goon, along the front. Your frontline would be defined by a string of markers, that you would have to advance BEYOND a base, in order to effect capture. Make it so that you cannot advance a marker more than 5-10k away from another friendly marker, so that you have to move your front forward at some point, or you risk losing continuity of your line. Bases that aren't inside the enemies' line, but not inside the control of yours, would turn inactive and neutral, until somebody advanced their line of markers beyond it.The markers could be emplaced by anything that carries 10 troops(same as a field capture) and would emplaced and activated wherever they were let out...But you would have to have an unbroken line of them, across your front, to enable captures inside your line. If you wish, you could still have field capture hinge on flattening the town and running more troops in, But would not take place without markers emplaced so that the field was inside your front line. You could make the markers a function like troops, with the same availability at fields, with a troop barracks.
If you don't have your line extending to a friendly field, It doesn't get supply, or hangars stay down, until you get your markers back in place.
You could use troops to capture or destroy NME markers, and force the line back...Even if your NME captured a field, If you were to destroy his markers, or advance your own past his field, HIS hangars would'nt come back up, or get supply.
Anyway, I had this brain drizzle, you guys pick it apart, see what you would or would'nt like about it. I've seen some excellent suggestions so far that could be done in the current framework, But it may be that our current strat is what the problem is...We've essentially got an 10-15 year old game play model. Maybe AH2 shows the need for a massive upheaval in the way the strat game is played.
my .02$
-
A way that will end some of the overwhelming one-sided odds. Make a FFA arena, and a gv only arena. HT, ever see how many people go to TT when its current map? A lot. Say what you want, heard many ppl say "This is an Air sim". Fact is, many of us love good tank fights.
A FFA arena would eliminate one-sided fighting. But, IMHO wish it would be back to the old way.
Oz
-
Originally posted by Toad
I did not attack him; I merely stated my views in accurate, commonly used descriptive terms.
I feel it was highly accurate.
It isn't the fighters who try to "make" others play a certain way. Fighters just fight wherever and whenever they can.
Sadly, it's the other side of the coin that has to have other people play by a certain set of rules as Laz has often pointed out.
It's not an argument; it's an unassailable fact.
The game was not broken until reset/rank/perks became the be-all/end-all of AH.
When it was about attempting to be the best you personally could possibly be it was a much better environment and a much better game.
Resets/Perks/Rank are Fool's Gold; shiny and glittery substitutes for something of real value. They have led AH to this most recent attempt to change the direction of the player base. It won't work because the goal hasn't changed.
I'm sorry if the truth offends.
I don't think he attacked falconwing. lighten up shubie. capture your bases, fly in hordes. it's your $15. don't expect everyone to agree with you though.
-
I have and will continue to refrain from labelling others with the derogatory terms that have flown back and forth...
and storch i agree with you wholeheartedly that it is in fact each of our $15/month and that entitles each of us to play in whatever manner makes us the happiest and most satisfied.
the FACT that most of the members choose to fly not only in "fiter" mode should give all here an opportunity to pause and appreciate that perhaps there is more fun for the majority of SUBSCRIBERS in those behaviors.
noone who flies the "full scope" of the game has posted suggesting the "fiter only" group is somehow inferior but the reverse continues to not be true.
my agreement with toad (despite his not caring for it) was that unless the game and its laid out objectives are changed, then it is an exercise in futility to belabor people to "set their own rules" that dont fit the current porgrammed reward system.
what is most humerous and puzzling to me is that even though the Birds of Prey have been in AH for around 6 years (same concept and rules), there were never any derogatory posts or accusations of us being a problem. Now the BoPs are suddenly both the cause and solution to all the problems. The only thing i know that has changed is the arena format.
i commend laz and karaya for being leaders and developing the EW into a fiter arena. that has always been an option...for fiter guys to organize themselves instead of worrying about others. i, for one, was a big supporter of FT maps and TT maps and refused to allow my squad to participate in capturing those fields as would occur from time to time.
what IS confusing about it is that the DA has always been essentially a fiter town for any that wanted to use it as such. no time limit for switching..common cross country vox channels...and a specific reason for being there...the only difference i can think of is no perks or score or interaction with the larger community...but from reading the posts over the last month, those arent things supposedly valued by "fiter only folks":huh
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
surely that would only make horde's worse?
i think, somehow, the Roster once you in a server should show the numbers in the other servers.... Or would that be too much coding?
And the other point of two sides, i will have to agree with HTC on this one (i never used to) but 3 sides is "better" when the map is nearing the end. Because the two sides winning, end up fighting each other because they want more bases for reset....
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Reminds me more of WWI trench warfare than a WW2 flying game.
If the object is to stop or severely slow down hordes from taking bases from a side with few players, consider this - automatically adjusting the number of troops necessary to capture the base. Maybe we multiply the number of troops needed for each capture by an ENY-like number to determine how many troops are needed to take a base. For example, if the rook horde is up to an ENY of 4, make it take 40 troops to capture a map room.
EagleDNY
$.02
great idea:aok :cool:
-
Originally posted by Simaril
1) the high sides to readjust themselves (after all, the rooks were low side in the EW...a few movers would have changed the entire flavor of the MW), either by changing countries or arenas?
2) and, for the two highest sides to at least try to fight each other, instead of worsening the disparity by milkrunning unopposed against a country that simply can't fight bacK? There were more players in the Large Squad mission than there were on the entire low side COUNTRY!
You probably don't need to do anything that elaborate. The problem is maps are too big for the amount of players that want to play those arenas. Decrease map size and 3 countries will work. Leave the oversized maps there and you will always have people switching simply because the numbers can only support one front when the map is about 10x too large.
You go with an early AW size map, as an example, and you'll find the place is a blast and likely pretty well balanced all by itself wrt country numbers. You'd also find that you may, in time, have to increase the map sizes a bit as I'm sure many folks log into those two areans WANTING to play there, however when they see they are the needle in a map the size of the preverbial haystack, they go to the main arena. Reduce the map size and make the it so fights are resonably easy to find, and folks will play there.
Its a great concept, but it won't amount to anything more than its current form without a drastic reduction in map size.
-
STOP!!!!!! Stop stop
This is getting way out of hand, it'd be easier if everyone just checks in with me and I'll asign duties for the day. Simple as that:aok
Everyone prob feels better already!!
That was easy
-
My 2 cent suggestion.
Seems to me that it might be as simple to just monitor and regulate the number of players per country.
So when a player logs into an arena, he is automatically assigned to the country with lowest numbers. The regulator code would prevent any major imbalance, keep things pretty balanced, and thus eliminate any whining of being stuck on the low number country.
Automatic number regulation and Squads
The fairest compromise for squads who obviously like to fly together, IMHO, is have them automatically assigned as either 2 plane elements, 4 plane flights, 8 plane sections, and 12 (or 16) plane squadrons, depending on the current number of players in the arena.
For example, the EW arena has ~30 total with ~10 per side. (This happens in GMT time.)
The first squadie who logs in will go to a country.
The 2nd squadmate who logs in will go to his squadmate's country, no matter if that puts them a person or two above the other two countries.
However, the third squadmate will go to the lowest populated country.
And the fourth flyer of that squadron will go to the country that the 3rd squadmate is on.
Etc.
Another example: There are ~ 60 total and ~20 people per country, then 4 flyers from a squadron would go to the same country. The 5th through 8th would get bumped to a different country to keep things balanced.
'Nother example: ~ 120 total in the arena and ~ 40 people per country, then 8 flyers from a squadron could go to the same country, and the 9th through 16th would get bumped to another to keep things balanced.
With more than 180 in the arena, or 60 per side, then a 12 man squadron could go to the same side without causing a major imbalance.
Originally posted by Masherbrum
...............
2.) Eliminate the Chesspiece. Number the Countries and lose all "WHAH, I fly this chesspiece because it harkens back to WB or AW days, WHAH". Act like adults instead of spoiled little brats having a toy taken away from you.
...............
I also think that chesspiece inertia may have some effect on balance of the countries. And if the maps ever get reduced to two countries during population shrink, then it might be wise to eliminate the chesspiece names. Otherwise feelings of discrimination may arise among "loyalists" of the omitted chess piece.
Suggestions:
Falcons – Hawks
Eagles – Wolfpack
Tigers – Sharks
Rebels – Mavericks
Crows – Jaybirds
RE: HT's suggestion of 2 fields that could be captured per country. Sounds interesting. Maybe you could add recon birds (of many of the existing planes) that upon overflight and landing could reveal the two bases that are capturable.
-
Frode's idea was tha best yet but would require the most COADing to accomplish.
One easier solution that would only require arena settings changes is: (yes, has been suggested before)
a. Increase ack strength and accuracy, Increase number of ack guns with more man-able guns. Man-able puffy ack at bases like the 5" on the carriers.
b. 10 troops to capture a base is just stupid. It should be higher, 20-30 at least. The Japanese lost over 14K men and still could not capture Henderson field yet we can take a base with 10 troops.
c. Increase the hardness of troops. One plane should in no way be able to kill all the troops at a field.
(may require COADing)
d. Jeeps are available even if the VH is down. i.e. if the VH is down then there are 5 jeeps with machine gus available from the tower. These can be used to defend the town.
e. You get no points for capturing an undefended. Points are awarded based on how difficult the field was to capture.
f. If you lose the field before a set time period you lose your points. I.e. you must defend what you take.
I think e and f would do the most to stop the milk-running base captures.
I am sorry to say the the only way I see the side imbalance fixed is by forcibly balancing the sides. Even as distasteful as that might be. Especially in the EW and MW arenas
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
HiTech, if you do that, I'll start looking for another game to play. Basicly it looks like the changes to the arenas are only popular with the customers that wanted that type of game play in the first place. An unsciencetific check at random times of the numbers would seem to indicate that everyone except for a total of about 60 players on average want to play in the Late War Arena. The Axis v Allied Arena seems seldom used and again it appears that the most I have ever seen in there is 30.
Now you purpose to drastically modify game play , to accomplish what? Even up the sides? WAR is seldom even. Just as Poland or France or Germany or Japan at the end.
Right now when one side has a numbers advantage in AH you can hit bases away from that sides strong area and force them to use resources in a different part of the arena. You purpose to alter any chance of a weaker side doing that, by forcing everyone to only be able to attack at one point.
You might as well just have one arena with only three bases, no towns, no trains, no trucks, no tanks, just a never ending furball.
-
Now you purpose to drastically modify game play , to accomplish what? Even up the sides? WAR is seldom even. Just as Poland or France or Germany or Japan at the end.
Do you play H2H much cuz that's about all you see in those arena's.Half those people in H2H won't even the teams because they wanna outnumber someone so maybe they have a better chance of surviving when it's not about that in the first place , it's about fighting cartoon air planes against others who enjoy the same and getting a break from the normal day stress.
-
Originally posted by Traveler
HiTech, if you do that, I'll start looking for another game to play. Basicly it looks like the changes to the arenas are only popular with the customers that wanted that type of game play in the first place. An unsciencetific check at random times of the numbers would seem to indicate that everyone except for a total of about 60 players on average want to play in the Late War Arena. The Axis v Allied Arena seems seldom used and again it appears that the most I have ever seen in there is 30.
Now you purpose to drastically modify game play , to accomplish what? Even up the sides? WAR is seldom even. Just as Poland or France or Germany or Japan at the end.
Right now when one side has a numbers advantage in AH you can hit bases away from that sides strong area and force them to use resources in a different part of the arena. You purpose to alter any chance of a weaker side doing that, by forcing everyone to only be able to attack at one point.
You might as well just have one arena with only three bases, no towns, no trains, no trucks, no tanks, just a never ending furball.
Let me summarize ...
HT ... your 3 arena idea sucks ... even tho LW is still really the old MA, and the other 2 arenas allow those who would like to utilize the older plane sets to enjoy themselves. Get rid of the other 2 arenas and FORCE those people back into the MA slumfest.
I want to "milkrun" and if you take that ability away ... I am going to take my ball and go home.
Planning and fighting for a capture is absurd ... don't you know ... only furballers fight.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Let me summarize ...
HT ... your 3 arena idea sucks ... even tho LW is still really the old MA, and the other 2 arenas allow those who would like to utilize the older plane sets to enjoy themselves. Get rid of the other 2 arenas and FORCE those people back into the MA slumfest.
I want to "milkrun" and if you take that ability away ... I am going to take my ball and go home.
Planning and fighting for a capture is absurd ... don't you know ... only furballers fight.
Your summarization is totally off the mark. The opinion expressed by you are your thoughts not mine.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Let me summarize ...
HT ... your 3 arena idea sucks ... even tho LW is still really the old MA, and the other 2 arenas allow those who would like to utilize the older plane sets to enjoy themselves. Get rid of the other 2 arenas and FORCE those people back into the MA slumfest.
I want to "milkrun" and if you take that ability away ... I am going to take my ball and go home.
Planning and fighting for a capture is absurd ... don't you know ... only furballers fight.
i keep hereing this milkrun rubbish and i wonder why you guys now think its harder to milkrun?
empty arenas ALLOW milkrunning...EW and MW are great empty arenas to milkrun in. I mean when i was FORCED to play in a empty arena last night because MA was full. i nearly captured 2 bases before i saw a enermy con... And im talking about JUST me, one cv, vs a empty field. I flew around for a few hours, saw 2 people on my side, 3 on the other. I logged in frustration and posted a thread asking for higher MA cap.
Lasts nights gameplay for me, during primetime, was much like uk at 10-14....empty arenas with milkrunners everywhere, all because i couldnt get into a arena with the other players.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
i keep hereing this milkrun rubbish and i wonder why you guys now think its harder to milkrun?
empty arenas ALLOW milkrunning...EW and MW are great empty arenas to milkrun in. I mean when i was FORCED to play in a empty arena last night because MA was full. i nearly captured 2 bases before i saw a enermy con... And im talking about JUST me, one cv, vs a empty field. I flew around for a few hours, saw 2 people on my side, 3 on the other. I logged in frustration and posted a thread asking for higher MA cap.
Lasts nights gameplay for me, during primetime, was much like uk at 10-14....empty arenas with milkrunners everywhere, all because i couldnt get into a arena with the other players.
Nobody said it was harder to milkrun ... most would agree with you that it is very easy to milkrun in the EW and MW ... the idea presented in this thread by HT was possibly trying to make it harder to milkrun.
I don't know what time frames you fly in, but if you were FORCED into the MW last night (US Prime Time), it was far from empty ... there was plenty of action ... very well balanced as far as the numbers goes ... and I saw no milkrunning by any country ... but we all know you have this penchant for making stuff up to prove a point ... it's becoming quite obvious by now.
-
I don't know what time frames you fly in, but if you were FORCED into the MW last night (US Prime Time), it was far from empty ... there was plenty of action ... very well balanced as far as the numbers goes ... and I saw no milkrunning by any country ... but we all know you have this penchant for making stuff up to prove a point ... it's becoming quite obvious by now.
Umm, Slapshot...you really need to be fair to Overlag, here. He DOESN'T fly US primetime. He's on euro-time. It would be like you or me staying up until sometime between 1-5 a.m. Having pulled all-nighters, I've seen the arena numbers he's talked about. Pretty desolate.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I don't know what time frames you fly in, but if you were FORCED into the MW last night (US Prime Time), it was far from empty ... there was plenty of action ... very well balanced as far as the numbers goes ... and I saw no milkrunning by any country ... but we all know you have this penchant for making stuff up to prove a point ... it's becoming quite obvious by now.
:rolleyes:
this game runs 24/7, try playing it 11am UK time ;)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
:rolleyes:
this game runs 24/7, try playing it 11am UK time ;)
Dude ... I wrote that on the 18th and now your responding to it ? ... I thought between then and now ... we came to an understanding (especially me) and I have not jumped all over any of your posts since then.
(http://www.day.az/forum/style_emoticons/default/thinking.gif)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
It seems that the small arenas are trending towards effectively 2 countries. Both EW and MW had one side with hige advantage (maybe 50%), another that was competitive but outnumbered (say 35%) and the last with rediculously low numbers.
In MW last night I saw 45 rooks, 24 bish, 5 knights.
I figured, what the heck, and played the 2 country game -- switched from Nits to Bish. I located a certain very large squad, and upped in their zone for an expected fight against the Rooks. I engaged a few, got some assists, and finally succumbed to a perked tiffy...
But the Large Squad had disappeared. I located them on the other side of the map, doing a base capture mission unopposed. I trailed their mission.... and helped take down some ack, grabbed another assist.
Only after I landed did I realise that I had just helped capture a base from the low side Nits-- who had climbed all the way to 7 players. Meanwhile, the Large Squad was upping to take another Nit base. I left.
Since we see these imbalances, wouldnt it be nice for:
1) the high sides to readjust themselves (after all, the rooks were low side in the EW...a few movers would have changed the entire flavor of the MW), either by changing countries or arenas?
2) and, for the two highest sides to at least try to fight each other, instead of worsening the disparity by milkrunning unopposed against a country that simply can't fight bacK? There were more players in the Large Squad mission than there were on the entire low side COUNTRY!
last night in the EW when I logged on there were 32 bish 15 nit 16 rook players. the bish were led by the Bops and had the nits rolled down to four bases. an intrepid rook player suggested on country that we attack the bish thus relieving the beleaguered nits.
just as I was settling in for a comfy bomb run into bishland an amazingly simple message flashes across the text buffer. does anyone want to fight in fighters? I reponded in the affirmative and a location for the fight was quickly selected between A5 and A62.
the fight lasted for the better part of an hour usually between 3 players per side. my ripeness finally overcame the family and I was sent to the shower by frau storch and offspring. upon completion of my shower I return to find (much to my surprise and pleasure) the fight still in full swing.
in total I believe it was a two hour long, small but intense furball. all good things come to an end and this fight did in the usual manner, a strat player took out all of the nit hangers in the name of winning teh war. poor furballers never bother anyone, we just don't fit in and hunted down like vermin. our places of birth are stamped out of existence for fifteen minutes.
mars01 for his invitation to beat me up, loumn and xcasprx. those were very nice fights and they are the reason I re-suscribe every month.
-
One team steam rolled another team with superior numbers? Whats news about that?
If you make bases tougher to capture the team with less players will be at an even greater disatvantage because they will not have the resources to recapture lost bases.
Make bases easyier to capture it will spread the fights out and it will allow 2-3 man units to make a difference. There will fights all over the map.
Large squads capturing bases against little opposition so they can reset the map? Big deal, this does not bother me at all. In fact it is a good thing, because in the games current state large units are the only thing with enuff muscle to move the map around. I get tired of taking off at the same base and flying to same enemy base over and over. I enjoy the change of scenery and change of pace this map "movement" brings.
Too many players on one team? Everytime I log in, I join the team with the least players and I fight/attack the team with the most players. I do this because i enjoy the challenge, and it is good for the game.
Helm
XO ^"^Nazgul^"^
-
Make one of the smaller arenas a fighter town. That would make it fun for me and I believe several others. Not that I really expect this to happen, but it's an appropriate response to this thread.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by Toad
Your post is not spot on, I'm afraid.
I have never been a Blue Knight, or even a Burger King. I think it's a fine squad with some great people and great cartoon pilots in it but as my avatar suggests, I was 13th TAS until OZ died and then we changed the name to Wardogs.
While you may agree with my posts, don't lose sight of the fact that I think toolshedders have pretty much ruined what was once a fantastic air-to-air combat game and I think large lemming squads have also played a major part in dumbing this game way down.
Do you still agree?
Actually the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of HT and HT alone.
For it is his game design, inherent goals and tools that have evolved the game into what it has become today.
I for one am sick and tired of the players being blamed for the evolution of the game while using the games tools, objectives and design to play the game.
Until HT figures a design to change the way the game is played and the objectives that are to be achieved, then the players will continue to play the game as designed and the game play will be a product of the games design.
You all can point the fingers to each other all you want.
The fact of the matter is, HT is solely responsible for how this will all shake out in the end.
Yes he will and has lost subscribers. Yes he will gain new subscribers. And yes i think Ah2 will march on. It is by the whole of the sum a good game.
Its time to face the facts. Ah2 is changing, some will stay and others will leave as i have.
After the dust settles i can come back and have a look see and decide if it is for me or not.
But to continue to blame or be blamed by my fellow players for a game design that dictates game play, play style and outcome is total Bull****.
Just look at this thread alone.
With every suggestion the problems multiply and compound untill the cons out weigh the pros.
It seem's rather impossible to have a "Win the War" game and a "Dogfighting game" all wrapped up in one without the incessant *****ing and moaning from each side.
As i see it, there never was a problem with the game design at all, other than the fact that the guy feeling pounded on found the games design as an excuse to explain his reason for sucking on any given day.
So why let the Games design cause us fellow players to blame each other? Put the blame where the blame should be placed.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Dude ... I wrote that on the 18th and now your responding to it ? ... I thought between then and now ... we came to an understanding (especially me) and I have not jumped all over any of your posts since then.
(http://www.day.az/forum/style_emoticons/default/thinking.gif)
because i totally missed it, and the other fella replied to it bringing it into my inbox ;)
yeah we had come to an understanding yes... :aok
-
This game is reminding me more of the government every day... using a "welfare based" perk system and penalizing those with a numerical advantage... to 'make things fair'
now using a system to discourage teamwork and cooperation that stifles progress and encouraging a stalemate... sounds just like congress!
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
This game is reminding me more of the government every day... using a "welfare based" perk system and penalizing those with a numerical advantage... to 'make things fair'
now using a system to discourage teamwork and cooperation that stifles progress and encouraging a stalemate... sounds just like congress!
Now this is funny :D
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
now using a system to discourage teamwork and cooperation that stifles progress and encouraging a stalemate... sounds just like congress!
So you're in favor of monopolies? You know, large corporations that work together as teams to maximize their own advantage, even if it causes harm to the common person?
Wait, I was talking about business, not hordes...right??
-
It's not a war and it is not a political movement..
It's a game.... a game is supposed to be fair and fun.. One person is not supposed to be able to make it unfun for dozens at a time with little or no effort.
When that happens.. the rules need to be adjusted.
The problem is the steep learning curve. the new guys need to be able to have some advantage or some way to have an effect without getting too high up on the learning curve.
The problem is when the easy mode stuff like bombing, some of the GV's and the late war planes that should be for the new guys with very little skill to kill simplistic strat...
When those things get gamed and griefed... when someone organizes dozens or more to use these gamey tools to destroy the fun of the whole arena or when the guys with skill insist on useing the easy mode strat ideas and planes and vehicles.
I don't see the solution... the gamey squads feel they have a right... if you restrict em too much then the totaly skilless newbie won't have anything to do and lose interest.
We obviously can't police ourselves in a large arena so... the small arenas with less chance to game the game are what we got.
I guess it is too bad that Air warrior easymode died and emptied out into here.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Simaril,
Isn't that what the CT was all about? A small arena frequented by a small number of people? That small number of people had fun. Now HTC added another small arena and began calling the smaller arenas EW, MW. But now you have equalization of the plane sets. Again small people numbers. Then HTC added another LW arena due to spill over from the 1st LW arena.
He has actually created another arena but merely limited the planesets somewhat. Did you notice the LW is where it's at? Did you also notice the other smaller arenas have a nice following? Not large but some place for those that only wanna see 20 or so enemy planes can go.
What makes you think, that if there are 40 or 100 or 500 people, they will want to play your way? Even up the sides? Why? They have always been Bish. Why stop now? Because you want them to? They have had a squad, big or small, they should stop having a squad because you want them to? So you can have fun? Is it all about you? Is it all about them? Majority rules? Minority loses? Squeeky wheel gets the oil? Which is it?
I think it's more about the Community. If you quit worrying about you and got up and had some fun then you might find out that it's all good. One thing that HT has done is made sure there is a little bit of everything for everyone in the game. There really is more than one way to have fun in the game without having to tell everyone their way isn't.
For instance, I got up last night in the LW arena and decided to go check out 16 as there was an enemy dar bar there. On arrival no friendlies were in the area but I saw 3 or 4 dots. 3 lower one co-alt. I couldn't believe the lower one was trying to come up to me until I got icon on him. What did I see? A 163! He leveled off and grab'd some speed while I dumped my DT's and got my nose down a lil and the fight began. I think I was able to bring my guns to bear once or twice but my heavy plane (75% FOB after dumping the tanks) was having trouble with him in the vertical and in a bout 3 minutes we ended up in a nose down vertical scissors in which both of us pancaked on the deck in opposite directions. I think he musta have been low on gas at that time and I ended up under 3 enemy planes. I was able to extend enough to have the cap of one of ours so immediately re-entered a fight with a N1K. In the middle of a vertical reversal I was again jumped by a 152 and tromped so hard on the rudder I snapped into an unrecoverable stall from about 1800 agl. It was a fun fight. They had fun. I had fun. The guy who broke up my tails had fun. I died. Big Deal! I went looking for a fight was I gonna be out numbered? Probably. Did I end up out numbered. I wouldn't have been if I hadn't run into the 163. He used up my E and Alt in a running 3 minute battle. 2 miles from their airfield. Do I care that he was in a 163? Nope. It was fun to take him on. Would I tell him it's unfair? Nope. Bring whacha got and lets do it. Did I grab a 163 to combat him? Nope, I was haviing fun with my toy just like he was having fun with his toy. All in all I had a nice hour or two in the arena. What I'm trying to say is there were;
1v1's
1v3's
3v1's
4v3's
3v3's
10v10's
Furballs too.
Folks actually running missions trying to actually take a field.
Folks actually trying to stop missions from taking their field.
Heck, we even had booboo (not real callsign) come to our field. Vulch die and come right back. His MO was exactly the same every time. 190D. 12k. Move to the north end of rwy to get aligned and dive in. One pass done the runway. Maybe one kill if he's lucky. Run like hell or....maybe reverse and make another pass and die. He's got it down to a science. I bet he could do it 5-6X an hour. Lessee 25 miles to our field from his. Climbing at approx 190mph. Yeah, he could get back in around 10-12 minutes and make his feable pass and die. An annoyance? Not really. Ever flap at a mosquito trying to land on yer arm? Do I need to tell him to get a life? Nope. He has one. He's doing his little thing. I'm too busy having fun with my life to worry about him.
So there you have it. An arena with a little of everything for everyone. And guess what? Everyone I saw was actually having a good time. Even those guys that died where having a good time. They came back and fought again.
Thats why I say start acting like a responsible/reasonable member of the community. Quit trying to tell people to have fun your way. Get up and have fun. If there's 30 guys hitting a field, that's nice. If you feel you gotta have fun by being apart of that group then do it. If you wanna defend against them then do it. If you decide you wanna defend you don't have to go into the middle of the 30 planes to do it. Run along the edges and pick your fights. I bet you can find one and actually enjoy it. if they take a field because there's so many of them does that mean it's the end of the world? Guess what....it ain't. Come on, it's a game. There are so many things to do in it you won't be able to do them all in a night. And, how can you possibly get bored? The only way I know someone could get bored is they have really, really short attention span.
Ya know, I used to look at the CT as "it's my game" and didn't fly much there. Yes. I dropped in from time to time to see if anything changed. Not much had. On average there were 20-30 people flying. The CT was more of a specfic planeset/period war/specific locale that changed planes, etc and had a following. It was a kinda "let's play the game my way" for about 20-30 folks. That's about all the people of the 600 or so that got up and fly were interested in it. HT and Co. has tried to make a game compatible for a larger group of people. I guess it's been working for the past few years are the numbers have grown to where there's been 570+ in one arena with TONS of things going on. Suffice it to say if there's an arena that attracts 30-70 people in a 'it's my game" attitude and another arena that attracts 500+ people in an "it's our game" attitude what does that tell you about the thought process of the majority of the players in the game?
And no, all of this long winded typing is not on behalf of HT or anyone else. It's on behalf of the game of AH2. I've been flying these sims a long, long time and the few times any of these types of games have sufffered it's because the Community changed their way of thinking from "it's our game" to "it's my game". So let's get back to "It's our game". Sorry if this hits a sore spot but most folks learn to get over themselves and realize there's more to a Community than just their personal wants and desires. Besides, if you look at what the game gives you can probably get everything you ever wanted out of it.
Ren
The Damned and AH Player
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It's a game.... a game is supposed to be fair and fun.. One person is not supposed to be able to make it unfun for dozens at a time with little or no effort.
you HARDCORE furballers LET it happen by not defending
its NOT his fault for the undefended bomb run is it?
-
^5s Overlag!
-
Originally posted by Simaril
So you're in favor of monopolies? You know, large corporations that work together as teams to maximize their own advantage, even if it causes harm to the common person?
Wait, I was talking about business, not hordes...right??
It's called teamwork, cooperation, planning... It works well wherever it is applied!
-
I disagree. The game is what you make of it.
Who said it has to be fair? If 10 guys get up and decide to take a field and do it unmolested is that fair? Do you imply they're not supposed to do it? What gives you the right to say they can't do it? Show me the rule that says that.
I already mentioned one guy vulching a field we were using. Guess what, an not to burst his bubble, he wasn't much more than a gnat at the field. That's part of the game. Up from a capped field at your own risk. That's been around since these games began.
IMHO first you have to define just what it is that needs policing. So far all I've been hearing is lotsa of people complaining about "you MUST play the game my way". Sorry, if HT wants to make it easy for new guys to bomb then you gotta learn to adjust to it. If you just GOTTA stop some group from bombing a field then take off and do it. Otherwise, who cares if they bomb the field.
Hmmm, steep learning curve. Are you saying you just walked in the door and knew it all? That you didn't have to learn, too? If so, then I call BS and if you can't sell that garbage to any vets flying and any new guy reading this needs to know thats a load of crap. Then again on one hand you're trying to tell everyone that the new guys need some sort of advantage then go on to say they're gaming the game?
Tell me again what value you post has brought to the discussion other than a whine about not being able to police ourselves in a large arena and therefor you deserve a small one?
Then you actually have the stupidity to tell HT that the hundreds of people who've come to AH from the RR arenas of AW that they never should have become customers? That they're ruining the game? Who's doing the whining here? I don't see AW RR guys whining.
I hate to burst your bubble but it ain't about you. It's about the 700+ people that get up every night and play in all the arenas. In every other past sim game the Community has policed itself. Sometimes with the help of the owners of the game. If you don't want to contribute to the Community then why should we listen to your whining about how bad it is?
Oh yeah, bubba. I came from FR so I'm not some RR guy just whining about your silly post.
And no, this is not an attack on the BH....MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's a reply to an idiotic post. Next time try bringing something to the forum that helps the Community.
Lastly, ego can be good. Arrogance might be bad. The next guy that kills you might be one his 2nd flight ever.. Try being humble and help to become part of the solution iso part of the problem. "We can't police ourselves" is the biggest load of crap I've seen on the boards this year.
Ren
The Damned and an AH Player
Originally posted by lazs2
It's not a war and it is not a political movement..
It's a game.... a game is supposed to be fair and fun.. One person is not supposed to be able to make it unfun for dozens at a time with little or no effort.
When that happens.. the rules need to be adjusted.
The problem is the steep learning curve. the new guys need to be able to have some advantage or some way to have an effect without getting too high up on the learning curve.
The problem is when the easy mode stuff like bombing, some of the GV's and the late war planes that should be for the new guys with very little skill to kill simplistic strat...
When those things get gamed and griefed... when someone organizes dozens or more to use these gamey tools to destroy the fun of the whole arena or when the guys with skill insist on useing the easy mode strat ideas and planes and vehicles.
I don't see the solution... the gamey squads feel they have a right... if you restrict em too much then the totaly skilless newbie won't have anything to do and lose interest.
We obviously can't police ourselves in a large arena so... the small arenas with less chance to game the game are what we got.
I guess it is too bad that Air warrior easymode died and emptied out into here.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
<
> Ren. These last two posts' that you put up, made me feel like you were typing what I was thinking.
-
REN
-
Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.
What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.
Once one a field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.
HiTech
Sorry, not the best idea.
Sometimes on a 'stale' map a good idea is to try a get a base away form the main melee.
This opens up a new front and starts another fight.
Also kiss goodbye to NOE's, not much point if they know where your going anyway.
Also invalidates having dar, won't need that either.
You would stop what we did to prevent a reset, i.e took a base away from the main melee just before we had a base taken that would have reset us. The Bish then went on to fight back from our corner and reset the Rooks.
Would be another move towards removing what little of the strategy part of the game is left.
Undefended bases -
Well defend them.
Seen GHI and a few others stop a base take on their own, sometimes even only in IL2's because FHs were down.
Only people to blame for an undefended base take is the defenders themselves.
Good example -
Last night the Rooks grabbed the VBase next to Knits HQ. One Osty would have stopped them.
The Knits then tried doing it to us Bish, but I seen the base flashing and grabbed an Osty.
Result, they didn't get it.
-
Frode,
The posts are nothing more than what any reasonable person thinks.
It's when folks can't get together and work as a Community that things get out of sync. When that happens we just need to stop and get back on track. Creating 100 posts saying "why I think the game should be played my way" divides a Community. If someone really thinks everything should be done exactly the way they want it then perhaps they should go take lessons on how to create a game like this, make one then tell everyone up front, "You can come and play here but you must play it the way I like it and if I change my mind in a few days then you must change to play the way I now want to play. Otherwise, leave." What a minute....HTC has also provided for that also! He made a H2H Arena! You can even use his program, go in and create an arena and run it anyway you want to. The numbers might be limited but hey! Is there really much of a difference between an EW arena with 25 people in it and 8? YOU can determine the sides. There must be 4V4 and YOU can determine what planes they are allowed to fly and YOU can say No Bombing. Or, YOU can go so far as to say, "if you shoot me down I reserve the right to boot you". Yeah, that sounds like fun, don't it?
Personally, and I normally don't state my preferences, I don't care if there are 200 or 600 people in an arena. It's not the numbers that makes the arena great it's the people up enjoying the fact that they can get up and fly and have fun iso watching TV. Hey, that guy just died for you and he tried his best to give you a good fight. That's bad? Those guys just took a field. Wow, now you can use it. Or, you just lost a field. Ah well, there's another I can use. Those folks that get up and are enjoying themselves actually make your night a better experience. They're up joking with their Countrymen. They're even flying with some stranger enjoying fighting together at some base. Yes, a squad is alot of fun but anyone up there having a good time is just as much fun to fly with as your squads. Why? Because their fun is rubbing off on you and making you evening much better. Don't get me wrong as I'm in a squad. There's alot to be said for squads (like helping new folks get going in the game) and I won't go into that here (:)) but the fact that you're up having fun is what its all about. Right? I ask again, I wanna know just how many of you guys are paying, out of your pocket, your own money just to up and have a horrible night flying in AH2?
If anyone asks me I do have to admit I prefer larger arenas. My reason, however, is not selfish. IMHO the larger arenas give any flyer the chance to experience every nuance of the game without having to move to some other arena. You can bomb, furball, jabo, tank, drive pt boats, fly fighter sweeps, defend, attack, milk run even and just about anything else under HT's sun all in one arena just by moving to a different location within the same arena. What more could anyone ask for in a game. If anyone's asking I don't advocate only one huge arena. I never have nor ever will. But I can use the LW arena to have an enjoyable evening. And should I get the urge I know the other arenas are as much fun!
My peferences aside, if the arenas get smaller, no big deal. I'll be there. It just reminds me of the old AW days.
Ren
-
Ren:
Gotta admit, I'm a little confused.
Did you mean to be responding to Lazs, and got my name in there by mistake?
If you're responding to my recent post about monopolies, I'm not sure what you're talking about. That was meant to just be about MrNoName's silliness about huge imbalances showing "organization." (And MrNoName -- you wouldnt be so blase' about monopolistic practices if you'd ever been ripped off by one!)
If you're responding to the opening post, well, I'm still confused....as I've never asked anyone else to play a certain way. Everything I've suggested comes down to a simple thing --
Treat other people the way you'd want them to treat you if you were in their shoes.
Your actions affect others, so it'd be good manners to keep that in mind while you enjoy yourself. Turn off your cell phone in the movie, dont get your gossip update during someone's christening, etc, etc.
Its not hard, its not nasty, its not arrogant. You could even say its the single founding concept of our culture's morality. But for some reason, many here seem to take exception to it, or claim that they're special situation gives them an exemption.
You want to play with 40-60 squaddies? Fine, go for it. But wouldnt it be considerate to do that in a way that lets the other guys have some fun too? And wouldnt it be an actual organizational ACCOMPLISHMENT to succeed when the enemy has some players too? (Conversely, if your "organization" cant succeed without having some 2:1 country advantage, I wouldnt be so quick to brag about organizational excellence..)
I have repeatedly said that every AH player should play the way he likes. Capture game, GVs, fighters, furballs, whatever...its their $15.
But I'd argue that the biggest measure of a community is how it treats its own. No one player -- OR GROUP OF PLAYERS -- should be any more important than the others, and all should both give and recieve equal respect.
Treat other people the way you'd want them to treat you if you were in their shoes.
-
Simaril,
My first post was for you. The second one for Laz...
Sorry for the confusion.
Also, I was typing the exact same thing on another post while you were typing a response to me.
Go figure. It is all about community not arena size.
Rats....I'm gonna have to quit typing and go mow the lawn.
I wonder if I type some more my wife will think Im really busy....watcha think? :)
Ren
-
OK Class...go back and read Rens posts.
Then come back here and tell me why anything needed changed at all?
The fact is...the old MA offered every platform of fun that anyone wanted so long as one didnt need an excuse for ones suckage on any given night.
Other than the fact that squads are having issues trying to form up on squad nights the new setup is fine.
Even the dynamic LW is still causing problems for squads wanting to fly in the LW arenas.
Our squad has basically been forced to fly in what ever arena we can all get into on any given squad night.
While i am currently no longer a subscriber i still contend that Ah2 will finally settle in nicely.
If and only If the game continues to keep squads scrambling to be together will i continue to stay away.
Other than that i think AH2 is a great game...just no longer for MugZ
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
I wonder if I type some more my wife will think Im really busy....watcha think? :)
Ren
If you can sell her on the idea that you're working on a "mowing simulator" you MIGHT pull it off...
Let me know if it works!
-
can someone help me understand why when a base is captured it's the furballer's fault? do the strat guys not defend their conquests?
-
Originally posted by pluck
can someone help me understand why when a base is captured it's the furballer's fault? do the strat guys not defend their conquests?
the fuballers whine we capture there bases and "ruin" the fight. but if they was having there furball in a constructive manor they wouldnt loose the base, yet still have a furball.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the fuballers whine we capture there bases and "ruin" the fight. but if they was having there furball in a constructive manor they wouldnt loose the base, yet still have a furball.
This is the flaw in the reasoning. By the definition we tend to use here, "furballers" don't care about taking OR defending bases. We're just off playing with each other, as many have noted. It's the strat people who should be interested in defending, as well as taking bases. By suggesting that the furballers assume this duty, you are implicitly saying that the furballers should participate in the strategy game.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the fuballers whine we capture there bases and "ruin" the fight. but if they was having there furball in a constructive manor they wouldnt loose the base, yet still have a furball.
ah. so i guess my next question, how do we furball in a constructive manor?
for me it is sometimes frustrating that good fights are ended with the sinking of a CV or the destruction of FH's, but i understand that others are trying to take a base and that is their fun. what i despise is people taking out the FH's, leaving town up, vh up, and making no attempt to capture a field. i'm not sure if people do it because they want to vulch bombers/wait for hangars to come back up. i find it a far stretch that some call themselves strat players, yet their actions involve no strategy at all. it's like all they know is to take FH's down and wait, no other plan. how can you maintain cap with 100 gv's out on field? can't capture town with it up, and even harder with tigers rolling into map room. i'm not pointing fingers at anyone here or squads, this is just a general observation. so in affect they have ended a good fight for no reason, they will not capture the base, and they spend lengthy amount of time on range ch. telling everyone to do stuff yet they hover the field. so surely you can understand why some would find this behavior a bit annoying to say the least. though not fair to apply to every strater.
now for our fundamental differences. i don't want to feel like i'm at work when i'm playing a game. i work enough and have plenty of stress. i just want to log on, have some fun, shoot down some planes and have some laughs. if you mean constructive by the way i conduct myself on the chat channels, or by respecting others people way playing the game, or helping a noob fine. but i'm not going to turn this into some kind of work where i have to play the way others feel that i should and accomplish some goal that i care nothing about. if there is a good fight on the map, i will be there, it's that simple for me. i log on, see where the fight is, i go there. others log on and see where the fight isn't and go there. sometimes a few of us show up and they go somewhere else, sometimes not and we have a battle:) i won't whine when someone takes a base, i don't really care. i get kinda irritated though when people spoil a fight and make no attempt to take the base.
-
Originally posted by pluck
ah. so i guess my next question, how do we furball in a constructive manor?
.
furballs to me seem to be who can get On the deck as fast as possible, then TnB there untill you die... Why cant a furball happen at..... lets say 10k?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
furballs to me seem to be who can get On the deck as fast as possible, then TnB there untill you die... Why cant a furball happen at..... lets say 10k?
well my experience with the birth of a furball goes something like this. plane A meets plane B at 10k. they fight, it is a good fight and both planes have burned E and alt. enter plane C and D. Plane C noticing an nme lower dives in, Plane D sees plane C and dives after him. more planes enter and it becomes difficult for any others who are not entering combat to gain alt, they get pinned to low alt. so now you have a bunch of planes otd, depending where the battle is, you may not be able to grab alt, unless after each low alt kill everyone reverses direction and climbs back to 10k and resets. after the furball is formed, there is little reason to climb to alt other than to pick. so furballs tend to be low, because many who would climb are pinned, and many who tried to pick made some bad decisions. furballs do not generally start because 2 parties are flying otd and run into each other, though that would be a faster way to the inevitable. furballers enjoy the furball because it's challenging, fluid, and fun:)
-
Yes, Yes, most def need a map with Fighter Town.:D
-
Originally posted by outlaw21.bryan
Yes, Yes, most def need a map with Fighter Town.:D
every 2 bases has what could be a Fighter town between them...... why fracture the community any more?
-
<<<
>>>
Ren good posts
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the fuballers whine we capture there bases and "ruin" the fight. but if they was having there furball in a constructive manor they wouldnt loose the base, yet still have a furball.
I personally have never seen a base capture from a field or fields that are feeding a furball.
What I have seen is strat players come over country channel and piss and moan that the furball between fields X and Y are nothing but a waste of resources ... and within a 1/2 hour of such pissin' and moanin', some find it necessary to go to the enemy's field and drop all the FHs ... and only the FHs ... nothing else ... with the full intention of squashing the furball and assuming that those who were participating in the furball will now join in on THEIR quest to win the war.
but if they was having there furball in a constructive manor
Someone else asked you to answer this question and you didn't. Please tell us how YOU think that furballers could furball in a constructive manner. Mind you, answering the question may make you guilty of telling furballers how THEY should furball YOUR way ... a very slippery slope on the BBS.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I personally have never seen a base capture from a field or fields that are feeding a furball.
What I have seen is strat players come over country channel and piss and moan that the furball between fields X and Y are nothing but a waste of resources ... and within a 1/2 hour of such pissin' and moanin', some find it necessary to go to the enemy's field and drop all the FHs ... and only the FHs ... nothing else ... with the full intention of squashing the furball and assuming that those who were participating in the furball will now join in on THEIR quest to win the war.
ive never seen this.
Originally posted by SlapShot
but if they was having there furball in a constructive manor
Someone else asked you to answer this question and you didn't. Please tell us how YOU think that furballers could furball in a constructive manner. Mind you, answering the question may make you guilty of telling furballers how THEY should furball YOUR way ... a very slippery slope on the BBS.
i did post... look up, and im not telling people how to play the game (unlike laz or hub). Its more advice... if you dont like the loss of the FH's or CV's defend them, dont whine on the BBS...(like you tell everyone else) or just move to another base. and announce to your furball budies there??
anyway have you ever thought that some of those guys enguaging the furball are there to try and squash resistance so they can take the base, hence hangers going down? You may call it a furball, but the others may call it a fight for the base :)
-
ive never seen this.
I don't believe that for a second ... you have been around too long to not have seen this.
i did post... look up, and im not telling people how to play the game (unlike laz or hub). Its more advice... if you dont like the loss of the FH's or CV's defend them.
I did read that post ... you didn't answer the question ... you ended up asking a question.
Originally posted by Overlag
furballs to me seem to be who can get On the deck as fast as possible, then TnB there untill you die... Why cant a furball happen at..... lets say 10k?
if you dont like the loss of the FH's or CV's defend them.
Now your being cheeky ... under the context of the example that I gave, there was no reason to defend ... there was a furball in full action and a capture attempt by either side was not the objective ... the object was for some of the strat guys to grief the furball because it was using too many resources.
It was just a simple example of what does happen ... granted, not all the time but still ... it does happen ... and that is where some of this angst between furballers and strat comes from.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Now your being cheeky ... under the context of the example that I gave, there was no reason to defend ... there was a furball in full action and a capture attempt by either side was not the objective ... the object was for some of the strat guys to grief the furball because it was using too many resources.
It was just a simple example of what does happen ... granted, not all the time but still ... it does happen ... and that is where some of this angst between furballers and strat comes from.
ok, last night LWblue (i think)... bish cv near A18. Nice little "furball" between bases, but it was obvious from the repeated attempts by bish to hit A18 that the goal was to take the base.... the furball was just the result of the two forces clashing. I went there and "furballed" (id call it defending) and stopped any planes getting anywhere near the base, while TnBing or ZnBing (i wasnt in a turn fighter to fight seafires or zeros, but had some good TnB's with other F4u's). I had upped a f4u1 from our CV that was 20miles east because A18 was getting vulched and base capture WAS the goal.
Then the CV went down after about 40minutes. some moaned about the end of the furball... hell even i was like oooh dam no more here.... but at least we won the fight. I then went off to the other 4 or 5 bases that was flashing looking for kills, it wasnt the END of the world, it was just the end of that battle.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
ok, last night LWblue (i think)... bish cv near A18. Nice little "furball" between bases, but it was obvious from the repeated attempts by bish to hit A18 that the goal was to take the base.... the furball was just the result of the two forces clashing. I went there and "furballed" (id call it defending) and stopped any planes getting anywhere near the base, while TnBing or ZnBing (i wasnt in a turn fighter to fight seafires or zeros, but had some good TnB's with other F4u's). I had upped a f4u1 from our CV that was 20miles east because A18 was getting vulched and base capture WAS the goal.
Then the CV went down after about 40minutes. some moaned about the end of the furball... hell even i was like oooh dam no more here.... but at least we won the fight. I then went off to the other 4 or 5 bases that was flashing looking for kills, it wasnt the END of the world, it was just the end of that battle.
If there is a valid attempt to take the base ... then all bets are off ... I have no problem with that. CV vs base furball is a tricky thing ... once LVTs are in the water ... SINK the CV by all means.
The scenario that I described is air base vs air base that was simply fueling fighters, for an extended period of time, for the furball and neither side was trying to capture the other ... and the FHs get dropped for no apparent reason but to squash the furball.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
every 2 bases has what could be a Fighter town between them...... why fracture the community any more?
Because between every two bases one side is trying to take the other.
-
ren... that was a real hallmark moment.. you write for em? but....
nonsensical... I will be glad to take your points one at a time if I can pick em out of the sacherin.
First of all... you are against people telling others "exactly how to play" this is a great evil to you and you are accusing me and furballers of this great evil.
I agree that it is a great evil but say.... Who is telling people exactly how to play? The ONLY people who command, demand and enforce that people play exactly as they say are the ones who run squads with rules and the little generals who type on country channel (we all see it).... all in caps... and demand that everyone go to fiels such and such RIGHT NOW..
Or... the squad leaders with rules who are into strat... they demand that their players play exactly as they say.
I agree with you.... players who demand people play their way are what is wrong with the community.
But is isn't I or the furballers... we may make fun of the way those guys play but we make no demands and either don't have squads or have squads the don't tell us what to do.
Got another point?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
ren... ok... shoveled through more of your post and seen you had one more point..
You claim that you like the large (old?) arenas better because a guy could do everything there. strat, furball etc.
I call bs again... You can do everything it's just that with anything goes... you are gonna either be frustrated or idiotic if you want to do certain things.... If you are an early war plane fan... you will be slaughtered most of the time since all choice of planes means late war only are effective. If you like furballs you will have less because..
The way things were... one guy with an easy mode flight of three fluffs could ruin the furball for 20 guys with little or no effort... and.... there is allways a few griefers in every 600 person arena... they look for fights to ruin and to grief.
The new arenas are better... the problem of too much chice and too many sardines has been recognized and the new arenas are here... they are better. The people who tell people how to play and the griefers are less of a problem now.
Got any other points?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by pluck
i like HT's idea, it may not solve all the issues, but i don't see any reason to not try it. i think it is a good step to help concentrate forces on a map in a way to promote more actual fighting.
vast
This would immediately degrade into a Mongolian Cluster ****, which would undoubtably tickle the Furballers Forever croud immeasurably, at least at first. Everyone would know where to go, so nothing would happen except the side that could eventually muster a significant numbers advantage would eventually win the base. Then it would start all over again. Could take days just to win a single base, i.e. think of the map where the battle in the center is always around A2, A5 and V64 (V69???), and goes on for days with little real change. No multiply that boredom by about 5 or 10.
No surprise attacks. No tactics. No missions. No planning. No NOE. No need for CV's. No smaller 2v2, or 3v3 battles since all are clustered in the same place. No searching for, and out thinking an opponent on the attack or for evasion.
The most likely scenario is a contineous ebb and flo of getting and giving a gang bang every time you up. No real 1 v 1 encounters. Even the Furballs will hate that. Can't attack a VBase if an ABase is the only attackable target at the moment.
Gee, what's not to like about this idea. Great fun. Why don't we just mail HiTech our $15 bucks and forget the whole thing, for all the ecitement that will be.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
If there is a valid attempt to take the base ... then all bets are off ... I have no problem with that. CV vs base furball is a tricky thing ... once LVTs are in the water ... SINK the CV by all means.
The scenario that I described is air base vs air base that was simply fueling fighters, for an extended period of time, for the furball and neither side was trying to capture the other ... and the FHs get dropped for no apparent reason but to squash the furball.
thing is, how does someone "know" that its just a furball and not a attack on there base? not trying to be anal or anything but to "some" (not me, i wouldnt have sunk the CV in my last post because we had CV close as well, so we could have kept the furball going along while without risking A18) wont know the difference between an attack going wrong or an attack coming at them.
killing the hangers (id prefer the troops myself....) is one way of "defending" the percieved threat of loosing there base, or loosing the battle to take the base.
we hear whines about undefended bases being taken, but at the same time we here whines about bases being taken/killed thats part of a furbal. What DO we want? Im not being funny....
Take undefended base?
or
Take base after a battle to take it?
i know your first post on this part of the subject said that the people JUST killed the FH's and only did it to destory the fight, but how do you know? perhaps they was going to come back and try and take the field but lost interest, or whatever? Ive seen THAT, ive not seen people destory FH just to piss off furballers.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The way things were... one guy with an easy mode flight of three fluffs could ruin the furball for 20 guys with little or no effort... and.... there is allways a few griefers in every 600 person arena... they look for fights to ruin and to grief.
20 guys and not one could shoot down the buffs? and you blame the buffs for that? hehe :cry
and do you HONESTLY think there's guys out there just to destroy YOU'RE fun?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
20 guys and not one could shoot down the buffs? and you blame the buffs for that? hehe :cry
and do you HONESTLY think there's guys out there just to destroy YOU'RE fun?
get 'em Overlag!
-
Originally posted by Sloehand
This would immediately degrade into a Mongolian Cluster ****, which would undoubtably tickle the Furballers Forever croud immeasurably, at least at first. Everyone would know where to go, so nothing would happen except the side that could eventually muster a significant numbers advantage would eventually win the base. Then it would start all over again. Could take days just to win a single base, i.e. think of the map where the battle in the center is always around A2, A5 and V64 (V69???), and goes on for days with little real change. No multiply that boredom by about 5 or 10.
No surprise attacks. No tactics. No missions. No planning. No NOE. No need for CV's. No smaller 2v2, or 3v3 battles since all are clustered in the same place. No searching for, and out thinking an opponent on the attack or for evasion.
The most likely scenario is a contineous ebb and flo of getting and giving a gang bang every time you up. No real 1 v 1 encounters. Even the Furballs will hate that. Can't attack a VBase if an ABase is the only attackable target at the moment.
Gee, what's not to like about this idea. Great fun. Why don't we just mail HiTech our $15 bucks and forget the whole thing, for all the ecitement that will be.
which is why i added a few of my ideas to try to incorporate side balancing as well. maybe re read my post. i was saying the more even the numbers are the more bases you would be able to attack. there would be strategy and tactics, because the chain would also be affected by which bases you take. also i believe i stated that the country has much fewer numbers would have fewer bases that could be taken from them, but would be able to attack a larger amount. that would fill the need for your sneaks or what have you. i'm not sure what's fun about taking undefended bases from a country that can't defend itself. was only a suggestion to help even the playing field for the country facing huge numbers.
-
i know your first post on this part of the subject said that the people JUST killed the FH's and only did it to destory the fight, but how do you know? perhaps they was going to come back and try and take the field but lost interest, or whatever? Ive seen THAT, ive not seen people destory FH just to piss off furballers.
I know that because they said so ... can't get any better than that .
After dropping the FHs I asked ... "Why did you drop the FHs ?" ... the answer was ... "Because you guys were wasting too many resources for hours between those 2 bases". I then said ... "Thanks a bunch for nothing, you just ruined a perfectly good furball for a lot of people" ... the reply was " ... I can do whatever I want, it's my 14.95"
There was no way they were going to capture either of the bases ... with over 50 people between the 2 bases constantly lifting ... there was no way a goon was gonna get in.
-
I can't believe this thing is still alive..
One woudl think that anything thats mutated so far from its origins would become dysfunctional...or....
Nevermind.
Skuzzy, is there any command that would let the thread originator perform thread euthanasia?
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
i know your first post on this part of the subject said that the people JUST killed the FH's and only did it to destory the fight, but how do you know? perhaps they was going to come back and try and take the field but lost interest, or whatever? Ive seen THAT, ive not seen people destory FH just to piss off furballers.
I know that because they said so ... can't get any better than that .
After dropping the FHs I asked ... "Why did you drop the FHs ?" ... the answer was ... "Because you guys were wasting too many resources for hours between those 2 bases". I then said ... "Thanks a bunch for nothing, you just ruined a perfectly good furball for a lot of people" ... the reply was " ... I can do whatever I want, it's my 14.95"
There was no way they were going to capture either of the bases ... with over 50 people between the 2 bases constantly lifting ... there was no way a goon was gonna get in.
thats lame, but i guess if you defended it....... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Overlag
20 guys and not one could shoot down the buffs? and you blame the buffs for that? hehe :cry
and do you HONESTLY think there's guys out there just to destroy YOU'RE fun?
Again your being cheeky ... You know all too well, and you have said it yourself, that those who are engaged in furballs are typically "on the deck" ... hence the bombers go unscathed.
Yes ... honestly there are guys out there to wreck someone's or some peoples fun ... have you forgotten all the post on the Fighter Town/Tank Town griefers ? Their only real intentions were just that ... ruin the fun.
The most disturbing part of your posts is the lightly veiled "stupid"ness. Myself, and I am sure there are a lot of other people know that you know a lot more than you let on in your posts only to get those, like Mr. No Name, all charged up.
Stop playing dumb ... it only adds fuel to the fire.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
thats lame, but i guess if you defended it....... :eek:
One more time cheeky boy ... please understand !!!
IT WAS MY COUNTRYMAN THAT DROPPED THE HANGERS AT THE ENEMY'S AIRFIELD TO STOP THE FIGHT.
There is no way for me to DEFEND against that.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
One more time cheeky boy ... please understand !!!
IT WAS MY COUNTRYMAN THAT DROPPED THE HANGERS AT THE ENEMY'S AIRFIELD TO STOP THE FIGHT.
There is no way for me to DEFEND against that.
:eek: always been cheeky
however would you agree theres a very small percentage of people like that?
its like more often than not, if i ask to keep a fight 1on1 i can get people to bug out and leave the enemy im fighting alone.
-
however would you agree theres a very small percentage of people like that?
Yes I would agree ... but it still doesn't lessen the fact that it happens and when it does ... it sucks on a monumental scale. This is what fractures the community.
In AH1 ... I never ever experienced this type of behavior ... it wouldn't have been tolerated by the community and the guy would have been berated by all because back then ... the community was 200-250 strong at it best ... and it wouldn't have gone unnoticed.
Griefers survive and thrive in large communities cause they can quietly fade into the overall landscape and hide.
-
i remember AHI having 750 people on during the evenings.... and its taken AHII a year to get back to that.....
i guess you are talking about 2002/03?
-
Originally posted by Sloehand
This would immediately degrade into a Mongolian Cluster ****, which would undoubtably tickle the Furballers Forever croud immeasurably, at least at first. Everyone would know where to go, so nothing would happen except the side that could eventually muster a significant numbers advantage would eventually win the base. Then it would start all over again. Could take days just to win a single base, i.e. think of the map where the battle in the center is always around A2, A5 and V64 (V69???), and goes on for days with little real change. No multiply that boredom by about 5 or 10.
No surprise attacks. No tactics. No missions. No planning. No NOE. No need for CV's. No smaller 2v2, or 3v3 battles since all are clustered in the same place. No searching for, and out thinking an opponent on the attack or for evasion.
The most likely scenario is a contineous ebb and flo of getting and giving a gang bang every time you up. No real 1 v 1 encounters. Even the Furballs will hate that. Can't attack a VBase if an ABase is the only attackable target at the moment.
Gee, what's not to like about this idea. Great fun. Why don't we just mail HiTech our $15 bucks and forget the whole thing, for all the ecitement that will be.
Heh. This format worked for years with AW. The big fights are channeled, so that horde meets horde. Those who are after smaller combats find them out on the fringes. You can still run your NOE missions, they're just a lot harder to pull off. "Outhinking your opponent" is a lot harder than it is now - but with all the talent here, it shouldn't be impossible.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ren... that was a real hallmark moment.. you write for em? but....
nonsensical... I will be glad to take your points one at a time if I can pick em out of the sacherin.
First of all... you are against people telling others "exactly how to play" this is a great evil to you and you are accusing me and furballers of this great evil.
I agree that it is a great evil but say.... Who is telling people exactly how to play? The ONLY people who command, demand and enforce that people play exactly as they say are the ones who run squads with rules and the little generals who type on country channel (we all see it).... all in caps... and demand that everyone go to fiels such and such RIGHT NOW..
Or... the squad leaders with rules who are into strat... they demand that their players play exactly as they say.
I agree with you.... players who demand people play their way are what is wrong with the community.
But is isn't I or the furballers... we may make fun of the way those guys play but we make no demands and either don't have squads or have squads the don't tell us what to do.
Got another point?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Man you are either truely clueless or delusional. Your main piss and moan seems to be other folks squads rules. What business is it of your concern? Why should you care about what rules are set out by squad leaders? You seem to embrace anarchy and nothing more. It shouldn't be your concern what a squad does or requires unless it effects you personally and not on a general scale. You are in a squad and "WE" as a community don't care what rules you have or not have. It's not our business or concern. I don't personally believe that you are that delusional as those of us who have been here for several years know that your squad is the king of BBS "Trolls", and this has to be one of the all time ones! All you advocate is a personal fight between folks but I've seen your type of fight. You lay back and wait until everybody is engaged and zoom in and knock off somebody. You advocate personal fights, then why don't you just get personal and fight somebody one on one who wants to do likewise? The bottom line is whatever you convince HT with your BS is that folks are gonna play their way and not yours and you aren't going to force them to it and neither will HT.
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Heh. This format worked for years with AW. The big fights are channeled, so that horde meets horde. Those who are after smaller combats find them out on the fringes. You can still run your NOE missions, they're just a lot harder to pull off. "Outhinking your opponent" is a lot harder than it is now - but with all the talent here, it shouldn't be impossible.
- oldman
Out think needs to be changed to "out avoid" the opponant :)
Why anyone would not want to meet the bad guys in 'combat' in a game where you really aren't dying, is beyond me.
I can see it now. The US commanders see that the Japanese are headed for Midway. HAH! We'll avoid them and attack Antarctica instead! :)
-
You lay back and wait until everybody is engaged and zoom in and knock off somebody.
And you base this on what ? ... what FALCON said ? ... cause from what I can see, you have 0 kills on Lazs and he has 0 kills on you ... so I would presume that your observation(s) are not first hand.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
You lay back and wait until everybody is engaged and zoom in and knock off somebody.
And you base this on what ? ... what FALCON said ? ... cause from what I can see, you have 0 kills on Lazs and he has 0 kills on you ... so I would presume that your observation(s) are not first hand.
Well Slap, I did observe it. Call you what you will and I did get get some shots off on his fm-2 but didn't get the kill. Just one engagement but I saw what Falc reported. Nothing more and nothing less. Call it what you wish. I really don't care that much anymore. I just logged on and there is almost nobody to fight anywhere. I work night shifts and get my fix in the mornings after work and for the last several weeks there can't be fight to be bought. This is not good! I usually get online around 10am ESt and could find something but not in the last several weeks. I guess Laz and you guys have got what you want, nobody to jump into your fights, no toolshedders to ruin your fight. Now there just isn't a fight you can buy in the EST mornings. Go figger? has this been good for the community as your PR guy says it will be? Be careful of what you wish for as you just might get it.
All the Best..
Jay
awDoc1
-
Originally posted by doc1kelley
Well Slap, I did observe it. Call you what you will and I did get get some shots off on his fm-2 but didn't get the kill. Just one engagement but I saw what Falc reported. Nothing more and nothing less. Call it what you wish. I really don't care that much anymore. I just logged on and there is almost nobody to fight anywhere. I work night shifts and get my fix in the mornings after work and for the last several weeks there can't be fight to be bought. This is not good! I usually get online around 10am ESt and could find something but not in the last several weeks. I guess Laz and you guys have got what you want, nobody to jump into your fights, no toolshedders to ruin your fight. Now there just isn't a fight you can buy in the EST mornings. Go figger? has this been good for the community as your PR guy says it will be? Be careful of what you wish for as you just might get it.
All the Best..
Jay
awDoc1
Well ... after one brief encounter, I would not climb out on a limb and make any overall assessment on anyone ... like I said in the other thread ... my brief encounter with FALC and his wingmen didn't bowl me over either, but I would not even think of taking it verbally until I spent a little more time in the barrel with them.
I feel for you ... believe it or not.
I think that HT needs to do some more research and see if he can fine tune the implementation/starting of his "balancing" tools based on time(s). I think that some of it is already based on timing, and if that is true, I think that it needs to be a little more granular.
-
Dosn't need adjusting at 10am est the limits are at 200 and the population max in a lw is aroud 130 - 140.
so what doc1kelley is realy saying is please HT force all these other people to fly with me.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Dosn't need adjusting at 10am est the limits are at 200 and the population max in a lw is aroud 130 - 140.
so what doc1kelley is realy saying is please HT force all these other people to fly with me.
HiTech
Alrighty then ... :aok
-
doc... your hero was on the deck and zooming up in one of the fastest, best planes in the EW.. the spit 5... I seen him and busted him and killed him with no trouble... I also got a few assists on him during the evening as he was "extending". If he was paying attention there is no way an f4f could even get within 1000 yards of the much faster spit 5.
Now you tell me that I don't fight.. but.... somehow, you got shots on my low slow f4f... the slowest plane in the game but..... you couldn't stay on me to finish me off? Why is that? Why not just follow me and keep shooting or... "extend" and come back? How did you get shots on me? HO? snapshot while you were being killed? what?
could it be that the reason was that... even tho you guys started with alt and slight numbers advantage that before long you lost the numbers and the alt and the fight? We had a good time... apparently you didn't.. why be in the EW at all then?
look... I never said I was anything but mediocre but your hero is even worse.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
doc... your hero was on the deck and zooming up in one of the fastest, best planes in the EW.. the spit 5... I seen him and busted him and killed him with no trouble... I also got a few assists on him during the evening as he was "extending". If he was paying attention there is no way an f4f could even get within 1000 yards of the much faster spit 5.
Now you tell me that I don't fight.. but.... somehow, you got shots on my low slow f4f... the slowest plane in the game but..... you couldn't stay on me to finish me off? Why is that? Why not just follow me and keep shooting or... "extend" and come back? How did you get shots on me? HO? snapshot while you were being killed? what?
could it be that the reason was that... even tho you guys started with alt and slight numbers advantage that before long you lost the numbers and the alt and the fight? We had a good time... apparently you didn't.. why be in the EW at all then?
look... I never said I was anything but mediocre but your hero is even worse.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol :rolleyes:
you gotta write a book on this game. oh wait you already are!!!! goin on 19,000 pages!!!! WOW. what insight on every asspect of this game!!!
-
boner.. I believe that you were about three laughing icons away from making a really incietfull post... maybe four...
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
truth is.. when the old MA was up.. the toolshedders and whordes and win the war guys were happy and playing boo coup hours.. and, the furballers were not happy and playing less or leaving.
When the arena change came... the furballers are happy and enjoying the fights and playing more hours and the whorde toolshed battlers are unhappy and playing less and quitting or... more accurately... threatening too.
so nooo...it does not appear that we can all get along... the small arenas are fun for some.. they will never be for others.
certain gameplay aspects assure that... the fighter fields (and cv's) being the focus of the game and the ability of one person with little or no talent to suicide in and ruin the immidiate fun of 20 players assures that we can't ever get along. The only way to get along is to seperate the gameplay... have huge towns the target that is "strat". anything besides the airfields... the furballers don't really care who wins the war. never will.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
truth is.. when the old MA was up.. the toolshedders and whordes and win the war guys were happy and playing boo coup hours.. and, the furballers were not happy and playing less or leaving.
When the arena change came... the furballers are happy and enjoying the fights and playing more hours and the whorde toolshed battlers are unhappy and playing less and quitting or... more accurately... threatening too.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Ummmm well this here toolsheder aint a quiter. :p
Time last tour----> 97:09:41 Sad aint it :D
And I know many others that are not quiting or even threatening to, soo you should really stop basing your facts on those few that post on this forum saying I'm gonna quit or I have quit..... We toolsheders will be around for ever to make you cry. :)
PS we still love you Lazs your funny. ;)
-
soo you should really stop basing your facts on those few that post on this forum
There is a lot of this going on ... on both sides of the fence.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Dosn't need adjusting at 10am est the limits are at 200 and the population max in a lw is aroud 130 - 140.
so what doc1kelley is realy saying is please HT force all these other people to fly with me.
HiTech
Not in your wildest dreams HT. I'm saying that the changes as they are now have deminished the population of those on in the mornings. I have to admit that I have seen some better fights but mostly I've only been able to engage milkrunning buffs. I'm not addressing the LW arena but just the EW and MW arenas. I have publicly stated many times that I like the different arenas. It's a blacklash effect from those who have been "miffed off" by the cap limits and apparently a great many are showing their anger in not logging on and playing. I personally hate the LW arena but it's great for the one night two hours of squad night that we could all fly together when it had a greater capacity. All other times I would be in the MW. I've not been a "griefer" about the changes but just the capacity of the arenas. Increase the capity of all arenas and let the chips fall where they will and maybe we will see folks re-engage the game and then make your determination of the optimal capacity for an arena.
I do NOT want anyone forced to play my way, I just want an even playing field for folks to all play "THEIR" way.
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
I'm saying that the changes as they are now have deminished the population of those on in the mornings
Quick scan of the usage shows that not to be the case, what time in morning are you refering to.
-
Deleted
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When the arena change came... the furballers are happy and enjoying the fights and playing more hours and the whorde toolshed battlers are unhappy and playing less and quitting or... more accurately... threatening too.
i played for like 92hours this month... hardly a down full from 20-/+ hours last month and 0 from the last 9 months? (infact thats my peak useage EVER)
im a "war person".
HTC saw the issues (caps, offpeak issues etc) i personally had with the new system, and delt with them... hitech
however new ones are starting to show up... like balancing.
If you are loosing in one LW, you go to the other LW..... and thats where issues start. Last night, as a knit, i had one arena with 0.3-0.4 perk modifer. and another with 3.7 perk modifer.... it was quality flying 262s for 70 perks... and kinda didnt mater when i disco'ed in one lol
I did pm some guys in the other arena to pull them over to the low sided arena, and a few did come.... whels.... We ended up taking bases from rooks who was double our numbers.... but then they couldnt fly anything but EW-MW planes, and we had AR234s and 262s everywhere
-
Originally posted by hitech
Quick scan of the usage shows that not to be the case, what time in morning are you refering to.
In the morning from around 0930est to noon est. Again, I was only speaking of the EW and MW arenas.
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1