Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: KONG1 on April 13, 2008, 12:09:34 AM

Title: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: KONG1 on April 13, 2008, 12:09:34 AM
So first we have a war. This justifies vulching in the AvA - only when trying to take a base of course. (Wink-wink)

This also justifies ganging because we sure as heck can't allow anyone a good fight when we're trying to achieve "objectives". (Diabolical).

Next,  we then must pick a side. This eliminates side balancing because "war ain't fair" and we gotta "win". (Genius).

This also eliminates the idea that we're all in this together to have a good time and replaces it with us verses them. (Inspired).

This also created more silly forum purse fights and 200 effluence than ever before.(Great).

Then they introduce the idea that the side having the most success should then get even more advantage with better planes. (Hmmmmmmm)

Now the down times have increased to create a three sector flight over flaming fields just to maybe get a glimpse of another plane. (Interesting).

Is the idea to repel the players that just want to have a good fight and attract more of the type that avoid fights at all costs? (Starting to make sense?).

You may ask yourself. Why would someone change the best arena. Why take the place were vulching was a rarity, ganging discouraged, side switching the norm, where players upped from the closest bases in well matched planes to have more numerous and challenging fights than anywhere else. Why turn the AvA into what it has now become.

Well.......I'm on to you guys.

What we have here is a brilliant master plan devised by our cunning and intrepid staffers under double secret orders from HTC. The idea is to draw the dweebiest flotsam out of the main arenas while infusing them with the thoroughbreds that were previously sequestered in the AvA thereby improving their primary profit centers. Kudos on an ingenious strategy, it seems to be working.


Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Slash27 on April 13, 2008, 12:16:41 AM
This one knows too much. Time to call in "The Cleaner".







 :noid
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 13, 2008, 12:32:10 AM
Yes .... he must die. Knowing the grand scheme of the AvA staff, past and present, was to destroy the arena from within (as evidenced by the complete ghost town it's become, lately) ruins the ultimate plan of the Illuminati to take over the world, secretly and completely.  :cool:
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Mister Fork on April 13, 2008, 12:36:14 AM
I welcome our new war-toting-arena-destroying-sidepickin-pursesmackin Overlords. 
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Anaxogoras on April 13, 2008, 02:25:16 AM
Now the down times have increased to create a three sector flight over flaming fields just to maybe get a glimpse of another plane.

Doh!  I have to fly 75 miles at 300mph to find a fight?  That's like, 15 minutes of flight time.  Unacceptable. :furious
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: 1redrum on April 13, 2008, 06:31:52 AM
Sounds like someone needs a hankie  , Dry your eyes lilmonkey the sun will come out tomorrow, besides i heard Jane Goodall is in town   :aok
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 13, 2008, 08:06:54 AM
The monkey is very wise indeed.


:salute Kong
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: WildeSau on April 13, 2008, 08:14:13 AM
That's why I left the AVA , and don't have any plans the the future to return. (and why should I when I can find all the same dweeb stuff in the MA)
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 13, 2008, 09:29:43 AM
If you left because you perceive what Kong posted was accurate yet you claim it exists in the MA ....  :huh

Nevermind ....  :D
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Oldman731 on April 13, 2008, 10:56:39 AM
That's why I left the AVA , and don't have any plans the the future to return. (and why should I when I can find all the same dweeb stuff in the MA)

Because, if nothing else, you can get historical matchups in AvA.  Can't find that anywhere in the MA arenas.

Plus, we are more stylish.

- oldman
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Shamus on April 13, 2008, 11:27:58 AM
Because, if nothing else, you can get historical matchups in AvA.  Can't find that anywhere in the MA arenas.

Plus, we are more stylish.

- oldman

Thats why I have been flying AvA as of late, especially the last part :)

shamus
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: JagdTankker on April 13, 2008, 11:54:18 AM
i am shocked arlo didn't write a book for a response this time.

r you slippin?
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Stampf on April 13, 2008, 12:31:14 PM
Thats why I have been flying AvA as of late, especially the last part :)

shamus

Glad to see you in the Arena too.  :aok
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: WildeSau on April 13, 2008, 12:39:08 PM
If you left because you perceive what Kong posted was accurate yet you claim it exists in the MA ....  :huh

Nevermind ....  :D
                                                                                                                                                           Yes I have a response,   What !
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: WildeSau on April 13, 2008, 01:16:25 PM
Because, if nothing else, you can get historical matchups in AvA.  Can't find that anywhere in the MA arenas.

Plus, we are more stylish.

- oldman
                                                                                                                                                        Right, historical match up. The only main difference is there are only 2 sides (allied and axis )and the map. (big deal) There is still EW and Mid war arena's for plane match up,and well if you want historical then try having killshooter off and no enemy icon. That's how it was historical, and if this was done. ( how many of you would be crying to have killshooter and enemy icon  turn back on, because now this is to hard for you.) I wonder if in WW2 historical they did that. ( you know, have killshooter and enemy icon turned on.) Never read anywhere or spoken to a WW2 vet that said they could that.      O yes the more stylish ( hate to break the news to you but, they fly just the same in the AVA as they do in MA) and if I may quote Storch,(bless their little heart's)          
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 13, 2008, 02:37:57 PM
If you left because you perceive what Kong posted was accurate yet you claim it exists in the MA ....  :huh

Nevermind ....  :D

To me, it's often better to fly in the MA because you have no expectations.  The guy faceshoots you, sure...it's the MA.  He vulches or ackdrags...it's to be expected, it's the MA.

But many of us are still grappling with the idea of the new AvA, which is far different than the AvA of old, as the many forum posts from the week the new war started can prove.

Which is better the old AvA or the new?  Depends on who you ask, an old AvAer or a new guy.  Who's right?  I guess we all are.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: a4944 on April 13, 2008, 02:51:38 PM
I agree with Kong although perhaps not his delivery.  I played almost all last night and got into only a couple good fights.  It's all about porking the bases to prevent good fights.  AvA has historically been about fostering good fights.  The "war" direction is doing the opposite.   With the frontline base porking, it is now 80% flying, 20% fighting.  When I first started playing, it was more around 40% flying, 60% fighting if not more.  I love the AvA maps and how close the bases are but all of the frontline bases are porked so it's no better than MA in that regard now.  I'm OK with trying new concepts and will stick with it but so far I am disappointed.  Please put the fight first and foremost when making changes when trying new concepts.  Minimize the "time to fight".  This is not a strategic board game.

Venom
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 13, 2008, 04:44:00 PM
To me, it's often better to fly in the MA because you have no expectations. 

To me, if you have a different expectation in the AvA for some reason, your rationalization over what makes the AvA different from the MA is built on a false perception. It was never intended to act as a refuge from any flight tactic, good or bad. It was never intended to act as a refuge from poor sportsmanship. It was never intended to be anything other than an alternative for players who wanted something other than every plane in the AHII inventory available on a three sided pizza (or other imaginative terrain) flown under the bishop, knight or rook banner. Something a bit more like World War II was. Some players are just funny like that.

I've never found the rationalization of "Well this is no better than the MA, think I'll go back there to play and never come back." a particularly well thought out one.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 13, 2008, 04:59:04 PM
This is not a strategic board game.

Actually .... it's kinda headed that way. I think it's a good move, if done well. Things can always be addressed based on how the players react to the setup. You and Kong express a grievance that doesn't hit me quite as heavy. I flew with you to a base to check for bogies while Bug and co was covering the other one quite sufficiently (during the darbar blackout). Two were there. We had to eyeball them and I took my Hurri to the fight. They seemed more interested in deacking the base than engaging or evading so I got two in quick succession (I'm thinking they were under orders to suppress the ack at all costs, and cost them it did). Even with our opponents (and ourselves at both odd hours and peak ones) using a strategy of popping hangars to keep the other guy at bay (certainly a valid defensive move when outnumbered or anticipating such) more fights would happen if just the one-time Axis habitation of the arena in-force at most hours would resume. I think the political forum posturing and petitioning has taken it's toll.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 13, 2008, 05:02:23 PM
To me, if you have a different expectation in the AvA for some reason, your rationalization over what makes the AvA different from the MA is built on a false perception. It was never intended to act as a refuge from any flight tactic, good or bad. It was never intended to act as a refuge from poor sportsmanship. It was never intended to be anything other than an alternative for players who wanted something other than every plane in the AHII inventory available on a three sided pizza (or other imaginative terrain) flown under the bishop, knight or rook banner. Something a bit more like World War II was. Some players are just funny like that.

I've never found the rationalization of "Well this is no better than the MA, think I'll go back there to play and never come back." a particularly well thought out one.

With all due respect, the AvA was a very different place.  I'm sorry you didn't have the opportunity to experience that...but the idea that our "rationalizations" are somehow flawed...simply because our experiences have differed from your experiences...is a bunch of poo.

I think a bit more humility and less hubris would do us all some good.  We all have valid ideas and experiences concerning the arena, both the old timers who left long ago, the midtimers who enjoyed the 'happy times' and the new blood from the MA and Warbirds.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 01:14:19 AM
I think a bit more humility and less hubris would do us all some good. 

I tend to agree.

And that could well be applied to one's presumption of an unwritten chivalric code supposedly making a player socially acceptable or a pariah (and if a stoning is in order then let the mass suicide begin). Just sayin'. *ShruG*

And this will be brought up again, I'm fairly certain. Although my trackrecord is dead-set against, no telling what may happen between now and then. Right now, though, I'm not betting on this horse.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Odee on April 14, 2008, 08:19:39 AM
This one knows too much. Time to call in "The Cleaner".

 :noid
:rofl

Good post Kong!   :salute

However I think the whole point was to show a semblance of how difficult a war is to fight, and not how easy it is to vulch/pick/gang.

 :aok
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: XAKL on April 14, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
I'd like to make it even more like MA by providing All the Planes repective to their countries and a giant map, none of this rotating planes and winning selected planes. 

VH hangers get early set planes

Small Airfield get Mid war planes

Medium Airfields get late war planes minus, the jets, Tempests, Ta-152,

Large Airfields get All planes All vehicles

MUGADAI of the MUNGADAI WARRIORS
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 01:00:25 PM
I'm pretty sure things can't be set that way by the staff due to settings limitations.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: JagdTankker on April 14, 2008, 01:02:56 PM
I'm pretty sure things can't be set that way by the staff due to settings limitations.

you can set a certain plane to each field, it would just take a while to set it up.

then you gotta find someone who can do it.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 01:17:13 PM
Ok then ... I'm thinking Mug was being sarcastic.  ;)
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 14, 2008, 01:47:13 PM
I tend to agree.

And that could well be applied to one's presumption of an unwritten chivalric code supposedly making a player socially acceptable or a pariah (and if a stoning is in order then let the mass suicide begin). Just sayin'. *ShruG*

The ideas (good or bad) for improving the AvA are hardly hubris, it's when one takes offense to anothers idea, or refuses to allow them the benefit of discussion when hubris rears it's ugly head.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 02:02:08 PM
I beg to differ. Ideas are often both arrived at and delivered with an air of hubris. I find an attempt to make an arena that could use more numbers (for obvious reasons) more exclusive by suggesting unrealistic rules of chilvalry to be community enforced to the point of running off anyone perceived to play the game in an ungentlemanly manner (and, quite frankly, 90% of the aspersions cast upon others in the game are just that, perception .... and generally not very accurate) not only anything but humble ... I find it a foolish move. We disagree. The tact (and time) you're taking to explain your stance more thoroughly is not convincing me otherwise. And if you further perceive what we're doing as anything but discussion ... well there you go.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 14, 2008, 02:11:46 PM
My only stance is that change is possible, beyond that I really haven't voiced an opinion on the matter.

I'm sorry to say your wrong about the 'unrealistic' rules of chivalry.  They existed before you returned this time and before your 2 week return a few weeks ago.  I believe you when you say you were a part of CT in the past (your forum id is proof at least you existed here at that time), and I believe you when you say it wasn't 'chivalrous' then.  Why you can't fathom the reality that existed in the AvA while you were absent is beyond me.

Every idea should have proper discussion as to it's merits and faults.  No one's opinion is greater than any other.  The noob's 14.95 is just as important as the oldtimer of yor's 14.95.

So, in effect, I agree to disagree with you.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 03:24:08 PM
My only stance is that change is possible, beyond that I really haven't voiced an opinion on the matter.

Really now? For someone who's voiced no opinion you sure seem at odds with mine. ;)
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 14, 2008, 03:50:09 PM
My only stance is that change is possible

For someone who's voiced no opinion you sure seem at odds with mine. ;)

Yes, my opinion is at odds.  I believe positive change is possible, and that the arena opinion and Arlo's opinion may not be one and the same...and that's not the end of the world....all viewpoints are good.
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 04:11:51 PM
Yes, my opinion is at odds.  I believe positive change is possible, and that the arena opinion and Arlo's opinion may not be one and the same...and that's not the end of the world....all viewpoints are good.

May not. Haven't seen the evidence yet. But keep plugging. I can't/won't stop you. Just voicing an opinion. I'm sure you're good with that. :)
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: 2bighorn on April 14, 2008, 04:16:16 PM
I beg to differ. Ideas are often both arrived at and delivered with an air of hubris. I find an attempt to make an arena that could use more numbers (for obvious reasons) more exclusive by suggesting unrealistic rules of chilvalry to be community enforced to the point of running off anyone perceived to play the game in an ungentlemanly manner (and, quite frankly, 90% of the aspersions cast upon others in the game are just that, perception .... and generally not very accurate) not only anything but humble ... I find it a foolish move. We disagree. The tact (and time) you're taking to explain your stance more thoroughly is not convincing me otherwise. And if you further perceive what we're doing as anything but discussion ... well there you go.

Quantity over quality?

AvA wasn't broken, so why all the attempts to make it into something which has no chance to improve anything but maybe numbers (and only until novelty wears off).

Was it worth the try? Yes, but let see it for what it is. 
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: storch on April 14, 2008, 04:22:26 PM
Quantity over quality?

AvA wasn't broken, so why all the attempts to make it into something which has no chance to improve anything but maybe numbers (and only until novelty wears off).

Was it worth the try? Yes, but let see it for what it is. 


indeed
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: republic on April 14, 2008, 05:30:18 PM
May not. Haven't seen the evidence yet. But keep plugging. I can't/won't stop you. Just voicing an opinion. I'm sure you're good with that. :)

Edit:  I don't understand, but it doesn't matter.  :salute
Title: Re: I'm on to you guys.
Post by: Arlo on April 14, 2008, 05:38:14 PM
Edit:  I don't understand, but it doesn't matter.  :salute

I understand that and same.  :salute