Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on August 09, 2012, 01:58:26 AM

Title: Trinity
Post by: DREDIOCK on August 09, 2012, 01:58:26 AM
Ummm. Is this map ever going to change?
Or are we going with some new map rotation schedule?

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Rich46yo on August 09, 2012, 03:41:18 AM
Its the Texas fried steak of all the maps. You just never stop chewing.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 09, 2012, 03:51:58 AM
please :pray :pray
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Slash27 on August 09, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
Ummm. Is this map ever going to change?
Or are we going with some new map rotation schedule?


This map is the biggest beat down. It needs a rest please.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Bruv119 on August 09, 2012, 04:49:51 AM
we just need to follow the example of the asian badminton players,   Noble Knights give over their land in a glorious sacrifice and the Bish / Rook warsaw pact will deliver.

won't be any different from the usual  :D   
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Lusche on August 09, 2012, 06:10:58 AM
I guess the terrain change timer is getting reset each time an arena crashes. That would explain why Trinity is on now for more than seven days.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: JimmyC on August 09, 2012, 06:15:48 AM
^^^^Clever Clogs^^^^^
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Max on August 09, 2012, 08:13:23 AM
Bring back the days of old, when Skuzzy would light up the text bar in blue, kibbutz with everyone, and reset the map to the choice of the highest bidder  :old:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: matt on August 09, 2012, 09:53:14 AM
we just need to follow the example of the asian badminton players,   Noble Knights give over their land in a glorious sacrifice and the Bish / Rook warsaw pact will deliver.

won't be any different from the usual  :D   
nit/rook warsaw pact
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Wildcat1 on August 09, 2012, 10:05:03 AM
nit/rook warsaw pact

HAH! Funny
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Flench on August 09, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
Bring back the days of old, when Skuzzy would light up the text bar in blue, kibbutz with everyone, and reset the map to the choice of the highest bidder  :old:
That be cool .
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: LilMak on August 09, 2012, 11:21:53 AM
Let's take this turd out of the rotation for a couple months please.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Zoney on August 09, 2012, 11:26:13 AM
This is my favorite map.  :uhoh
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Wildcat1 on August 09, 2012, 11:29:38 AM
This is my favorite map.  :uhoh

same. :uhoh

always has the best fights, the only repetitive fights are the two major tank spawns, otherwise it's always something new.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 09, 2012, 03:07:12 PM
Great map.


Maybe the whiners would be better served if they actually attempted to attack or capture a base rather than simply furballing near it.

These maps are stagnating because most of the player base performs and identical mission profile over and over.

If that mission profile does not include taking bases, then the maps remain.

You, as a player, have a hand in this.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bustr on August 09, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
Trinity was for another time in the game when the idea of 600-700 players in the arena was possible. A map should not be so large you can loose 400 players on it. Might as well play one of the old boxed AI WW2 PC first person simulators while talking to several freinds on Skype about how bad you are shooting at AI.

Trinity forces any incursion into one of the 2 other countries via a BIG intial hoarding just to get the first foothold. Which then turns into the hoard steam rolling complained about becasue 60 guys are there now and "Why Not??".. If that first incursion stalls, it's usualy a bunch of guys wandering around at all alts in a 1.5 sector area mostly avoiding each other if they don't have an obvious advantage.

Otherwise the 1.5-2 sector distances not barriered by the 20k+ alps turns into air combat stalemate choke points. The terrain and distances at those well know choke points wind up with one group of furballers above 12k and the other twiddling their thumbs 7k to the deck praying they have enough beer to stay distracted untill the timid alt tourists decide to play air combat. Eventualy the furball drifts between the two airfeilds changing alt postions.

Greebo's new CraterMA seems to be a direct attempt to make a Trinty style map have no geographic choke points to prosicuting Air Combat with any size of group while protecting the central caldera TT from unreasonable bombing intrusion. The HQ and Factories are situated to make them enticing bomber group targets or even a sneak capture of a feild with a spawn to the HQ. I doubt you will be able to hide CV on this map.

It's a nice sized map that offers quicker access to your oponents while reducing some of the hiding at alt or by sneaking around in empty spaces. You won't loose 400 players on it. The airfeild distances are such that late nights will promote small concentrated air fights between resonabley spaced feilds while TT's terrain will be an interesting challenge for the tank ace. I hope HTC gets this one approved for rotation sooner than later.

CraterMA by: Greebo.

(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_Arena_map.jpg)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: 1sum41 on August 09, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
I would LOVE to see this map in rotation!  :aok
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: The Fugitive on August 09, 2012, 04:27:52 PM
I would LOVE to see this map in rotation!  :aok

It's up NOW !!!!


























if you load it up in a custom arena
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Spork on August 09, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
It's up NOW !!!!


























if you load it up in a custom arena

What a tease
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 09, 2012, 04:49:44 PM
Whenever Trinity gets reset, huge Borg cubes of whordetards roll over the other maps in short order, and we're right back to Trinity again
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Babalonian on August 09, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Let's take this turd out of the rotation for a couple months please.

And I thought I was being too blunt during the last two months (and 6-weeks worth of playtime) on Trinity.

 :aok


Pitchforks and torches for EVERYBODY!  :devil  :banana:


Edit: how much scotch will it take before putting up Greebo's (gorgeous brand spanking new) map?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 09, 2012, 05:12:35 PM
This is my favorite map.  :uhoh

Almost agree; this is my 2nd favorite map, after Compello.   :aok

What I can't understand is how the Trinity-hater guys can get "bored" with a map.  What are they doing, sightseeing??  Trinity has opportunity for one-on-one or one-on-few fights, furballs, and (usually) GV fights with an acceptably low-level of air interference.  IMHO, it's the types of fights available (edited), not the map, which determines whether the game is fun.  The only possible reason that I can see for people disliking Trinity is that apparently the hordes have difficulty in sweeping the map.  Since I don't personally prefer that style of game play, and since there are so many maps which are easy to sweep in a day or less, I think that the Trinity-haters should be willing to tolerate it.  

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Rich46yo on August 09, 2012, 05:27:26 PM
Its at a point where Im giving "WTGs" whenever the enemies take a base. Is it still up today?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: kvuo75 on August 09, 2012, 05:36:37 PM
Whenever Trinity gets reset, huge Borg cubes of whordetards roll over the other maps in short order, and we're right back to Trinity again

QFT.

small maps dont even last a day anymore, it seems.

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Babalonian on August 09, 2012, 06:12:00 PM
<snip> Since I don't personally prefer that style of game play, <snip>, I think that the Trinity-haters should be willing to tolerate it. 

MH

Really....


Personaly, I change the way/style I play almost every night.  However, Trinity easily reduces those options to only a very few.  Want to avoid the fight but not climb over 20k mountains or over 200 miles of water to ____?  Too bad.  If you're short on time and trying to avoid the grinder at the choke points, you're going to have to sacrafice one to satisfy the other.

Then there's the gamey and buggy exploits with the two GV spawns that further degrade the air war.  Why fight a frustrating and stagnant air battle when you can play a gamey and fast-paced GV slugfest?

Trinity keeps getting worse and it will continue to do so.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Ten60 on August 09, 2012, 06:49:44 PM
Why hasn't someone made the AW Pacific map?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Valen on August 09, 2012, 06:56:26 PM
in that greebo map i see bodies lying allover the floor  :t
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Slash27 on August 09, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
Why hasn't someone made the AW Pacific map?
Like Ozkansas and Mindanoa?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 09, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
Really....

Personaly, I change the way/style I play almost every night.  However, Trinity easily reduces those options to only a very few.  Want to avoid the fight but not climb over 20k mountains or over 200 miles of water to ____?  Too bad.  If you're short on time and trying to avoid the grinder at the choke points, you're going to have to sacrafice one to satisfy the other.

I sympathize with your distress, but I sure don’t understand it.  Why do you want to “avoid the fight”?  Isn’t that what the game is all about? 

Then there's the gamey and buggy exploits with the two GV spawns that further degrade the air war.  Why fight a frustrating and stagnant air battle when you can play a gamey and fast-paced GV slugfest?

Trinity keeps getting worse and it will continue to do so.

Also, why does one particular GV spawn (with cliff I assume) ruin the game over the entire map, and in particular, why does it affect the air war?  Why can’t you just leave those guys alone, and fight elsewhere?  Your statement almost seems to imply that you want to force the GV guys to fly planes (I assume that you don’t want this, but that’s what the above sounds like). 

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 09, 2012, 08:12:15 PM
They want a new map gifted to them regardless of the fact that they did zero to earn a new one.

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: The Fugitive on August 09, 2012, 08:13:41 PM
I sympathize with your distress, but I sure don’t understand it.  Why do you want to “avoid the fight”?  Isn’t that what the game is all about?  

Also, why does one particular GV spawn (with cliff I assume) ruin the game over the entire map, and in particular, why does it affect the air war?  Why can’t you just leave those guys alone, and fight elsewhere?  Your statement almost seems to imply that you want to force the GV guys to fly planes (I assume that you don’t want this, but that’s what the above sounds like).  

MH


It boils down to the same fight over and over again, A39, A1, and A5. Sometime you'll get the one up north A100?. During the off hours you get some guys rolling a few bases, but those are the first one grabbed back as the numbers grow in the arena until it stabilizes back to the same few fights.

They want a new map gifted to them regardless of the fact that they did zero to earn a new one.



Personally I don't care if we get a new map, I'd just like to see this one gone. No offense meant to the players that put in all the time and effort to create this map, but this is not the time for that map. Not until the numbers grow back to the 600 players on-line.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 09, 2012, 08:18:16 PM
It boils down to the same fight over and over again, A39, A1, and A5. Sometime you'll get the one up north A100?. During the off hours you get some guys rolling a few bases, but those are the first one grabbed back as the numbers grow in the arena until it stabilizes back to the same few fights.

The few days I flew planes this last Trinity appearance seemed adequately varied, but admittedly I usually GV on Trinity these days.  On the other hand, if I remember correctly from years ago it seemed adequately varied (back when Shane was around, for example).  BTW, your "rotate the starting lines" idea doesn't sound bad in theory, but then we would loose the use of the paired mountain vBases.  That's because Trinity doesn't have "chained" vBases like Compello, so if you shift the front line, said vBases are both owned by the same side and are thus out of the fight.  Also, the non-mountain vBases would become much easier to reach with attack aircraft. 

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: RTHolmes on August 09, 2012, 08:35:45 PM
worst. map. ever.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: BaldEagl on August 09, 2012, 08:45:11 PM
I like Trinity but I only get to play a little on weekends so it's hard for me to burn out on anything in the game.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Valen on August 09, 2012, 09:08:49 PM
dayum im missin this game deackin some fools airfields(knit or rook) and denying deffendsss, sorry the crappy language but we the fighters come in every clolour and shape, love winging and killin with you allsZ :cheers:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Slash27 on August 09, 2012, 09:26:29 PM
They want a new map gifted to them regardless of the fact that they did zero to earn a new one.


That must be it noob.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: LilMak on August 09, 2012, 10:11:13 PM
Ya know what HiTech? Trinity is starting to feel like purgatory. There's a 70% chance that when I log on I'm stuck in this turd of a map and IT'S TIRESOME!!!!! Please take this gaint steaming turd out of the rotation for about 2 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: titanic3 on August 09, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
Ya know what HiTech? Trinity is starting to feel like purgatory. There's a 70% chance that when I log on I'm stuck in this turd of a map and IT'S TIRESOME!!!!! Please take this gaint steaming turd out of the rotation for about 2 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 :pray
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: RedBull1 on August 09, 2012, 11:02:02 PM
Trinity is one of my top 3 favorite maps
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Wildcat1 on August 09, 2012, 11:08:09 PM
Trinity is one of my top 3 favorite maps

Same! What is so wrong about it? A fight is a fight, right?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Rob52240 on August 09, 2012, 11:10:14 PM
Trinity is one of my top 3 favorite maps

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QebWR8vIjlk/TMnANM8hJCI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/dN6n5-umrLU/s1600/burn+her.jpg)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 01:42:36 AM
good or not the map is just on all the freaking time  :cry

new players must think that there is only a single map in this game  :huh
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: LilMak on August 10, 2012, 01:44:44 AM
I don't like Trinity but that's not why I want it to go so bad. The primary reason I want it to go is because we keep getting stuck on it for weeks at a time. Seems to have become the default map. Reset? Trinity. Update? Trinity. Win the war? Trinity.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Ten60 on August 10, 2012, 07:35:54 AM
Like Ozkansas and Mindanoa?
Are those in the rotation?  I don't really know the names of the maps, mostly cause I don't really care what they are called lol.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Ten60 on August 10, 2012, 08:13:13 AM
Are those in the rotation?  I don't really know the names of the maps, mostly cause I don't really care what they are called lol.
I guess so...  They don't remind me of what I remember tho...  Maybe I'm thinking of the AW1 pacific one...  I dunno.  :bolt:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 10, 2012, 08:32:05 AM
What's the PAC map with the tank-battles/ furballs in the center island? (I never remember the names)That's my fav, closely followed by the Fester map with the gv tracks.....both have something for everybody.

How about a vote for most popular map?

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 08:56:59 AM
Trinity is a great map.

In the last week I have.........

Shot down 5 b29s at 35,000 feet   (one was a vulch).

Flown a spit XIV over enemy HQ, baited 163s, and returned to base.

Bombed down both enemy HQs (landed one)

Driven a tank to the enemy city and shot it up.

Flanked enemy tanks by driving up steep mountains so I can laugh at thier confusion when they can't see me because all thier guns are pointed at the spawn, my tracers were off, and thier refusal to shut down the engines so they can hear.



I just don't see the factors that many claim limit gameplay on the trinity map.

What I do see is gameplay being limited by the players themselves and wanting yet more ways to unrealistically make it easier.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 09:06:58 AM
these hours of cruising at 30K+ must have been thrilling.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: 10thmd on August 10, 2012, 09:12:30 AM
 :noid
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 09:18:13 AM
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8421/7752901012_519e7110f3_z.jpg)


The kill with the yak was done by running NOE to where I guessed the b29s would be landing.

I got lucky and rearmed on a convenient CV.

I should have had a few others with the yak9 but Triton1 is a beast in the guns and the yak9 isn't the optimum plane for 35,000 feet b29 interception but I happened to be taking off in one and saw them overhead.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 09:20:29 AM
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8421/7752901012_519e7110f3_z.jpg)


The kill with the yak was done by running NOE to where I guessed the b29s would be landing.

I got lucky and rearmed on a convenient CV.

Yeah nevermind I can't read. The map is still crap tho, I like flying 30mins sorties in crowded arenas, for long eventless cruises I can get Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 09:23:10 AM
LOL......I see you edited out the BS you spewed above.


My point is that Trinity is as good a map as any other and offers up a huge variety of ways to have fun.

It's not the fault of the map that players can't have the same variety of fun that I experience here when flying that map.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: DMGOD on August 10, 2012, 09:53:01 AM
LOL......I see you edited out the BS you spewed above.


My point is that Trinity is as good a map as any other and offers up a huge variety of ways to have fun.

It's not the fault of the map that players can't have the same variety of fun that I experience here when flying that map.



Not everybody has 123 hours to spare every month like you do
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Scca on August 10, 2012, 10:10:24 AM
Not everybody has 123 hours to spare every month like you do and kill a plane (or less) an hour doing it
Fixord. 

It seems most of the people that "like" Trinity are the pickers that show up to a furball, work the edges killing only engaged pilots and running at the first sign of anyone in icon range.  For this type of player Trinity is a feast.  With only one or two fights, hanging out at 30K looking for a pigeon is much easier. 
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: BaldEagl on August 10, 2012, 10:21:08 AM
Fixord. 

It seems most of the people that "like" Trinity are the pickers that show up to a furball, work the edges killing only engaged pilots and running at the first sign of anyone in icon range.  For this type of player Trinity is a feast.  With only one or two fights, hanging out at 30K looking for a pigeon is much easier. 

I'm sorry but that's not how I play.

The Trinity hating is no different than when HT said he was going to get rid of all the big maps and we played on Mindi for about three months straight.  I like that map too but hated it at that time.  They'll get the totation right again at some point. 

Trinity is a lot better than some of the other maps we have.  I'd like to see all the old big maps come back.  There are a lot of them we never see.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 10:25:17 AM
Not everybody has 123 hours to spare every month like you do

0.9 kills/hour  :huh
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Scca on August 10, 2012, 10:26:06 AM
Easy now... I said "most"...

You have to admit though, with the limited ability to open a new front due to the Himalayas, those giant furballs lend themselves well to the tactics of the "I can't die" crowd.

I'm sorry but that's not how I play.

The Trinity hating is no different than when HT said he was going to get rid of all the big maps and we played on Mindi for about three months straight.  I like that map too but hated it at that time.  They'll get the totation right again at some point. 

Trinity is a lot better than some of the other maps we have.  I'd like to see all the old big maps come back.  There are a lot of them we never see.

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Scca on August 10, 2012, 10:26:59 AM
0.9 kills/hour  :huh
Now THAT'S excitement isn't it?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: caldera on August 10, 2012, 10:39:53 AM
Trinity is almost always up for 7 days.  Now it has been up for longer than that, as it was up last Friday.  Today makes the third day in the row I have logged in and then immediately logged back out after seeing this map.  Three days of Trinity is my tolerance limit. 

Trinity marathons, the 12 hour side switch rule and still having some planes with 12 year old graphics are pretty much the only things HTC does wrong , IMO.


The large maps stay too long and the small ones are gone in a flash.  All maps should be up a minimum 24 hours to maximum 72 hours, regardless of war wins or lack thereof. 
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 10, 2012, 10:46:32 AM
Trinity is almost always up for 7 days.  Now it has been up for longer than that, as it was up last Friday.  Today makes the third day in the row I have logged in and then immediately logged back out after seeing this map.  Three days of Trinity is my tolerance limit. 

Trinity marathons, the 12 hour side switch rule and still having some planes with 12 year old graphics are pretty much the only things HTC does wrong , IMO.


The bigger thing, is how long does it take Trinity to come BACK again, after it's been reset?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Rob52240 on August 10, 2012, 10:49:40 AM
I'd like it if we could test out a 'Diet Trinity' map instead of just scrapping Trinity.

What if we could make the Mountains aside from those that surround TT a bit less tall.  Then see how much more / less fun it is.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 10:54:13 AM
Would love to hear some feedback from HTC on this...

Every week come with its trinity hate thread, still no action was taken.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 10:59:27 AM
0.9 kills/hour  :huh

LOL.......I leave it logged in while I am working on the fastest cars in the world.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: RTHolmes on August 10, 2012, 11:01:22 AM
All maps should be up a minimum 24 hours to maximum 72 hours, regardless of war wins or lack thereof.

+1 :aok
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 11:04:23 AM
LOL.......I leave it logged in while I am working on the fastest cars in the world.

this counts only the inflight fighter mode, not the AFK tower, while you're working on the fastest cars in the world.

(http://moncircuittcr.tcrmania.fr/image/image_circuit/depart.JPG)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 11:05:27 AM
All maps should be up a minimum 24 hours to maximum 72 hours, regardless of war wins or lack thereof. 

+1
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 11:08:30 AM
Yep......it's called "climbing while away from keyboard".

Sometimes the plane travels off map or runs out of fuel and crashes before I get back to it.

maybe you can just put up and duel me.

I have one duel with ackack before you to attend to once I am over almost dying from a reaction to pain meds for a broken big toe.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: caldera on August 10, 2012, 11:11:25 AM
I have one duel before you to attend to once I am over almost dying from a reaction to pain meds for a broken big toe.

You broke Sargeant Hulka?  ;)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 11:13:06 AM
I am very surprised at the pain level having broken many metacarpals and other bones in my lifetime.

It's still third in pain level for me behind eye pain from an injury or tooth pain.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
I have one duel with ackack before you to attend to once I am over almost dying from a reaction to pain meds for a broken big toe.

Sure, I'll take a ticket and wait in the line.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: ink on August 10, 2012, 11:30:58 AM
this counts only the inflight fighter mode, not the AFK tower, while you're working on the fastest cars in the world.

(http://moncircuittcr.tcrmania.fr/image/image_circuit/depart.JPG)


 :rofl
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 01:02:17 PM
Sure, I'll take a ticket and wait in the line.

My stipulation is that the duel occurs over 30,000 feet.

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 10, 2012, 01:07:48 PM
My stipulation is that the duel occurs over 30,000 feet.



lol if we can air spawn why not, otherwise I'll have to decline, waste of my short playing time
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Zoney on August 10, 2012, 01:55:16 PM
Icepak

Do you still hate me ?

Honest question. not a troll or a trap or an opening for me to stab you when you answer.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: BaldEagl on August 10, 2012, 01:59:32 PM
Back when we were limited to small maps I thought about building a map based on Trinity sort of like someone built SmPizza loosely based on the original Pizza.

I never got further than the rough idea below.  Darker is higher, light green is approximately sea level.  Gray are canyons.  Red seperates countries.  GV bases are red and connected by spawns and airfields are in black.  Note the mountain ranges run through the middle of each country.  Also note the high airfields in the back to let bombers get to alt.

Maybe someone who knows how to make maps could do this one.


(http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww72/imbe/SmTrinity.jpg)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: IrishOne on August 10, 2012, 02:17:47 PM
My stipulation is that the duel occurs over 30,000 feet.




didnt we try this once, right after you claimed to be god's gift to the 110?   to your credit you did survive almost a full turn.   was well worth the month long climb.    epic fight it was.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: caldera on August 10, 2012, 02:48:32 PM
Back when we were limited to small maps I thought about building a map based on Trinity sort of like someone built SmPizza loosely based on the original Pizza.

I never got further than the rough idea below.  Darker is higher, light green is approximately sea level.  Gray are canyons.  Red seperates countries.  GV bases are red and connected by spawns and airfields are in black.  Note the mountain ranges run through the middle of each country.  Also note the high airfields in the back to let bombers get to alt.

Maybe someone who knows how to make maps could do this one.


(http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww72/imbe/SmTrinity.jpg)

You could try it out yourself.  It is not difficult, but is a ton of work. 

My map (called PITA) has been dormant for well over a year.  Skuzzy told me there are too many fields and they are too close.  There is still some elevation fine tuning and the entire texture terrain to do.  Now all the bases have to be redone as well.  There are going to be features on this map (if it ever gets done) that will be quite different than most of the maps we have.  Here is the general layout and a shot of one base:

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/pitamap.jpg)

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/pita10-1.jpg)

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/pita12-122.jpg)

There will be a broad initial front line, in addition to the coastline; which is intended to give more options and spread out the fight.  The tallest elevation on the entire map is 5,000 feet, with bases anywhere from 0k to 5k.  Another thing is there will be many more spawn points than other maps.  And canyons.  Good luck finding a stretch of flat ground that isn't a beach head or ocean.   :D


The thing that has stalled my progress (other than having to re-do all the bases) is how quickly the small maps are whisked out of the rotation.  To spend hundreds of hours pointing and clicking every elevation and terrain tile, only to not be able to play on my map because the base rollers reset it while I was at work... that is a frustrating possibility.  It is doubtful that I ever missed a chance to play on Trinity before it got reset.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 03:57:04 PM
Icepak

Do you still hate me ?

Honest question. not a troll or a trap or an opening for me to stab you when you answer.

Nope....consider you a friend.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2012, 04:00:24 PM

didnt we try this once, right after you claimed to be god's gift to the 110?   to your credit you did survive almost a full turn.   was well worth the month long climb.    epic fight it was.

Film shows me on the stall horn trying to turn to the merge after just having attained 30,000 feet.

It's fully my fault of not checking the DA fuel burn to find it 1.0 and taking 50% fuel and drop tanks to your taking 25% fuel.


We must do it again with what I learned and thanks for making my first ever sortie in the dueling arena such a fun time and a great learning experience.

I'm not super enthused with the dueling arena settings because they remove any worries about fuel meaning everybody is flying around with super light planes and are able to see all dots all the time.


You are third in line.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 10, 2012, 04:21:16 PM
Would love to hear some feedback from HTC on this...

Every week come with its trinity hate thread, still no action was taken.

That's because (duh...) not everyone hates it.  It's always the same guys on the "Trinity hate thread".   As I mentioned on a number of posts, there are a lot of good things in Trinity *including* the tall mountains.  Just yesterday, I was thinking about the claim of limited fights.  I looked at the map (admittedly a single sample, but not an unusual one) and although the front lines had (mostly) retreated to the mountains, there were beachheads on all 3 countries which opened up at least 10 additional adjacent base pairs to fight from. 

So I am suspicious that (most of) the guys who hate Trinity are not stating their real reason, which is they get their fun from taking undefended territory as part of a horde, instead of fights.  This is probably what some of them mean when they say that 400 players are "lost" on Trinity; i.e., that the undefended bases which they like to attack are shielded by mountains and hard to get to. 

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Slash27 on August 10, 2012, 04:31:30 PM
So I am suspicious that (most of) the guys who hate Trinity are not stating their real reason, which is they get their fun from taking undefended territory as part of a horde, instead of fights.  This is probably what some of them mean when they say that 400 players are "lost" on Trinity; i.e., that the undefended bases which they like to attack are hard to get to. 

MH
Good thing you didn't become a detective.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Zoney on August 10, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
Nope....consider you a friend.

Cool,  :salute
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Scca on August 10, 2012, 04:33:53 PM
Deacon, only a horde would be able to break through the mountains.  But then it would take a horde to keep it.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 10, 2012, 04:36:50 PM
Good thing you didn't become a detective.

Fine; I was sloppy in writing up the second paragraph; remove the last sentence.

But seriously, how can you claim that 300-400 players are "lost" on the big maps.  Obviously one can find fights by following the dar bars.  So it's not that the opponents can't be found, and thus is probably something else.  We human beings frequently don't state our real reasons for our preferences, because often if we did, we would sound like idiots.  

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 10, 2012, 04:40:08 PM
Deacon, only a horde would be able to break through the mountains.  But then it would take a horde to keep it.

True.  But why do they always have to "break through the mountains"?  Just concentrate on the fights, and wait until the next map to sweep the whole thing in a day.  Or go the beachhead route, as in fact they do.  They capture plenty of bases that way; the only thing that is missing is "winning the war".  And then if they post about Trinity, and if their real beef is not being able to win the war, then the post should say so, and not have all this implausible stuff about not being able to find fights, not having the time to climb to 20K, too many players are using evil GVs, etc.    

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: RTHolmes on August 10, 2012, 05:23:33 PM
<< hates trinity, hates hordes, doesnt give a crap about base-takes :)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 10, 2012, 05:38:56 PM
<< hates trinity <snip>

Why?

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: LilMak on August 10, 2012, 05:43:15 PM
My "beef" is not so much with the map itself as the frequency that we seem to stall out on it. It feels like there is a 70% chance I'm going to be playing on trinity every time I log on.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: shiv on August 10, 2012, 05:48:36 PM
It goes all 7 days 99% of the time it seems. We got an extra few days this time though, great for those 4 guys that love this map.

It didn't make that much difference back when we had Titanic Tuesday. Now that you have to go the regulation 7 days it's a drag.

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Slash27 on August 10, 2012, 05:59:50 PM
Fine; I was sloppy in writing up the second paragraph; remove the last sentence.

But seriously, how can you claim that 300-400 players are "lost" on the big maps.  Obviously one can find fights by following the dar bars.  So it's not that the opponents can't be found, and thus is probably something else.  We human beings frequently don't state our real reasons for our preferences, because often if we did, we would sound like idiots.  

MH
Where did I say anything about people being lost? The map is stale and boring.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: BaldEagl on August 10, 2012, 06:32:59 PM
I like Trinity
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: shiv on August 10, 2012, 07:38:01 PM
Who are the other 3 though?
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Babalonian on August 10, 2012, 07:38:34 PM
I sympathize with your distress, but I sure don’t understand it.  Why do you want to “avoid the fight”?  Isn’t that what the game is all about? 

Also, why does one particular GV spawn (with cliff I assume) ruin the game over the entire map, and in particular, why does it affect the air war?  Why can’t you just leave those guys alone, and fight elsewhere?  Your statement almost seems to imply that you want to force the GV guys to fly planes (I assume that you don’t want this, but that’s what the above sounds like). 

MH


Ah this is a very old and touchy subject in AH, as we're tap dancing on the line of "how one wants to play their game" and "how one wants others to play in their game".  It's hard to express opinion without being persuaded by another's desires or other influences.


To one, "the fight" is killing 12 tanks in a spawn fight in less time than it takes to drive a mile and capture a field and progress the map.  What is wrong with the fight to capture a field right next door?  Both are fights, one will not simpley let you kill them 12 times and the game is settup so one simpley can't effortlessly capture a town without dropping some ord or shooting some guns.  Is it because you have to not avoid the larger/largest fight?  It must be that written rule, nobody in AH can ignore the largest bloodbath?

The answer: more people want the bloodbath than the few trying to progress, so much so that we end up with the same map up on the LWMA for over a week straight.  So for a week one group is very happy and another is very deprived of "the fight".  One group can not join the other and be content as one will make the other unhappy.  Trinity is GREAT for those looking for "the fight" that is the bloodbath and racking up their score - horrible for those whos fight is to capture the fields, progress the map, and achieve gain for all their countrymen.

Then you have the majority that's in the middle (where I like to be), they love the bloodbaths but only after the first two-three days of the same ones without any gain or progress made on the map.  You guys have had your 7-days of fun, can we please have ours?  I assure you, most other maps will allow another good bloodbath (and some we really don't even know if they will because they never get into the rotation, but lets play on trinity for antoher 7-days... make sure those with a resentment toards it really start to fester), maybe not 12-kills per minute like the ones in Trinity, but they are out there.

And the problem is we do leave the GV guys alone in their 20k canyons for 7-days straight.  You guys repeatedly demonstrate you have no intention of GV anywhee else on the map.  And there are two regions for all three coutnries to equaly get their 12-kills a minute.


To me, one side is being unreasonable over the other and I can't understand it, one side has had their favorite map to play on for the last 3-weeks out of 4.  Everybody else, only has had one week of no trinity.  IF you REALLY like Trinity, you should wake up, because I can't think of a better way to get your favorite map removed from the rotation either temporarily or permanently, can you?  I would be CONTENT if Trinity were up 4-days out of seven, heck even five, but it's been up 3 out of 4 times for months.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 10, 2012, 09:19:09 PM
Ah this is a very old and touchy subject in AH, as we're tap dancing on the line of "how one wants to play their game" and "how one wants others to play in their game".  It's hard to express opinion without being persuaded by another's desires or other influences.

To one, "the fight" is killing 12 tanks in a spawn fight in less time than it takes to drive a mile and capture a field and progress the map.  What is wrong with the fight to capture a field right next door?  Both are fights, one will not simpley let you kill them 12 times and the game is settup so one simpley can't effortlessly capture a town without dropping some ord or shooting some guns.  Is it because you have to not avoid the larger/largest fight?  It must be that written rule, nobody in AH can ignore the largest bloodbath?

The answer: more people want the bloodbath than the few trying to progress, so much so that we end up with the same map up on the LWMA for over a week straight.  So for a week one group is very happy and another is very deprived of "the fight".  One group can not join the other and be content as one will make the other unhappy.  Trinity is GREAT for those looking for "the fight" that is the bloodbath and racking up their score - horrible for those whos fight is to capture the fields, progress the map, and achieve gain for all their countrymen.

Then you have the majority that's in the middle (where I like to be), they love the bloodbaths but only after the first two-three days of the same ones without any gain or progress made on the map.  You guys have had your 7-days of fun, can we please have ours?  I assure you, most other maps will allow another good bloodbath (and some we really don't even know if they will because they never get into the rotation, but lets play on trinity for antoher 7-days... make sure those with a resentment toards it really start to fester), maybe not 12-kills per minute like the ones in Trinity, but they are out there.

And the problem is we do leave the GV guys alone in their 20k canyons for 7-days straight.  You guys repeatedly demonstrate you have no intention of GV anywhee else on the map.  And there are two regions for all three coutnries to equaly get their 12-kills a minute.

To me, one side is being unreasonable over the other and I can't understand it, one side has had their favorite map to play on for the last 3-weeks out of 4.  Everybody else, only has had one week of no trinity.  IF you REALLY like Trinity, you should wake up, because I can't think of a better way to get your favorite map removed from the rotation either temporarily or permanently, can you?  I would be CONTENT if Trinity were up 4-days out of seven, heck even five, but it's been up 3 out of 4 times for months.

Good description of your point of view.  In a spirit of compromise, I personally (for what that’s worth) could support a 4-day limit.  In conjunction with that however, I just wish more of the other maps could be made GV-friendly (with chained vBases moderately difficult to get to with attack aircraft).  About half the maps in the rotation are horrible for GVs (like Mindanao), and the only saving grace most of them have is that they don’t last long, as they are easy to sweep.  Most maps are fine for planes, of course, at least partly because planes are top-dog in the AH universe.  Unfortunately, even the guys working on new maps (except for Greebo, who is a fine open-minded individual) don’t seem to get the concept of GV-friendliness.   :frown:

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Hajo on August 10, 2012, 09:31:56 PM
Map is ok with me.  I just like to defend anyway.  I'm not a win the war kind a guy anyhow.

Can't get anything for the perkpoints anyway so whats the big deal???
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: caldera on August 10, 2012, 10:20:20 PM
Unfortunately, even the guys working on new maps (except for Greebo, who is a fine open-minded individual) don’t seem to get the concept of GV-friendliness.   :frown:

MH


And how do you know who is working on new maps and what their understanding of GV-friendliness is?
 
The older maps only need more GV spawns added to make them GV-friendly.   That's up to HTC.
My map will be very GV friendly (if it's ever finished) and surely other new maps will be as well. 

Why not make one yourself and show us how it's done?


Edit:  I don't GV at all but how does this look for a GV-friendly tank town?

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/tanktown.jpg)

Each country gets two spawn in points to the other two enemy bases to reduce camping and a spawn in from a rear uncaptureable base will bring supplies or tanks to either save the base or retake it.  Like it or not, base taking promotes fights.  I haven't captured a base since tour 97 btw and mostly defend.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: kappa on August 11, 2012, 12:36:33 AM
Trinity would be great if we could get rid of the starting country lines... Just randomize all 3 country bases all over the map.. no defined front lines.. 8)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chalenge on August 11, 2012, 03:44:39 AM
Per fights: Up a plane that cant run. I suggest a Spit1 or Hurr1. Get in the way of the enemy. See how many stop to fight.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 11, 2012, 08:58:11 AM
Per fights: Up a plane that cant run. I suggest a Spit1 or Hurr1. Get in the way of the enemy. See how many stop to fight.
and then be picked to death by a half dozen sub-orbital P51's :D
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: matt on August 11, 2012, 09:25:50 AM
Ah this is a very old and touchy subject in AH, as we're tap dancing on the line of "how one wants to play their game" and "how one wants others to play in their game".  It's hard to express opinion without being persuaded by another's desires or other influences.


To one, "the fight" is killing 12 tanks in a spawn fight in less time than it takes to drive a mile and capture a field and progress the map.  What is wrong with the fight to capture a field right next door?  Both are fights, one will not simpley let you kill them 12 times and the game is settup so one simpley can't effortlessly capture a town without dropping some ord or shooting some guns.  Is it because you have to not avoid the larger/largest fight?  It must be that written rule, nobody in AH can ignore the largest bloodbath?

The answer: more people want the bloodbath than the few trying to progress, so much so that we end up with the same map up on the LWMA for over a week straight.  So for a week one group is very happy and another is very deprived of "the fight".  One group can not join the other and be content as one will make the other unhappy.  Trinity is GREAT for those looking for "the fight" that is the bloodbath and racking up their score - horrible for those whos fight is to capture the fields, progress the map, and achieve gain for all their countrymen.

Then you have the majority that's in the middle (where I like to be), they love the bloodbaths but only after the first two-three days of the same ones without any gain or progress made on the map.  You guys have had your 7-days of fun, can we please have ours?  I assure you, most other maps will allow another good bloodbath (and some we really don't even know if they will because they never get into the rotation, but lets play on trinity for antoher 7-days... make sure those with a resentment toards it really start to fester), maybe not 12-kills per minute like the ones in Trinity, but they are out there.

And the problem is we do leave the GV guys alone in their 20k canyons for 7-days straight.  You guys repeatedly demonstrate you have no intention of GV anywhee else on the map.  And there are two regions for all three coutnries to equaly get their 12-kills a minute.


To me, one side is being unreasonable over the other and I can't understand it, one side has had their favorite map to play on for the last 3-weeks out of 4.  Everybody else, only has had one week of no trinity.  IF you REALLY like Trinity, you should wake up, because I can't think of a better way to get your favorite map removed from the rotation either temporarily or permanently, can you?  I would be CONTENT if Trinity were up 4-days out of seven, heck even five, but it's been up 3 out of 4 times for months.
It gets old taking bases only to wake up and their all taken back.
no more real effert to win this map just gonna have have fun defending.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: DREDIOCK on August 11, 2012, 09:44:03 AM
I like Trinity

I like steak too. In fact. Steak is my favorite food hands down bar none it isnt even a close competition.

But as much as I like steak. Its not what I want to have for dinner every single night of the week. Or even 4 of 7 days of the week


Trinity was fine when there were alot more players playing. Usually fights were on a broad front. Here and especially if your on the country to the west. The fight is limited to the same 1 or two bases in the north the GV spawn camp in the center. And the same 1 or two bases in the south. And unless you horde. You dont get anywhere. And while I dont really care who wins the war in the end. It is nice to have those desperate struggles over a base. And I do enjoy a change of scenery and tactical thinking from time to time that taking or loosing a base provides.

Still. Im fine with playing on Trinity for a couple days. But not when it takes up half the month when I only get to play on the maps I like for a few days (sometimes at best) a month

Someone suggested having a 14 hour minimum and a 48 hour maximum per map. Personally I think thats a dandy idea. Though I think just a flat 48 hours is even better. Then everyone gets guaranteed to play two nights on the map they like per rotation. Seems the fair thing to me
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Lusche on August 11, 2012, 09:50:04 AM
Someone suggested having a 14 hour minimum and a 48 hour maximum per map. Personally I think thats a dandy idea. Though I think just a flat 48 hours is even better. Then everyone gets guaranteed to play two nights on the map they like per rotation. Seems the fair thing to me


Flat 48h creates a different problem that should not be underestimated: Almost no large map (and we have 4 of them in rotation) will ever be 'won' again. And no matter what whe might individually thing about the war (particularly old AH 'vets'), it's a very important component in overall player motivation.

IMHO, the current 7 day time is fine. It just has to work - we are now in the 12th day on Trinity  :bhead
The only thing I would add would be a minimum uptime of 2 days, so that we don't race through the small maps until hitting a large map again.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: R 105 on August 11, 2012, 10:50:30 AM
Good description of your point of view.  In a spirit of compromise, I personally (for what that’s worth) could support a 4-day limit.  In conjunction with that however, I just wish more of the other maps could be made GV-friendly (with chained vBases moderately difficult to get to with attack aircraft).  About half the maps in the rotation are horrible for GVs (like Mindanao), and the only saving grace most of them have is that they don’t last long, as they are easy to sweep.  Most maps are fine for planes, of course, at least partly because planes are top-dog in the AH universe.  Unfortunately, even the guys working on new maps (except for Greebo, who is a fine open-minded individual) don’t seem to get the concept of GV-friendliness.   :frown:

MH

Maps and not GV friendly because most map are made by pilot types that don't care for GVs and some would even like to see GVs out of the game all together. The only way to get a GV friendly map is if some enterprising young tanker takes the time to make such a map and submit it to HTC. I too would like to see a V-135 or V-85 type spawn on every map. The people who like to GV and pay their $14.95 have the same right to a good tank fight as a pilot type without having to keep a DOT log book to track driving time to get a shot at another tank. Good thing GVs don't have to keep a DOT log book or all of us would be out of service for 8 hrs lol.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: The Fugitive on August 11, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
Maps and not GV friendly because most map are made by pilot types that don't care for GVs and some would even like to see GVs out of the game all together. The only way to get a GV friendly map is if some enterprising young tanker takes the time to make such a map and submit it to HTC. I too would like to see a V-135 or V-85 type spawn on every map. The people who like to GV and pay their $14.95 have the same right to a good tank fight as a pilot type without having to keep a DOT log book to track driving time to get a shot at another tank. Good thing GVs don't have to keep a DOT log book or all of us would be out of service for 8 hrs lol.

It has nothing to do with "maps being made by pilot types". Most of the maps were made back in the day when there was very little GV combat. The game was about flying as the name implies "Aces High". Now there is more of an interest in GVs and the newer maps we have DO have good GV action added to them. The problem is we haven't had a map added in a long time either.

Trinity was a good map when we had 600 players on at night. Figure an "average" you had 200 players going head to head across those mountains looking to grab a foot hold on the other side. It made for some great battles. Now as an average, you have 100 players, and more than half of those don't want to be bothered with climbing, or fighting, so they group together to try and attack across the water (A39, A100, and A5) or pound on each other at A1. Oncw one team or the other gets a foot hold on the other side of the mountains more and more fights of all types spring up.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Lusche on August 11, 2012, 11:16:13 AM
Trinity was a good map when we had 600 players on at night. Figure an "average" you had 200 players going head to head across those mountains looking to grab a foot hold on the other side. It made for some great battles.


I might add that the majority of GV combat besides direct support of base captures was happening in Tank Town on Trinity, and almost nil at V135. You could always expect a sizeable portion of the arena population there, often more than one hundred. I learned tanking up there back in the day...  :cry
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 11, 2012, 11:20:38 AM
It has nothing to do with "maps being made by pilot types". Most of the maps were made back in the day when there was very little GV combat. The game was about flying as the name implies "Aces High". Now there is more of an interest in GVs and the newer maps we have DO have good GV action added to them. The problem is we haven't had a map added in a long time either.

Trinity was a good map when we had 600 players on at night. Figure an "average" you had 200 players going head to head across those mountains looking to grab a foot hold on the other side. It made for some great battles. Now as an average, you have 100 players, and more than half of those don't want to be bothered with climbing, or fighting, so they group together to try and attack across the water (A39, A100, and A5) or pound on each other at A1. Oncw one team or the other gets a foot hold on the other side of the mountains more and more fights of all types spring up.
Yup, last night I noted that we had 300 players playing on a 400 sector map. Rooks had enemy contact in two areas, both utterly poor odds, though the furball near the nit base in the west got even after midnight
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Zoney on August 11, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
There would certainly be alot more action if fewer people were in GV's.  I look at the friendly numbers "in flight" and hardly see any dar, so they are either all noe or theres an awful lot of GV's.  I'd like to be able to see how many are Gv'n compared to how many are in aircraft.  Yeah, it frustrates me to see so many GV'ers.  I'm selfish, I want more flying mates and more flying targets.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Lusche on August 11, 2012, 01:31:13 PM
There would certainly be alot more action if fewer people were in GV's.  I look at the friendly numbers "in flight" and hardly see any dar, so they are either all noe or theres an awful lot of GV's.  me to see so many GV'ers.  I'm selfish, I want more flying mates and more flying targets.

Are you summoning The Snail?  :noid
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Rob52240 on August 11, 2012, 01:33:32 PM
There would certainly be alot more action if fewer people were in GV's.  I look at the friendly numbers "in flight" and hardly see any dar, so they are either all noe or theres an awful lot of GV's.  I'd like to be able to see how many are Gv'n compared to how many are in aircraft.  Yeah, it frustrates me to see so many GV'ers.  I'm selfish, I want more flying mates and more flying targets.

Trinity offers what are essentially "air starts" to slow tanks.  Spawns that spawn on top of enemy spawns is one thing Trinity is full of.  The other thing is dung.

What's really unfortunate is many tankers on trinity tend to freak out, yell and be abusive to anyone who tries to capture bases that spawn into friendly spawn points.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: ink on August 11, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
all trinity needs is to get rid of the mountains, then it would be just another map to fight on, I never cared about the map....or terrain but I cant stand trinity...because of the mountains...get rid of them and the map would be fine. :aok
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Zoney on August 11, 2012, 01:56:31 PM
Are you summoning The Snail?  :noid

LOL, I've made the blood sacrifice, burned the incense, drawn the symbol in the dirt........now the wait begins..........
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chalenge on August 11, 2012, 02:02:39 PM
and then be picked to death by a half dozen sub-orbital P51's :D

Seen it tried but they all ran home after losing their E. You forget that 90% of all pony pilots... suck at flying ponies.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Lusche on August 11, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
LOL, I've made the blood sacrifice, burned the incense, drawn the symbol in the dirt........now the wait begins..........


The Gods are pleased! Here we go:  :old:

There would certainly be alot more action if fewer people were in GV's.  I look at the friendly numbers "in flight" and hardly see any dar, so they are either all noe or theres an awful lot of GV's.


Right now we have a GV usage (K+D) quota of 42.3% this tour, which happened to play on Trinity exclusively. This is only slightly higher than in all tours this year combined (39.9%).
As Trinity has approximately 20$-25% of mothly playtime and there is only one small map with very much reduced GV opportunities (Mindanao) we may conclude that overall players do spend only slightly more time in GV's on Trinity than they do averagely in AH, which ends up as 24% of playtime in this year so far (Tour 144-150).

Of course the GV usage quota is fluctuating a lot during the day:

(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3784/gvquota.jpg)
Current track. Time on the X axis is CEST (UTC+2)

With a bit of luck, I will be able to do a detailed breakdown for each map at the end of this tour.


Now it would be interesting to see if the 'tower time' has been different on Trinity (players looking for a fight), but right now there is no practical way for me to track that.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Zoney on August 11, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
There is a fine line between Genius and Insanity you know Snailman.    Daaayuuuum. 

Sure glad you play this game mate  :salute

BTW I KNOW you do alt monkey missions sometimes.  We gotta wing up.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: lyric1 on August 11, 2012, 04:14:12 PM
It's gone now.  :D
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: RTHolmes on August 11, 2012, 04:17:39 PM
cant think of a better time to use this:  :banana:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Noir on August 11, 2012, 04:21:04 PM
 :banana:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Flossy on August 11, 2012, 06:42:44 PM
This is my favorite map.  :uhoh
Mine too!   :uhoh
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 11, 2012, 11:56:58 PM
Seen it tried but they all ran home after losing their E. You forget that 90% of all pony pilots... suck at flying ponies.
Yah, another squad who frequents your country....but quantity has a quality in and of itself
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 12, 2012, 12:24:40 AM

I might add that the majority of GV combat besides direct support of base captures was happening in Tank Town on Trinity, and almost nil at V135. You could always expect a sizeable portion of the arena population there, often more than one hundred. I learned tanking up there back in the day...  :cry

Replace that useless conglomeration of buildings in the center of Trinity TT with a vBase-plus-spawns (doesn't matter who owns it), and you will see more action there.  As it stands, the only time you can generate GV fights in TT is when the TT "border" is moved to the edge by one side capturing all-but-one of the others' vBases.  In turn, this results in adjacent opposing vBases, which can be shot at, made to flash, and thus made to produce opponents.  Having the plateau overlooking that all-but-one vBase is a *major* interest point as well.  Just far enough away so you can't bombard the base with a non-perk tank, but close enough to eliminate the blind-man's-buff fumbling-type of combat which purely flat terrain tends to involve.  So the attackers have the hill, but the defenders have the adjacent reinforcement capability of the vBase.  

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chalenge on August 12, 2012, 12:29:54 AM
Yah, another squad who frequents your country....but quantity has a quality in and of itself

Oh... I get it now. You dont fly enough to speak from actual experience. Keeping trolling your doing a fine job!
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 12, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
It has nothing to do with "maps being made by pilot types". Most of the maps were made back in the day when there was very little GV combat. The game was about flying as the name implies "Aces High". Now there is more of an interest in GVs and the newer maps we have DO have good GV action added to them. The problem is we haven't had a map added in a long time either.

<snip>

I am skeptical about the second part of this statement.  The only current maps which have good GV action are Compello (with its chained, relatively inaccessible vBases), Ozkansas (in TT, but only when the ground attack types are not too numerous), and Trinity (with the cliff-spawn in play and TT with assymetrical base ownership, per my other post).  The others vary from bad to horrible for GV combat as they don't provide sufficent isolation for the vBases and/or the vBases are connected only to air bases.  The new maps I have seen discussed on these boards don't seem to be much of an improvement (from a GV perspective), and from the posts by some of the player-mapmakers, I don't think they have thought through the GV aspect as much as they could.  I am going to update my list of characteristics needed by a truely GV-friendly map, as the previous one is missing some of the concepts recently discussed.  

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 12, 2012, 12:45:44 AM
There would certainly be alot more action if fewer people were in GV's.  I look at the friendly numbers "in flight" and hardly see any dar, so they are either all noe or theres an awful lot of GV's.  I'd like to be able to see how many are Gv'n compared to how many are in aircraft.  Yeah, it frustrates me to see so many GV'ers.  I'm selfish, I want more flying mates and more flying targets.

There are always plenty of planes up.  The problem is they usually are up in hordes.  If you got rid of GVs, and if all those players remained subscribers, how do you know they wouldn't just join the existing hordes?  I wish HTC could think of a mechanism which would encourage people to spread out more. 

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chalenge on August 12, 2012, 01:16:10 AM
GVs are attracting customers.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: R 105 on August 12, 2012, 08:19:31 AM

I might add that the majority of GV combat besides direct support of base captures was happening in Tank Town on Trinity, and almost nil at V135. You could always expect a sizeable portion of the arena population there, often more than one hundred. I learned tanking up there back in the day...  :cry
Yes but that was the old tank town it has been changed. I miss old tank town that is also where I learned to GV in the game at.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 12, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
Oh... I get it now. You dont fly enough to speak from actual experience. Keeping trolling your doing a fine job!
really wasn't where I was going with that
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: The Fugitive on August 12, 2012, 10:37:09 AM
Replace that useless conglomeration of buildings in the center of Trinity TT with a vBase-plus-spawns (doesn't matter who owns it), and you will see more action there.  As it stands, the only time you can generate GV fights in TT is when the TT "border" is moved to the edge by one side capturing all-but-one of the others' vBases.  In turn, this results in adjacent opposing vBases, which can be shot at, made to flash, and thus made to produce opponents.  Having the plateau overlooking that all-but-one vBase is a *major* interest point as well.  Just far enough away so you can't bombard the base with a non-perk tank, but close enough to eliminate the blind-man's-buff fumbling-type of combat which purely flat terrain tends to involve.  So the attackers have the hill, but the defenders have the adjacent reinforcement capability of the vBase.  

MH

So it sounds like your looking for a "campers dream" map. A plateau to sit up on over looking the enemy to pop them with out a chance to be killed yourself. We can't have a big town in the area because people could hide and kill you as you drive by.  :rolleyes: This is the mentality that make the GVin stagnate and boring for most players. The only challenge you accept is trying to be the first to get your shot off when a tank spawns in before all the other campers can.

I am skeptical about the second part of this statement.  The only current maps which have good GV action are Compello (with its chained, relatively inaccessible vBases), Ozkansas (in TT, but only when the ground attack types are not too numerous), and Trinity (with the cliff-spawn in play and TT with assymetrical base ownership, per my other post).  The others vary from bad to horrible for GV combat as they don't provide sufficent isolation for the vBases and/or the vBases are connected only to air bases.  The new maps I have seen discussed on these boards don't seem to be much of an improvement (from a GV perspective), and from the posts by some of the player-mapmakers, I don't think they have thought through the GV aspect as much as they could.  I am going to update my list of characteristics needed by a truely GV-friendly map, as the previous one is missing some of the concepts recently discussed. 

MH

Of the 12 MA maps we have 6 of them are HTC made which means we have been using them for almost 10 years.... way before any GVin was a part of the game. The other 6 have a mixture of added GV action. The last map added I think was "Montis" What kind of GVin it has I couldn't tell you. It seems to get reset very quickly, but even so, how long ago was that map released? The only date listed at the download page are for the last updates to the maps, not their releases. It has got to be a few years since we've had a new map. NHawk did "montis and he last played March 2009 (if the name is the same guy). How much more has the GV game become popular in those 3+ years?

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Hondo101 on August 12, 2012, 01:28:26 PM
I'm new here but an observation I've made... having a dozen or more campers circling a spawn point discourages anyone from spawning in after a bit. Maybe the actual spawn point could vary randomly, at least vary it anywhere from 2K to 8K or more, never the same exact spot. The random spawn points could vary in time, but allow enough time for those that wanted to spawn in as a group to land at the same location. This would seem to make it much more interesting and more of a challenge for both opponents.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth, and maybe this has already been discussed in the past.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 12, 2012, 05:09:07 PM
The surest way to make them bleed.......is to flank thier *ss and steal their base.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chemdawg on August 12, 2012, 05:10:48 PM
Here , Here  :cheers:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Paladin3 on August 12, 2012, 06:40:28 PM
I like it. I don't like having three maps in a day. I don't like maps where you have to fly one of the three planes that perform at 30k because thats where everyone is.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: matt on August 12, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
I like it. I don't like having three maps in a day. I don't like maps where you have to fly one of the three planes that perform at 30k because thats where everyone is.
  :confused:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: titanic3 on August 12, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
Add airbases to the TT, problem solved. The horde can roll the undefended bases and the guys who want to fight can fight in TT. 20K mountains also means the horde can't take over TT like they do in FesterMA or ndisle. Horde rolls undefended bases, and the map is over in 2-3 days top.

Everyone is happy.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 12, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
I like it. I don't like having three maps in a day. I don't like maps where you have to fly one of the three planes that perform at 30k because thats where everyone is.

I haven't figured out why most fighters I see at 25,000 feet are over tank town and not a dar bar to be seen over airfields.

I'm usually just passing through when I see them and they immediately dive away 20,000 feet of altitude to friendlies.

I just fly on to my destination.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chalenge on August 12, 2012, 08:06:02 PM
What we need is a revolutionary idea in maps. The same old map makers probably will not come up with something new.

What dont one of you stop whining and make a map instead?  :devil
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: TDeacon on August 12, 2012, 11:50:31 PM
So it sounds like your looking for a "campers dream" map. A plateau to sit up on over looking the enemy to pop them with out a chance to be killed yourself. We can't have a big town in the area because people could hide and kill you as you drive by.  :rolleyes: This is the mentality that make the GVin stagnate and boring for most players. The only challenge you accept is trying to be the first to get your shot off when a tank spawns in before all the other campers can.

Fugitive, you always assume the worst about GV suggestions.  In the first place, the plateau is too far away from the base to easily hit GVs, unless you have a perk tank, and even then it’s impractical if they are moving.  Secondly, on a vBase you spawn in a hanger which cannot be shot at from outside the base.  In the case of the plateau I refer to, anyone spawning at that base has complete freedom to deploy as desired without being picked off from the plateau.  Now you may be picked off after leave the center of the base, but that is normal game play, and you can avoid it if you want to.  

To give you an example, my last fight at the above-mentioned base involved no spawn camping at all.  I spawned a Panzer IVF and drove to the plateau.  Nobody was up at the base yet, so I moved down the hill to a location where I could shoot at the Storch hanger without being shot at in return.  I destroyed the Storch hanger with about 20 shots of HE, with someone shooting at my clump of trees ineffectually during the last 10 or so shots.  I could tell from the engine noises in the direction of the base that they were coming out after me.  I moved back up the hill, using clumps of trees as cover, and attained the plateau.  I was able to destroy 2 GVs as they came up the hill, first locating them by sound, moving laterally to a new location, turning off the engine, and ambushing them as they came into view (they died at least 2000 yards distant from the base spawn point; so not spawn camping!).  After the Storch hanger recovered, I was harassed by Storches, but I was able to mostly negate their effect by moving back and forth along the rim of the plateau in order to populate it with a line of orange smoke markers, thus denying useful information to the guys coming out from the base.  Using various ambush techniques which I won’t bore you with here, I got 3 more of them before running out of ammo and leaving.  

This was an exceptionally fun (and somewhat lucky) fight.  It would have been much less interesting without the hilly terrain and the plateau.  (Imagine how boring fighter combat would be if you were forced to stay at the same altitude).  It also would have been impossible had there been any attack aircraft present.  It was just me against 2 guys defending the vBase, so no squads or hordes.  I claim that this style of game play has a place in AH, along side the traditional styles.  

Of the 12 MA maps we have 6 of them are HTC made which means we have been using them for almost 10 years.... way before any GVin was a part of the game. The other 6 have a mixture of added GV action. The last map added I think was "Montis" What kind of GVin it has I couldn't tell you. It seems to get reset very quickly, but even so, how long ago was that map released? The only date listed at the download page are for the last updates to the maps, not their releases. It has got to be a few years since we've had a new map. NHawk did "montis and he last played March 2009 (if the name is the same guy). How much more has the GV game become popular in those 3+ years?

I agree that most maps were made when GVs were not a major consideration.  I don’t agree that the creators of new maps (in progress) have adequately considered the GV-friendliness of their maps, based on my reading of their posts on the Forum.  

MH
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Shuffler on August 13, 2012, 09:04:57 AM
My stipulation is that the duel occurs over 30,000 feet.



Why would anyone spend a long time climbing to fight a duel?

Simply take off meet up and fight.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Iraqvet on August 13, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
Fugitive, you always assume the worst about GV suggestions.  In the first place, the plateau is too far away from the base to easily hit GVs, unless you have a perk tank, and even then it’s impractical if they are moving.  Secondly, on a vBase you spawn in a hanger which cannot be shot at from outside the base.  In the case of the plateau I refer to, anyone spawning at that base has complete freedom to deploy as desired without being picked off from the plateau.  Now you may be picked off after leave the center of the base, but that is normal game play, and you can avoid it if you want to.  

To give you an example, my last fight at the above-mentioned base involved no spawn camping at all.  I spawned a Panzer IVF and drove to the plateau.  Nobody was up at the base yet, so I moved down the hill to a location where I could shoot at the Storch hanger without being shot at in return.  I destroyed the Storch hanger with about 20 shots of HE, with someone shooting at my clump of trees ineffectually during the last 10 or so shots.  I could tell from the engine noises in the direction of the base that they were coming out after me.  I moved back up the hill, using clumps of trees as cover, and attained the plateau.  I was able to destroy 2 GVs as they came up the hill, first locating them by sound, moving laterally to a new location, turning off the engine, and ambushing them as they came into view (they died at least 2000 yards distant from the base spawn point; so not spawn camping!).  After the Storch hanger recovered, I was harassed by Storches, but I was able to mostly negate their effect by moving back and forth along the rim of the plateau in order to populate it with a line of orange smoke markers, thus denying useful information to the guys coming out from the base.  Using various ambush techniques which I won’t bore you with here, I got 3 more of them before running out of ammo and leaving.  
This was an exceptionally fun (and somewhat lucky) fight.  It would have been much less interesting without the hilly terrain and the plateau.  (Imagine how boring fighter combat would be if you were forced to stay at the same altitude).  It also would have been impossible had there been any attack aircraft present.  It was just me against 2 guys defending the vBase, so no squads or hordes.  I claim that this style of game play has a place in AH, along side the traditional styles.  

I agree that most maps were made when GVs were not a major consideration.  I don’t agree that the creators of new maps (in progress) have adequately considered the GV-friendliness of their maps, based on my reading of their posts on the Forum.  

MH

TDeacon ...right on with the above I agree.  :aok  But good luck getting your point across to Fugitive.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 13, 2012, 04:58:00 PM
Why would anyone spend a long time climbing to fight a duel?

Simply take off meet up and fight.

It's called realism.

Here are a couple of action reports from WWII.

S/L "Tony" Gaze (Australian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 11 October 1942:

        15 miles inland from Dunkirk I noticed 4 F.W. 190's approaching the Wing at about 27,000' from the direction of St. Omer. I climbed up into the sun and led the Squadron down. Two of them immediately rolled over and dived away, the other two turned gently right, climbing. I easily out-climbed them and closed, the right hand E/A went straight ahead, whilst the left one turned left, I easily out-turned him and fired a long burst from the port quarter at about 300 yards hitting him on the starboard wing with H.E. (cannon) as the attack developed into a finer angle. Just as I got to astern I hit his slipstream but came back and fired a long burst closing from 300 yards to 50 yards dead astern seeing cannon strikes on the fuselage. I broke away to avoid a collision and immediately iced up. I think I must have hit the pilot for, after the first strike, the E/A took no evasive action whatever, merely going into a gentle dive in which I overtook him although I closed the throttle. Even when further strikes were seen he flew straight. The actual combat took place at 30,000'.


P/O D.G. Mercer of 122 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report 6 December 1942:

        I was flying Yellow 1 on the port side of the Squadron, we had just left the French Coast at Calais at 23,000 ft., W/C ordered Squadron to turn to port, there being many enemy aircraft about. I had been watching several aircraft which I could not identify, about 5,000 ft. above and behind. During the orbit I lost sight of these aircraft and when next I saw them they were diving down from the left quarter from behind. I gave my section orders to break left. My No.2 (P/O T. Parker) turned after me, but not tightly enough, and I saw him go straight down with two 190’s after him – his aircraft didn’t appear then to be damaged in any way. I came round on my turn and attacked the second of the two 190’s from the port side at a point blank range of 50 yds., I gave a one-second mixed burst and saw the Hun’s tail unit break off in pieces. He immediately went into a spin and I last saw him at about 17,000 ft, still going down. After breaking off, four other F.W.’s had come down on me, but by evasive action and full out climbing to 30,000 ft I avoided them, during all this time six more F.W. 190’s were above me. I claim this F.W.190 as Probably Destroyed.

On 12 September 1942 Flying Officer Emanuel Galitzine, flying BS273[nb 4], successfully intercepted a Ju 86R piloted by Fw Horst Götz and commanded by Leutnant Erich Sommer[nb 5] above Southampton at 41,000 ft. The ensuing battle went up to 43,000 ft and was the highest air battle of the war.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: crazyivan on August 13, 2012, 05:07:46 PM
AKAK aka AckAck. I'm still waiting for our 30k chute duel. I'm pming you now! :furious
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: RTHolmes on August 13, 2012, 05:11:52 PM
It's called realism.

with the added bonus that anyone with a life wont be bothered to call your bluff and duel you at 30k! :aok
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Ack-Ack on August 13, 2012, 05:20:35 PM
Sure, I'll take a ticket and wait in the line.

I have a feeling we're both in for a long wait.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Slash27 on August 13, 2012, 05:42:46 PM
It's called realism.

Here are a couple of action reports from WWII.

S/L "Tony" Gaze (Australian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 11 October 1942:

        15 miles inland from Dunkirk I noticed 4 F.W. 190's approaching the Wing at about 27,000' from the direction of St. Omer. I climbed up into the sun and led the Squadron down. Two of them immediately rolled over and dived away, the other two turned gently right, climbing. I easily out-climbed them and closed, the right hand E/A went straight ahead, whilst the left one turned left, I easily out-turned him and fired a long burst from the port quarter at about 300 yards hitting him on the starboard wing with H.E. (cannon) as the attack developed into a finer angle. Just as I got to astern I hit his slipstream but came back and fired a long burst closing from 300 yards to 50 yards dead astern seeing cannon strikes on the fuselage. I broke away to avoid a collision and immediately iced up. I think I must have hit the pilot for, after the first strike, the E/A took no evasive action whatever, merely going into a gentle dive in which I overtook him although I closed the throttle. Even when further strikes were seen he flew straight. The actual combat took place at 30,000'.


P/O D.G. Mercer of 122 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report 6 December 1942:

        I was flying Yellow 1 on the port side of the Squadron, we had just left the French Coast at Calais at 23,000 ft., W/C ordered Squadron to turn to port, there being many enemy aircraft about. I had been watching several aircraft which I could not identify, about 5,000 ft. above and behind. During the orbit I lost sight of these aircraft and when next I saw them they were diving down from the left quarter from behind. I gave my section orders to break left. My No.2 (P/O T. Parker) turned after me, but not tightly enough, and I saw him go straight down with two 190’s after him – his aircraft didn’t appear then to be damaged in any way. I came round on my turn and attacked the second of the two 190’s from the port side at a point blank range of 50 yds., I gave a one-second mixed burst and saw the Hun’s tail unit break off in pieces. He immediately went into a spin and I last saw him at about 17,000 ft, still going down. After breaking off, four other F.W.’s had come down on me, but by evasive action and full out climbing to 30,000 ft I avoided them, during all this time six more F.W. 190’s were above me. I claim this F.W.190 as Probably Destroyed.

On 12 September 1942 Flying Officer Emanuel Galitzine, flying BS273[nb 4], successfully intercepted a Ju 86R piloted by Fw Horst Götz and commanded by Leutnant Erich Sommer[nb 5] above Southampton at 41,000 ft. The ensuing battle went up to 43,000 ft and was the highest air battle of the war.
:huh
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Raphael on August 13, 2012, 05:44:43 PM
What we need is a revolutionary idea in maps. The same old map makers probably will not come up with something new.

What dont one of you stop whining and make a map instead?  :devil
isn't any hero going to say "challenge accepted!"?  :(
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Chemdawg on August 13, 2012, 07:53:39 PM
Working on one now....

but being new at this, don't hold your breath.

 :joystick:
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: titanic3 on August 13, 2012, 10:09:07 PM
isn't any hero going to say "challenge accepted!"?  :(

I'm kind of curious as to why HTC isn't hiring for more workers to help out with this stuff. Hell, that'd be a pretty cool job if you can make maps for a game and be paid for it. You wouldn't even need to go to the office to work too. You only need one or two dedicated map makers to pump out one map every two months or so.
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: icepac on August 13, 2012, 11:24:18 PM
I have a feeling we're both in for a long wait.

ack-ack

Not so.

Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: bj229r on August 14, 2012, 03:54:59 PM
I'm kind of curious as to why HTC isn't hiring for more workers to help out with this stuff. Hell, that'd be a pretty cool job if you can make maps for a game and be paid for it. You wouldn't even need to go to the office to work too. You only need one or two dedicated map makers to pump out one map every two months or so.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you've never owned a business
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: titanic3 on August 14, 2012, 05:56:10 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you've never owned a business

That would be why I'm asking...

(http://th02.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2010/358/f/2/hurr_pa_derrr____by_shadowdude412567-d35lgs6.png)
Title: Re: Trinity
Post by: Babalonian on August 14, 2012, 06:04:24 PM
Last night in the MA, not on Trinity, we had two bases with very intense and dynamic/evolving/changing/progressing fights happening on each front, and I remembered this game has the Me163.  I was :D  :banana: , and I hope many others were too.