Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on August 10, 2013, 07:53:27 PM
-
Make key TT bases in Ozkansas uncapturable (i.e. the “outer” 3 for each country). This ensures physically close VBases for all 3 sides.
Here’s the logic:
1) TT provides a unique GV game-play venue, where quick contact and combat is possible due to center base proximity, and due to interesting hilly terrain, but only when these are owned by opposing sides.
2) TT seems to be popular lately, with a significant percentage of players on it This was particularly evident Thursday and Friday.
3) However, when a single side takes too much of TT, GV combat is either impossible, or requires long drives to contact. For example, today, my country (Rooks) currently has taken most of TT, and seems determined to take the rest. They appear to be doing this with the help of a large aircraft horde. There is no GV action visible on the Rook end, and only 3 (sentries?) visible on the Bishop end. I assume that this is due to the fact that Bishops and Knights have to drive twice the distance to a fight, and the Rook air horde is waiting for them at the end, as often as not.
4) Base capture is still possible on the rest of the map, so one can still try to “win the war” there.
5) The rest of the map often does not lend itself to GV “furballing” as does TT, and this lack of opportunity is evident at this moment.
6) It is presumably in HTC’s business interest to provide opportunities for all play styles, and if Ozkansas is swept, one of those play styles is made difficult. In my case, I am logging off and doing something else; perhaps others do likewise. This may also affect account retention.
7) This concept may well work on other maps.
MH
-
Make key TT bases in Ozkansas uncapturable (i.e. the “outer” 3 for each country). This ensures physically close VBases for all 3 sides.
Here’s the logic:
1) TT provides a unique GV game-play venue, where quick contact and combat is possible due to center base proximity, and due to interesting hilly terrain, but only when these are owned by opposing sides.
2) TT seems to be popular lately, with a significant percentage of players on it This was particularly evident Thursday and Friday.
3) However, when a single side takes too much of TT, GV combat is either impossible, or requires long drives to contact. For example, today, my country (Rooks) currently has taken most of TT, and seems determined to take the rest. They appear to be doing this with the help of a large aircraft horde. There is no GV action visible on the Rook end, and only 3 (sentries?) visible on the Bishop end. I assume that this is due to the fact that Bishops and Knights have to drive twice the distance to a fight, and the Rook air horde is waiting for them at the end, as often as not.
4) Base capture is still possible on the rest of the map, so one can still try to “win the war” there.
5) The rest of the map often does not lend itself to GV “furballing” as does TT, and this lack of opportunity is evident at this moment.
6) It is presumably in HTC’s business interest to provide opportunities for all play styles, and if Ozkansas is swept, one of those play styles is made difficult. In my case, I am logging off and doing something else; perhaps others do likewise. This may also affect account retention.
7) This concept may well work on other maps.
MH
I don't have a problem with this. Makes it so the GV'ers can get their fights and TT can't be steamrolled.
+1 :aok
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
YES! I've been saying this for a couple years now!
-
I don't have a problem with this. Makes it so the GV'ers can get their fights and TT can't be steamrolled.
Oh, it would still be steamrolled. The real problem is we have been asking for this for a long time now and still nothing has been done to change it.
Ozkansas is, in my opinion, the best map in the game. Yet, once TT is rolled up (as it is tonight) it's a dead map, unless you care to horde up.
-
I logged as a Rook last night, saw which map it was, went to the center island and then saw that Rooks were trying to take the last non-Rook field, so I switched to Knights to help defend it. Then I logged off when it was lost.
-
Oh, it would still be steamrolled. The real problem is we have been asking for this for a long time now and still nothing has been done to change it.
Ozkansas is, in my opinion, the best map in the game. Yet, once TT is rolled up (as it is tonight) it's a dead map, unless you care to horde up.
yup...Sat night is the ONE night I get to play until the wee hours of the am....and I got bored and logged by midnight
-
:aok
Make key TT bases in Ozkansas uncapturable (i.e. the “outer” 3 for each country). This ensures physically close VBases for all 3 sides.
Here’s the logic:
1) TT provides a unique GV game-play venue, where quick contact and combat is possible due to center base proximity, and due to interesting hilly terrain, but only when these are owned by opposing sides.
2) TT seems to be popular lately, with a significant percentage of players on it This was particularly evident Thursday and Friday.
3) However, when a single side takes too much of TT, GV combat is either impossible, or requires long drives to contact. For example, today, my country (Rooks) currently has taken most of TT, and seems determined to take the rest. They appear to be doing this with the help of a large aircraft horde. There is no GV action visible on the Rook end, and only 3 (sentries?) visible on the Bishop end. I assume that this is due to the fact that Bishops and Knights have to drive twice the distance to a fight, and the Rook air horde is waiting for them at the end, as often as not.
4) Base capture is still possible on the rest of the map, so one can still try to “win the war” there.
5) The rest of the map often does not lend itself to GV “furballing” as does TT, and this lack of opportunity is evident at this moment.
6) It is presumably in HTC’s business interest to provide opportunities for all play styles, and if Ozkansas is swept, one of those play styles is made difficult. In my case, I am logging off and doing something else; perhaps others do likewise. This may also affect account retention.
7) This concept may well work on other maps.
MH
-
Here it is in prime time (middle of Sunday) completely dead. What a waste. At one point this morning Knights tried to recapture 92, but a bunch of Rook dolts immediately upped to defend it, so no dice. You really need a horde to recapture it, and the hordes usually don't care about TT.
(http://home.comcast.net/~mark.hinds/misc_online_storage_dir/TT_dead_in_prime_time.jpg)
MH
-
I already asked for this, maybe it's on the "list", maybe not.
-
I figure they would have to add in extra bases to compensate for such a thing those bases count towards winning the war so you would need to replace however many uncapturables you make with more capturable bases?
-
ordnance could be limited from these 6 bases (one airfield, one vehicle base per country) for stopping base-snatching out of the uncap bases.
-
Anyone ever consider the TT island on your screen capture placed alone in an ocean, then replicated 3 times in a triangle around it. With GV spawns between the 4 islands would be a great starting point for a new map? Heck drop that in the middle of the uterus map replacing the 3 big islands.
Late at night TT is the best thing about that map. It's a shame it gets over run like that. Kind of like whizzing on people just to make them accept being whizzed on because that gang will slaughter your family if you complain. Numbers do matter in this game and over power common sense much of the time.
-
I made ozkansas a long time ago. it needs to be updated and most likely I am the best person to update it as I built the original one. it needs pacific textures. the tank town was made as something that was the checkmate island that if taken the country that grabbed it would have a better chance to capture every base of the enemy. when I made the map years ago there was no capture a % of each teams bases to win. if I can get myself motivated enough to finish updating my FesterMA terrain I will inquire about updating ozkansas with all the current changes to the game in mind.
I have some stuff I have set up in festerMA that you guys should enjoy. it has a variation of your uncapturable vbases but with a purpose other than just here is no capture zone.
my festerMA new map has 3 uncapturable vbases at 8000ft altitude on a very well contoured and textured mountain littered with water obstacles and hull down positions in a very small area... right in the center of the map in very close proximity to eachother... with a capturable small airbase in the center with a town right next to it that belongs to the capturable airfield and must be destroyed to take the airfield as it is a regular small airfield with the town smack dab next to the field... an 8k airbase in perfect striking position for every countries strategic targets is something the strat dweebs and hordes will want to posses if nothing more than to deny the enemy use of it.
with the vbases checkmating the high alt base it becomes Pandora's box. always under threat of capture and very dangerous to fly out of without getting raped by wirbels as you struggle to get any altitude in the thin air.
I have setup a cv fight hub as well on each side in the oceans.
there is an uncapturable cv in each ocean for each country. (2 ea ctry 6 total on map.) each country has 3 additional fleets all capturable.
the change is these carriers spawn a mere 35 miles from eachother with waypoints putting them on a collision course by default... about 25 miles equidistant from each of their spawn points is a capturable port with a cv fleet equidistant from the two other uncapturable carriers. thus the choice for the capturable fleet is this... hide? attack land bases? defend the port from certain and constant carrier based capture attempts? all have risks and whichever country captures the port and the enemy carrier has the advantage for the area in numbers of carriers if they can hold onto it.
the cv fight is out to sea a good ways from the land bases. the goal in its design is to make carrier vs carrier air and sea combat possible by allowing the opposing forces to get back in action against each other at faster intervals while staying a good distance from the land bases.
as much variety as possible is put into the setup of airbases and vbases.
each is unique in its aim.
the inner airbases have no gv spawns
the next outer section of bases have airbases and vbases setup in chains similar to ozkansas tt island but designed to continue the combined arms war as far as the combatants are able with the prize of being in striking distance of the enemies city with ground vehicles if the country has the ability to get this far and hold the ground.
beyond this ring of air and vehicle bases some distance from any airbases is a chain of vbases all capturable but with close spawn points and the initial 4 bases in driving distance of eachother. one of the chains is in a desert. the other vbase chains are in very mountainous terrain that is hard to flank in with very narrow valleys and hard to climb hills.
lots of rivers.. ( LOTS all over the map)
beyond this ring of vbases some distance away lies the costal fields with no gv spawns but sitting 20-25 miles from eachother. they will encounter carrier attacks most often or attacks from adjacent airbases.
its very close to done but its been very close for a long time. jsut have to get motivated to finish it. maybe I should play AH more thats ussually what gets me doing maps and skins.
-
also like ozkansas... this terrain was set up as a medium sized terrain using 512x512 are of a big map with the bases laid out in a manner that makes the front small but allows for many bases to be captured before the map is reset with current mechanics.
anrrow fronts to minimize undefended areas that have depth that are still viable in creating as much chances for action as possible even after the hordes clobber an area.
my target number of bases in combat against eachother is 3-4 max on each front. this is consitant with the very smallest maps in game so even in non peak times the fight shouldnt be spread out so bad it dies.
fronts that are deep and narrow are best in my opinion for maximum felxibility from low numbers to peak time numbers.
-
NO!!
-
Overruled!!
-
I vote that we get the airbases at tank/fiter town red outlined - so yeah, can't be captured.
I also vote that every map gets a tank/fiter town in the center, just remove the whatever was in the centers before.
I'd almost request that a 10k max alt be somehow implemented.
:salute
-
moin
if the bases were uncapturabel why should i fight there and for what :headscratch:
maybe the other way, closing this bases should be help to rise the fun for everyone more because on this map are ver very interetenings battel grounds which are not used much because of less ativity, because alot of people doing nonsens on this isle. im always Happy if this isle is taken away because it rises the aktivity at real frontlines, and this rices definetly the fun for everyone.
i think implementing something like that , Tanktowns or crater maps or spawns diret infront of eachother are some of the bades things HT could do because it dregs to many people out of the fight.
cu christian
-
I disagree, chris3. In fact I would say you are dead wrong. I suspect that once TT is taken that the combat levels on the periphery do not increase even 1%. The only thing that happens is that the vehicle drivers will look somewhere else for a tank battle. If they don't find one they log off. Meanwhile, the mudhens might try a sortie or two against other fields, but when they run into difficulty they will also log off.
Tank town has four functions.
1) tank versus tank
2) carpet bomber against hangars + tanks
3) mudhen versus tank
4) fighters versus mudhen
Of these the most likely to stick around for outside (outside TT) combat would be the carpet bombers, which are mostly just torqued off tank drivers. There is a lot of talk in AH about "the fight," which is nothing more than a fantasy ideal that does not exist in reality. Your suggestion of preventing a TT existence, an existence which has helped to increase the population of AH combatants altogether, would only cause the population overall to drop, not increase. I understand that the type of combat in TT does not meet with your desires. That does not mean that it needs to change in order to promote some fantasy ideal.
We have long lived under the premise that TT actually drains pilots from the war, but the reality is that those people that chose to be in TT will in most cases never migrate to the war as you see it. They come here for tank battles, not air battles. You know this to be true, because these same people log in every day and ask "any gv fights?" If they do not find that fight, they log off.
So, we have this wish that you choose to ignore. It's a call for a change to improve the situation for those that prefer tank battles. Ignoring that will not increase war combatants, but it will lose customers if requests like it are ignored continually.
Trying to make this wish about you, and your form of combat is a dreadful mistake.
-
hi
yes , i understand your points, sure you are right, expecialy on times with less numbers on.
But if there is no tanktown, the people go to the places were the red or green bar is the bigest. maybe some will look but not the mayority. the other point is if there is no fight around or only some limited aktion the people go as well.
im not sure if the most will look if there isn t a tank town, because on this map a are far better places to start a tank fight (5-6, 145-146, 135-136 theses places are grat an AH need s more of them) or other kinds of fight.
If the place is uncapturable there is no need to defent or to attack it, sure there a some guys wich will hunt each other but i think its not the mayority.
In the future the map desinge should be more like the uterus map, i think this is the best desing for fights, you have spawns al around and you have places were you can gv well. It is the best all around map and i remeber the greatest fights there.
cu christian
-
I can guarantee that if Ozkansas were changed only to make the TT air bases uncapturable, that the fight that is there now would remain just as it is.
-
hi
jes, that could be right. tank town will only loose these people wich want to take something.
ah did forgot to say. I would suport the wish that only tank town is playable, this would be an awesome battel ground lol. But its to small and some other isues will speak against it.
cu christian
-
I made ozkansas a long time ago. it needs to be updated and most likely I am the best person to update it as I built the original one. it needs pacific textures. the tank town was made as something that was the checkmate island that if taken the country that grabbed it would have a better chance to capture every base of the enemy. when I made the map years ago there was no capture a % of each teams bases to win. if I can get myself motivated enough to finish updating my FesterMA terrain I will inquire about updating ozkansas with all the current changes to the game in mind.
I have some stuff I have set up in festerMA that you guys should enjoy. it has a variation of your uncapturable vbases but with a purpose other than just here is no capture zone.
my festerMA new map has 3 uncapturable vbases at 8000ft altitude on a very well contoured and textured mountain littered with water obstacles and hull down positions in a very small area... right in the center of the map in very close proximity to eachother... with a capturable small airbase in the center with a town right next to it that belongs to the capturable airfield and must be destroyed to take the airfield as it is a regular small airfield with the town smack dab next to the field... an 8k airbase in perfect striking position for every countries strategic targets is something the strat dweebs and hordes will want to posses if nothing more than to deny the enemy use of it.
with the vbases checkmating the high alt base it becomes Pandora's box. always under threat of capture and very dangerous to fly out of without getting raped by wirbels as you struggle to get any altitude in the thin air.
I have setup a cv fight hub as well on each side in the oceans.
there is an uncapturable cv in each ocean for each country. (2 ea ctry 6 total on map.) each country has 3 additional fleets all capturable.
the change is these carriers spawn a mere 35 miles from eachother with waypoints putting them on a collision course by default... about 25 miles equidistant from each of their spawn points is a capturable port with a cv fleet equidistant from the two other uncapturable carriers. thus the choice for the capturable fleet is this... hide? attack land bases? defend the port from certain and constant carrier based capture attempts? all have risks and whichever country captures the port and the enemy carrier has the advantage for the area in numbers of carriers if they can hold onto it.
the cv fight is out to sea a good ways from the land bases. the goal in its design is to make carrier vs carrier air and sea combat possible by allowing the opposing forces to get back in action against each other at faster intervals while staying a good distance from the land bases.
as much variety as possible is put into the setup of airbases and vbases.
each is unique in its aim.
the inner airbases have no gv spawns
the next outer section of bases have airbases and vbases setup in chains similar to ozkansas tt island but designed to continue the combined arms war as far as the combatants are able with the prize of being in striking distance of the enemies city with ground vehicles if the country has the ability to get this far and hold the ground.
beyond this ring of air and vehicle bases some distance from any airbases is a chain of vbases all capturable but with close spawn points and the initial 4 bases in driving distance of eachother. one of the chains is in a desert. the other vbase chains are in very mountainous terrain that is hard to flank in with very narrow valleys and hard to climb hills.
lots of rivers.. ( LOTS all over the map)
beyond this ring of vbases some distance away lies the costal fields with no gv spawns but sitting 20-25 miles from eachother. they will encounter carrier attacks most often or attacks from adjacent airbases.
its very close to done but its been very close for a long time. jsut have to get motivated to finish it. maybe I should play AH more thats ussually what gets me doing maps and skins.
Which was the one you made that had the gv tracks on the inside, and the air bases on the outside and further inside? (was some years ago, was nullified by some huge update that HT did) I believe that was my favorite map ever
-
yes thats the one I have been workign on updating for a long time.
-
Fester,
Note that OP requests a quick fix to Ozkansas by making the 9 outer TT bases uncapturable, in order to avoid what happened this weekend. If you are going to make a new map (which is kind of a separate topic), please keep the following comments in mind.
You seem to be ignoring one fundamental fact, which is that a large group of players enjoy GV combat outside of the "combined arms" scenarios you envision. Remember that in AH AC overwelmingly trump GVs. They are 10 times as fast, any AC which can carry a 1000 pdr can kill any tank, and there is little the GV can do about this. The relationship between the 2 platforms is in general *very* assymetrical. Thus, you *don't* want to put an air base in any new/modified TT. The Ozkansas TT works (usually) *in spite of* the 3 air bases, not because of them. The Trinity TT was much better protected, with the exception of missing the "I am here" factor, as I have mentioned in other threads.
Another way to look at the above is that the time scale of a GV engagement is 10 times that of an AC engagement. Remember "endurium" in that 1980s PC game "Starflight"? (I am leaving out the mode of play where GVs sit out in the open and shoot at each other, which is the GV equivalent to HOing, and which I find boring. I am instead thinking of the type of thing where one tries to use terrain to get on a flank, which is the GV equivalent to AC maneuvering prior to a taking a killing shot.) At any point during a slowly-developing GV engagement AC interference can ruin the engagement for the GV player. That is why we need at least one place on each map where GVs can engage and "furball" with minimal-to-no AC interference. On the rest of the map, of course, anything goes. What do we have to lose by doing this? Nothing. What do we have to gain by doing this? We provide for a popular additional type of game play, which will incrementally increase HTCs revenue.
MH
-
If just the three airbases were uncapturable, then no one side could be pushed out of TT. Nine bases would be excessive I think.
-
If just the three airbases were uncapturable, then no one side could be pushed out of TT. Nine bases would be excessive I think.
The reason I recommend 9 is the inter-base spacing increases by 100% once you capture one or more of those 9 bases. It becomes an exercise in cross-country tank driving instead of combat; not fun. We probably want to retain the quick-action option, so if we make any of those bases uncapturable, we may as well do all 9. Remember, the purpose of the OP is to retain a popular game map niche for the duration of the map and thus keep more people playing.
(That being said, however, making the 3 air bases uncapturable is better than nothing).
MH
-
Or, you might suggest that a few short-spawns be added for each of those areas.
-
No
-
No
Non-GVers don't matter on GV wishes.
-
Or, you might suggest that a few short-spawns be added for each of those areas.
I was hoping there was some sort of setting HTC could use for this OP. Remaking a map is a major effort, and almost certainly won't happen.
MH
-
Is TT completely taken by a single country just to do it, or is it the tipping point signal of wanting to get rid of the map? I've seen it taken late at night by happy energizer bored bunnies, then returned mostly to the defaults the next day by the time I login.
For the most part it creates a mini war that most of the GV'rs and pilots take part in for the action and not the win of taking the whole island. Almost any squad with about 10-12 guys can march through the island with carpet bombing unless anyone is interested in opposing them. I've watched that scenario play out 50:50. Depends on the whims of the players logged on. Rooks did it one night during prime time. The knights had the numbers to stop them but, were just too interested in hoarding the bish. The country text buffer was full of "we don't care" from the knights. Whuppin up on the bish was more enjoyable that night. Then other nights it's like kicking an ant hill with the response from the knights upping to slaughter the base takers.
Some care needs to be exercised in trying to identify systemic deficiencies in the game or map versus complaining about egregious actions by groups of other players that happen to take place on a map you enjoy some aspect of which gets spoiled by them.
It's been mentioned I believe by Hitech in the past he wished we would enumerate as many things that can go wrong as we enumerate all of the benefits we think our request will engender for all of the community. Not just our self.
-
Is TT completely taken by a single country just to do it, or is it the tipping point signal of wanting to get rid of the map? I've seen it taken late at night by happy energizer bored bunnies, then returned mostly to the defaults the next day by the time I login.
For the most part it creates a mini war that most of the GV'rs and pilots take part in for the action and not the win of taking the whole island. Almost any squad with about 10-12 guys can march through the island with carpet bombing unless anyone is interested in opposing them. I've watched that scenario play out 50:50. Depends on the whims of the players logged on. Rooks did it one night during prime time. The knights had the numbers to stop them but, were just too interested in hoarding the bish. The country text buffer was full of "we don't care" from the knights. Whuppin up on the bish was more enjoyable that night. Then other nights it's like kicking an ant hill with the response from the knights upping to slaughter the base takers.
Some care needs to be exercised in trying to identify systemic deficiencies in the game or map versus complaining about egregious actions by groups of other players that happen to take place on a map you enjoy some aspect of which gets spoiled by them.
It's been mentioned I believe by Hitech in the past he wished we would enumerate as many things that can go wrong as we enumerate all of the benefits we think our request will engender for all of the community. Not just our self.
Bustr,
AH should support all play styles on all maps at all times, as this maximizes collective player satisfaction, and thus presumably maximizes player retention.
The suggestion in the OP that the Ozkansas TT (and others as well) be preserved from sweeps by hordes has no bearing on the overall progress of the “war”, as the uncaptureable bases would be removed from the calculations. It is clearly a good thing to seek to preserve the unique play opportunities TT provides, so that more people will be able to play happily there. In the Ozkansas case, I suppose that the uncaptureable airbases at the “corners” might be viewed as a means to recapture neighboring islands, but given the distance involved, given the fact that you can do the same thing with CVs, and given that there will almost always be closer alternative airbases to invade from (or the map would have been reset already), I don’t think that is a significant cost to pay for preserving TT.
MH
-
And it’s happening again… Note once the central 6 OzKansas TT bases have been captured by a single country, the distance you have to drive your GV to fight is doubled. Consequently, once this happens few people bother, except those who up Wirbles on the remaining bases. The GV-on-GV “furballs” which characterize the center of the map require all bases to be uncapturable except for the central 3. Also, for some unknown reason, it seems that once TT has been reduced to 2 countries, the ground attack planes become more focused, and upping perk tanks becomes more dangerous. Less distraction for them, perhaps.
Aces High has always been a great game if you fly, and for whatever reason, a lot of effort has been put in lately in enhancing the GV experience. However, until obvious game play issues like this are addressed, I can’t recommend Aces High to people who prefer vehicles. The opportunity to GV “furball” with acceptably low frustration levels is only there about half the time. At other times, either the map isn’t GV-friendly, or a GV-friendly map like OzKansas has been allowed to deteriorate to the state shown in this image. I actually have a friend who I want to subscribe (he likes modeling AFVs), but as it now stands, I can’t honestly tell him that he would enjoy the GV game.
MH
(http://home.comcast.net/~mark.hinds/misc_online_storage_dir/TT_crippled_in_prime_time.jpg)
-
I was hoping there was some sort of setting HTC could use for this OP. Remaking a map is a major effort, and almost certainly won't happen.
MH
It's a very easy change to the terrain to link one field ( per country) in tank town to the uncapturable s nearer the HQ.
I guess 92, 85 & 106 would permit some land grab but retain each nation a presence and preserving the furball aspect of the island.
-
It's a very easy change to the terrain to link one field ( per country) in tank town to the uncapturable s nearer the HQ.
I guess 92, 85 & 106 would permit some land grab but retain each nation a presence and preserving the furball aspect of the island.
Thanks for the info, Tilt. The bases you suggest would be the minimum, but the ideal would be to make all OzKansas bases uncapturable except for the center 3, where the most interesting terrain is, and which allow for relatively quick drives back into combat once you are killed. Still, it's a hell of a lot easier to recapture the TT VBases if you retain the airfield, so that change would be acceptable as well.
MH
-
Capturing all TT is gay, and I will swap sides to shoot those responsible :old:
-
ozKansas has gotten worse in the last 9 months as the game's current evolution is playing out. The knights are down to mostly short bus students and window lickers, while squads have been bailing from them to the bish and rooks. Last night TT island was owned by the rook. Bish and rook had the knights down to 50% of their own fields but, neither country felt like finishing off the map.
Until a few squads migrate back to enjoy riding the short bus and fighting back against bish and rooks. It's more fun swinging the whip than receiving. Round about 02-03 it was the same way for the bish.
At least it's been awhile since I saw in country text someone announcing they were switching out of the knights because the game play was so lame the player couldn't take it anymore on the short bus. Maybe a tipping point has been reached and the pendulum will swing back. Right now the LWMA is in a state of group force imbalance and the knights are the least populated in coherent force ability or even interest in being a force by most of those remaining. Granted a few die hard squads hang in there.
A good indication of this. A well known muppet last night put up a mission for the knights that if he had gotten a good showing would have easly taken a field. No one rallied to the idea of following muppets into combat like once would have happened, and the few who showed, failed due to not having enough bodies to achieve the objective. Across the map the bish and rook were projecting force at each other with the rooks having enough excess to furball against the knights that were interested in air combat.
As long as this force imbalance holds, ozKansas TT will continue to be taken by the bish or rook. Why not? They know they have the excess force to express their will. This is a more stealth version of the old JSO where sunday nights 300+ players would login to the rooks and shut down the game. With the current state of affairs, if you make parts of TT uncapturable. Just like CraterMA's TT, when the knights give up on fighting back in the air, most of them will be in tanks at TT ignoring the airwar.
Guess Hitech needs to come up with an ENY specifically for squads to balance force expression. It's too much fun being with large groups of players as competent as you perceive yourself. Along with all knowing they are whipping up on the kids from the short bus side they just got away from. Who wants to be on the short bus with window lickers? After all, the window lickers seem happy staying on the short bus, and it's easier beating them up than taking their side and having to put up with them.
It might not be a bad thing for game evolution for the rook squads to quietly see if they can get the remaining knights squads to come rooks and imbalance the arena down to effectively two countries. Management won't let that stand for very long and would initiate reactive evolution right or wrong like JSO caused ENY. Since we enjoy our comfortable expectations once we get the game managed where we like it. As it stands the MA is two teams and a short bus of window lickers being used to pad score by those two teams.
Who wants to play for the knights for very long when at times it seems like the knights don't play for themselves? Or, now that you convinced all of your friends to come to your side with all of their friends. It's just too much fun to go back to having to fight for everything when the knights are so willing and stupid.
-
I agree with what you're saying buster, the squad I'm in used to fly bish and we switched to knits and there have been times when we put together a bombing mission to close down a rrok or bish base we cannot get any cooperation in getting knits to try to capture all they are interested in doing is furballing and to my squaddies IMO it's a waste of time. I've tried to get squad to switch sides in the past for this reason and what you mentioned above bustr. IMO rooks or bish take TT just to be AH.
-
y
-
I wouldn't mind a No Fly Zone over Tank Towns to keep the bomb****s away. 35K mountain ring or 150mph updraft would work.