Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: lazs1 on November 05, 2001, 02:32:00 PM
-
All the maps are slightly different in that regard of course but... In general, the fields need to be closer together in all the maps. I believe it would help out all types of gameplay. Obviously, it would be better for those who like action and fun but... it would be better for the dreary, gray strat guys too. With closer fields the strat guys would have an easier time capturing fields and moving the front. A quicker moving front with action involved would get more players to particiate (or appear to be).. Even the cowardly "one lifer's" would be ok.. They could continue to perch and risk free cherry pick as usual. Fluffers could choose to milkrun or be annoying so, no change.... so let's move em closer... win/win eh?
lazs
-
""cowardly "one lifer's" ""
oh, you mean the people who try to land kills instead of 'fly till you die' then reup 37 times in a 1/2 hour???
-
lazs1, once again you make life more difficult for the 3 sane people in Ca.
Luckily they are tourists and can leave.
-
I agree with Lazs....closer bases does nothing but reduce the amount of boredom, for everyone.
J_A_B
-
.squelch lazs1
:D
-
Yet another horrible idea from Lazs. If the fields get closer together, when the hell are we supposed to refill our drinks? Try and put a little more thought into the next one man.
SOB
-
See now SOBs got a damn good point there.
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
We could have them close enough so that the ack from each field is in range of the other, now thats what I call action. ;)
-
Acid, we could also say each field is a big one and has 3 runways, and 1 runway on each field belongs to each country and one third of the ack also. That i would call action right from the start. ;)
-
Laz...
Your destiny awaits you...won't be much longer :)
(http://www.13thtas.com/rudesig.jpg)
-
Actually Why not make Airfields close enough to one another so one can shoot from manable ack planes taking off at the other field? Why even take off? :rolleyes: Hey Lazs, you should take a cold shower and maybe you will at least for a short period of time think about something meaningful... :p
Jeesus! Fields closer to one another? :eek: Who could have broing up such stupid thought... Oh man.. Have to log on and kill some nitrooks to wash away my frustration... :D
-
Having fields closer together is a rotten idea. Right now, things are just right - you actually have time to grab altitude before heading into the fray. If fields are closer together, you end up with a low-alt frag fest. Closer fields wouldn't have that much effect on strat except for making fields change hands more rapidly.
Anyway, I just opened my account yesterday so what do I know?
-
I agree with Lazs.
The beta map was great with the bases close to eachother and the vehicle spawn points right next to the bases. Lots of gv and jabo action!
Camo
-
Originally posted by zarkov:
Right now, things are just right - you actually have time to grab altitude before heading into the fray. If fields are closer together, you end up with a low-alt frag fest.
With fields close together, you can easily take off from a field a bit further away from the front and still be close to the action. Take the time to climb to alt and BnZ all the dweebs in the low furball. :)
Closer fields wouldn't have that much effect on strat except for making fields change hands more rapidly.
Ehh? I think that would be a huge change. And would definately give us different arena gameplay, as we are used to slloooowww field ownership changes in the current maps.
With the rotating terrain switch system, a mixture of terrains, endorsing completely different gameplay approaches would be great. Why not bring the old beta map back, for example? Add a small puddle in there somewhere if you really want the navy in... ;)
Camo
-
"With the rotating terrain switch system, a mixture of terrains, endorsing completely different gameplay approaches would be great"
Exactly. We could have one map with the normal base spacing, then one with closer bases. See which becomes more popular.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
All the maps are slightly different in that regard of course but... In general, the fields need to be closer together in all the maps. I believe it would help out all types of gameplay. Obviously, it would be better for those who like action and fun but... it would be better for the dreary, gray strat guys too. With closer fields the strat guys would have an easier time capturing fields and moving the front. A quicker moving front with action involved would get more players to particiate (or appear to be).. Even the cowardly "one lifer's" would be ok.. They could continue to perch and risk free cherry pick as usual. Fluffers could choose to milkrun or be annoying so, no change.... so let's move em closer... win/win eh?
lazs
Sharing pills with LOOPY...err Lupo?
You guys want instant action games with intense surprise, go play quake!
Personally, the bases aren't spread enough now.
Baltic has the best spread of all the terrains.
The distance allows me to grab a buff and get altitude "before" I get to the target.
Viper
-
FA has bases close together. I'm sure you could fit right in.
-
Don't feed the trolls.
-
doh
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Zygote ]
-
Do you feel better today LAZz ?
If no try quake :D
-
Why several field ?
What about having a field with ONE runway a spawn at each end and limiting the plane to the P38 ?
It would be fine :D
<edit>
I'm idiot it won't work ...
we have 3 country ;)
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
Soo... except for the sobster... no one has any meaningful reason why the fields can't be closer together?
And even in the sobsters case.... you can allways take off from a field further away from the action eh?
I have heard that it would make for one big furball but I can't see how that could be. I mean, if people want to fly another way all they have to do is resist the temptation to have fun and take off from a field further back. Plussss... as an added bonus for the courage impaired... They would only meet kindred spirits at anything over about 15k. They could still fill their hours with exciting "jocky'ing for position" and ignore the peasants.
The only disadvantage for such players would be that they would find a lot less low, out of ammo and wounded planes making the long trek home and be deprived of about half of their repetoir.
closer fields would help make some of the early war planes more viable without affecting late war uber planes.
I can see no way that closer fields would hamper the "timid" from flying at whatever alt and style they choose but I can certainly see how they would help furballers and early war planes. Seems win/win to me.
lazs
-
and rude... it is very difficult to take you seriously when your picture clearly shows yu as being a bubble head with jaundice and a village idiot grin. i have no idea what lepauls medical problem is but his complection is horrific. It actually looks green on my monitor!
lazs
-
Laz....
My son took that photo as I read one of your whiney why cant I have my way everybody needs to fly the way I tell them to in order for me to have a chance of success in this sim posts.
Normally, I never smile :)
(http://www.13thtas.com/rudesig.jpg)
-
yeah i think the feilds should be closer in a fighter it takes a avergae of 5-10 min to get toanther base!@!!!!!
-
No they don't need to be closer, ack runing is already too much of an issue :(
-
Do you guys think its fun watching your altimeter for 20 minutes while you climb towards the enemy base? Having bases closer together (at the front anyways) is a good idea. Death to HO dweebs.
-
frenchy... nothing wrong with ack running. or... at least there is nothing any more wrong with ack running than there is in cherry picking wounded low e and low fighters off as they struggle to get home after actually having been in a fight.
It's a fine line but... flying "smart" often equals boring. I don't mind people flying in a timid manner but I don't want to play with em.
Right now... players like rude and myself never even run into each other. Or, very, very rarely. we are flying in different sims. I aknowledge the fact and suggest that those who have an hour or so on line to spend and want to be more than virtual accountants... have a shot at a good time too. I also want to see early war planes added and I think we all know that closer fields would make that MORE possible/viable.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy:
No they don't need to be closer, ack runing is already too much of an issue :(
Tell me about it..
3 vrs 1 (me being the one), we were fighting over a base that rooks didnt care to defend and we had just lost.
One of the sissy Mossies dove to my six, i rolling scissored him reveresed and was now on his six, with his lama buddies trying to bounce me. He runs to the ack, i turn away takin a hit from the SAM, he turns back into my 6. This repeated 3 times, i reversed him on all 3 occasions he ran to ack until i turned about.. Thats just lame wouldnt you say?
----
On the topic..
I think it would be nice to see some of the central bases closer together, the ones that are bordering enemies at a fresh start of a map. Or maybe just in certain sections of the map, but not the whole thing. im more into the flight sim than the Quake death match idea.
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
I aknowledge the fact and suggest that those who have an hour or so on line to spend and want to be more than virtual accountants... have a shot at a good time too. I also want to see early war planes added and I think we all know that closer fields would make that MORE possible/viable.
lazs
Hey Lazs, having followed this whole thread, let me say that I agree with your points on this matter. (Get ready for the 'Well if Rotorian agrees with you it is obviously screwed' :)) If I may ask, are you interested in winning "the war" (i.e the hamster wheel awena), or in engaging in ACM with the sole purpose of vanquishing your foe?
If the answer is "the war" then you will probably never see your vision realized. Mainly 'cause the hamsters are many. However, if the answer is the latter, there may be a solution. Over at brandX, those of us who were highly interested in such, fought/hollered/screamed/gnawed at the corporate redtape for months (HTC is different so I am sure it will not be that way here). Eventually an areana, equivalent to the dueling arena here, was established. A place for ACMing without the worries of the GeNerALisIMos. Most fights were on the deck. It was not all rosey, but for the most part it worked.
Small arena, 8 fields max (i think, cant quite remember). 3 of those fields were very close together. Take off, enough time to get to 5k before turning and burning. I believe Krusher has been trying to get a similar thing going here. At BrandX it was called "Fighter Town Night". I am not too sure what the success was here, since I wasnt here at the time.
The only time I was in the dueling arena here was during the inaugural WWs. But if we desire the fields closer I am sure an accomodating map could be arranged. It would be a furballers dream. We enjoyed it :).
Oh, ditto on the early model planes too :).
-
So bombers weren't enough, huh? Now we need to again try and conform to your style of play so you and only you can have fun? You don't give up so easy, do you? :D ;)
Nah, just having fun with ya. Closer fields are sorta iffy. Ack running would increase, because you wouldn't have far to run. I suggest if you want closer fields, we need very small outposts, with short grass runways, 1 or 2 canvas hangers, and 2 or 3 acks that are close on the front, and if the front moves, then those bases are shut down due to the personel either leaving or being killed. They could be destroyed, but they'd be spread out liberally over the map. This could give those who want fast action or furballs wouldn't have to go far to get them. This makes everyone happy, because it doesn't change strat or remove bombers. :D ;)
Is this a good idea?
-
Change every map we have in the rotation. In the middle of each map, add 3 small fields that only have a strip and indestructible fighter hangar and fuel tanks for 50% fuel (no DTs). One is bish, one is knit and one is rook. fields are in a triangle formation about 5-10 miles on a side. No city (and hence no maproom) either.
With the indestructible hangars, bombers couldn't ruin the furball fun. With no ordnance and bombers, it couldn't be used as a staging area for strikes. With the 50% fuel, it's almost pointless to launch a fighter from it to get to provide support at a base even in neighboring sectors. The bases would never change hands, so there'd always be somewhere to go for quick furball action.
-
You know what I mean Laz. I'm confident you rarely saw me above 20K anyway, and you know that I don't really fly a turnfighter either.
When the fields are closer, you end up with this scenario pretty often. My cruise alt is usually 15K. You find a higher con, even Spit/Niki/Yak type of plane. You start to dogfight it, as soon as you gain the edge on him, he dives toward his field. Just by the time you are about to catch up with him on the deck, you are about to enter his field ack or you meet his countrymen who are on the climbout.
I understand your thirst of furballing, but this is no fun either, I sure you can agree with that.
When the fields are further appart (not like in beta map) :D, I noticed people tend to dogfight more when they meet someone, and not necessarily climb all the way they meet someone. Usually they will level and go level cruise to reach the destination faster.
There will always be a furball in AH, any map you see this "highway" between two fields where a constant wave of green goes against a flow of red. Personaly I try to avoid the area, it's not my type of fun.
Would you like HTC to put a furball arena? A little iland with 4 fields for each country very close, with no ack to defend them? Something where resets will be shorts and often? A place where I would never be, but would it float ur boat?
-
Well since Kratzer put it so eloquently a bit earlier here it is.
So you want low alt furballs with some "strategy" mixed in then Fighter Ace 2 is right for you. The bases are all less than 3-5 minutes apart even in bombers at low altitude. Well maybe for a B-25 or any other twin engine medium bomber. You can move easily around to get to rear area bases. You will most likely never fly over 12k in the game, even in a B-17 or Lancaster.
The gameplay was/is crap in FA for my taste (even though it took this old and ancient AW/WB veteran a long time to realize that) and never did you get real answers from the devteam.
So if you want closer bases go try the "full realism" or "intermediate" arenas in Fighter Ace then report on what you find.
-
i think we all just need a GROUP HUG! :p
-
Some of you guys need to get a clue. If fields are closer together a player always has a choice to take off from a field that is a bit further back. In other words if fields are closer together you can still choose to fly exactly as you fly in the MA now. If you want to fly 6 minutes ( or whatever) from your take off point to your engagement point you can. However having the fields closer together does add another option, i.e. the option of a reduced flight time to a fight.
Adding more options doesn't force anybody to fly a certain way. But restricting options surely does.
Hooligan
-
There's already plenty of furballs full of Spitfires, Niks, and P-51s at 50ft. Fighter Ace has a Free For All arena. Sounds like it would be right up your alley. Start petitioning for another arena. The main is fine as it is.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
Adding more options doesn't force anybody to fly a certain way. But restricting options surely does.
Hooligan
What if the option you're adding means less warning of an attack on an airbase, and resultant higher airbase turnover? Wouldn't it change the way you fly if your base was never more than a minutes' flight away from the nearest source of enemy bombs?
Runny ^Skull^
-
ack running is a non issue in my book. It is nothing compared to the way things are spread out now. It is a mercy now to die at an enemy field so that you don't have that long boring flight home with the possibility of some alt weenie, taking a few riskless passes at your crippled, ammoless plane. If they run to the ack.. let em go. with closer fields you have plenty of better things to do.
The farther fields that we have now cause people to be very timid... they either hang close to their feild and safety of their own ack or.... They wait till overwhelming numbers of countrymen are hitting a field and participate in the boring but safe gangbang. No one wants to strike out on their own to be prey to alt weines or swarms of field huggers. people would be a little more daring if they thought they could fight, get hurt and still make it back in a reasonable timeframe.
If you leave for what looks like (on dar) arelatively fair fight, when you get their it will either be a 10 v1 or 1v10 fight... if you find nothing, you have wasted 10 minutes or so in a very boring manner. If you find a swarm of ack huggers you have wasted 5 minutes or so. either way.... a waste.
I don't like seperate arenas. I don't think they work. I also think that close fields help the turnfighter and early wart planes without harming late war and/or 1 lifer alt weenies. Fields far apart tho, force people to fly only the fastest planes.
rotor.. I don't care about the "war" I only care how it is going if it ruins or increases my options. I realize however that "strat" gives a purpose to things and can actually increase the action. closer fields would, as I have said, increase participation in "strat" or, at least the appearance of participation. In other words.. I would be following the front (a faster moving front) and it would "appear" that I was involved in the strat even though I was really only involved in finding melee's for some good fights.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
I would be following the front (a faster moving front) and it would "appear" that I was involved in the strat even though I was really only involved in finding melee's for some good fights.
lazs
I see where you are coming from and I like it. However, lets face the facts. Hamsters do care about "the war" AND they multiply faster than the purists do. So, I applaud your vision but doubt you will see it realized. In the mean time, alternatives could be implemented if there is enough support. I guess you dont like them tho. <S> and I hope yer forehead is stronger than the brick wall.
-
rotor.. I believe that you are wrong. i don't believe that the few who post here are the majority and even at that... at least as many who post want more action than not. Look at the arena... Any small furball draws a crowd. They only leave when some attention and skill starved half wit takes down the fighter hangers. and makes for a two sector hide and seek. I believe that those who don't want closer fields realize this and their comments are fear driven sorta... whatever you do don't give em choice.
There are workable ways to have both styles in the same arena and.... Have total plane choice with every era of planes being a viable choice.. In their area....I have explained my "area" arena many times. I believe it is a viable idea. I have watched many seperate arenas and they are divisive and doomed.
lazs
-
While I do agree with almost everything said so far <gasp!> I am kinda getting tired of anyone who takes down hangers becoming known as "attention starved half wits" Just FYI I think those people who do things like that actually have fun doing it. They are flying the way they want, and since it's their money, they can. I mean think about it...a group of fighters can as easily take down a field as a bomber group can. Are we to assume that these people are also "attention starved half-wits" just because they choose to have fun differently than everyone else? Are they labeld this because they force the furballers to fly elsewhere? I have fun doing bombing runs and jaboing strat targets, so does that make me an "attention starved half-wit" because I choose to fly differently than the fighter guys? I do agree with both sides of the argument here. Fields do not need to be closer togeather for strat guys, but there could be small grass fields unaffected by strat changes for the fighter guys that are scattered throughout the map. This way the fighter guys can enjoy thier furballs while us strat guys can pork strat targets without opposition.
Come on guys, just because someone chooses to enjoy the game differently than someone else dosen't mean y'all have the right to label and shun them. And for those who say "Well, they ruined MY fun because they killed a furball!" well, what's wrong with flying to another? Not enough action? Try this, fly at 300 MPH between trees to the new fight. That's plenty of action. ;) Let the people who want to enjoy the bombers and strat targets enjoy spending their money. Now, if someone agrees to buy me AH for 2 months, I'll gladly fly their way. Any takers? :D
That's my stance....
-
texace... I actually got not problem with your idea for the grass fields thing but.... It would prove my point. The attention starved half wits would simply find something else to do when no one paid any attention to them. my statement stands... they are unskilled, (by virtue of haveing no skill) attention starved, (by virtue of taking out targets that will bring attention to them and for no other reason) and half wits because.. welll.. they just are. I didn't make em that way, God did.
I got no problem with anyone enjoying the game any way that they see fit... hide cv's, spy, kill fighter hangers whatever but... it should be very difficult for one person to spoil the fun of many... Not some talentless milkrun or suicide run. If you are saying that half wits and talentless need a place to "matter" too... well then we disagree. They need to earn it like everyone else.
lazs
-
Laz I've been trying to figure you out here ;)
You have some good points here and it hardly matters to me if the bases scoot closer together or have realistic distances put between them.
What I don't get is why you think people who aren't interested in furballing everytime all the time are ummm whats the term you use? "no talent attention starved weenies" I beleive ;)
I don't care if its one or 20 of them but any nme buff in my area gets my attention.
If they are on the way to pork a base I'm working out of thats just the way the ball rolls.
Your view of how the "combat" seems to always work in the arenas strikes me as being just a bit linear and I doubt it seldom works out the way you are saying it does :)
This coming from someone who has been accused of linear thinking on more than one occasion :D
Awulf
...1+1=2 1+2=3 1+3=4 ummm hey man what happens when i run outa fingers?.... :p
-
Simple solution get some friends to build a map the way you like. Get it balanced, as you see it, for good gameplay, submit to the terrain design team/HTC for final approval and let its merrits be tested in the MA. If it really sucks, we will know that kind of terrain won't work and HTC will remove it. If its great, it adds another terrain to the mix, and variety is always good. Either way I think the community wins.
I personally am willing to try out ANY terrain in the MA for a few rounds.
Jarbo
Jarbo
-
No lazs..thse are guys who enjoy doing what they do. They get the most for thier dollar by desroying targets. You get your money's worth with fighters, and that's fine, but I don't think it's neccesary to call people things just because they do things different. I proposed the grass field issue so those who were die-hard fighter guys could duke it out, and those who want to go after us strat guys are welcome to. All this does is essentially combine the MA and the DA really. Dunno how else to explain it...<G>
;)