Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: lazs2 on February 12, 2003, 08:28:14 AM
-
We never seem to get much change in current maps once they are put into service but... if... say in the next year, someone resets this one and... someone else is working on a new map...
please make a lot more of the fields closer together... not a huge amount but say.. 3/4 of a sector apart? A small amount would make a huge difference in how quickly you got to the fight and the quality of the fight.
Right now, the fights center around the fields... yu are either in the huge goup that is attacking the field (flying over a sector to get to it) or... the group that is defending (buzzing around your ack or getting vultched)
Closer fields would mean more people would venture out from their ack to meet the raiders and the fights would be more between fields than at fields. A huge improvement in gameplay for furballers.
Guess the problem is... furballers aren't map makers.. I know I'm not but.. if a map maker thinks that these far apart fields are "something for everyone".... you are mistaken.
lazs
-
Has any mapmaker experimented with varying the density of fields? That is, it sounds like all the fields on Trinity are approximately equal distance apart. Might be interesting to have a terrain with "pockets" of closely-spaced fields, and areas of more normally spaced fields.
-
That's not a bad idea, Lazs. Perhaps have frontline airfields be fighter-only, with bomber bases deeper "in country".
The only problem is... closer bases will be captured all that much quicker, so a country that has its act together will quickly overrun all those nearby bases, leaving the defenders to make the long flights.
Very hard to make an even-sided potpourri map when the dynamics of ownership can change so unpredictably.
I don't think it would guarantee that "more people would venture out from their ack to meet the raiders and the fights would be more between fields than at fields"... Human nature is human nature, independent of geography.
-
It's not near as bad as the Pizza map in this regard....I gave Dale the perfect map terrain layout which would bring bliss to the MA for all....he told me I'm a putz. :)
Personally, I'm finding fights within a short drive....half a tank in a spitV won't get ya far....still, Lazs has a valid point....would be nice to have some closer fields installed.
Overall, I'm very pleased with the new effort and that of course means all of you should be happy as well.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Closer fields would mean more people would venture out from their ack to meet the raiders and the fights would be more between fields than at fields. A huge improvement in gameplay for furballers.
I've never understood the logic behind this. Virtually ever furball I've been in has been those that hang back (majority) and wait for a few enemy to come through, those that fight right in the middle, and the few that blast through the middle engaging thost that hung back. It really seems this would promote the "hang back" mentality just a little more because the ack would be there to help protect straglers.
Basically, I just can't see being closer to your ack as a way to encourage people to drift even farther away. If you shorten the distance between fields, you move the fights closer to the fields. Whomever gains the initial upper hand will be even closer to a vulch session. Those that lose it, will be even closer to their ack.
The maps do not cause many of the anomilies you see when trying to furball. The players do.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Right now, the fights center around the fields... yu are either in the huge goup that is attacking the field (flying over a sector to get to it) or... the group that is defending (buzzing around your ack or getting vultched)
That's just because radar ranges are far too short. Doesn't give defenders the opportunity to get to alt.
-
lazs-
on this map i disagree with you. the longer distances seem slow down the building battlers.
they can each suicide a fuel tank many times less per hour. the fields stay open longer.
F.
-
Originally posted by Furious
lon this map i disagree with you. the longer distances seem slow down the building battlers.
they can each suicide a fuel tank many times less per hour. the fields stay open longer.
From what I've seen, it hasn't slowed the building battlers so much as it's spread them out. Instead of beating a single base down to take it, it's become more useful to beat the adjacent fields lightly to reduce the amount of support that they can provide, while keeping the field they're attacking as intact as possible so that they can field-hop to the next one.
-
deja...minid.. I think the proof that you are wrong is quite simple... look at the CV fights when the CV is close to a base or another CV.... these are by far the best furball action with the fights happening somewhere in the center and see sawing back and forth. When you see the cv a sector of more from any opposition the effect is that same as with fields... people hang back and don't fight but suicider building battlers try to pork the cv or field.
shiva is correct... the building battlers still pork fuel and hangers and such and move on... they can't get enough support to actually take fields so they tend to just go on a building battling orgy... pretty much unopposed.
And yes.... I would love to see the radar range extended if we have to have these long distances between fields... as it is... the home team not onlyu has the ack advantage but the dar advantage too.. very little incentive to venture out.
lazs
-
I like this new map far better than the dung heap otherwise known as AKDESERT, but I still agree with Lazs--the bases in most AH maps1 tend to be a bit too far apart. I'm here for air combat, not to fly around looking at the pretty scenery.
And I also agree with his statement that people will fly more bravely when dying isn't so annoying (read: don't have to take as logn to get back to the fight).
With the upcomming "mission arena" which will doubtlessly suit those pilots who enjoy longer-duration missions, there's little reason NOT to design arena maps for AH2 with closer airfields since the pilots seeking quick action will be all who remain in the Arena for the most part. As with Lazs, I feel the optimum distance would be about 2/3 to 3/4 of a sector.
J_A_B
-
-
The fields being a sector apart don't really bother me, but I suppose it may make a difference in the quality of the fights. I've just assumed the drop in quality I've noticed is because I'm used to flying rook, where there generally isn't one or two massive hordes, and the knits seem to like teamwork (god knows why, it's BORING :D). The biggest problem is people porking the field while in the process of taking bases. The only time porking fuel is necessary is when we need to cripple the base, but won't be able to take it. I guess I'll just be flying a lot more 152's on trinity...
-
if you fly 152's and d9's and p51's... it's not a factor.
lazs
-
So I don't count lazs?
J_A_B
-
It appears to me that if you are one of the following:
1. Bomber
2. PT boat driver
3. GV driver
4. Goonie driver
5. HQ attacker
then you do not count to lazs.
-
I love this map and don't miss resets at all...There is something for everyone(except lazs)...:p
One thing I would add is in the middle of each body of water,have a small island with 2 ports(and cv's)
-
Personally I like the map, I like the terrain. It just needs allot of tweaking.
1. Its un-resetable, defenders are highly favored. This a good thing for a Rook. Any base or string of bases is easily re-taken.
2. GV's seem to take a bit to much of the center stage. Literally and figuratively. You've almost always got 2 or 3 peskies harrassing 3 or 4 bases. I've spent way to much time putting their fires out. If you ignore them, you've lost 3 fields in 30 minutes. They need toning down a bit.
3. Mountains, valleys and canyons are cool. With this map thats all you get. Friggin Himilayas crossed with rabbit like breeding. Needs allitle flat land, or at least a big ol virtual foot poot on a few of em. A few Hundred maybe.
4. There are no interiour battles beyond GV's. See #2 above. All other combat is from CV's until a shore base is captured then its easily retaken. Unless your a fan of big and blue, its hard to take your favorite plane into a quick fight. Don't get me wrong, I like big and blue, but I thrive on variety.
5. Strat on this map seems buggy. Yesterday we had a field 216 that was under pretty steady attack for 2 or 3 hours. I resupplied that base 4 times and saw others doing the same, I got some good perks from it, but no other results. My first supply run was after an hour or so at 50% fuel. It wasn't coming up on its own, so I hit the tracks to help it out. No luck. Nothing came back up for at least another hour or so. Other bases seem the same or nearly so. Once something pops, you can count on it being gone for a looooong time.
My observations only, ymmv.
-
I like the map just the way it is, the field distances are perfect.
-
This map is the best thing for gameplay to come down the pike. Once again, great work NB.
-
This map is a HUGE improvement over the "other" large map.
I've been able, even if for a short time to get involved in a CV fight every time I've been on.
While the distance between the bases is a hop, "fights" propagate much better and "continue" in this map then the other.
In pizza there are no protracted fights. If one encounters opposition, they just go somewhere else where they DON'T.
Observations are the fights tend to take place on the coastlines more than anywhere else.
But they're FIGHTS :D
Much better than pizza..
-
Originally posted by lazs2
deja...minid.. I think the proof that you are wrong is quite simple... look at the CV fights when the CV is close to a base or another CV.... these are by far the best furball action with the fights happening somewhere in the center and see sawing back and forth. When you see the cv a sector of more from any opposition the effect is that same as with fields... people hang back and don't fight but suicider building battlers try to pork the cv or field.
Come now lazs... the last time you were in one of these CV battles coming from the shore side, what is the first thing the enemy you were attempting to sattle up on did? He dove for the ack. I say this like its fact because it is.
You said that fields closer together would move the fights away from the ack. That is simply wrong. It just means you have to chose between fighting in your ack, or fighting in someone else's.
MiniD
-
Mini D you don't do alot of CV fights do ya.
CV fight is the BEST meet in the middle fight there is.
But we're not talkin 10 people a side. That ain't a fight.
10 people a side I would expect to see what your talking about.
But a "fight" has a whole lot more people than that ;)
Finding my glasses...and grabbing my research thesis for my masters in furball...
Fluid dynamics of a "good" furball
Ingrediants are dependent on arena density. That's why this crack smoker can't get a "good" fix in the Large map.
There self propagating but are dependent on chance. Arena density increases the "chance".
Along the lines of a tornado. The ingrediants have to be there, but the tornado might not appear. The way it's fed is similar.
Perfect example is the Isle map last week and the fur between A1 and A4.
A catogory 5 furball
All the ingrediants were present and it took place. Saw many a furball addict there that night
For some reason water increases the chances
Numbers have to be even, sliding back and forth but staying for the most part even.
What you end up with is a fluid front that fluctuates back and forth between bases. Outgoing planes at medium altitudes meet along the fluid front. PT boats below, Pickers coming in from both sides high being sucked down into it. Base takers continually come into the enemies base with altitude and drop in to base defenses. A "circulation" is created.
Those at the "front" are in the fur. Exits rearword are covered by incoming fighters. Exits to the sides can be used to regain altitude, but the "pickers" inhabit the sides.....waiting...
Critical mass is required for propagation..
CV's tend to lend themselves to the event..
It is prized amongst the bretheran of the fur..
Brother lazs speaks the truth..
Much to the contrination of the masses..
Those of the fur are one..
-
Oh my goodness I agree with poopster and it had to happen on Lincolns birthday.
CV fight is the best fight there is. Thats one reason I would like to se HT come up with a fix for the suicide issue.
-
good christ...
lazs i see your point when you said it was hard to find a fight in the AKdesert.
But holy poop. Ever since this map has been around there has been many, many bases with a small frontline.
This map is made for furballing! Each time i log on there is a 3 way front with stacked sector bars on all sides centered right in the middle of the terrain!
If you cant find a good fur there it is your flying not the map.
True, at most times it is a push and shove in the middle of the map. But uneven fights are the best kind!
Lazs just make the best of it, get another bad tattoo, and have fun!
-
But holy poop
DIVINITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED !!!!
I've informed my family..
My lady has issues..
But she's gonna have to deal with it..
-
I do fight CV fights often. And its only partially a meet in the middle scenario. You can find about 10% of the people there. Stray too far to the wrong side and you'll find things have gotten quite disproportionate. Dive in to help someone and watch the sprints for the ack commense.
Throw in a dash of 190 from a nearby base to pick off anyone paying attention and... well... you get pretty much what you'd get if you moved the bases in close. Ack running, gang-banging and cherry picking.
But.. you'd get to the fight faster. :rolleyes:
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Throw in a dash of 190 from a nearby base to pick off anyone paying attention and... well... you get pretty much what you'd get if you moved the bases in close. Ack running, gang-banging and cherry picking.
But.. you'd get to the fight faster. :rolleyes:
I'd rather fly two minutes to face ack running, gang-banging, and cherry picking than fly ten minutes to face just gang-banging and cherry picking.
If it's going to happen, it might as well happen quickly. And it is going to happen regardless of base distances.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
So far, I'm enjoying the CV fights the most, by a wide margin.
-
DMF...
I'm not the one saying it wouldn't happen. I know its going to happen. I'm saying its going to happen. Re-read the initial post in this thread again.
And I've not said that CV fights weren't fun. But they have pros and cons... and are not comparable to fixed bases. You cannot capture a CV (well... not without a completely seprate capture) and the fights are temporary at best.
But, once again, this was about how moving bases closer together would simply make it more like CV fights, but not in the ack. I'll still say that's a mistatement and a half.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm not the one saying it wouldn't happen. I know its going to happen. I'm saying its going to happen. Re-read the initial post in this thread again.
[/B]
I know, and I'm not disagreeing with you there at all. Just stating a general truth for me fun-wise... that ceteris parebis, I'd prefer a short flight to a long one.
But, once again, this was about how moving bases closer together would simply make it more like CV fights, but not in the ack. I'll still say that's a mistatement and a half.
I find that just about any time that ack's within visible range, be it on a carrier or on a field, it becomes a factor in how players engage others. What I've noticed a lot more of lately is groups of players who refuse to leave ack at all, even if the numbers are even and the fight could, potentially, occur inbetween the two bases. Instead of venturing forth, they spend the time that the others take to reach their base grabbing alt and remaining safely under an ack umbrella.
With that occurring (IMO) more frequently than before, greater distances between bases means longer commute times for one side and higher alt for the other. Not exactly a recipe for fun. Moving bases closer together is no prescription for this sort of behavior, but as I stated above... if they're going to do it, I'd rather they do it a couple of minutes away rather than 15 minutes away.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Never really supported Lazs's ideas... And not gonna do that now neither...
TRINITY is IMO the best map we have had in AH so far (maybe except for the beta map but that one is in my heart for nostalgic reasons...). And Trinity is the best map as it is -> WITH bases separated as they are.
From all similar posts I think that Lazs's ultimate dream is a single base with no ack and 3 runways (1 for each country) because it seems that only this close is enough for him.
With bases separated like they are now even in a short legged plane you still have enough flight time to climb, get 3 kills and RTB.... At least it works for me and I really don't think that putting bases closer would do any good... Well maybe for those 'Quakers' who really do not care whether they die or not...
Right now, Trinity seems to be the only very well balanced map around... And a good looking one too...
-
Originally posted by MadBirdCZ
TRINITY is IMO the best map we have had in AH so far (maybe except for the beta map but that one is in my heart for nostalgic reasons...). And Trinity is the best map as it is -> WITH bases separated as they are.
Funny you should mention the beta map. Just in case you hadn't noticed, Trinity began life as the beta map.
-
jab.. no.. don't know what you fly but late war planes don't really need bases closer
chairboy... about right but then.. u don't have much use for furballs either.
deja.. I think DMF summed it up.. it is a two part thing... first, the shorter time to the fight is preferable.. second.. if both sides are within reasonable distance of getting back to the safety of their ack they will "venture out" more toward the middle.
Look... the GV fields are nice little close groups and they have close spawn points.. Why? because they are slow and could never make it back if they weren't close. Early war planes need some closer fields People would use the closer fields to up in early war/ good turners and... you gotta get close to use said planes hence... furball
The CV's are just proof.. All they are is a set of fields that are closer than normal. Look at how many are enjoying them. Look at how the fights are developing at them.
This map works better than the horrible pizza because it increases population density artifically... It is one huge bottleneck. This also makes it allmost impossible to reset. It also has some features that make it one of the best CV maps The cv part of the map is saving it for us furballers.
I have no idea why the fields are farther apart than ever on this map but I would suspect that the designers were not interested in furballs.
fortunately... people are using the cv's for furballs instead of strat.
madbird... despite what you think is my "ultimate dream".... all I want is what i have asked for. Try not to read too much into it. It seems to cause you distress.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no idea why the fields are farther apart than ever on this map but I would suspect that the designers were not interested in furballs.
lazs
Laz..
The designer was interested in trying to 'please' the most players possible. The map seems to have accomplished that goal. Unfortunately, you can't please everyone :( .
-
Ok... sorry to upset you but... What was your theory on "pleasing" the furballers which, even you will no doubt admit, amount to a sizable portion of the playerbase? What "feature" of the ma is for the furballers?
Second part... How does making the fields even farther apart than normal help gameplay in your opinion? And... did you expect the CV's to be used as furball centers?
The map is miles ahead of the horrible pizza tho. I like allmost every single feature of the map except that is so unfriendly to early war planes. I think that some more close fields (you threw the GV guys a bone) would have been great... I also thing that failing that.... more and tougher CV's would be great... this is the best CV map of the bunch.
Sorry I can't tell you that every single feature is perfect. I would say tho that it is a very good map. Better than most and... in some cases... the best of all maps so far.
lazs
-
The designer was interested in trying to 'please' the most players possible. The map seems to have accomplished that goal.
You did a great job! symetrical yet interesting with a bit of somethign for everyone. I felt perhaps the Pizza map designers tried to hard to outright please everyone which is perhaps why it's not as universely liked where as you seem to have struck on the right blend for your work.
-
If you wanted an area where you could furball to your heart's content, then I think that you could adapt the Trinity design to what you want; all you would need to do is to expand the central crater a llittle and make 'platforms' along the inner edge of the crater wall and put three custom-built small fields in, each with no vehicle hangar, no bomber hangars (replace bomber hangars with fighter hangars), and no ammo bunkers). Custom-configure the fields so that both GVs and ordnance are disabled. Make sure that there are no remote GV spawns to these fields.
Without bombers, you eliminate C-47s as a capture tool, and with no remote spawns, it makes driving GVs in to capture a long and tedious process. With no ordnance available, it makes closing fields or clearing the town to capture them a more laborious process, and again the lack of remote spawns makes sending GVs in to do it rather painful, as well as the position on elevated plateau.
Unfortunately, it does give fighters access to the GV crater, and there are enough planes with heavy cannon armament to be able to take down VHs, which dilutes the intention of having a region of the map that's plane-free.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
madbird... despite what you think is my "ultimate dream".... all I want is what i have asked for. Try not to read too much into it. It seems to cause you distress.
lazs
It's not about distress... Its about me almost suffocating because of laughing too hard while reading yet another your post with the same theme... :D
-
Like Lazs says, most maps don't have any fields that have quick access to a decent furball.
Fly an early model plane 15 min to a fight only to get picked off by the dozen or so 15k cons can get boring quick.
The maps just need some tweaking so they can accomdate all styles of flying.
Don't see any whining here , just pointing out where some improvements could be made.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... sorry to upset you but... What was your theory on "pleasing" the furballers which, even you will no doubt admit, amount to a sizable portion of the playerbase? What "feature" of the ma is for the furballers?
Second part... How does making the fields even farther apart than normal help gameplay in your opinion? And... did you expect the CV's to be used as furball centers?
The map is miles ahead of the horrible pizza tho. I like allmost every single feature of the map except that is so unfriendly to early war planes. I think that some more close fields (you threw the GV guys a bone) would have been great... I also thing that failing that.... more and tougher CV's would be great... this is the best CV map of the bunch.
Sorry I can't tell you that every single feature is perfect. I would say tho that it is a very good map. Better than most and... in some cases... the best of all maps so far.
lazs
Lazs...
No sweat. I'm not upset. In fact, I am happy as a doodle bug in deep toejame :D. I just wish there was some way to please everyone. Unfortunately, it is the game more than any map that is furballer unfriendly. As it has gotten larger, it has become more about conquest than furballs. This map attempts to slow the conquest part of the game and still allow for plenty of action. Unfortunately, to do this, I had to limit the BigMac type action (note..once you pass the mountains, the majority of the terrain is flat). A direct result of putting fields closer together would be the faster capture of those fields.
Shiva had an interesting idea about putting airfields in the crater like has been done with the gv fields. If you look at what has happened with planes flying into the crater on Trinity, you will see that disabling bombers and ord at these fields would not prevent their capture (I've said it before...and I will say it again...No matter how nice your pool is, there is ALWAYS some dweeb willing to go out of his way to pee in it :D).
The only way to get you what you really want is to disable gvs, bombers and field captures. The only realistic solution is a Furball Arena. I thought this is what the CT was for. But, it seems to be a non-scenerio Historic arena these days (not that this is a bad thing :)). Do you think we could populate a Furball Arena??
-
The Map legend on Trinity indicates that a sector is 25 miles. I don't see how this is a major problem. I like a furball as much as the next guy but, to fly 25 miles to get anywhere in an a/c is nothing. Now if it were dueling LVTz I could see the point; those things are VERY slow.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Do you think we could populate a Furball Arena??
Maybe.
What's the standard for successful "population"?
I'll wager that a "furball" type arena would draw more than the CT does on an average night, if it was setup correctly.
Heck. I'll wager the CT could draw way more than it does if the rulers would just put in normal icons and radar. They have decent maps and matchups in there, just no players. I'd probably play it a lot with "normal" settings.
While the dar isn't a big deal with me at all, I know it is for some.
The "reverse icon" philosophy though has always seemed the absolute pinnacle of lunacy.
You take away icons where in RL you could probably distinguish friend from foe but where the game shows a black dot.
Then in close, where in RL you would EASILY determine IFF, plane type and pilot's eye color and the game does pretty well at this also, they make icons available.
Somehow this is better. :)
With 500+ in the arenas in US Prime Time, I think there's room to experiment with an alternate arena. Shoot if it steadily drew 50, just 10% it'd be easily equal to or even more popular than the CT.
Just my .02.
-
So, why don't people use the DA for a Furball Arena?
-
Yeah, the fields could be closer together, but is that really gonna be a "cure"?
I would hope so, but I think not.....too many times I've seen guys just hovering in the friendly ack umbrella over their field, even when they outnumber their opponents. Frustrating as heck when you are in the mood for a good furrball, you've flown over to party with your opponents, and they only wanna ack hug.
I wish HT could code the airfields like the fleets, i.e. make one guy able to take "control" of the field defenses, BUT, make it where the acks fired at anything and everything that was near, friend and foe alike. That might make folks wanna exit the airspace over their field if there was a risk of getting their butt shot down by "friendly fire".
'Course, the "base commander" could put the acks on "safe" mode so they don't fire anything, saving his comrades from being blasted out of the sky, but opening up a vulch environment.....hehehe.
I mainly just wish HT would put about 6 fields pretty close together where you could furrball to your hearts content, and that folks would just up and rush into the fight..........but there are always gonna be those who just wanna play it safe, cowering under their umbrella of acks..........
Hey, I can dream, can't I? ;)
-
I think that if the fields were closer together, the fuel, FH and dar would just be knocked out quicker. The strat-intelligentsia would just roll over 'em.
Seems lately that noone wants to fight. They only come away from their base after they have grabbed to 20k. Either that or its a mishun herd.
This behaviour has traditionally been a rook behaviour, and probably with good reason. But the knits are doing it now too. And with the numbers on their side. Pathetic. Maybe the bish do it too, I don't know. Levi would probably know best.
What would be nice to try would be a fighter town, similar to the tank town we have on trinity. Just put the 3 fields in a traingle with 20 mile legs and make the fields immune to enemy fire and have no ack. Everybody meets in the middle.
...anyway, as soon as i can perfect the ubiquitous, "dive 10,000ft to try for a HO, miss the HO and then run away" move I'll probably be much happier.
F.
-
Originally posted by popeye
So, why don't people use the DA for a Furball Arena?
Or conversely, you could have a map that was nothing but strat targets every square inch.
Think of the time savings. One could take off and immediatley suicide into a fuel bunker, over and over and over an.......
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe.
What's the standard for successful "population"?
I'll wager that a "furball" type arena would draw more than the CT does on an average night, if it was setup correctly.
Heck. I'll wager the CT could draw way more than it does if the rulers would just put in normal icons and radar. They have decent maps and matchups in there, just no players. I'd probably play it a lot with "normal" settings.
While the dar isn't a big deal with me at all, I know it is for some.
Toad...
I would say that standard would probably be 25 to 30 during peak. That could give you 10+ during off peak. Anything less and folks would stop bothering to check it out due to a lack of opponents. Interestingly enought, I can see potential problems with a FB arena terrain as well. For 25 or 30 people, a 3 field, 4 sector front would probably be fine. Start getting more than that and you end up having to increase the numbers of fields and sectors of front.
Yah, the radar thing in the CT is mainly an annoyance for me. If I'm not sure it's a friendly...I assume it's an enemy. Of course, for an FB arena, you would probably want full radar everywhere..all the time. The objective would be to find a fight. Hell, I generally log off from the MA when the radar gets totaled. I don't mind no dot radar. But, no sector counters just makes the game more work to play.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Has any mapmaker experimented with varying the density of fields? That is, it sounds like all the fields on Trinity are approximately equal distance apart. Might be interesting to have a terrain with "pockets" of closely-spaced fields, and areas of more normally spaced fields.
If you want to 'experiment' with terrain, the people to talk to are the CT crew. I can guarentee that HT is not going to let you 'experiment' with the MA :D.
Actually, that might not be a bad idea. Get the CT crew to setup a FB arena for a week and see what happens. Hell, they change terrains in there so often....odds are no one would notice :D.
BTW, the problem with trying to set up the fields so that some planes were only available at the front and others only at the back, is that the average customer is going to be constantly squeaking because what he wants to fly is not available where he wants to fly it. Hell, what I would like to see more than anything is a Euro/Pac rotating plane set. But, that will never happen in the MA :( .
-
Or maybe............ a map for the bumble bee battlers with only 1 field with side by side runways, 1 friendly, 1 NME. Put a laser line down the middle to mark ack boundaries so the "huggers" wouldn`t over step their boundaries. Maybe use instead of WEP, have a button to go into "frozen syrup" mode. Turn off killshooter for the patiently impaired, then you could vulch each other while rollin down the runway. Throw in a once a week , special event with instant action where when you launch you are flying in a circle 200ft from each other , in butt sniffin mode, and by gawd, you got it!:eek: LMAO
-
nobaddy... I would dissagree that having the fields slightly closer together would be a bad thing... if they got rolled over then they would get taken back just as easily... porking fuel to 25% would be no big deal for defense or even attack against fields that are 3/4 of a sector apart.... you could have pockest of close fields scattered in each country... maybe a fourth of em... So far... the map isn't moving at all that I can see.. It looks about the same every night that I log on.
Now... if you are saying that HTC mandated field distance then that is a different thing but... Closer Fields, falling a little quicker, would not be a bad thing in this map that moves not at all.
Maybe the real solution is more CV fleets per country that are tougher to kill.
furball is a nebulous term... there are indeed a lot of furballers in the game but.... there are also a hell of a lot of players who wouldn't mind a little more action and.... maybe 90% of the players would like to have the option once in a while. If there is nothing going on and you are a furballer or just someone who feels like he is in the mood for action.... you log off... The oppossite is not true... a few (relatively) close fields have no effect on the building battlers except.... They can feel "left out" when their attention grabbing antics are not noticed. They don't leave tho... just make noise.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nobaddy... I would dissagree that having the fields slightly closer together would be a bad thing... ... So far... the map isn't moving at all that I can see.. It looks about the same every night that I log on.
Now... if you are saying that HTC mandated field distance then that is a different thing but... Closer Fields, falling a little quicker, would not be a bad thing in this map that moves not at all.
Maybe the real solution is more CV fleets per country that are tougher to kill.
furball is a nebulous term... there are indeed a lot of furballers in the game but.... there are also a hell of a lot of players who wouldn't mind a little more action and.... maybe 90% of the players would like to have the option once in a while. lazs
Lazs...
Take into consideration that HTC has reset the arena 3 times in the last 3 or 4 days (twice in the last 24 hours).
More CV TG's is a distinct possiblity. I have been mulling around a Pacific type terrain for the last month or so. As to CV hardness...you will have to take that up with HT :).
90% eh? The 'Silent Majority'? :D
NB
-
Can you add cv's to the current map? Can you add ports or... say turn a few coastal fields into ports? Did I understand that right?
I just feel that the CV's are the best bet for a good "quick fight fix" if fields can't be made to be slightly closer together.
90%... well I think it's safe to say that 90% of the players would like a quick fite fix at least once in a while wouldn't you? Probly half that or a little less would like a steady diet of it but.. I don't think it would hurt to have sure fire places for that to happen... wouldn't hurt the gameplay of anyone who wasn't interested either.
I don't know... I just can't escape the fact that far apart fields are bad for early war planes. If you want to give people a chance to fly em ... ya gotta provide the places on the map.
Like I said tho... for some reason this is the best map I have seen for CV action and CV action is very 'furball friendly". I don't know if you intended that but it is working out that way.
maybe I don't have a handle on what players want but it sure seems that a lot of players like the massive fights at least part of the time.
lazs
-
Any chance of something like a 1 month test of a furball arena?
The DA is just a map in an arena, right?
Could we not substitute one of the better furballing CT maps into the DA and configure the radar and icons to match the MA?
Then maybe let Laz tweak the "strat" settings to promote furballs? ;)
Don't see where it would cost anything and the maps are already done.
Might have to suspend dueling for a month I guess. That could be done H2H since it's usually a 1 v 1 thing, right?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Any chance of something like a 1 month test of a furball arena?
The DA is just a map in an arena, right?
Could we not substitute one of the better furballing CT maps into the DA and configure the radar and icons to match the MA?
Then maybe let Laz tweak the "strat" settings to promote furballs? ;)
Don't see where it would cost anything and the maps are already done.
Might have to suspend dueling for a month I guess. That could be done H2H since it's usually a 1 v 1 thing, right?
I doubt HT would change it, at least in part, because HTC would have to do it. However, the CT changes weekly anyway. I think the CT folks are the ones to approach.
Lazs...
I was saying that I was considering doing a Pac type arena and that IT would have lots of CV's.
-
Nah, that's a totally dead end.
Maybe use the SE arena when there are no SE's on. Sort of a new SE "Furballing!"
;)
-
From all the suggestions I've seen of the ideal furball map, why not just use the old Wild Wednesday map? One big 25k mountain-encased circle with 5 or 6 fields around it, all at 10 or 15k, taking off into the center to fight. Really nasty wind layer above 25k that would rip wings off planes, too. I'm sure plenty of folks still have that one on their computers and could get it to the CT folks.
What ever happened to WW anyway? It was a good time.
-
I probly wouldn't go to a furball arena much if at all.
Like most furballers I go where the numbers are. Seperate arenas don't work numbers wise for me.
I don't "support" anything that isn't fun.. I am not big on the martyr thing.
nobad... You are talking about a "pac" map in the normal MA arena tho right? Not some goofy "axis vs allied" thing?
Soo.... It appears that the original premise of the thread is correct... You don't get changes in an established map so...
In the future can we have the next map have a few pockets of fields that are closer together and maybe more ports and cv groups? I mean... it's no big sacrafice for the building battlers... there are probly fields on trinity that no one has even taken off from yet.
Oh.. If you split up the population into several arenas then you merely reduce the population density in the main arena making maps like the horrible pizza even more painful. You create arenas that never have more than 5-10% of the players.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I probly wouldn't go to a furball arena much if at all.
Like most furballers I go where the numbers are. Seperate arenas don't work numbers wise for me.
I don't "support" anything that isn't fun.. I am not big on the martyr thing.
nobad... You are talking about a "pac" map in the normal MA arena tho right? Not some goofy "axis vs allied" thing?
Soo.... It appears that the original premise of the thread is correct... You don't get changes in an established map so...
In the future can we have the next map have a few pockets of fields that are closer together and maybe more ports and cv groups? I mean... it's no big sacrafice for the building battlers... there are probly fields on trinity that no one has even taken off from yet.
Oh.. If you split up the population into several arenas then you merely reduce the population density in the main arena making maps like the horrible pizza even more painful. You create arenas that never have more than 5-10% of the players.
lazs
Lazs...
The problem with changing existing maps is the time that the HTC staff has to put in. They are going to try to avoid it. The reason is not that they don't want to work, it's that it is time taken away from producing things like new planes and AH2.
The CT Furball arena idea is mainly meant as an experiment to see what kind of impact placing fields closer together would have in the main arena. The idea would be to produce a map for about 30 people and see what happens.
-
anything that happens in a seperate arena will have nothing to do with what will happen in the main... they attract different people. The CT especially... besides simple field placement there are the issues of.... seperate arena... axis vs allied.... icon range... radar range... any of which will taint the results.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Lazs...
The CT Furball arena idea is mainly meant as an experiment to see what kind of impact placing fields closer together would have in the main arena. The idea would be to produce a map for about 30 people and see what happens.
Lazs...
Please note what I said. First, it would be an experiment...not a regular arena. Second, without main arena settings the experiment would be of little value. It would require a normal size CT map with about 10 fields per country (3 countries). It would need as much 'advertizing' as possible (probably word of mouth and via this BBS). Personally, I believe that such an arena would be fine for 30 to 40 people. But, I would be interested to see what would happen if 3 times that number show up. I suspect that I already know :D.
-
exactly.. It would be of little value. I don't even want a furball only arena... I simply want a map in the MA that is not quite so prejudiced against the early war planes... I don't know how much simpler I can put it. I still can't figure out what your reasoning was in making the fields so far apart.. A few pockets of larger fields closer together wouldn't have hurt a thing...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
exactly.. It would be of little value. I don't even want a furball only arena... I simply want a map in the MA that is not quite so prejudiced against the early war planes... I don't know how much simpler I can put it. I still can't figure out what your reasoning was in making the fields so far apart.. A few pockets of larger fields closer together wouldn't have hurt a thing...
lazs
The map is not 'prejudiced against the early war planes'. It is an attempt to balance for the ENTIRE plane set and not just one group.
I still can't figure out why you don't know what my reasoning was in the design of this map. I have posted it in this thread and numerous others.
-
Nobaddy , i've flown both late model and early war model in this map. The map does tend to favor the late model.
That said , it is a great map but like all the rest it ain't perfect and probably never will be.
If you read this thread you can see some folks are just pointing out what could be improved for a more balanced game play.
Have to salute HTC for bringing it out though , great to have another one in the rotation.
-
Originally posted by sax
Nobaddy , i've flown both late model and early war model in this map. The map does tend to favor the late model.
That said , it is a great map but like all the rest it ain't perfect and probably never will be.
If you read this thread you can see some folks are just pointing out what could be improved for a more balanced game play.
Have to salute HTC for bringing it out though , great to have another one in the rotation.
Sax...
I have read and I do understand. The point is that I don't believe a MA map can satisfy everyone. Unfortunately, they are a 'one size fits all' deal. All anyone can do is try to do the best for the most people possible. Everyone should try to make a map....then more would understand :D.
If I do another map, I will try to address Lazs' desire for some closer fields. However, since the game is really a conquest game in aircombat sim clothing, I have doubts that it will accomplish the desired effect.
-
nobad... I think that what is going on here is that you simply assumed (and still are) that areas with close fields would be either bad for the game or be of no use since they would be over run. I think that since neither you not anyonme else has tried it before that... you don't know. I watched other maps and the closer fields don't seem to be much different strat wise than the far ones. sometimes they get taken quick and sometimes not... I think that in these huge maps the building battlers actually have less desire to screw up the furball... they get enough attention or... they have so much else to do.
lazs