Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: muckmaw on August 13, 2003, 09:17:14 AM
-
Here's an idea I'd like to hash out with you guys.
Now, we all know AH2 is in the works, and HTC are busy with this project, but this is something theoretical I worked out and wanted to see what people thought. Of course, as an added bonus, if HT reads this, and likes it...so be it.
The main topic of late on the BBS has been the lack of fuel for fighters at airfields. This is closely followed by complaints that there is a lack of furious dogfighting.
We've mentioned this idea before, but not as a possible solution to the above problems.
What if HT added attacking and denfending infantry units.
Here's how it works. Knights want to capture A15. In order to affect a capture, they must march their troops from either a spawn point or they must be dropped via goon OUTSIDE the A15's radar circle. The troops are steered like a CV, with a ranking person commanding. So they start their march, and they are protected by GV's who accompany them, and of course, air support. A15 sees the threat, and launchs their denfending infantry. The opposing armies meet outside the radar circle and the battle begins. Random number generation with an advantage toward the defenders would determine how many if any of these AI soldiers survive, and press on toward the town for a capture.
Now, while the battle is raging, both sides are coming in with goons, dropping reinforcements. Both sides are proving aircover, which should generate both Jabo's and furballs.
Best of all, we're creating a furball outside of the field. Because of the close proximity to A15, porking fields makes no sense because the fighters can and will attack the assaulting troops with as little as 25% fuel.
I honestly believe this idea would give something for everyone. Jabo's would get a thril out of bombing a moving line, and having a direct affect on the outcome of the battle. Strat players would enjoy the combined use of Air and Land forces, as well as the strategic planning involved. GV drivers would get to be in a combined ground offensive. Support pilots (goons) would serve a great purpose in bringing in more troops, and fueld/Ammo for the GVs. Finally, the furballers will get a heated battle in a target rich enviornment, less than 1/2 a sector from their base. Hopefully their fuel will not have been porked, and the attacking force will be too busy protecting their own troops, to set up a vulch.
Of course, like all ideas, this is not perfect, but I really do see it as something for everyone. I also don't expect it to be implimented, but it's something to think about.
Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
-
wait a minute, your not whining......oh my!!! some1 posted huh!!!....an IDEA
be careful muck......you might get arrested for thinking.
btw your idea sounds fun:D
-
cool idea. I like :D
-
Interesting idea, would definitely change the nature of engagements. Worth exploring.
-
Would be great to see (one day) some kinda AI ground war incorporated into all this... like Falcon 4.
-
Muck Dude! Nice idea!
It has potential!!
:)
-
Truly genuine idea muck. I do believe those troops would need some type of geographical cover of some sort, like buildings or forests, otherwise the ex-suicide field porkers would start suiciding while shooting at the troops, with or without a furball going on.
But then again, im probably wrong.
-
That was the first thing I thought of. The suicide fule porkers will become suicide troop porkers. (No one said it was a perfect idea!;) )
The only thing I could say would be tha there would be GV's to protect the troops, and a good possibility that air cover may prevent SOME of the suicide dweebs from getting through.
The only other thought I had was maybe go with an idea someone else posted, which was to use a timer after weapons release. If the pilot augers within X seconds of weapons release, they cannot reup with ordinance, or cannot re-up from the same field for X amount of time.
This one is tough to solve.
-
So if these troops are dropped off just outside the radar circle and start marching towards the field........and then the fields defence infantry started marching out to meet them.......and if they're both marching at the same speed, why would the battle still take place outside the radar circle?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
I figured the defensive troops would spawn at say 1 mile inside the radar circle. This would simulate a perimeter defense. The defnding troops don't have to march at all, if we don't want them to. They can dig in and hold the line.
I was thinking there would be 2 groups of troops per field. 1 would be placed at or near the radar circle for perimeter defence, and the second would either be encircling the town or inside it.
-
Sounds an awful lot like Fighter Ace.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sounds an awful lot like Fighter Ace.
Never played it...does it work over there?
-
Well.. it wasn't infantry so much as tank units that were all AI controlled... after exceeding some threshold of aircraft activity in a sector, tanks would spawn and start rolling towards the attacking airfield.
It was actually quite fun. It added another dimension to to war.
-
Interesting idea. It would be good to try this out at zone control bases to start with to see if it would be feasible or desired by the community.
I don't think it should be as easy to capture a large zone control base as it is to capture a small airfield. Maybe this idea could kill two birds with one stone.
-
Thats something that could easily be worked in.
A larger field could either have more troops protecting it, or adjust that bases troop fighting strength.
Medium and smaller bases would follow suit.
-
Hey muck that would be cool, Hope HTC was 1 step ahead of you and that's what we are going to see in AHII. I think although it will not solve the furball problem it would definately be a cool aspect to this game.
Mars01
-
Originally posted by loser
Interesting idea. It would be good to try this out at zone control bases to start with to see if it would be feasible or desired by the community.
I don't think it should be as easy to capture a large zone control base as it is to capture a small airfield. Maybe this idea could kill two birds with one stone.
An alternative would be to simply harden and multiply the VH and beef up the armor on Panzers. Right now, taking an airfield really does not require any ground component.
In addition... if one cargo load would restore 25% of the fuel, we might see more C47/M3 use.
-
Muck,
Are you thinking without proper authorization???
Interesting Idea, Cant say Im sold on it yet, but Its worth thinking on.
My first thought is this... If Rank controls the troops. Whats to prevent the #1 Rank guy from switching sides and then marching all the troops away. Think if it was on the verge of reset. 1 guy could just take away the Reset by grabbing control of troops and walking them in exactly the wrong direction. Not a good thing.
-
I would think it would be, or could be programmed into the AI that once the troops are spawned and begin their march, there can only be 3 waypoints programmed into their march orders, and once submitted, they cannot be changed. All waypoints must lie within the radar circle and the final waypoint must end on the town. They could also program the AI so that once a set of troops spawn, they automatically take the most direct route toward the city.
The second method would take the strategic thinking out of troop deployment, which is not good, but would avoid the problem of sabotaging the depolyment.
The first option would allow a certain amount of control of the troops, with the worst a saboteaur could do being delaying the troops arrival.
Now stop asking tough questions!!!:D
-
i thought HT said something about defending troops in the maproom in AH2 ?
-
Much as I hated the flight aspect to WWIIOnline, their ground war was a lotta fun. Fill up the back of a truck with live (non-AI) troops and make a mad dash for the town. If yer lucky and the truck makes it to town jump out and run for cover in a building. Work yer way from cover to cover 'till ya find the flag building. Run in and the town is yours, or are there multiple flags?
-
Yes, Iron-
That would be very cool, and offer an alternative for those who are not in the mood to fly.
Problem is, something along those lines would require what would amount to a whole new game.
I know HT talked about having a FPS ground element to the game, but I've not heard a peep about it since.
Still, having human controlled ground troops would be the ultimate in AH ground war.
-
This is a cool idea, especially if Napalm dispensers were added to my Il-2 would make the MGs usefull as well.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i thought HT said something about defending troops in the maproom in AH2 ?
Actually, what he was thinking was doing a FPS for field captures. Enter the map room and you are switched to MOH.
Muck...
As a former grunt, you realize that the map circle is 12 miles? Gonna be a lot of way tired troopies :).
-
You can have this without AI if you put lots and lots of vehicle bases between the current fields, vehicle bases without forward spawnpoints - and without moving the fields much further apart of course.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Actually, what he was thinking was doing a FPS for field captures. Enter the map room and you are switched to MOH.
Muck...
As a former grunt, you realize that the map circle is 12 miles? Gonna be a lot of way tired troopies :).
Hey that's what you guys are paid for!
Geez, NB. All these years ina virtual ****pit's made you soft!
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Geez, NB. All these years ina virtual ****pit's made you soft!
Yes.......and your point is??? :)
-
AWSOME IDEA.
But,…
Can you say,.... “massive programming”>?
I may be wrong, simply because the code does not sit in front of me, nor do any works.
BUT!!
I would have to say, this is probably comparable to building a game within the game.
*That *I* know of*, there are no objects in presently in the game to support this without adding tons of coding. *I COULD BE WRONG*.
But the present exterior view of the man object would not pass the critics as a common, redundant view. Does the view show the man aiming a rifle, running, throwing, ducking, kneeling etc..?
To do it, what *I* would consider, right and pass the graphic critics, it would probably need to *resemble* something along the line of "example" Counter-Strike figures.
While the "interior view may not be so hard, for HTC, to compile "original" material it would all have to be re-invented. Which means the sprite movements, the choreographed moves etc.... from scratch.
AGAIN, I could be totally off the mark here, but I would assume to tackle such a project would probably take much more time then what's spent on AH2, like maybe a year or more.
I *KNOW* HT can do it, I'm not sure how long it would take him, But I do assume it would be a huge project and a LOT of coding to be beta tested to death.
That's my "assumption"
Great idea though, but is it a sim? Or a WWIIonline clone? Gota watch that. Once you add troops you get into a whole new area of things you’ll NEED to add to compliment it. So we’re not just talking human figures. How many types of guns>? How many types of grenades, what would the total armament be for a troop? Skins? I think it starts to get real deep. But it’s nothing HT and crew couldn’t do, that’s the inviting part.
But I could be wrong
Anim
-
I love the idea of this muck! Even if the FPS system is not there, the AI ground battle would be cool! Seeing the GVs do things other than constantly reappearing at a spawn point would be awesome! I always thought that the gv assults were interesting, even though I absolutly suck in a GV. :D
Originally posted by Grimm
My first thought is this... If Rank controls the troops. Whats to prevent the #1 Rank guy from switching sides and then marching all the troops away. Think if it was on the verge of reset. 1 guy could just take away the Reset by grabbing control of troops and walking them in exactly the wrong direction. Not a good thing.
If you're worried about this, how about someone has to be on a side for at least 24 hours before he/she is allowed to be in command? At least that way no one can make immediate switches to save thier country. That, and you can have the person who started in command, stay in command unless he/she leaves. That way no one can usurp(sp?) command.
About the "massive programming" that would be involved, why not do this in steps. You have to crawl before you walk. Maybe first have it AI driven, and have it simple, just to test the concept. If things look good, improve upon it, instead of implementing the whole shabang at once.
If this were there, it would be one more step to creating that "perfect WWII sim" that WWIIOL was advertised to be. It would be very cool of HT utilizes this idea, or a similar one, or a completly different one providing it's as good as this one. :)
Way to go Muckmaw, it's awesome to hear great ideas like this! :cool:
-
If you're worried about this, how about someone has to be on a side for at least 24 hours before he/she is allowed to be in command?
No good, if the commander has been online for 24 hours straight then im sure he will send the troops the wrong way anyway hehe!
;)
-
HItech...
any comments?
-
Just a brainfart...mebbe another way to skin this cat would be to allow an option when spawning tanks similar to the current bomber "formation" option. Allow a rifle squad of troops to accompany a tank.
The tank driver would have to care beeful of his speed, because running off too fast would leave his troops exposed, and they'd expire just like the bomber drones do now.
Perhaps the troops could be optionally player controlled, like gun turrets on bombers?
This way, teamwork would be encouraged. Rank wouldn't be a factor.
culero
-
Maybe I am missing something but how exactly does haveing a groundwar create a furball and why wouldn't the suicide fuel porkers continue to do so? Why would anyone want to venture out of far away fields to be gangbanged unless they went as part of a steamroller? In short... Why is this any different for air war gameplay than what we have now? I certainly don't like to see flakpansies when I am in a fighter.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maniac
No good, if the commander has been online for 24 hours straight then im sure he will send the troops the wrong way anyway hehe!
;)
That is true, but at least this prevents last minute switches to save one's country. And a lot can happen in 24 hours, so the situation can be very different by the time someone has command authority. This will force this person to switch way in advance, and be unable to fly for his/her country.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Maybe I am missing something but how exactly does haveing a groundwar create a furball
snip
Groundwar participants are targets for jabo aircraft.
Jabo aircraft are attractive targets for vulchers.
Vulchers are attractive targets for air to air hunters.
Air to air hunters are attractive targets for others like them.
Its called "food chain" :)
culero (sounds like a furball to me!)
-
Sounds familiar :))
I agree 100% :)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90524&pagenumber=3
{Something more.....
Mobile Artillery also katiusha rockets and
88's at fields but also mobile 88s with tracks.
This will bring normandy style carpet bombing and jabo attacks but also more
furballs low & high alt to protect them.
This type of war is more tactical and less
strategic but its a war for all at all levels.
Terrible fights for just one field.
Rush and counter attacks at his best.}
-
culero.. no... unless you are saying that the plane will concentrate the war.. How can this be if the maps are not changed. seems more people will be in infantry or ground also. less people in fighters with the same huge maps and same long distances between fields equal less furballs not more. Would seem that the idea would encourage steamrollering and hitting where the enemy wasn't (milkrun raids).
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
The troops are AI, Lazs.
Just like the ones we have now, except they move in formation and fight.
Read the initial thread again and you'll see it is a food chain.
Basically this will create a furball about 12 miles from a base. (Where the radar circle is)
This is the optimal point to spawn or drop assaulting troops. This is where the defending troops will be. This is where the ground war will take place. Jabos and bombers will come in to support thier troops. Fighters will come in from both sides to protect their jabos. Furballs ensue. Plus, as I said on the original post, there will be less motivation to pork fuel at the base being attacked because the battle will only be 12 miles away, and therefore give every plane plenty of fuel even at 25% to get to the furball and back.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
culero.. no... unless you are saying that the plane will concentrate the war.. How can this be if the maps are not changed. seems more people will be in infantry or ground also. less people in fighters with the same huge maps and same long distances between fields equal less furballs not more. Would seem that the idea would encourage steamrollering and hitting where the enemy wasn't (milkrun raids).
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Well, the map question is another one IMO. Certainly there are many factors involved, and I'm neither arguing against you regarding the maps nor saying the idea under current discussion will change that.
I was just answering the specific question you asked (how this could contribute to creating furballs). I believe the "foodchain" effect would often result in furballs.
culero
-
Soory guys but I see it not helping furballs at best and making things worse more likely... Seems more people would fly jabo and ground vehicles... I don't enjoy fighting jabos and ground vehicles... those are the things that kill the fur not help it... If the maps stay the same then we have just as many fields that are candidates for fights as we do now but every one of em is threatened... either grab a suicide jabo or kill helpless planes/get killed by osties or quit/go to the CT.
build this map and you will be doing like the AK but on a grander scale... wondering why everyone hates the map and why the furballers are so ungrateful.. spending most of your time telling the furballers that they could have fun on the map if they would just get organized and do some strat work. the only "food chain" I am interested in is other fighters.
lazs
-
Well, lazs, as usual we disagree.
But this is not worth getting into, because like I cannot see furballs as you can, you seem to never be able to, or want to, understand what interests others.
But that's fine.
This is all hypothetical anyway, as I said in the original post. Just shooting the breeze on a slow day.
-
muck... you said... "something for everyone". I guess I was included in that. Now you say... "well.. we dissagree so I will ignore what you say about furballs." After all.... why listen to a furballer about furballs? that would be unprecedented except maybe like NB did.... after the fact. Even then... he had a hard time seeing what the furballers were upwset about... Like you, he felt that he had made a map with "something for everyone" and that the furballers were just lazy and ungratefull.
you seem to be looking at your map in microcosm... you are explaining what would happen at one field IF everyone, or a good portion wanted to make that place the "front"... the timid and the suicde porkers and the strat and score and sky accountant guys would still simply milkrun at fields with less action.... missuns would still be to sneak up on the Ai with huge numbers advantages... the fields would still be too far apart.
The only advantage to your map I could see was that people might not follow a low damaged/out of fuel plane back over enemy lines to cherry pick it. Your map WOULD make it more feasable to survive as "half way home" would be allmost good enough... basicly... you moved the ack of the fields closer together (ai and gv's). Not bad but still involves long flight times if you don't ditch.... easier to ditch that would be a good thing too..
but... furballs aren't about killing jabo or Ai or "helping the war" or stopping a fluff. you only do those things when you are bored out of your skull. Making a map that makes it easier to find the boring stuff is not a help to the average furballer.
lazs
-
The only reason I ignore you is because of the way you treat other people on these boards. I don't ignore furballers as a whole. Just one's who insult everyone else.
In my mind, I was trying to come up with an idea that would help everyone. So you don't think it will work. I do. It will never get implimented, so this is all hypothetical.
I've not the skills to make such a map otherwise I would.
Seriously, I'm wondering if you really do read everything, or just skim over the posts. If you do, than we are on 2 different planets, because you can't see how this would work, and I can't see how you think it won't work. Not exactly a news flash, but I think it's clear, we'll never understand each other.
*shrugs*
Agree to disagree.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bAfter all.... why listen to a furballer about furballs? that would be unprecedented except maybe like NB did.... after the fact. Even then... he had a hard time seeing what the furballers were upwset about... Like you, he felt that he had made a map with "something for everyone" and that the furballers were just lazy and ungratefull.b
lazs
Lazs...
Obviously, I understand what you post better than you understand what I post. I NEVER disagreed with your intial assessment of Trinity. I did try to explain to you that I was not sure I would be able to fix it. What ever gave you the impression that I don't furball? I started as a furballer over 13 years ago and I still furball now. The big difference between us is that I have fun attempting to do some of everything (clue enclosed: guess what, that is the way the game was intended to be). I also never stated or implied that ANYONE was "lazy or ungrateful". I have never allowed myself to become so jaded as to believe that MY way is the only way. I offered to try and do something similar to Tank Town. I did point out that the fields would have to be capturable (HT's restriction). The reponse I got was "if I have to defend it...I don't want it". The attitude seemed a bit childish at the time. However, I did my part...I offered to try.
Muck...
I do know that HT has some ideas along the lines you suggest. AH was never intended to be just another Fighter Duel. I do know that, eventually, HT wants to flesh out the land and sea segments of the game.
-
NB.. no, you did not say anyone was lazy and ungrateful. there were no quote marks.. The lazy and ungrateful were my assesment on how you SEEMED to me to feel when you answered posts originaly. It seemed that you didn't understand what could possibly be wrong with the map and you did say that you thought it had, or that you had tried to put in "something for everyone."
The point is that "something for everyone" means, to me... something for every player. I take this as very precise like saying "I am quitting FOREVER". Most people who quit "forever" Or claim they will "never" reply to my posts again do so in a short time. "something for everyone" has been used just as loosely as the aformentioned "forever" an " Never".
I don't know if you furball or not NB. I don't know or care about your history. I only care what you are doing now IF, it affects me. If the old infinity had something for everyone then I would put it that you don't know or, have forgotten what a furball is.
As for HT and c... I don't pretend to know what they want. I have talked to him and that is all it is... couple of guys bouncing ideas. I don't own controling or major stock and if my idea fails and drives folks away it doesn't cost me a cent. I have no right to expect anything from HTC. I think they have done the most amazing job imaginable... It is unbelievable how much they have done over the years. My guess is that the company thrives because it figures out how to attract the biggest audience. I would imagine that AH2 will be have some of the WWIIOL or everquest elements to it and will attract new players. I would also guess that it will drive away some so there needs to be "AH classic" for the same reasons that CT guys CAN'T understand why everyone isn't over there playing all the time...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
NB.. no, you did not say anyone was lazy and ungrateful. there were no quote marks.. The lazy and ungrateful were my assesment on how you SEEMED to me to feel when you answered posts originaly. It seemed that you didn't understand what could possibly be wrong with the map and you did say that you thought it had, or that you had tried to put in "something for everyone."
Perhaps you should leave the crystal ball gazing to one-eyed gyspy women...they seem to be much better at it than you :). I not only never stated that, I never implied it. I even went so far as to thank people for their critisism, because I felt it would give me a better chance of making a well rounded map the next time.
Originally posted by lazs2
The point is that "something for everyone" means, to me... something for every player. I take this as very precise like saying "I am quitting FOREVER". Most people who quit "forever" Or claim they will "never" reply to my posts again do so in a short time. "something for everyone" has been used just as loosely as the aformentioned "forever" an " Never".
No...the point is that I never said that Trinity had something for everyone. What I did say was that I said that I TRIED to give it something for everyone. Since you chose to use quotes this time, please, do me the courtesy of showing me where I posted this. Is this just poor editing...or did you 'assess' what I wrote?
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't know if you furball or not NB.
I know. You didn't bother to ask either. You just assumed .
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't know or care about your history. I only care what you are doing now IF, it affects me. If the old infinity had something for everyone then I would put it that you don't know or, have forgotten what a furball is.
Gee Lazs...I figured you knew all about me, since you appear to believe that you are qualified to make "assessments" of what I say and do. The point is that (unlike you) I do try to do some of everything (or did until the damned bombsite changed).
Originally posted by lazs2
As for HT and c... I don't pretend to know what they want. I have talked to him and that is all it is... couple of guys bouncing ideas. I don't own controling or major stock and if my idea fails and drives folks away it doesn't cost me a cent. I have no right to expect anything from HTC. I think they have done the most amazing job imaginable... It is unbelievable how much they have done over the years. My guess is that the company thrives because it figures out how to attract the biggest audience. I would imagine that AH2 will be have some of the WWIIOL or everquest elements to it and will attract new players. I would also guess that it will drive away some so there needs to be "AH classic" for the same reasons that CT guys CAN'T understand why everyone isn't over there playing all the time...
Lazs, I'm not pretending to know what they want either. My statement to Muck was based on years of conversations about how this kind of game should work (oops...there I go again with that history stuff :D!). Well, it would be nice if you would cut me at least a small portion of the slack you seem willing to cut HTC (especially since I don't get paid for this :)). But, I didn't create Trinity for a simple ego massage. I did it because it was fun to do.
Bottomline... In the future, feel free to ask rather than assume :).
-
Muck, NB, you both make the mistake in believing that Lazs will comprehend anything that anyone says. Unfortunately Lazs is unable to fathom anything outside his vision of what everyone should do with their $15/month they pay to HTC. Sadly, Lazs has too fragile an ego (and too short an attention span) to ever realize that someone may actually find something that he doesn't enjoy fun. You guys would probably be better off ignoring Lazs' posts as the broken record regurgitations that they are.
NB and Muck for being positive and trying to make AH a better place.
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
Muck, NB, you both make the mistake in believing that Lazs will comprehend anything that anyone says. Unfortunately Lazs is unable to fathom anything outside his vision of what everyone should do with their $15/month they pay to HTC. Sadly, Lazs has too fragile an ego (and too short an attention span) to ever realize that someone may actually find something that he doesn't enjoy fun. You guys would probably be better off ignoring Lazs' posts as the broken record regurgitations that they are.
NB and Muck for being positive and trying to make AH a better place.
I don't know enough to have an opinion of Lazs persona.
But here here on the rest
-
nb.. I quoted you exactly... you said you "tried", I said you said you "tried"... go back and read the original posts.. This was in response to one guy gushing about how the map was perfect for him.... You thanked him and made the aformentioned statement....you did thank people for critisism at one point but mostly... you got defensive. To your credit, you eventually agreed that things weren't quite right... A LOT of people were comlaining about "infinity" at that point tho... You didn't change anything till the volume of complaints got pretty high.
I am glad you changed things for the better. Closer fields are better. That's all I said.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sounds an awful lot like Fighter Ace.
In FA2 field capture was done damaging a certain percentage of a base which would trigger 100 or so AI tanks to roll from your base towards the target. The target would spawn defending AI tanks. You had to cover your tanks to the target and then help take out the defending tanks. The downfalls of this system were AI only tanks and that 1 player could trigger the tank rush and capture a base if no one would defend.
So.. try out the latest FA to c if you like the gameplay.
A similar system but allowing player controlled tanks to participate would be fun imo.
I'm not a fan of the goon capture. Gooning is not much fun and they get slaughtered by the thousands as no one likes to escort them either. 1 fast plane running around killing off goons is the best defense in AH. Not good imo.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
....you did thank people for critisism at one point but mostly... you got defensive. To your credit, you eventually agreed that things weren't quite right... A LOT of people were comlaining about "infinity" at that point tho... You didn't change anything till the volume of complaints got pretty high.
I am glad you changed things for the better. Closer fields are better. That's all I said.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Lazs...
This is obviously another one of those assessment things :). The only time I said or did anything that could be termed defensive was when I was working my tired old butt of redoing Trinity and still reading the same old tired crap from you. Contrary to what you seem to want to believe, the overall response to Trinity was positive. There was a high volume of complaints at one point. The thing is that most of them came from the same 4 or 5 people. I also paid attention to what was said in the arena and the response was much more positive when compared to the Desert. BTW...FYI, I made changes to Trinity because HT gave the OK to do so and not because of a flood of complaints.
On the upside...I am pleased that you no longer believe that Trinity is the antithesis to good game play. As I have said before...thanks for your input (if not for the frequency of it :D).
-
see... we understand each other.. we just have different blinders. We are both saying the same thing just putting a different spin on it. I don't really care how we get an agreement just that some agreement is reached.
infinity is not the worst map.. there are two others that are worse. It is moving up the charts.
lazs