Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on September 08, 2003, 07:12:56 PM
-
Vulching the outnumbered knights over'n over while giving not opposition at all against the lemming horde is not a brilliant tactic.
-
My thoughts exacly./..i jmean you already outnumber us...and we are also getting hit hard by bishops.....why vulch??
Note this is not a whine
-
Because people would rather vulch and game their score than fight against the country with the most people on. It's pretty lame.
Then again, this behavior is a product of the game we have. No strat to worry about, no death penalties to hinder nonsense flying, field AA too easy to kill and simple point and shoot kills achievable by any cannon-armed aircraft when shooting planes on the ground.
Until there is something other than points and kill messages to play for, the outnumbered country will always take a gangbanging. It doesn't seem to matter who gets the perks either, I think people just like to see the map reset so they can start off fresh with more free undefended bases to milk-run.
-
I think vulching wouldn't be half as bad if the game differed between A2A kills and A2G kills. If you couldn't game your A2A score many would loose interest, and the only vulching would be in normal capping and base grabbing operations.
-
I think people overestimate the number of people who vulch for point purposes. I would guess that the vast majority of people vulch to cap a base and for the sheer joy of vulching.
-
No, it is not the score. Of course you will always find the typical well known psychopatic score-vulcher almost licking the runaways over and over, these cant be found anywhere else than vulched fields, and are so focused in their vulch session that offer the easiest targets to any enemy reinforcement comming from a nearby field, but these are a small minority.
IMO, the problem is the furball instead the score, all is initiated with a big furball between two fields, then the furball continues retreating towars the field of the outnumbered team. Meanwhile, the pilots involved into that furbal got totally focused into their base and the target base, and they cant even open the map to find out what is happening at the other front. This is the usual case with fields A1 and A5 at Trinity or field A44 at Mindanao, they act like black holes. Every map has some of these holes.
-
Why haei not seen you at a base where I have taken off from? Yes I do vulching but I also love the fights that start at 18k and spin downward. Each country will have the lemming that will up repeatedly and pad others scores, but I trule love the 5 kill sorties where you earned every one of them. I have to say this flying with the Dammed last night made me feel like there are squads out there that actually watch out for you and can back you up. Was fun and you can't take that back. Screw everyting else it is all about having fun.
-
complain in Channel 1 about dispersing our strength.
Early this afternoon the Rooks had a nice wedge straight down the middle of the board and were smashing the Knits to smithereens and letting the Bish walk all over us.
Now, there were a couple dozen of us upping against the Bish, but I swear to GAWD it was 75% of the Rooks vs 100% of the Knits, and 25% vs the Bish.
There is only so many times you can scream for help on Country for help here or there.
Sometimes I wonder about this game. It is REALLY good for me when I get in with some strategic minded people, who can plan 3 bases ahead of the current attack, and do what is needed. Now, I hold NOTHING against people who just want to furball, they are paying their $15 too, but c'mon!!! There is a time and a place to fly around IMO worthlessly.
How many times have you seen a stream of your team heading towards a base they have been "trying" to take for hours and you know they will never get it.
Hmmm, looking at this, I am getting off topic...
Vulching is one thing. Camping the base while you are losing the other front is another.
-
Isn't B&Z only a slighty evolved form of vultching?
:D
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Vulching the outnumbered knights over'n over while giving not opposition at all against the lemming horde is not a brilliant tactic.
You are probably right. However, seeing that many people who fly rooks, myself included, can hardly be described as brilliant, it seems that this is the perfect thing to do.
Thanks for the notification though. If I somehow become brilliant in the future, I will remember this post and do what I am supposed to do since I am no longer stupid.
-
yup, we always compared it to aerial strafing runs.
I used to deack a field just to vulch, not that I cared about score I just liked to piss off the idiots. That lasted for about a week then I gave it up.
This was back during the car bomb days, I got "kill" credits on 1 guy of about 23 and still had 300 cannon rounds left. I would spray him with 13mm, he would blow himself up and I would break off and get the "kill". While some what entertaining it didnt compare to a good fight even if I lost.
I remember brady in a 205 after a vulch session landing with like 100 perk points. We just kept beating the ack down and killing the idiots. We were pissed when some fluffer decided to "help us" and took out the fhs.
Then there was the other time I deacked one of the large island fields n of mindinao. I had just finished when I look back and a crap load of b17s c47s and p51s spawned. It was some mission tards. I am not sure how many brady killed on the 1st pass but it was awesome. They kept reuping as well. C47s and b17s respawning over and over before they caught on. Now that I think about it, it was lotsa fun at times.
-
Originally posted by Batz
I had just finished when I look back and a crap load of b17s c47s and p51s spawned. It was some mission tards. I am not sure how many brady killed on the 1st pass but it was awesome. They kept reuping as well. C47s and b17s respawning over and over before they caught on. Now that I think about it, it was lotsa fun at times.
Oh, the humanity!!!
:D
-
Yeah ROOKS! What's the big DEAL!
So funny, not sure on other Rooks opinion on this, but I'm sure many will have the same as mine and are finding it very amusing indeed to read posts from Knights complaining about being outnumbered and vulched on all fronts.
I use to enjoy the constantly being outnumbered MA, as we all felt like the underdog so any victory was all the more sweeter. And those were the day's before big maps and cheap perk rides.
No insult intended to any Knights, but your unlikey to find any sympothy from many (long standing) Rooks.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
I'm taking the glass is half full approach. To me the numerical unbalance currently being experienced by the Knights just means more of a target rich enviroment for me to wreak havoc in.
Besides, we know that the Rooks only count for 2/3 of a person anyway.
ack-ack
-
After flying around the country side of the Rooks for sometime now I have come to this thought. I watch as a number of players buzz in and take-out the ack on the field. This affords them the opportunity to vulch the un-witting flyer who takes off from a field that is capped. Now this is a good idea if you are going to take a base, but never have I seen this done. The hordes will come and take out the gound vehicle hanger, but never the fuel tanks or ammo bunkers, nor the troop barracks. While they shoot down endless planes taking to the skies. We lose field after field after field to the other team who is willing to take fortune from us. To me this is no way to win a campaign. But, under the conditions of the MA this will never happen and it's every person out for themselves with a little help from your countrymen every once in a while. I have also noticed that when the opposing country comes in and attacks they hit the fuel tanks which limits our range of flight and that is not a good thing. My point is that we should fly in and attack the ack vulch for a period or two then take the field to move on to another conquest.
Disorder.
-
"straffo has 23 kills and has been killed 5 times against the Rooks."
I'm happy to have switched even if the Rook taste more funny than the bishop (but with a unimitable crusty texture :) )
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Because people would rather vulch and game their score than fight against the country with the most people on. It's pretty lame.
Then again, this behavior is a product of the game we have. No strat to worry about, no death penalties to hinder nonsense flying, field AA too easy to kill and simple point and shoot kills achievable by any cannon-armed aircraft when shooting planes on the ground.
Until there is something other than points and kill messages to play for, the outnumbered country will always take a gangbanging. It doesn't seem to matter who gets the perks either, I think people just like to see the map reset so they can start off fresh with more free undefended bases to milk-run.
Spot on, Midnight. Best post I've read today. We need something to play for other than scores and kill messages. That's why I'm in favour of some form of meaningful strat. Simple field capture is not enough, but it's all we've got right now.
As long as we have no meaningful strat, this game will continue to be dominated by the wanktardz. That's why I'm at a loss to understand why the furballers are so derisive of strat. Would they really prefer the crap we have now?
-
Originally posted by Malleus
complain in Channel 1 about dispersing our strength.
Early this afternoon the Rooks had a nice wedge straight down the middle of the board and were smashing the Knits to smithereens and letting the Bish walk all over us.
Now, there were a couple dozen of us upping against the Bish, but I swear to GAWD it was 75% of the Rooks vs 100% of the Knits, and 25% vs the Bish.
There is only so many times you can scream for help on Country for help here or there.
Sometimes I wonder about this game. It is REALLY good for me when I get in with some strategic minded people, who can plan 3 bases ahead of the current attack, and do what is needed. Now, I hold NOTHING against people who just want to furball, they are paying their $15 too, but c'mon!!! There is a time and a place to fly around IMO worthlessly.
How many times have you seen a stream of your team heading towards a base they have been "trying" to take for hours and you know they will never get it.
Hmmm, looking at this, I am getting off topic...
Vulching is one thing. Camping the base while you are losing the other front is another.
I wonder what would happen if we increased the availiable points and perkies for sorties associated with a mission? Place a time limit on the mission score bonus starting with the first mission A/C to take out an AA position. Instead of a free-for-all mentality, people would have to work together to increase their scores. Oh wait...that sounds like AH2...nevermind....
On the topic of vulching and camping, sometimes too much of a good thing is bad.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
IMO, the problem is the furball instead the score...
i disagree.
Big green bars with little red bars with a clear path to an enmy base is what attracts the most players.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Spot on, Midnight. Best post I've read today. We need something to play for other than scores and kill messages. That's why I'm in favour of some form of meaningful strat.
Spitfire IX factories.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Besides, we know that the Rooks only count for 2/3 of a person anyway.
ack-ack
Thats why we travel and packs ack-ack.....
;) lol
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
just means more of a target rich enviroment for me to wreak havoc in.
We are lucky that your concept of havoc is roughly equivalent to my concept of tickle. :D
-
ell yas something guys from a bish perspective this fight between the nits and the rooks was nothing short of abysmal. I sat there for 15 minutes solid looking for a red bar that hadnt got a zillion bish already there and I couldnt find one. Then some rook idiot complained about being ganged, roflmao, he was the only target in 100 miles your damn right he was ganged!!
Seriously though, what happened in the MA Monday nite (UK time) was not 1 bit funny. It was fine if you were the sort of bish who enjoys winging with a zillion other bish and straffing undefended fields. But to someone who actually likes a fair fight, it was bloody awful. Eventually the nitwits upped a few in the south which gave at least the odd sighting of an enemy contact. AT any given instant there were < 10 rooks fighting bish. Guys I know everyone pays their own 15bucks and its up to them who they fight, but whenj this means that one whole country has no-one to fight it stops being a matter of personal choice. If this became a regular occurance it would definitely be an issue which if left unresolved would result in many players quittin AH.
despised enemies.
-
Obviously, points are meaningless. There is no "meaningful strat". There is no "something else to play for".
There is only the fight.
Some guys know this intrinsically the first time they log on. Others play a while and come to realize it.
Some never get it and never will get it.
They wander the arenas in search of "meaningful strat" for their entire gaming lives.
"The treasure you seek shall not be the treasure you find."
For what you seek does not, will not, ever exist.
But treasure there is; it's here, if you know what to look for.
There is only the fight.
-
As long as we have no meaningful strat, this game will continue to be dominated by the wanktardz. That's why I'm at a loss to understand why the furballers are so derisive of strat. Would they really prefer the crap we have now?
You mean the crap like guys who hover above their enemies, too frightened to engage for fear they may lose their advantage?
Or maybe you mean a form of crap like lemmings from above, swarming undefended fields?
If you admit that you have no meaningful strat, then why spend your time in a meaningless manner? The same answer I come up with is that the serious strat guys have small stones....they exist in one dimension.
Ya see, all the guys who look for the fight that I know, could outstrat your butt with very little effort...we have walked in your shoes, while you refuse to even try ours on.
Furballers derisive of strat? I don't think so....we just discovered what you currently speak of, well over a year ago.
-
Originally posted by Gremlin
AT any given instant there were < 10 rooks fighting bish.
Hey Gremlin, in fact we had a peak of 15 rooks fighting bish, and today things seem to be the same.
-
Rude - I don't understand. Clearly the current set up is not to your liking, what with suicide fuel porkage, suicide CV destruction, hordes, steamrollers... and it's because there are no rules, no holds barred, fly whatever you like whenever you like that we have the idiotic gameplay we have now. So why jump all over me? I'm not the one that's ruining your game. All I would like to see is some different game objectives. Midnight is right. Right now, we just have the scoreboard, and kill messages. So folks will attack en masse, vulch, fly überplanes the whole time, switch to the winning side, and do anything else that maximises their points tally. We need some semblance of motivation - a more structured game, perhaps. Or do you want forever to have your fun ruined by SFP wanktardz?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Isn't B&Z only a slighty evolved form of vultching?
Geez, it won't be long before having a 500' alt advantage will be perceived as vulching. :rolleyes:
-
Gonna stir the pot here since this seems to be a thread filled with a bunch of elementary school girls. "Stop vulching me" "Stop vulching the knights" "Defend against the Bish" "We're out-numbered".
Why doesn't one of you publish your book on "How you are suppose to act and Play in AH", get everyone to sign off on it and then start this thread over again.
Until then, I'm off to vulch some nits and take over some undefended Bish fields!!!:rolleyes:
-
Fix the game by putting a penalty on dieing. You die 2x at a base and you have to come up somewhere else.
Vulchees - I would come up at the next base and come in with some alt.
Vulchors - I would make sure I didn't do something stupid. Like killshooter.
Gangbangers - Hard to do when the cons are 15k.
Buffs- this might make the buff a strategic weapon again instead of "what-ever-it-is" TM. I bet Missions would be more popular too.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Rude - I don't understand. Clearly the current set up is not to your liking, what with suicide fuel porkage, suicide CV destruction, hordes, steamrollers... and it's because there are no rules, no holds barred, fly whatever you like whenever you like that we have the idiotic gameplay we have now. So why jump all over me? I'm not the one that's ruining your game. All I would like to see is some different game objectives. Midnight is right. Right now, we just have the scoreboard, and kill messages. So folks will attack en masse, vulch, fly überplanes the whole time, switch to the winning side, and do anything else that maximises their points tally. We need some semblance of motivation - a more structured game, perhaps. Or do you want forever to have your fun ruined by SFP wanktardz?
Beet1e .. you are absolutly right !!! The current gameplay design that we currently play under is not working.
I would surmise the HiTech had no clue as to what the game would have evolved to under the conditions of 500+ players on at the same time.
I hope it is obvious to him now, that changes need to be made, and he has some good ideas or has considered some of the ideas brought forth on this BBS.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... and it's because there are no rules, no holds barred, fly whatever you like whenever you like that we have the idiotic gameplay we have now.
In point of fact, that is what the MA is supposed to be about. The realistic gameplay is supposed to be in the CT, senerios, etc..
-
That does it! I'm not sending you any more pics of Mel and Friends. Ha! :D
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Besides, we know that the Rooks only count for 2/3 of a person anyway.
ack-ack
-
Ouch! That's a little harsh isn't it?
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We need some semblance of motivation - a more structured game, perhaps. Or do you want forever to have your fun ruined by SFP wanktardz?
That's what you've always been about, controlling what others do.
The difference that continually eludes you..... undoubtedly by deliberate choice..... is that I or Rude or Laz don't care what others do as long as there's room for us to do what we like.
You guys go ahead and play war, play mission, play for points, play for reset, play for any reason and in any way you like. Just leave room for those that don't share your goals and just want to fight.
The gameplay you despise has evolved as endless requests for "more strategy", "more this" and "more that" were fulfilled.
In the beginning, in the Beta, there was the fight. It was great fun, it was constant fun. And then came the requests that took away from the fight.
And it led right here.. to the gameplay you despise.
And, LOL, your solution is MORE of the same, piled higher and deeper.
It'll only get worse if you get your wish.
Enjoy. :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Geez, it won't be long before having a 500' alt advantage will be perceived as vulching. :rolleyes:
What is vultching?
Is it not the essentially "no risk" attack on an essentially harmless opponent/target that has few if any options that can lead to escape/survival for the target or damage/death for his opponent?
What is B&Z?
Is it not the essentially "no risk" attack on an essentially harmless opponent/target that has few if any options that can lead to escape/survival for the target or damage/death for his opponent?
The difference is that the "B&Z" attack takes place at a higher altitude than the vultch AND that the target has a somewhat better chance of escape and a minimally better chance of damaging/killing his opponent. That's if the B&Z is done right and no others interfere.
Big diff, eh?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Rude - I don't understand. Clearly the current set up is not to your liking, what with suicide fuel porkage, suicide CV destruction, hordes, steamrollers... and it's because there are no rules, no holds barred, fly whatever you like whenever you like that we have the idiotic gameplay we have now. So why jump all over me? I'm not the one that's ruining your game. All I would like to see is some different game objectives. Midnight is right. Right now, we just have the scoreboard, and kill messages. So folks will attack en masse, vulch, fly überplanes the whole time, switch to the winning side, and do anything else that maximises their points tally. We need some semblance of motivation - a more structured game, perhaps. Or do you want forever to have your fun ruined by SFP wanktardz?
Now Beetle....don't take it personally:) I'm far from jumping all over anyone.
NB nailed it exactly....TOD will be the playground for you and others in the future...the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested, or will the maps lean towards the classic air to air combat engagements.
Time will tell eh?:)
-
Originally posted by Frost
I think people overestimate the number of people who vulch for point purposes. I would guess that the vast majority of people vulch to cap a base and for the sheer joy of vulching.
Nah most people can't win a 1 on 1 . Vulch is a sure kill for them.
-
<---- On a constant quest for the perfectly sized furball.
-
Messrs. Toad and Rude!
I'm not trying to control yours or anyone else's gameplay. But I lament the fact that the only motivating factors are kill messages and the scoreboard. But Mr. Toad said The difference that continually eludes you..... undoubtedly by deliberate choice..... is that I or Rude or Laz don't care what others do as long as there's room for us to do what we like.
BS. BS I say. You're forever posting on the BBS about how "your way" is correct, the fite is the thing and everything else is tripe. Gawd, you have a short memory, my cold blooded friend. :) You and yours are always asking for the fields to be moved closer together. No-one can be in any doubt of that. I personally think that would be a disaster. That's why I hate the children's maps, and look forward to the pizza map.
Then there are your collective whines for strat targets to be hardened - from guys who purport to have no interest in strat! LOL Then you guys whine about various maps - particlarly the pizza map...
You... don't care what others do? What's all this fuel porkage whining about then? What about these whines to harden targets? Well we already know about those. What the furballers really want is for the buffs to have no effect, and no chance of survival -thanks to the furballer mandated Me163.
You claim you do not care what others do? ROFL!!!!
Rude! I haven't taken anything personally. I was just surprised that you seemed angry with me - but I have done nothing to harm your gameplay - except maybe voice support for the pizza map. ;)
-
Beetle, you'll never surpass your "Why not a separate TAS & BK arena? " post, so don't try.
It may be the funniest thing I ever read here, and that says alot. Been here along time.
Classic, funny stuff. Locking it was pry right, but the initial post is still intact, and so gaddamn funny.
Now go brush your tooth, too much admiration might give you a big head.
-
ROFL Creamo! Made my freaking night. :D
Can you make it to the WC minicon? I have a feeling you would keep me well entertained. :)
-
Toad - you are starting to sound like an ass.
"The fight this and the fight that, it's all about the fight. BnZ guys are just the same as vultchers"
Still to this day, I wonder why the "furballers" don't use the DA more often. There is a 100% endless fight oppurtunity there at the "Furball bowl" where everyone could yank and bank to their heart's content with no one ever able to ruin the fight by killing thier field or strating the fuel.
Why then, does this not get utilized?
Rude - I don't know when it was exactly that you got your "enlightenment" on what AH should be all about, but try not to forget preaching from days of 13th TAS past.
I guess now, the only way to be "cool" in AH is to be a TnB furballer. Apparently, BnZ is no longer acceptable with the in-crowd.
If I say that I often fight "in the weeds" to get my kills, can I be part of your cool gang? Gee, I wish I could dump my whole phylosophy and just be happy to furball all the time.
----
I like a good multi-plane dogfight as much as most other pilots, I just would like to have some other changing objectives to why the fight is happening, a reason why a huge battle is raging on a certain part of the map. When it's the same nonsense every day, my interest starts fading.
-
do some quick searching...no more than 2 months ago the rooks were *****ing about being outnumbered...there just gettin revenge
-
Beetard, Funkypants said no Packer fans. I said I would double the fee, he said I'd have to be a fat bastard and wear silver face paint and have fake shoulder pads with spikes. I have 2 pairs.
I'm alergic to silver paint.
-
The whole capture the map concept has to go. It is too simplistic to satisfy the strat guys and has always annoyed the ACM guys.
Maps with uncapturable fields would be much easier to design. Not everything would have to de-evolve into a circular blob of trinity or pizza in the interest of fair resets. "Winning the war" for folks who ever gave a damn could be tailored to taking specific territory and hitting specific targets.
Imagine having to barrel down a flak lined valley to knock out oil refineries to win the war --that's a familiar scenario just off the top of my head -- there is a lot of room for good challenging targets requiring combined arms coordination etc with the planeset we have now.
The idea being that you could easily tie winning the war to the mission planner where taking out "war related" targets requires surviving the mission etc...this allows a country to "strat" successfully with smaller, skillful strike teams, as opposed to the steamroller, it also reinforces squad roles in the community which is always good. Not to mention that set territories provides the psychological rush of going feet dry in Rookland etc. Could also tie radar to only the important strat targets so the radar messages mean something again instead of just being annoying.
Meanwhile you could easily design into the same map areas that are condusive to good furballing, and that fight will always be there because those fields don't change hands.
-
MANDOBLE, this is not the way to go. This short of **** never goes anywhere in the forums. Or anywhere else for that matter...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'm not trying to control yours or anyone else's gameplay.
[/b]
Baloney. You're all about making people play your way. You get ticked when they won't.
Item 1. I've never said "my way" is correct. I've said it's what I enjoy and you should do what you enjoy. The fight is the thing; that's my opinion, just like you voice your opinion. Nowhere do I say that you shouldn't be able to bomb toolsheds until you weep with joy.
Item 2. Fields closer together promotes better low alt fights. There's NO DOUBT that Trinity was improved when NB added CV's and made GV fields in to AF. No one has really complained about Trinity since and many have thanked NB for the improvement.
That being said, moving the fields closer doesn't really affect "strat". Steamrollers and sucicide raids are not impeded. So, asking for closer fields isn't a limitation on strat, it's merely an improvement for fights. Refer again to the Trinity improvement.
Item 3. The ONLY strat target I give the tiniest hoot about is Fuel. That for one reason only; 25% fuel limits the utility of a large part of the planeset PARTICULARLY on the large maps with far apart fields.
Move the fields in to 3/4 sector and I won't care about fuel either. Change the fuel multiplier so that I can fly 1.25 sectors to a fight in a 25% C205, engage for 10-16 minutes and have enough fuel to fly home if I survive and won't care about fuel.
But the way it is severly limits the utility of the planeset. You cry about too many Mustangs, but it's one of the few viable planes with 25% fuel on a large map like Pizza. So, cry about Mustangs and pork fuel down to 25%. Then you can cry about even more Mustangs. You want more diversity? Make the whole planeset usable. Duh.
In short, bomb all you like. Kill the radar, kill the barracks, kill the flack, kill trains, kill hangars, kill ammo dumps.. strat yourself out. I could not possibly care less.
Just leave me enough fuel to fly to the fight in an early or mid war plane, get some useful engagement time and then fly home. That's all I'm asking, but that's way too much for you to give.
-
Well, Midnight. Enlighten me. Tell me how pouncing a... say.... N1K1 which is at 10k and slow while in your 15k fast Mustang is different from vultching him on the runway except that he has a bit better chance to escape and a bit better chance to do some damage to you if you screw it up?
To me, both of them are variations on attacking a target that is at a major disadvantage and extremely low risk for the attacker.
BTW, I'm probably spending more time in the DA than the MA in the past month or two. At least the folks go there to fight. The Slot and FinRus CT weeks were decent too.
However, as I pointed out to Beet1e, I respect your right to play the way you like. It just doesn't interest me and it never did; never will.
Took the rest of us a while to get Rude to come around though. :D
-
Originally posted by Rude
the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested, or will the maps lean towards the classic air to air combat engagements.
How many players can fight at the same time at DA? 200 right? Then that air to air classic arena already exists. Just ask for rotation DA maps, place some CVs there and make all bases inmute to enemy fire. MA is strat oriented, DA is dogfight oriented, you already have what you want.
-
We have asked for all that... you see it in there yet?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Midnight. Enlighten me. Tell me how pouncing a... say.... N1K1 which is at 10k and slow while in your 15k fast Mustang is different from vultching him on the runway except that he has a bit better chance to escape and a bit better chance to do some damage to you if you screw it up?
How it is different is that he has had plenty of oppurtunity to not be at 10K and slow.
You know what really gets me about you guys is that you think you are somehow better than the "strat" guys because you turn fight "in the weeds". Everything for you is all excitement and anyone who BnZs is "boring" or as Rude would say, "has small stones" - Get real, are you guys so deluded with your furballs that you actually think you have more or bigger "stones" than all the other players safely tucked behind their computer monitor? Give me a break :rolleyes:
What is being asked for is a game atmosphere that requires a little more thought than just takeoff, fly 5 minutes, furball, rtb.
Lastly, if you don't care what the "strat" guys are doing and don't want to tell them or anyone else how to play, why do you keep making posts about how cool you way of fighting is and that everyone that doesn't do it your way are boring sky accountants and strat dweebs that like to bomb tool sheds?
And once again - what of that question about the DA? Why are the big fights not raging in there all the time?
-
Originally posted by Rude
...the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested, or will the maps lean towards the classic air to air combat engagements.
Time will tell eh?:)
Rude...
My guess would be that the MA will be basically unchanged. After all, the point of the MA is that it is a place where anyone can do it all. In point of fact, the furballers already have a playground. I realize that it isn't to your liking. But, perhaps you (or someone else) can come up with a viable idea to make the DA a haven for the strat challenged players in the game :D. You know as well as I do that HT is receptive to new ideas (provided he can't shoot them down 5 seconds after you utter them :)).
-
Seems like the "vultchees" have plenty of opportunity to up at an uncapped base too. Right?
But you're not really addressing the question. You've taken the point of view of the target. My question is how is it much different from the point of view of the attacker?
As I said, both situations put the attacker in the position of dictating the fight, having an enemy at a major disadvantage and providing little (if not almost NO) risk to the attacker.
Those are the similarities I see from the attacker's point of view.
I ask again, what do you see that's so different from the attacker's point of view.
BTW, I don't think I'm "better" than a strat guy. I just choose a very different way to have my fun. I think my way is, in fact, MUCH more fun. Must be why I choose it, eh?
I do find B&Z as exciting as watching paint dry, from either side of the attack. Always did.
But if flying basically no risk profiles is what gets you your jollies, have at it. For the most part, B&Z types don't affect the game from my POV. They don't get low enough to engage me and they don't disable what I consider to be the best part of the plane set.
So go for it. I think your best hope of "a game atmosphere that requires a little more thought than just takeoff, fly 5 minutes, furball, rtb." is that TOD thingie.
I think NB is right about the MA... it'll probably stay the same. If so, I will try to convince HT to make something else available for those that just pay to fight in airplanes. I doubt I'll be successful, but I'll try.
As for posting, I generally reply in kind.. like this.
As for the DA, note the absence of a Map. If there was a decent "airplane fight" map in there, like say the CT Slot or FinRus map, if there was a way to disable the unnecessary "griefer" stuff like GV's and if it was allowed to set the fuel multiplier so that 25% was enough for a decent amount of travel/fighting time, then I'd rarely if ever darken the MA door again.
And that's pretty much what I'll be asking HT for, if and when. :D Or maybe just use of the SEA when no planned stuff is going on.. like most weeknights.
Just my .02.
-
I would just like to point out that constantly demeaning playing styles other than yours and demeaning those that use them is also an attempt to control the behaviour (<--spelling is for Beetle :D).
Before anyone goes off on me...I will point out (again) that I do not support either side of this arguement. I support them both :). Personally, I believe there is room in the MA for all playing styles. Unfortunately, the open ended concept of the game means that there are times that you won't be able to do what you want to do. Fortunately, HT has made a multi-faceted game that will usually offer many choices of things to do. It isn't the game's fault if someone is a one dimensional player (not pointing fingers at either side). I fully expect the MA will remain that way and IMO...it is for the best :).
-
Except, of course, that only a tiny minority of the players read this BBS and an even smaller minority post here.
So, basically, we all just argue for the fun of it. I doubt anyone thinks anything is really going to change much due to BBS posts on play styles.
-
Mr. Toad. The furball lobby seems to have a constipation problem, what with names like Nopoop - and you yourself are full of crap today. Maybe you need a Lazative... or maybe, like a cat, you simply have a furball stuck in your digestive tract - LOL :D
Either you don't have a clue about what I want out of this game, or you're being deliberately obtuse, or both. Which is it? You're all about making people play your way. You get ticked when they won't.
That statement is such crap that I've had to use brown text for the quote. I'm not trying to force anyone to "play my way". I sometimes get exasperated at the lack of teamplay in AH as do many others, but that is not the same thing as trying to force a certain gameplay style, as well you know. I leave that to the furballers, and count my blessings that their suggestions are recognised by HTC as attempts to achieve furballcentric gameplay - refer to my purple text tag line.
You seem to be denying that you want changes to sway gameplay balance in favour of furballing. OK, maybe you do not personally make such requests, but you - the furball collective - certainly do. Hardly a day goes by without Lazs calling for the fields to be moved closer together, and Nopoop is not alone in calling for object "hardness" to be adjusted. And you throw your weight behind those guys with gusto. Indeed, some folks think that you and Lazs are one and the same, or at least joined at the hip - lol. Fields closer together promotes better low alt fights.
Oh, well I guess that's just fine and dandy if you're looking to wack off in the weeds. What about the rest of us? What about the buff guys? Oh, "take off from one field further back" you say. I'll come back to that in a moment. What about someone like me who would like a high alt slugfest in a P47 at 15-20K? I guess I'd just have to live with being cherrypicked in Mr. Toad's utopian arena. You cry about too many Mustangs, but it's one of the few viable planes with 25% fuel on a large map like Pizza. So, cry about Mustangs and pork fuel down to 25%. Then you can cry about even more Mustangs. You want more diversity? Make the whole planeset usable. Duh.
More BS. Last night there was more than one occasion when the field from which I wanted to take off had been porked to 25% fuel. So I took off from a different field (125%) with a drop tank. Simple, huh? Why don't you do the same? You're only to happy to advise the buff pilots to do that, at the same time pretending that the distance to be flown would be the same, and the tone and level of sympathy in which you mete out that advice is akin to Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" solution to the food shortage amongst 18th century French peasants. ie. you don't give a stuff about anyone outside your own furballcentric assembly.
I don't have a problem with Mustangs; my k/d against them was 4/1 in the last tour and 5/1 in the tour before that. But I can hardly go after them in a Mk-1 Spit, but I might have a chance in a 109G10 - thus drawing much criticism from guys like Rude, Nopoop and Lazs, whose views you so warmly espouse. Do not take the issue of ubiquitous Mustangs at face value. The real problem is having all planes available from every field all the time - 1945 24/7. It's an issue of balance. The early war planes don't stand a chance of catching a running stang or LA7, as well you know. The result of a no rules arena is plain to see - every other plane is a P51/LA7/Spit ix. The arena has become like the American Wild West. How long will it take for you to realise that the anarchy of that scenario is what's spoiling your gameplay? In short, bomb all you like. Kill the radar, kill the barracks, kill the flack, kill trains, kill hangars, kill ammo dumps.. strat yourself out. I could not possibly care less.
Hmm, well that last sentence is kind of superfluous in your posts. Again, you don't understand... if we're trying to capture a base I'll get the VH, and then work on the town. Or VH and the two acks if it's a V-base - we still have a few left, much to your chagrin and that of the other furballcentrics. I'll leave that point there, because I know it does not interest you. Just leave me enough fuel to fly to the fight in an early or mid war plane, get some useful engagement time and then fly home. That's all I'm asking, but that's way too much for you to give.
What the hell are you talking about? I tend not to fuel-pork. That's because the field's not going to be much use to us after we've captured it if the fuel's porked. But again, there are plenty of other fields from which to take off.
Mr. Toad, I'm sorry to use harsh words against you, but Midnight is right. You're starting to sound like an bellybutton on this BBS, at least where this overall topic is concerned. Even fite guys like Furious are beginning to get on your case. Furious made an excellent point. Furious. You should change your tag to "fly how you like, like how you fly, never mind how the other guy flies".
"That's all I'm asking, but that's way too much for you to give."
-
I like Bishops better. They are more yummy and they are more :D
-
beetle... you certainly don't have a constipation problem.... your only problem is you are spewing from the wrong end. You must go through a lot of mouthwash.
furballers do not wish to change the game to force people to play with them... that is a strat guy and timid score guy thing... furballers only want opportunity... a place to furball. this is percieved as a theat by your ilk because you believe that with something like closer fields.... everyone will simply have fun furballing and no one will be forced to play with you.
yes... it really is that simple.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Beet, there simply is no poster more full of it than you are.
What YOU want out of this game? LOL. You've made THAT pretty clear. More rules, more structure, less options for people with a different style.
Fields closer together wouldn't change the game at all from your standpoint. You already admit you take off from a field further back with a drop; it's already your playstyle. So why do you care if the fields come in from 1.25 sectors to .75 sectors. (BTW call HT and see what he's suggesting to MA mapmakers for field distance now. :D)
The only "strat" issue I have is fuel. It's simply moronic to be able to marginalize a large part of the planeset. Adjust the multiplier, add 50 tanks, make it tougher.. whatever. But at least make it so that 25% gives a decent sortie time.
Flew the CT with the fuel at 1.0 and, voila, fuel porking was no longer an issue. Good solution. Of course, it was the Slot map with intelligent field spacing.
Tell me.. what other things do Laz or NP want hardened? I'm under the impression they don't give a hoot about "strat" either.
You "poor buff guys" argument has been debunked in another thread. With closer fields their flying time would be the same overall because the distance to target would be about the same. It doesn't matter what row of fields you takeoff from if flying two sectors is still two sectors. It's density, not distance. I'm suprised that's escaped you..... continually.
LOL, plugging your manly stats again! Be careful, Laz might actually steal Tomato from you. Anyone that needs to measure that often......
Doesn't change that fact that you continually cry about the "big three" and then promote gameplay that encourages P-51 use.
Flew the MA for the first time in a long time last night. Flew early war, had a reasonable amount of fine. Fights were fine but transit time to the fights was pretty long in a P-40B. Slower plane you know, big map, fields far apart. I don't need other folks restricted with your darling RPS for me to have fun. Guess you do.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In the beginning, in the Beta, there was the fight. It was great fun, it was constant fun. And then came the requests that took away from the fight.
I think your making a huge assumption. You seem to be under the impression that Hitech had no vision of where he wanted AcesHigh to go... So he turned to this message board and turned to those that wanted strat targets.
I think your selling Dale short... He has been working toward a very complete game since day one.
I will agree some gameplay changes might be in order, but I think your fooling yourself to think its guys with bombs that have caused all these problems.
-
Originally posted by Rude
TOD will be the playground for you and others in the future...the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested
I would guess the MA would stay the same as always. Hitech has never said that TOD was to attract people from the MA.
Its not supposed to be a Strat Guy arena. Its something all together new.
It was geared to interest a new type of player....
I dont see TOD changing anything in MA.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes... it really is that simple.
...as it has to be for you to be able to understand it - Muhahahaha! :D ;)
Ah, Mr. Toad. :D I think field spacing has been done to death, but there are two reasons that I have reservations about inadequate field spacing. The slow climbing B&Z not-very-manoeuvrable planes like the P47 that thrive at high alt but suck in the weeds are easy targets for LA7 cherrypickers that currently race in from 5 minutes away on the children's maps. Your proposals might reduce that 5 minutes even further. The second reason is the lamers that can't defend their base from the point of attack, by which I mean that instead of taking off from the field under attack, they'll up cherrypickers from next door and come in at 20K rather than fight at 10K. I have a film of that very scenario that I shot last night. The only "strat" issue I have is fuel. It's simply moronic to be able to marginalize a large part of the planeset. Adjust the multiplier, add 50 tanks, make it tougher.. whatever. But at least make it so that 25% gives a decent sortie time.
What you want is for fuel porkage to have no effect. I don't want a game in which bombs are dumbed down any more than you would be prepared for every third round in your .50 cals to be a blank.
I'm glad you like the CT. I do too - much more gentlemanly in there. But in Europe, the low numbers problem is often there. Tell me.. what other things do Laz or NP want hardened? I'm under the impression they don't give a hoot about "strat" either.
Lazs wants bombs to be perked, so bombing would be harder - (ie. more difficult) because you'd have to earn the perks. Bombing/buffing is a dangerous business, and many perks would be lost. As for Nopoop, he wants fighter hangars to be hardened. He doesn't like it when jabos come in and level the FH because then he can't fly his Spit V. This is perceived as a "reduction in the available choices". Well of course it is, and that's the whole bleedin' point. When one of you guys shoots off someone's horizontal stab, that guys choices are reduced. What's the difference? Nopoop also wanted HQ to be "hardened". FFS! It's already a long journey for the buffs to make, and you could always up fighters to defend against it. There's plenty of bardar warning, as the enemy buffs progress sector by sector. But no, that is not good enough. You had to have the Me163. But even that is not enough. The HQ needs to be harder. :rolleyes: Oh, I forgot - defending the HQ is "not fun". That explains everything. Never mind... Doesn't change that fact that you continually cry about the "big three" and then promote gameplay that encourages P-51 use.
Bollocks, Mr. Toad. If you are alluding to the fact that a P51 goes further than other planes on 25% fuel, I don't buy it - by which I mean I don't think that's the reason we see so many P51s. I don't worry too much about fuel porkage because if the enemy captures that porked base, with 25% fuel they won't be able to put it to much use, and it may be recaptured quite easily. Take off from somewhere else. So no-one's forcing anyone else to fly the P51. You will never see me in a P51 - or an LA7, or a Spit ix, or a N1K, or a Yak9U for that matter. No. The P51 is overused because it's easy. But the thing about easy planes is that they're often flown by idiots, so they're easy targets - hence those stats. :D
Speaking of Tomato, she's just sent me a text message to say that she's on her way. So I'll have to go now.
Toodle-Pip.
:cool:
-
Jeez, Beet, do you read what you write?
First you tell us that close fields are bad for slow climbing B&Z not-very-manoeuvrable planes right after you tell us just to take off from one field back. Duh?
Then you're afraid of cherry pickers that will up from fields right next door but, obviously, if they're right next door they won't get very high. Are you just afraid of anyone above you or what?
If fuel porkage makes a large portion of the planeset unviable, yeah, I think it should be changed.
Maybe you can dream up some other type of strat target that affects your basetaking, steamroller, suicide auger march to glory "strategy". Then you can bomb that and inhibit what needs inhibiting... the steamroller suicide march. See, do a bit of thinking.. it's NOT the early war planes that are causing you your present unhappiness with the lack of "meaningful strat". In almost every case, the early war planes are pretty useless in the present strat environment. Yet the fuel reduction affects them to the highest degree.
As for the 51, now most of TAS only flies them when the fuel is short. That's the sole consideration there.
Now, do tell me what this "meaningful strat" is. Please give examples. Do you actually have any useful ideas to gain your goal?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that is a strat guy and timid score guy thing... furballers only want opportunity... a place to furball.
Every map has always one or more furball places for those valiant enough to get there crying "I'm an hero, I'm an hero" while spraying just to be dead 2 mins later.
-
mandoble... those parts that aren't gibirish...... are wrong.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Because people would rather vulch and game their score than fight against the country with the most people on. It's pretty lame.
LOL - glad to see that you'd never participate in this lamosity.
-
So, I guess Im missing something.....
If there was no Strat... No Capture... etc...
Then it would all be about Air Combat, and this would benifit the early war planes? I am not understanding.
Dont you think most players would just take the late war hot rods and fight? You would see more Energy Fighting and more BnZ fighting over the top of the poor souls in the Early war planes.
Then the complaint would, "I cant TnB in my early war ride, because of all the the Late War planes. Hitech please give us some AAA or something to even things out and let me fly the way I want too"
-
Originally posted by Toad
....As for the DA, note the absence of a Map. If there was a decent "airplane fight" map in there, like say the CT Slot or FinRus map, if there was a way to disable the unnecessary "griefer" stuff like GV's and if it was allowed to set the fuel multiplier so that 25% was enough for a decent amount of travel/fighting time, then I'd rarely if ever darken the MA door again...
Map? WTF kind of excuse is that crap? Really, that is a lame excuse, Toad. If all that matters is the air-to-air, plane-vs-plane fight, why does the map make a difference? The DA has three airfields clase together that make for a quick flight to a middle area that could become a huge furball and stay that way forever and ever. No killing of hangers or fuel or anything else that would effect the fight. You don't sound like you're concerned with the scenery, so what kind of terrain do you want this furball to be in? Fin=Rus isn't so much different than any other terrain, nor is slot... hell evey terrain is basically the same when your fighting in a small area anyhow.
Other than that, I'm done with this never ending debate for the time being.
-
Well, I guess when you usually fight at 20K, you don't realize that a good terrain can add a lot to a fight. Canyons, ridges, bases closer together, numerous bases... stuff like that.
Leaving?
Guess you just weren't able to find many differences in B&Z and vultching from the attackers point of view?
-
So, if you hammer with your 109E over a rocket climbing La7, you are vulching the La7. But if you kill a lo and slo 109E with a sea level screaming La7, then that is ok. Even more, If you come with all the lemming horde behind to do some furballing with 3 alone enemies, then that is ok also, much more ok when the lemming horde comes from a nearby CV poofing every defender with these wonder "defensive" guns.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Still to this day, I wonder why the "furballers" don't use the DA more often. There is a 100% endless fight oppurtunity there at the "Furball bowl" where everyone could yank and bank to their heart's content with no one ever able to ruin the fight by killing thier field or strating the fuel.
Why then, does this not get utilized?
I like a good multi-plane dogfight as much as most other pilots, I just would like to have some other changing objectives to why the fight is happening, a reason why a huge battle is raging on a certain part of the map. When it's the same nonsense every day, my interest starts fading.
The word furball is often misused. A furball is a large group of fighters seeking only to kill other fighters. There does not have to be a reason for it other than the fight itself. This can certainly take place in the training or dueling arena. But being seperated from the MA has always limited the number of players there. Perhaps one reason this is so is that players can soon grow weary of this mindless slaughter,
But there is another type of game play the focuses on fighter combat, such as you refer to at the end of your message. This type of game play can and often involves a furball, but with an objective. And strat also plays a role. This objective can be the same as the arena capture objective, just on a smaller scale. A fight can go on all night over the destruction or capture of just one or a few bases. This is the main type of game play that fighter jocks talk about, and this cannot be relegated to a seperate arena.
All complaints about game play (vulching, B&Z, T&B, bombing, strat, land grab, milk running, gang banging, base porking, suicide jabo, etc.) have been constantly argued about for going on twenty years now, with no resolution in sight. And each are valid if the customer enjoys it.
What I would like to focus on is not which game style is better, but how each might be played with the least disruption on the others. The situation at hand places one type of game play above all others, at the expense of the others. Certainly, we will never end the whining and taunting (nor should we because it's fun), but we should be able to make some improvements in balance.
I have one more comment, mostly in response to NoBaddy. Yes, the Main Arena is there for open game play and chaos is expected. There are other venues for realistic play. But the MA arena is also there for practice and honing of skills. This means we should promote fighting, ACM, strat and team work. Unfortunately, the present situation promotes conflict avoidal and massive land grab by the most effective means available (which isn't fighting). It deprives players of their learning opportunities and does nothing to stimulate their taste for the more realistic opportunities.
-
Intermittently, I think we're on the same page. ;)
Originally posted by Grizzly
What I would like to focus on is not which game style is better, but how each might be played with the least disruption on the others.
However, it's pretty clear that the very intent of what passes for strategy here focuses directly on disrupting the play of others. I'm not being judgemental here; I'm just saying "that's the point of strat". For example a buff raid to the enemy HQ has the intention of disrupting enemy play by denying them radar.
Now, losing some or all of the "strategic" objects may or may not bother individual players. For example, losing troop capability would go totally unnoticed in my case.
But it's clear that it's tough for all "types" to be accomodated without disruption.
Originally posted by Grizzly
Unfortunately, the present situation promotes conflict avoidal and massive land grab by the most effective means available (which isn't fighting).
Totally agree. That's why I asked Beet1e for examples of "meaningful strat". Haven't heard any examples/suggestions so far from his side of the board.
-
Toad,
Ill pipe in with 2 Good forms of Strat attacks that dont effect guys that just wish for some good air Combat. I say Air Combat, because not all Air Combat is a Furball. Some of it actually pits 1 or 2 pilots against simular numbers, some where above the 2K.
First you mentioned, Troops/Barracks. This effects fighters very little, and really counter acts Base Capture. It slows the steam roller and leaves guys the capturing guys Capping the field for a long time while a long range goon arrives.
Second would be Ordinance, This also does not effect the fighters out looking for some action. It does also effect the rate at which those cruical Fuel Toolsheds fall. Take out ordinance near the front lines, and you might hold off the porkers a bit longer.
I will add this as well, destroy the main Strat Target for those types, Grunt Training and Ordinance Factory and you slow any rebuilding of those strats as well. Add the City into the mix and you can keep them all down longer.
I stand with those that say that Fuel Strat is a mess.
-
Originally posted by Toad
However, it's pretty clear that the very intent of what passes for strategy here focuses directly on disrupting the play of others. I'm not being judgemental here; I'm just saying "that's the point of strat". For example a buff raid to the enemy HQ has the intention of disrupting enemy play by denying them radar.
I don't know, I can't remember having radar for such a long time I'm not sure what it is =o/
Something that slows down an enemy isn't so bad, if he has a base to operate from that isn't capped by 50 red planes. But it does get a bit perplexing when your country's strat bases are located deeply within enemy territory.
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
I have one more comment, mostly in response to NoBaddy. Yes, the Main Arena is there for open game play and chaos is expected. There are other venues for realistic play. But the MA arena is also there for practice and honing of skills. This means we should promote fighting, ACM, strat and team work. Unfortunately, the present situation promotes conflict avoidal and massive land grab by the most effective means available (which isn't fighting). It deprives players of their learning opportunities and does nothing to stimulate their taste for the more realistic opportunities.
Grizz...
I can't (and don't) disagree. However, this is what the Great Unwashed want. Not sayin' I like it. Not sayin' I agree with it (in point of fact...I liked it better before it became so affordable :)). Just sayin' it is what the majority of the customers want.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Jeez, Beet, do you read what you write?
Yes, but it seems that you don't - read what I write. Otherwise you wouldn't keep raising the same old BS points, post after post after post. First you tell us that close fields are bad for slow climbing B&Z not-very-manoeuvrable planes right after you tell us just to take off from one field back. Duh?
And you (the furball collective) chastise me for flying my 109G10 "monsterplane" when you (the furball collective and you personally) jump into P51Ds to overcome the fuel shortage, thus ignoring your own advice to take of from one field further back! I don't have a problem with you doing that, but Lazs and NP have in the past had issue with my 109G10. But like you, NP flies the P51D and Lazs flies the Yak9U. Uberity - when it suits.Then you're afraid of cherry pickers that will up from fields right next door but, obviously, if they're right next door they won't get very high. Are you just afraid of anyone above you or what?
They may not be very high, but they'll probably be higher than me. P47 v. LA7 at 8K? Forget that. Besides, the point I was also trying to make is that it's not just at take off that the problem arises. You can fly to the target field and fight at 10K, but such is the nature of the MA/children's maps that the opposition will send in reinforcements from next door and they will arrive at 20K for some aerial vulching/cherrypicking. Sorry you missed that point. You see on the pizza map, with adequate spacing of fields, that's less of an option for the cherrypick dweebs, what with attention span deficit syndrome. After 6 minutes of flying, they've forgotten why they took off... If fuel porkage makes a large portion of the planeset unviable, yeah, I think it should be changed.
I sure go through a lot of brown ink when I answer your posts. :rolleyes: Admittedly, there is not much defence against a suicide fuel porker. But it's the suiciding element of that strategy that should be addressed, not the fuel porkage. Lamenting the fact that fuel porkage makes a large portion of the planeset unviable is like lamenting the fact that 20mm cannon will make elevators/stabs/wings unviable on a large proportion of the planeset. Well of course it will! That's the whole freaking idea. :rolleyes: Maybe you can dream up some other type of strat target that affects your basetaking, steamroller, suicide auger march to glory "strategy". Then you can bomb that and inhibit what needs inhibiting... the steamroller suicide march.
Now I know you don't read what I write. Or at least it doesn't sink in. Still, at your age, the knowledge sponge is getting full. :D Now Mr. Toad, you KNOW that steamrollering and suicide augering is not my game at all. But you have difficulty understanding that "strat" does not rely on such dweebish gameplay elements. The only targets I bomb are the VH, and maybe the town if I have spare bombs - VH already down. Try to recompartmentalise your mind. Then put strat in one compartment, and suicide pork-n-auger in a different compartment. Neither is syonymous with the other, a concept that seems to defeat you.Now, do tell me what this "meaningful strat" is. Please give examples. Do you actually have any useful ideas to gain your goal?
Right now, we have field capture which, as a gameplay goal, generates a lot of combat. Planes fly in to try to kill the town and land troops - opposition ups planes to defend against it. Quite a simple concept really. It's not much, and I had really hoped that the mission arena concept would have been introduced last December with 1.11. We'll have to wait and see what that offers. Unfortunately, we have bardar. Now bardar may have been useful in the embryonic stages of this game as a means of helping players to find fights, but with a subscribership that has mushroomed in the past one or two years, it hardly seems necessary to have bardar. Thus sneak attacks rarely succeed. The whole bardar/flashing-map/"base under attack" warning system appears to have been designed to create a "blood-n-guts" style of gameplay. That, combined with the missun editor and the children's maps has made gameplay intolerable, especially with more than about 150 people online. I don't care for that, and usually log off.
You like your furball futility - fights for their own sake. If that floats your boat, I'm happy for you. For me, it would be like a chessboard without Kings. I like being able to capture fields.
You have your gameplay style, and I have mine. The two are not mutually exclusive. So why are we arguing?
-
grimm... moving fields closer together increases choice and gives slower planes a better chance. it doesn't affect the strat girls or score girls at all.
strat targets... strat targets are ok... not for me but some people like to feel others need em and like em... but... if you are gonna have strat targets then make em fair... the amount of skill required (not patience) should be somewhat equal to the effect you have... in other words... you shouldn't be able to affect dozens of players in one shot by flying with a mouse.
with far fields for instance... one is forced to either base defence (wait around or be vultched).. or to be caught a sector or so behind enemyt lines in a plane that cannot escape the 5 B&Z heroes that will latch onto you in single minded frenzy... u will take a pee 51 next time or just log off....
if a "strat" element is to cut fuel by % then it is obviously simply a strat element that forces pee 51 usage.. 25% fuel for a 51 is more fuel than most early war squadrons could carry... so... you are not killing fuel so much as killing early war usage....
what strat in the current game penalizes late war planes and B&Z girls in their g10s playing the timid game? The strat is broken... uneven.
simply moving the fields closer together alieviates a lot of the unbalance. more choice and usefulness for the early war planes without hurting anyone else.
lazs
-
I like being able to capture fields.
Field capture is probably the single most arcadish aspect of AH today. Airpower doesn't take territory. The gameplay idea was just mocked up a decade ago as a quick fix for "strat" -- the fact that it lasted this long before really showing its age is amazing.
-
Other than fuel porking and moving the fields closer I hope the game stays basically the same.
Some of the thrill of flying low is trying to kill B&Zers.
I also agree with Toad that the DA has no appeal beacause it is just flat ground , boring.
And I've never heard Toad try and force any plane or style of fighting on any player.
Beetle your still peeing into the wind :)
-
You're all whiners.
If I can't whine about kill stealing, you lot can't whine about this, capiche?
palef
-
Originally posted by Hornet
Field capture is probably the single most arcadish aspect of AH today. Airpower doesn't take territory. The gameplay idea was just mocked up a decade ago as a quick fix for "strat" -- the fact that it lasted this long before really showing its age is amazing.
That's exactly why I so eagerly await AH2/TOD, and why I was hugely disappointed when the mission arena concept was not introduced with 1.11.
-
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
In point of fact, that is what the MA is supposed to be about. The realistic gameplay is supposed to be in the CT, senerios, etc..
Exactly the way I see it, it always has been (AW, WB, and AH).
I've just returned to the game after being gone about 4yrs.
Started in AW back '93, moved to WB's then here to AH went it first started. Over 10yrs the same arguements still going on about the Main Arena :)
HO's, vulching, gangbanging, hordes...etc. hehe feels like I never left.
Scenarios are where it's at. Everything else is practice for the next one. The Friday night Squad ops sound interesting too.
(btw good to see you still around NB, think we met at one of the AW cons back around '94 or '95)
doh! got me on the ole resurrected thread trick :)
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Because people would rather vulch and game their score than fight against the country with the most people on. It's pretty lame.
Then again, this behavior is a product of the game we have. No strat to worry about, no death penalties to hinder nonsense flying, field AA too easy to kill and simple point and shoot kills achievable by any cannon-armed aircraft when shooting planes on the ground.
Until there is something other than points and kill messages to play for, the outnumbered country will always take a gangbanging. It doesn't seem to matter who gets the perks either, I think people just like to see the map reset so they can start off fresh with more free undefended bases to milk-run.
MY VERY POINT! As a matter of rule, if you get killed you should have to wait to re-up (say 6 minutes)...if you bail/ditch, you wait 3 minutes...a runway landing means you can re-up ASAP.
-
I've been complaining about this a lot, Mand, and while some people agree with me, most laugh (?).
Things would be a whole lot better if we were coordinated, and people actually did missions. And things would be a whole lot better if we stopped vulching Knight airfields when we need to take some Bish fields.