Tool Shedding-Get rid of it.

[BnZs]

You dismiss my comment because you know I'm correct.  I've seen your type over the two decades of playing online flight sims, your kind cries to nerf aspects of the game they suck at.  You can't shoot down bombers so you want to nerf them.  Bombers aren't the problem, it's you.  

ack-ack

Suck? Why Ack, the only time we ever got it on in the dueling arena I shot you down in your own favorite plane and you made some excuse about being on drugs. I'm no Bruv or Grizz, but my better-than-average competence as a fighter pilot is well established. So I   at your latest attempt to argue via ad hominem because you don't have a response involving reason.

Again:

How would you suggest I "defend my base" effectively when I just upped two minutes ago and am heavily engaged with fighters? Do you expect me to just up a cannon bird and spend my limited playtime hanging out at 20K, on the chance that buffs are coming in, instead of engaging in the dogfight, where the fun is? That is the very definition of a boring chore, which is why no one does it.

[Rich46yo]

Put me down with the ones who think "if you pay your $15 a month play however the Hell you want".

Sure there are styles that bother me, most of all those who think only "their" style is the right style". But I'd never have the gall to say their legal method of playing is wrong. Even flying to TTs and killing perk tanks. I let tankers have their game at TTs, "not at airfields", but if somebody wants to up a Lanc and go bomb them they are doing nothing illegal. And its easily solved by someone upping a long duration fighter and making life hell for the bomber. Same goes for CVs. Im always amazed how nobody bothers to defend a CV yet they will snivel when one is dumped by a Bomber set.

[BnZs]

Put me down with the ones who think "if you pay your $15 a month play however the Hell you want".

Yes, yes, that is a truism, you get to play within whatever limitations the conditions of the game impose.  My point is that the tool-shedding dynamic of the game detracts from fun and modifying that condition would improve the game.

[Schen]

Yes, yes, that is a truism, you get to play within whatever limitations the conditions of the game impose.  My point is that the tool-shedding dynamic of the game detracts from fun and modifying that condition would improve the game.

Would improve the game for those that only like to fight, there is so much more to the game then just fighting half way. What about those that enjoy bombers, those that can only fly bombers be it age, eye sight. One of the Main objectives is to win the war, if it wasn't then you would have only airfield and only fighters as I  ww1.  If punching hangers and pushing the fight back moves the line forward it only makes sense to me. 

[BnZs]

What about those that enjoy bombers, those that can only fly bombers be it age, eye sight.

Town. Taking down gun emplacements. Destroying vehicles. Plenty for them to do that doesn't involve being the fun police.

[Schen]

Town. Taking down gun emplacements. Destroying vehicles. Plenty for them to do that doesn't involve being the fun police.

I did not know the fun police were involved. What constitutes fun? Fun for you is different then fun for someone else? I hate to say it but the opinion of others is hard to judge. How many of the subscribers have you polled?

[Zoney]

-1

BnZ,

Your wish would result in a game I would not want to play.  I like playing the game as it is, therefore I must disagree with your wish, thank you.

[BnZs]

-1BnZ

Your wish would result in a game I would not want to play.  

Explain. The only real difference would be that taking bases would require enough superiority to thoroughly oppress the defenders while the troops roll in, and fights would potentially be hotly contested until the moment troops went into the map room. I do not see why this is bad, in fact this sounds very, very good. What is it about the tool-shedding dynamic that you think makes the game more fun for the majority of players?

[Zoney]

Explain. The only real difference would be that taking bases would require enough superiority to thoroughly oppress the defenders while the troops roll in, and fights would potentially be hotly contested until the moment troops went into the map room. I do not see why this is bad, in fact this sounds very, very good. What is it about the tool-shedding dynamic that you think makes the game more fun for the majority of players?

I shall not offer any explanations sir, as I do not want to be the object of your derision or have my style of gameplay marginalized because you do not agree with it.

[Coalcat1]

In other words, this would just mean that hordes would be required to take a base.

[Schen]

I feel limiting one aspect of game play would not have the effect you are looking for. It would alienate bomber pilots, hamper small squad base takes. In all honesty what your looking for is in other games like WoW or warthunder, if all you want is dogfights and fighters you might be happier there. I also feel if it was as big an issue as you lead us to believe htc would have changed something in the last 10 years or so.

[BnZs]

I shall not offer any explanations sir, as I do not want to be the object of your derision or have my style of gameplay marginalized because you do not agree with it.

I am asking for reasonable response, no derision because you haven't opened the ball game by deriding me. If it involves flawed logic I will point out those flaws, but still no derision. If you do not have one and are man enough to admit it and concede the point, still no derision, in fact a hearty  

[BnZs]

In other words, this would just mean that hordes would be required to take a base.

Fighting a horde is challenging, but here you are essentially arguing that fighting against a horde is worse than not getting to fight at all. Not if you LIKE fighting, and I believe this is a *combat game*. Its dynamics should promote combat, not reduce combat.

[skorpx1]

Keep the game as is.

Making hangars indestructible will just mean that vulches get set up far more otften.

Making hangars indestructible will warrant the endless use of hording, even though it's already there.

Making hangars indestructible is AGAINST what this game is about.


Bomber dweebs gotta have fun too, and part of that fun is killing hangars. Just because you're whining about it doesn't mean that it'll change. If you haven't noticed almost everyone in here is against it, which would lead you to believe that it might be a bad idea, right?

[BnZs]

I feel limiting one aspect of game play would not have the effect you are looking for. It would alienate bomber pilots, hamper small squad base takes.

Bomber pilots would still have plenty to do, and perhaps HTC could add more options. As for small squads, are you really suggesting that the offense/defense balance should be skewed by a method that allows that allows offense to easily deny greater numbers of defenders any fair chance of combat?

Perhaps the only thing worse than not being able to up in defense is taking the time to fly to a base and discover that the fight is destroyed. There are times I would pay perk points to be able to shoot down *friendly* bombers. As I continue to point out, the tool-shedder mentality actually removes fun for players on *both* sides, not just the defensive team.

I also feel if it was as big an issue as you lead us to believe htc would have changed something in the last 10 years or so.

Tool-shedders weren't such a big issue when I first started playing years ago. Fights could and did literally go back and forth for hours. Now I observe they rarely last more than half an hour or so before someone drops the fighter hangars.