Tool Shedding-Get rid of it.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Okay, then I guess that 100-150 hours a week is overstated. This is to your benefit, quite independently of anything I might write about it. I note here, a week is 168 hours, TOTAL. You can see why I might question such an assertion. I envisioned some twinkie-gobbling, meth-snorting teen who was completely fixated and could do nothing else.

The Retort 8 was for BnZs. His suggestion has netted a good deal of ad hominem response, retort #8 being just another one of them. He'll get it - because of my earlier post in which I cited items 1-7, and, because, like me, he is afflicted with convergent thinking.

[Coalcat1]

I envisioned some twinkie-gobbling, meth-snorting teen who was completely fixated and could do nothing else.

 

[BnZs]

Okay, then I guess that 100-150 hours a week is overstated. This is to your benefit, quite independently of anything I might write about it. I note here, a week is 168 hours, TOTAL. You can see why I might question such an assertion. I envisioned some twinkie-gobbling, meth-snorting teen who was completely fixated and could do nothing else.

If I was was killing less than a third as often as I died, and only getting 1.44 kills per hour in, I probably wouldn't be bragging about how much practice I get at the game.

The Retort 8 was for BnZs. His suggestion has netted a good deal of ad hominem response, retort #8 being just another one of them. He'll get it - because of my earlier post in which I cited items 1-7, and, because, like me, he is afflicted with convergent thinking.

It is so adorable that he thinks "Your logic sucks!" is a logical rebuttal.

[lunatic1]

a former squad co of mine told me i was spending 100-150 hours a week playing--may be he was excurating--i never bothered to look...i think your right because that would only leave me 18hrs to do anything else.but i do play alot...and was not ment to mean that i play any more than anybody else.

[lunatic1]

no bnz's i'm saying YOUR logic sucks----i'm not bragging about anything--i play to have fun--wether i die 9 out of 10 times so what..at least i got 1 kill.if your gonna check my stats check previous tour where i have done better--because this tour i missed most of the 1st 2 weeks--because of moving..and don't care about score.

[BnZs]

no bnz's i'm saying YOUR logic sucks-

?
Methinks your reading comprehension roughly parallels your fighter skills.

Tell you what, I know you *feel* (I wouldn't call it thinking) that "my logic sucks", so I'm going to lay my argument out for you as simply as I can, and give you a fair shot to come up with anything substantive to say against it.

1. Finding fights can be difficult in the arena as it is.
2. When fights do spring up, they tend to have a very limited lifespan because some players apparently feel it is their sacred duty to knock down hangars and end "mindless furballing". This makes the finding fights problem even worse.
3. Because of the way the radar in AH works, how the bombers are set up, and the general dynamics of the game, one cannot reasonably expect the defenders to intercept the bombers reliably. Note the screenshot of a map I posted to this thread. I took off, engaged some fighters, fought, died. When  I tried to up again, every single base anywhere near the only fight on the map was down. I logged in disgust. Please explain to me how I "suck" for failing to intercept buffs I never knew existed until I came back to the tower and found the hangars down.

 Basically a single player can decide to up bombers and end the fight for everybody else enjoying it on *both* sides, and succeed most of the time. I don't think single individuals should have the power of this much anti-fun in the game, I think whatever enjoyment he gets out of doing this does not justify taking away enjoyment from so many other players, especially the ones on HIS OWN team who were enjoying the fight. (Even if the point of game really is "pissing other people off", I do not think that principle applies to the green guys.)

Therefore, I propose that hangars no longer be destructible. I believe it will have the following effects:

1. Fights will last longer because they can no longer be ended by a few players with a grudge against buildings and fun.
2. Fights for the base take will be BETTER because the matter will be hotly contested and last up until the troops go in the maproom, instead of ending when all the hangars go down followed by an anti-climatic troop delivery.
3. More and longer lasting fights will stop this death spiral the game is in, where people don't play because they can't find any action, which leads to less action in the arena, which lead to...you get the drift.
4. This change will not negatively impact the game because there will still be important work to be done with ordnance, such as town building and gun destruction. Mayhaps the towns could even be made larger, with more buildings, to give bombers something important to do that does not inherently kill fights and fun for everyone else. This sort of work would also look a lot more like the real strategic bombing campaign than precision bombing a couple of hangars.

[BnZs]

Understand what you are saying, however, if you get in and cap the base, and guys are dropping down to keep a path clean, then either a horde is developing or the attackers loose guys and have to fly all the way back creating the daisy chain grinder.  While I agree that you should be good enough to capture the base, however, often times when an attack begins, we have dropped a town and had cap before.  But the resupply effort makes it near impossible if defended correctly as the town can be up in minutes after being dropped.  Sometimes, the ONLY way to stop the defenders is to drop the base, clear the skies, then put the vulch on the resupply effort. 

Re-supply vehicles are helpless or semi-helpless targets. The attackers should rejoice at the chance to pad their score killing those until the troops run in. If they can't stop such, the attackers do not deserve the base take.

I don't know what the "daisy chain grinder" is but if it means planes continuously upping, fighting, dying, and upping again in large numbers, this is a good thing and something I often miss playing the game today.

Again.  All good points but sometimes, if you are outnumbered and any given side has crazy response to defend a base, even if you do drop the base, you still can't take it.  It is usually based on the determination of the side attacking or defending.

If there are far more defenders than attackers at a given base then I'd say the defenders should succeed, all things being equal. If a small number of attackers regularly take bases defended by larger number players then I'd say the offense/defense balance of the game is off-balance.

[BnZs]

killing fh's = bad

vulching = good

Vulching planes trying to take off isn't giving them much of a chance to fight.

Taking down hangars means not giving them ANY chance to fight. So yes, it is perfectly logical to say that vulching is better than toolshedding.

Vulchers are presumably enjoying the vulching. Some would even say the vulch is the "reward" for establishing total air superiority. And presumably those who choose to up under the vulch (me, often enough) are getting something out of it, possibly the chance to say "base take denied!" or "you didn't get to land those kills vulcher!". In any case, you have players on both sides engaging in this activity willingly, and then some single individual comes along and ends it for all the participants on both teams. Doesn't sound too fair now does it?

BTW, I am probably on defense more often than offense these days, and I never have been much of a vulcher. Not good at strafing ground targets and AA seems to have a personal vendetta against me. So I mostly shoot my birds on the wing as it were.

if you make hangars indestructible, the ack should be indestructible also.. you know.. for "the fight"... let them defenders get up and have a chance..

I think this would tilt the balance a little too far in the direction of defense, and take away something for the bombers/jabos to do that is NOT inherently anti-fun. Defenders could just up wirbs to defend their runway and help their comrades get up in planes, if all the ack is down. (When I suggest hangars be indestructible, I mean ALL the hangars.)
BUT, even though I think your proposal here is flawed, those conditions would still be better than the current one. There would be action at least. Let the carnage rage on!

[lunatic1]

go ahead and attack my lack of flying skill all you want--i am safe in the knowledge to your wish won't be granted.. ----no more from me

[BnZs]

Hmmm...so a guy is wildly unsuccessful at flying fighters. And this same guy wants grinchs in buffs to keep on being able to grief those who are enjoying the fight via toolshedding. I think the two facts are maybe, just MAYBE related.

go ahead and attack my lack of flying skill all you want--i am safe in the knowledge to your wish won't be granted.. ----no more from me

[The Fugitive]

If I was was killing less than a third as often as I died, and only getting 1.44 kills per hour in, I probably wouldn't be bragging about how much practice I get at the game.
(Image removed from quote.)
It is so adorable that he thinks "Your logic sucks!" is a logical rebuttal.

Lunatic1 most likely flies 100-150 hours a tour/month,  not a week.

As for the rest, yes at times it can be hard to find a fight and I have been saying this for a long time, but from what I've seen it is the players are turning to base capture and NOT fighting. Furballs/base takes del out not only because the FH gets taken out but because the "mission" is called a bust and the players regroup for another attack some place on the maps less well defended.

Making the hangars indestructible is only going to make larger hordes, not better fights.

[BnZs]

Making the hangars indestructible is only going to make larger hordes, not better fights.

A horde? Excellent, IF I can actually up to fight them. At least that is action, and it is entirely possible to do something crazy like, I dunno, bring some of your own guys to even the odds.

 Fugi your whole argument here is that having NO fight because one cannot up is better than actually having a fight which does not meet your high standards for fairness, quality and whatever else it is that keeps you complaining on these boards and 200 incessantly.

You have towering vials of wrath for anyone not flying fighter in a way in which you approve, yet you have nothing to say against those who kill entire fights with their toolshedding. I find that bizarre.

[Zoney]

Give it a rest already BnZ.

The bottom line is, you really have no idea what will happen to gameplay if your suggestion is implemented.  We do know how it works now.  When the hangers go down, fighters have to come from a different base.  Sometimes they are in time to save the base, sometimes not.  We know how they dynamics of taking a base work, and we know about fights that are generated with the base take mechanics we have in play.

Everything you say about what will happen if your idea is implemented is pure conjecture.  I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm saying your only guessing because AW, WB, and now AH have never been played that way.

You keep throwing out explanations of how your idea will work as if the results you list are gospel, give it a rest.

 

[BnZs]

Everything you say about what will happen if your idea is implemented is pure conjecture. 

I  have experienced the difference between fights where the hangars were left up and "fights" in which they were dropped. Therefore my points are NOT entirely conjecture.

[caldera]

I kind of like the idea of 40 ENY fighters still being available when all the hangars are down.  Problem is, who is going to fly them?  Many players log off if ENY hits 5.0.  The net effect of this change would be practically nothing.