Lazs' CT Setup

[Furious]

DISCLAIMER: This is not ment as a derogatory towards you Lazs.


Why not let Lazs work in concert with the CT designers to set up a Lazs special no-fluffer, early war, furball arena.  

Lazs picks the map, plane set, and all settings.

I'd fly it for a week.  Might be real fun.


F.

[Lephturn]

It would be very interesting to see how this would work out numbers wise.  I think it would be good to give it a whirl.

Something with longer icons, more MA like radar, no field capture, and a small map.  I'd fly it.

What planeset would you try?  All Axis vs. Allied?  PAC?  BOB?

[Ripsnort]

Prediction: he will politely (yeah, right) decline, personality type shows he's not willing to risk taking on responsibility due to the fact that the possible end result of humiliation might outweigh the risk of responsibility. If you have more questions, I have a large book case full of psychology books predominently that of Maslow's theory, but I'm also partial to Pavlov as well.

[Sabre]

Furious (and community at large):

The CT Staff would be happy to consider set ups suggested by anyone in the community.  However, please understand that HTC chose members for the CT staff to not only handle the administrative details like arena set up, but to exercise judgement to a certain extent on what goes up in the CT.  That's why the interview process included such questions as "Tell me your ideas on what you think the CT should look like."  Regardless of the source of a set up idea, the CT Staff ultimately must answer to HTC for both the successes and failures in the CT.  As anyone who follows the posts here and in the General forums about what the CT should do and be, ideas range across the complete spectrum of possibilities.  We also have certain guidlines (not many but a few) placed on us by Pyro that we must observe.

Having said all that, if Lazs or anyone else submits a detailed set up (terrain, field selections, aircraft/vehicle selections, and arena setings), we'd give it every consideration.  Indeed, the Axis vs Allies set up and the current BoB offering is very directly the result of the wishes and suggestions of this community.  It's easy to throw isolated ideas out like "make fields closer together" or "don't limit aircraft choices."  Implementing those ideas with the existing terrains and CM tools (without requiring a 24/7 person to monitor the arena), while still offering a clearly different alternative to the MA is another.

[brady]

Man I had to take a piss test!

                 

[daddog]

For color or content?

[NUTTZ]

acuracy and distance.

NUTTZ

Originally posted by daddog
For color or content?

[Sabre]

Volume, actually.

Sabre

[brady]

LOL

[ZeroPing]

I would post this on the MAIN forum... i gota see what this guy says:)

[Creamo]

Ya Zeropoint, you could loathe in the animosity, while inputting nothing.


Psychologically profiling anyone here Smoozsnore would only lead to rebuttal, and as the receiving end of countless bashings of why you post the silly kung-fu bashings of 100 lb wife beaters and Jet Li “4 time guns were pulled on you”  The One/ Matrix’ bullet dodging episodes, you would worry about someone with more mental recourses to point it out and continue to make you a BBS whipping boy.

Especially in laz2’s case concerning game play vs. CT, but I guess not.

Hard to make a CT game play suggestion while these simpletons are so eager to disount the entire issue .  Good grief.

[CptTrips]

>Hard to make a CT game play suggestion while these
>simpletons are so eager to disount the entire issue .

Creamo,

Do you think it is at all possible that some of the CT staff feel the same way about Laz's criticisms?  Nothing agianst Laz in particular, but its always alot harder to step up to the plate  to take a turn at bat than stand on the sidelines and talk about other people shooting themselves in the foot.  Maybe after a spin in the barrel himself,  he would couch his suggestions in a little more tact.

Just trying to see things from the other side of the fence.  I myself don't much care for the CT either, but I have the utmost respect for the time and effort people like 10bears, Sabre, and HBlair have put into it.

regards,
Wab

[Creamo]

Maybe, and i guess me too, Wab.

Had the BOB  been groundbreaking from the get go, in the sense where they focused on plane allotment per base somewhat historical , and making scoring targets rather than base capture, ANYTHING to change and elvolve away from the MA strat, I would feel  more for their frustration.

However, it just seems to miss it's mark basing the strat on the MA while many other gameplay features are altered. Again. why?

Plus, you got HBlair the Preacher who just spouts off like a bible thumpin' militant anti-gay fool committing me to a "clinic" for my opinions, who has no business in a role of HTC's selected members to layout anything in alternate arena's for paying players. What a sappy joke he is. Who pick's these retards?

[Sabre]

Creamo, I take exception to your verbal bashing of HBlair.  That's all I need to say about it, as most here know him and the kind of great guy he is.  

As far as the current CT set up, it is all about attrition and nothing about base capture.  If you'd read the write up on it you'd know that.  The victory conditions are quite simple: The side that shoots down the most enemy planes wins.  I asked Pyro to reset the tour stats for the beginning of this run just for this purpose, i.e. to try a set up that "gets away from the MA" as you put it.  I have no way to limit the number of aircraft that can up in the arena, let alone from a single base.  Again, if you'd do a little research you'd know that too.  Groundbreaking?  Little hard to do more than what the current tools allow, but we're all trying hard.  I'm not in charge of writing the code, and neither is Hblair or Brady.  Your vitriol is misdirected.  

As has been pointed out, it's easier to throw out the odd suggestion here and there -- and criticise those who's job it is to wade through them all and find the ones most like to benefit the CT -- than to actually submit a complete write up on a CT tour.  Lazs has not done so, though I give you my word of honor that if he does I will do my best to put aside my differences with him and give it an honest appraisal.

Regarding Lazs stance on base capture in the CT, he seems to be for it (at least that's what I gather from his post), not against it.  So before you line yourself up with him, better make sure you know what it is you're making a stand for.

Sabre
P.S. Pyro picked the CT Staff, and I don't much care to be called a "retard" by someone who doesn't even know me.  I have never used such derogatory terms about you, and expect the same curtesy in return.

[lazs2]

ok... first off, I have zero puter skills.

Addmitedly I believe that the "staff" is a little defensive and full of itself.   and evasive.

I also believe that my ideas are not only simple to say but to implement.   How tough is drawing the fields closer together say?

Now... what would I make?   We are talking CT here?   Allied vs axis?   Ok, fine... the BOB planeset is one of the very few if not the only worthwhile (parity and choice) plane set for "historical" setups.  That is a given.

The planeset was handed to you guys on a silver platter.

I would most likely set up a map with a 1/3 sector "channel" between "england" and the rest.   fields would be about 1/2 or a little more from their oppossite number across the "channel".  

fields would be destroyed but not captured (nod to strat guys) and when all fields but one were down the war would be over.

MA radar.

MA or slightly shorter icons.

No CV's until a6m2 and F4f are created.

this is how I would do a BOB in the CT using the CT guidlines od allied vs axis.  I believe that it would be the simplest setup yet.

Questions?
lazs