New Gameplay coming? I hope.

[Betown]

I hope so Pluto..
    It's not that we are dissin the game or anything. We all love it and I will continue playing for as long as it takes! But we have played "Air Quake" for a little too long  (infact most people since either Warbirds or EVEN Airwarrior) We just really like the strat idea its much better.

I really like the idea of big cities though!

BT

[Ripsnort]

Lets face it, online games evolve...bigger community and all. Time for strat to evolve with it.

[lazs2]

I don't know what all this facination with field capture is lately but it is ruining the fun... everyone is much more timid and will only venture out in hordes... I suspect that a lot of the new guys got tired of getting killed and decided that it was worth not having any fun to play it safe.

Pizza map exagerates the problem... new guys all flying late war fast planes exagerates the problem.... whoever told these guys that capturing a field made em respected is the cause of the problem.
lazs

[ccvi]

Originally posted by gofaster
Actually, I think some of the fields are too far apart.  The only plane I'll fly in the MA is the Mustang (or a 190 with tanks) because everything else takes forrrreeeevvvverrrr to get into attack range.  I'd like to see more strat targets in between the airfields to liven up the trip.  More ports would also be nice.

That's the sucking fuel modifier. I would really love to fight with an enemy for half an hour, it's just impossible because the fights usually end earlier because of fuel issues.

[Apache]

What Midnight said.

My ol' buddy lazs nailed it the other night. "The trick to killin' rooks & bish is figure out which one isn't goin' to lawn dart".

Note: Not an exact quote, to protect the squeamish.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Apache
What Midnight said.

My ol' buddy lazs nailed it the other night. "The trick to killin' rooks & bish is figure out which one isn't goin' to lawn dart".

Note: Not an exact quote, to protect the squeamish.

LOL So true these days!

[Puck]

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't know what all this facination with field capture is lately but it is ruining the fun... everyone is much more timid and will only venture out in hordes... I suspect that a lot of the new guys got tired of getting killed and decided that it was worth not having any fun to play it safe.



 

This is predicated on the assumption everyone has the same definition of "fun" as you.  I suspect there might be a few who find your almighty furball to be a total waste of time.

Personally, I like furballs.  I also like capping fields, and I particularly like killing the last fighter hanger on fields that have turned into meatgrinders for three hours and spoiling your "fun".  That's the best  

[lazs2]

And i like doing my best to insure that you are unable to ruin the fun of dozens of players in such a simple no talent manner.  

I guess if I was afraid to fight I would not want anyone else to have fun fighting either puck.     to me tho... ur just a loophole that needs closing.
lazs

[moot]

MA=Quake
SEA="More like real war"
[...]
Well, here lies the problem. "War" as defined simply...IS Capture the flag. All you can do is add more variables.

Something contradicting here; my opinion is the closer the new MT becomes to SEA scenarios, the better the gameplay, which doesn't eliminate lazsian furballs, but probably Quake tactics a minimum.

[BNM]

Personally, I think it comes down to the "hardness" of the ground targets. If it took 4-6 eggs to kill something instead of 2 and 30 troops instead of 10 it would be ALOT different. I also think the ndisles? map is about the right size. If it WAS harder, as described above, to kill a base, that map would last ALOT longer. If ammo, fuel, etc... is knocked out at a field before capturing it, it should take longer to replace it. That would give more cause not to kill them and fighter hangers, etc... and would add to making things last longer.

BNMaster
Brewster Buffalos

[ccvi]

What does it matter how long a base lasts?! It's useless as soon as enemy fighters are over it, shooting everything that tries to take off.

The fight needs to be moved away from the airfields.

[Rude]

It just doesn't get any better does it?

[Puck]

Originally posted by lazs2
And i like doing my best to insure that you are unable to ruin the fun of dozens of players in such a simple no talent manner.  

I guess if I was afraid to fight I would not want anyone else to have fun fighting either puck.     to me tho... ur just a loophole that needs closing.
lazs

Ah, but that's the beauty.  You can't stop us from "ruining" your fun.  Fields will be captured whether it suits you or not.  Hangers will be destroyed, goons will be dropped, furballs will be born, grow old and stale, then die.

Haven't I mentioned those things requiring the least talent are the things I'm most talented at?

One of these days when you're bored you can help me improve my 1v1 skill set.  Until then I have to muddle through doing what a can.

[Kweassa]

I remember the discussions of MA strat some time ago. Karnak and Wotan stated "attrition has to be left out as a factor".

 Maybe its time to reconsider attrition factors.

 How about a concept of "stores"?

 A field will be given x amount of fuels, ordnances and fighters, bombers and vehicles. It would just be set to infinite when no field strats/hangars are damaged.

 However, once a fuel tank(for example) is destroyed, and it shows 75%, this would initiate the attrition factor on the field, with the x amount equivalent to the 75%. Each time fighters or bombers, vehicles up from the field the fuel amount would be used up. When additional fuel tanks are destroyed and gets down to 50%, if there was fuel stores over 50% prior to destruction, the stores will be reduced to 50%(which would be 2/3rd of the x amount).

 Same with the hangars. Once a single hangar type is down, the infinite stores for that plane type will be changed to limited stores of x amount.

 This would make a lot of people think twice before just wasting away their planes in a suicidal jabo onslaught - both for the defenders and the attackers.

 The problem with current "percentage-based strats" is that it has virtually no effect unless its down to 25%, which limits most of the planes. Take down 25% of fuels on an enemy field and still infinite planes can up with 75% fuel and go pork another base.

 ...

 Having more people on the side really SHOULD mean heavier burdens in logistics and resupplies, maintenance. In typical MA situations where the Rooks are the underdogs, if a massive air power decides to attack a Rook base, having limited fuel and sorts will naturally effect the side which has more numbers more seriously, than a side which is lower in numbers.

 This would also help revitalize the necessity of resupplying bases in literal terms, than current resupplies which is really nothing but speeding up the rebuild process.

 There is still much to think about, but I think sooner or later, the factor of attrition and logistics must kick in.

* More numbers SHOULD mean heavier burdens in logistics and resupplies.

* More numbers also SHOULD mean more people have to actively take part in resupplying bases.

[Burnm]

"There should be no way that an entire map can be reset in less than two hours, but as we have seen many times, it happens on a regular basis."



Perk the troop carriers,50 perks outta slow the land grab down