k/t needs to be taken with a pinch of NaCl

[muckmaw]

Lazs, is it possible for you to possible make a point without being condescending?

Really, it is getting tiresome.

Slappy, even if we drop back to another field, we're still going to be closer to wherever the front line is. The whole thing boils down to making the arena much more condensed thereby limited the space for the bombers to get to altitiude before being intercepted.

You know what? This discussion is a waste of time and energy. It really is. Continue your crusade Lazs. Good luck to you.

I've got better things to do with my time.

AH2 will be out soon enough.

Maybe then you'll get what you want then.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by SlapShot
"IF you want a furball go to the Duelling arena with all your friends ..."

I am so tired of hearing this cop-out when discussing the context of these threads. The main idea and purpose of these thread should be to put forth ideas to build/setup an MA arena that can be good for all. Not build another sandbox or go play in that sandbox for "the likes of you".

No furball in the DA could ever duplicate the dynamics of an MA furball.

"Moving the bases closer together won't do anything but force the players down on the deck with no time to climb."

Bunk ... pure bunk. If you want alt then drop back 1 base and climb. If your a "buffer", then drop back 2 or 3 bases depending upon your required altitude for attack.That wouldn't be any worse off then what is now already the norm in Pizza and Trinity.

Those of us that like to knife fight in the weeds and at the top of the waves really shouldn't have to fly for long periods to achieve this and by ADDING/MOVING base to close the distance would serve all people.

All these proposals, as of late, by the "furball" society have been additions to existing setups and gameplay. Not one idea that I have seen detracts from any existing setup/gameplay that we areadly have, with the exception of perking bombs.

Please explain to me how ...

1) adding more fields (which I believe that NB is doing to Trinity) to close the distance between fields would be a detriment to the "strat" society ?

2) constructing an area, some how, like Tank Town, that would only support the early war plane set, be a detriment to the existing "strat" gameplay as we know it ?

1.  I don't have any problem with putting bases closer together on trinity.  I have a problem with whining furballers who insist their bases be left alone.

2.  Sounds to me like (and I know you don't want to hear this, slapshot) ...a duelling arena with more than two planes per duel.  You can't have separation and togetherness at the same time.  If you choose to play in the MA, you have to play with the players in the MA, too.  They aren't roboplanes ala Falcon 4.0, and they're going to do what they want to do.  And you can do what you want to do.  

If what they do interferes with what you do, that's called "interaction".  Interaction can be positive or negative.  You see the interaction as negative, unless I roll over and wait patiently for you to shoot me down. (please note: the following is not intended as a  whine) My scores and k/d would be much better if I didn't haul bombs around and get shot down by ack, defenders, and lost furballers.  All of these interactions can prevent me from doing what I want to do.  So what?  The game would be predictable and boring without opponents.

Lassie wants to put the fields closer together to decrease travel time between fights--or so he says.  If moving the fields closer together means that any plane (physics, now) gets less altitude because the travel distance is shorter, then what's the use?  Moving back to another field to get more alt simply recreates the same conditions we had in the first place.

The strat game depends on isolating the target.  Moving the fields closer together would make that more difficult, making the strat game more difficult.  That's lassie's real agenda.  He wants his furball field left alone, and wants there to be no incentive for attacking it.  Therefore, he tries to eliminate the strat game by making it unproductive.  He comes up with proposals to "fix" something that isn't broken, in order to manipulate the gameplay.  That's not always a bad thing, but it would be more honorable to be honest about his agenda, instead of coming up with these "fixes" that are really changes to make the world more to his liking.

And, he's still a jerk.

[lazs2]

muck... so drop back 3 fields or fly backwards or at an angle...  what am I missing?   The maps will remain the same size.
lazs

[rshubert]

Design the map.  put the bases where you want them.  Set the hardness where you want it.  Do the work, don't just shoot off your mouth demanding somebody else make the world the way you want it.

Your $15 a month gets you the right to play.  If you get involved with the design guys, you can get the right to say how the game works.

[lazs2]

thank you for posting the rules tough guy.
lazs

[rshubert]

Originally posted by lassie

hubert... wind down tough guy.  I think you have frightened all the people that you are ever gonna by now.
lazs

I'm not trying to frighten you, lassie.  I am trying to convince you to modify your behavior.  I know change can be difficult and scary, but sometimes you just have to be a man and grab for the brass ring.  

Try not to transfer your fear of the process to those who are only trying to help you become a better person.  Face the challenge, and come out the other side of the process a new lassie--better, wiser, and smarter for the experience.  Cod knows you could use some improvement.

And, you're still a jerk.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by lazs2
thank you for posting the rules tough guy.
lazs

Those aren't rules, they're a process.  Learn the difference.

You're still a jerk.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Muck,

If you are attacking B1 and leave from B3, how is that any different than leaving from B5 after fields have been moved or added to make them closer ?



B1..............B2........... ...B3................B4...... .........B5            



B1.....B2.....B3.....B4...... .B5


If the design and spacing are done right, there should never be any need to circle to gain alt for all the same reasons as we have now.

I see what your saying, now, Slappy. As long as B1 and B2 are enemy fields and B3-5 are friendly, there wold be no difference, in my strategy. The only thing I could see affecting the bombers is if the interceptors decide to fly past B3 and intercept us at B4 where we would be at a lower altitude on the new system. Under the old system, the fighters would be less likely to have the fuel or the patience to make an interception behind the front.

I've considered the fact that there would be a furball going on between 2 and 3 but if the interceptors are smart, all they have to do is climb to 8k and overfly the low alt furball.

I've got a bad feeling fields being closer together will lead to more vulching, and single jabo field porking. Think about it. Moving the fields closer together makes the suicide porkers job easier. He can up and get to more fields faster. More dead fuel, more dead barracks, etc. Field capture will be much harder too. The goons will have to leave from much more distant bases, as the barracks will be porked, and fly past many more cons all in close proximity furballs, to get to the drop.

[lazs2]

naa..
lazs

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by muckmaw
So you see, if we launch and fly direct, we'll be passing over the enemy base sooner, and therfore, at a much lower altitude which is a disadvantage for a bomber.

So why not take off from a rear base that's farther back?  You need only choose a base that, in real terms, represents the same distance that you now travel in order to hit strategic targets.  So if you used to choose a rear base that was three sectors away from your strategic target, you can still choose one that's three sectors away -- only it might be two or three bases farther back given relatively closer base positions.

You wouldn't spend any more time grabbing than you currently do, and as an added bonus most of the furball-style fights would occur lower than they do now, making your journey all the easier.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[lazs2]

muck.. in the old days with the old field capture and small fields only... people fought between the fields.   I did too..  It even looked to the strat guys like I was "helping".... I was killing fighters... it  mattered not that I was merely looking for a fight  and didn't give a wit about who won or lost the field.

that is the point... the new maps and new players and "missuns" have seperated the two camps.   They are at odds with each other and they get in each others way instead of being symbiotic.

moving the fields closer is the only way I can see to get the two camps to coexist  in the arena again.  

I welcome anyone elses ideas on how to get the two camps to coexist... despite what tough guy thinks my "agenda" is choice.   if lack of choice is your agenda thenm we will be at odds.... otherwise.. we need to work together to make an arena that everyone can enjoy.  one that is fair for both camps.
lazs

[muckmaw]

DMF-

Please see above post. You must have been writing your reply as I was writing mine.

[SlapShot]

"I have a problem with whining furballers who insist their bases be left alone.

I think that whine, for the most part, was dropped when the idea of adding more and closer fields was introduced. As I said before, I don't support the idea of perking bombs to solve the porking issue ... better ideas have been presented to deal with that.

"You see the interaction as negative"

Nope ... never said that. Interaction from JABO pilots and their escorts is what adds to the furball between two fields, if they so choose to fly in/thru the proximity of the furball ... That is what supports my statement that the dynamics of an MA furball could never be duplicated in a DA furball.

"If moving the fields closer together means that any plane (physics, now) gets less altitude because the travel distance is shorter, then what's the use?

Thanks for the physic lesson ... NOT !!! (not a needed comment - I have been playing this game long enough to know what is needed for climb out.)

What's the use ... the use is to appease those who like to fight at low alt - kinfe fights without having to spend 15-20 minutes to get there.

"Moving back to another field to get more alt simply recreates the same conditions we had in the first place."

Exactly the point ... no harm - no foul for those that feel the need to gain alt. Adding/moving fields closer would also serve those that like to fight in the "weeds" ... so why all the resistance ? Again, how does that hurt gameplay as we know it ?

"The strat game depends on isolating the target. Moving the fields closer together would make that more difficult, making the strat game more difficult."

Listen .. I am a card carrying member of both the "strat" and "furball" societys and have been a "strater" much longer than a "furballer", and for the life of me, I cannot see how adding/moving fields to closer proximites would hurt the strat game in any way. It just might add more to the strat game by making it a little more complex to take bases. Who's to know until its been tried.

I am not trying to be a smart bellybutton here, but please give me a hard example of how this concept would hurt the strat game ... what is it that the strat players are giving up ? ... I would really like to know.

"Therefore, he tries to eliminate the strat game by making it unproductive. He comes up with proposals to "fix" something that isn't broken, in order to manipulate the gameplay."

Isn't broke ? ... from where you stand it might not appear to be broken.

Its the old story of the guy in a neighborhood complains to the neighbor on his right about the neighbor on his left who has 4-5 junked cars sitting in plain view of his porch. He get no compassion from the neighbor on his right cause ... "It looks ok from where I sit". It all depends upon where your sitting !!!

I think that your distain for laz has given you a very myopic outlook on what is being asked for, and there are many more respected players here that are supportive of this concept and not because it was laz's idea, but rather because its a good idea that would really not hurt gameplay, but rather add to it.

Rather than you and beet1e playing point/counterpoint with laz, you would better serve your positions explaining in a practical sense how these ideas (and they all aren't laz's) won't work. You guys get no points for being cleverly rude and artfully condesending as opposed to laz's rather direct approach.

I have been reading with interest some of your counterpoints, but they have progressivly gone downhill in the content department ... there is no MEAT in your posts anymore, just a lot of testosterone.

[ccvi]

Originally posted by lazs2
hit percentage and score are the least useful stats... score indicates time up and hit percentage indicates type of guns or planes flown more than anything.  All stats are useful for tracking personal goals or trends but K/H is the most useful for determining how much air combat is going on in the arena... the more gangbanging and steamrolleriing the less K/H average.
lazs

Set that average in bold. Personal K/hr doesn't show the number of fights fought, just the number of fights won.

[SlapShot]

"I've got a bad feeling fields being closer together will lead to more vulching, and single jabo field porking. Think about it. Moving the fields closer together makes the suicide porkers job easier. He can up and get to more fields faster. More dead fuel, more dead barracks, etc. Field capture will be much harder too. The goons will have to leave from much more distant bases, as the barracks will be porked, and fly past many more cons all in close proximity furballs, to get to the drop."

Muck ... how could it be any worse than it is right now?

The porking (fuel, ord, barracks) needs to be addressed separately and there is another thread that is doing just that and its one that I also support.

HARDEN UP THE FIELDS ... add more mannable ack, harden the fuel cells and ord, and harden the VH is what I would support, but again, thats another thread.

Would making field capture harder, be worse ? I can't see why. With the average amount of players that we have now, I honestly believe that field capture is WAY TOO EASY and also needs to be looked at. If making objectives harder, in correlation with participation levels, is wrong, then this game will eventually fail. I encourage change and challange.