ROOKS, this is not the way to go

[Hornet]

The whole capture the map concept has to go. It is too simplistic to satisfy the strat guys and has always annoyed the ACM guys.

Maps with uncapturable fields would be much easier to design. Not everything would have to de-evolve into a circular blob of trinity or pizza in the interest of fair resets. "Winning the war" for folks who ever gave a damn could be tailored to taking specific territory and hitting specific targets.

Imagine having to barrel down a flak lined valley to knock out oil refineries to win the war --that's a familiar scenario just off the top of my head -- there is a lot of room for good challenging targets requiring combined arms coordination etc with the planeset we have now.

The idea being that you could easily tie winning the war to the mission planner where taking out "war related" targets requires surviving the mission etc...this allows a country to "strat" successfully with smaller, skillful strike teams, as opposed to the steamroller, it also reinforces squad roles in the community which is always good. Not to mention that set territories provides the psychological rush of going feet dry in Rookland etc. Could also tie radar to only the important strat targets so the radar messages mean something again instead of just being annoying.

Meanwhile you could easily design into the same map areas that are condusive to good furballing, and that fight will always be there because those fields don't change hands.

[wetrat]

MANDOBLE, this is not the way to go. This short of **** never goes anywhere in the forums. Or anywhere else for that matter...

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I'm not trying to control yours or anyone else's gameplay.

[/b]

Baloney. You're all about making people play your way. You get ticked when they won't.

Item 1. I've never said "my way" is correct. I've said it's what I enjoy and you should do what you enjoy. The fight is the thing; that's my opinion, just like you voice your opinion. Nowhere do I say that you shouldn't be able to bomb toolsheds until you weep with joy.

Item 2. Fields closer together promotes better low alt fights. There's NO DOUBT that Trinity was improved when NB added CV's and made GV fields in to AF. No one has really complained about Trinity since and many have thanked NB for the improvement.

That being said, moving the fields closer doesn't really affect "strat". Steamrollers and sucicide raids are not impeded. So, asking for closer fields isn't a limitation on strat, it's merely an improvement for fights. Refer again to the Trinity improvement.

Item 3. The ONLY strat target I give the tiniest hoot about is Fuel. That for one reason only; 25% fuel limits the utility of a large part of the planeset PARTICULARLY on the large maps with far apart fields.

Move the fields in to 3/4 sector and I won't care about fuel either. Change the fuel multiplier so that I can fly 1.25 sectors to a fight in a 25% C205, engage for 10-16 minutes and have enough fuel to fly home if I survive and won't care about fuel.

But the way it is severly limits the utility of the planeset. You cry about too many Mustangs, but it's one of the few viable planes with 25% fuel on a large map like Pizza. So, cry about Mustangs and pork fuel down to 25%. Then you can cry about even more Mustangs. You want more diversity? Make the whole planeset usable. Duh.
 
In short, bomb all you like. Kill the radar, kill the barracks, kill the flack, kill trains, kill hangars, kill ammo dumps.. strat yourself out. I could not possibly care less.

Just leave me enough fuel to fly to the fight in an early or mid war plane, get some useful engagement time and then fly home. That's all I'm asking, but that's way too much for you to give.

[Toad]

Well, Midnight. Enlighten me. Tell me how pouncing a... say.... N1K1 which is at 10k and slow while in your 15k fast Mustang is different from vultching him on the runway except that he has a bit better chance to escape and a bit better chance to do some damage to you if you screw it up?

To me, both of them are variations on attacking a target that is at a major disadvantage and extremely low risk for the attacker.

BTW, I'm probably spending more time in the DA than the MA in the past month or two. At least the folks go there to fight. The Slot and FinRus CT weeks were decent too.

However, as I pointed out to Beet1e, I respect your right to play the way you like. It just doesn't interest me and it never did; never will.  

Took the rest of us a while to get Rude to come around though.

[MANDOBLE]

Originally posted by Rude
the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested, or will the maps lean towards the classic air to air combat engagements.

How many players can fight at the same time at DA? 200 right? Then that air to air classic arena already exists. Just ask for rotation DA maps, place some CVs there and make all bases inmute to enemy fire. MA is strat oriented, DA is dogfight oriented, you already have what you want.

[Toad]

We have asked for all that... you see it in there yet?

[Midnight]

Originally posted by Toad
Well, Midnight. Enlighten me. Tell me how pouncing a... say.... N1K1 which is at 10k and slow while in your 15k fast Mustang is different from vultching him on the runway except that he has a bit better chance to escape and a bit better chance to do some damage to you if you screw it up?

How it is different is that he has had plenty of oppurtunity to not be at 10K and slow.

You know what really gets me about you guys is that you think you are somehow better than the "strat" guys because you turn fight "in the weeds". Everything for you is all excitement and anyone who BnZs is "boring" or as Rude would say, "has small stones" - Get real, are you guys so deluded with your furballs that you actually think you have more or bigger "stones" than all the other players safely tucked behind their computer monitor? Give me a break

What is being asked for is a game atmosphere that requires a little more thought than just takeoff, fly 5 minutes, furball, rtb.

Lastly, if you don't care what the "strat" guys are doing and don't want to tell them or anyone else how to play, why do you keep making posts about how cool you way of fighting is and that everyone that doesn't do it your way are boring sky accountants and strat dweebs that like to bomb tool sheds?

And once again - what of that question about the DA? Why are the big fights not raging in there all the time?

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by Rude
...the big question for me is will HT insist that the MA remain strat infested, or will the maps lean towards the classic air to air combat engagements.

Time will tell eh?

Rude...

My guess would be that the MA will be basically unchanged. After all, the point of the MA is that it is a place where anyone can do it all. In point of fact, the furballers already have a playground. I realize that it isn't to your liking. But, perhaps you (or someone else) can come up with a viable idea to make the DA a haven for the strat challenged players in the game . You know as well as I do that HT is receptive to new ideas (provided he can't shoot them down 5 seconds after you utter them ).

[Toad]

Seems like the "vultchees" have plenty of opportunity to up at an uncapped base too. Right?

But you're not really addressing the question. You've taken the point of view of the target. My question is how is it much different from the point of view of the attacker?

As I said, both situations put the attacker in the position of dictating the fight, having an enemy at a major disadvantage and providing little (if not almost NO) risk to the attacker.

Those are the similarities I see from the attacker's point of view.

I ask again, what do you see that's so different from the attacker's point of view.

BTW, I don't think I'm "better" than a strat guy. I just choose a very different way to have my fun. I think my way is, in fact, MUCH more fun. Must be why I choose it, eh?

I do find B&Z as exciting as watching paint dry, from either side of the attack. Always did.

But if flying basically no risk profiles is what gets you your jollies, have at it. For the most part, B&Z types don't affect the game from my POV. They don't get low enough to engage me and they don't disable what I consider to be the best part of the plane set.

So go for it. I think your best hope of "a game atmosphere that requires a little more thought than just takeoff, fly 5 minutes, furball, rtb." is that TOD thingie.

I think NB is right about the MA... it'll probably stay the same. If so, I will try to convince HT to make something else available for those that just pay to fight in airplanes. I doubt I'll be successful, but I'll try.

As for posting, I generally reply in kind.. like this.

As for the DA, note the absence of a Map. If there was a decent "airplane fight" map in there, like say the CT Slot or FinRus map, if there was a way to disable the unnecessary "griefer" stuff like GV's and if it was allowed to set the fuel multiplier so that 25% was enough for a decent amount of travel/fighting time, then I'd rarely if ever darken the MA door again.

And that's pretty much what I'll be asking HT for, if and when. Or maybe just use of the SEA when no planned stuff is going on.. like most weeknights.

Just my .02.

[NoBaddy]

I would just like to point out that constantly demeaning playing styles other than yours and demeaning those that use them is also an attempt to control the behaviour (<--spelling is for Beetle ).

Before anyone goes off on me...I will point out (again) that I do not support either side of this arguement. I support them both . Personally, I believe there is room in the MA for all playing styles. Unfortunately, the open ended concept of the game means that there are times that you won't be able to do what you want to do. Fortunately, HT has made a multi-faceted game that will usually offer many choices of things to do. It isn't the game's fault if someone is a one dimensional player (not pointing fingers at either side). I fully expect the MA will remain that way and IMO...it is for the best .

[Toad]

Except, of course, that only a tiny minority of the players read this BBS and an even smaller minority post here.

So, basically, we all just argue for the fun of it. I doubt anyone thinks anything is really going to change much due to BBS posts on play styles.

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad. The furball lobby seems to have a constipation problem, what with names like Nopoop - and you yourself are full of crap today. Maybe you need a Lazative... or maybe, like a cat, you simply have a furball stuck in your digestive tract - LOL

Either you don't have a clue about what I want out of this game, or you're being deliberately obtuse, or both. Which is it?

You're all about making people play your way. You get ticked when they won't.

That statement is such crap that I've had to use brown text for the quote. I'm not trying to force anyone to "play my way". I sometimes get exasperated at the lack of teamplay in AH as do many others, but that is not the same thing as trying to force a certain gameplay style, as well you know. I leave that to the furballers, and count my blessings that their suggestions are recognised by HTC as attempts to achieve furballcentric gameplay - refer to my purple text tag line.

You seem to be denying that you want changes to sway gameplay balance in favour of furballing. OK, maybe you do not personally make such requests, but you - the furball collective - certainly do. Hardly a day goes by without Lazs calling for the fields to be moved closer together, and Nopoop is not alone in calling for object "hardness" to be adjusted. And you throw your weight behind those guys with gusto. Indeed, some folks think that you and Lazs are one and the same, or at least joined at the hip - lol.

Fields closer together promotes better low alt fights.

Oh, well I guess that's just fine and dandy if you're looking to wack off in the weeds. What about the rest of us? What about the buff guys? Oh, "take off from one field further back" you say. I'll come back to that in a moment. What about someone like me who would like a high alt slugfest in a P47 at 15-20K? I guess I'd just have to live with being cherrypicked in Mr. Toad's utopian arena.

You cry about too many Mustangs, but it's one of the few viable planes with 25% fuel on a large map like Pizza. So, cry about Mustangs and pork fuel down to 25%. Then you can cry about even more Mustangs. You want more diversity? Make the whole planeset usable. Duh.

More BS. Last night there was more than one occasion when the field from which I wanted to take off had been porked to 25% fuel. So I took off from a different field (125%) with a drop tank. Simple, huh? Why don't you do the same? You're only to happy to advise the buff pilots to do that, at the same time pretending that the distance to be flown would be the same, and the tone and level of sympathy in which you mete out that advice is akin to Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" solution to the food shortage amongst 18th century French peasants. ie. you don't give a stuff about anyone outside your own furballcentric assembly.

I don't have a problem with Mustangs; my k/d against them was 4/1 in the last tour and 5/1 in the tour before that. But I can hardly go after them in a Mk-1 Spit, but I might have a chance in a 109G10 - thus drawing much criticism from guys like Rude, Nopoop and Lazs, whose views you so warmly espouse. Do not take the issue of ubiquitous Mustangs at face value. The real problem is having all planes available from every field all the time - 1945 24/7. It's an issue of balance. The early war planes don't stand a chance of catching a running stang or LA7, as well you know. The result of a no rules arena is plain to see - every other plane is a P51/LA7/Spit ix. The arena has become like the American Wild West. How long will it take for you to realise that the anarchy of that scenario is what's spoiling your gameplay?

In short, bomb all you like. Kill the radar, kill the barracks, kill the flack, kill trains, kill hangars, kill ammo dumps.. strat yourself out. I could not possibly care less.

Hmm, well that last sentence is kind of superfluous in your posts. Again, you don't understand... if we're trying to capture a base I'll get the VH, and then work on the town. Or VH and the two acks if it's a V-base - we still have a few left, much to your chagrin and that of the other furballcentrics. I'll leave that point there, because I know it does not interest you.

Just leave me enough fuel to fly to the fight in an early or mid war plane, get some useful engagement time and then fly home. That's all I'm asking, but that's way too much for you to give.

What the hell are you talking about? I tend not to fuel-pork. That's because the field's not going to be much use to us after we've captured it if the fuel's porked. But again, there are plenty of other fields from which to take off.

Mr. Toad, I'm sorry to use harsh words against you, but Midnight is right. You're starting to sound like an bellybutton on this BBS, at least where this overall topic is concerned. Even fite guys like Furious are beginning to get on your case. Furious made an excellent point. Furious. You should change your tag to "fly how you like, like how you fly, never mind how the other guy flies".

"That's all I'm asking, but that's way too much for you to give."

[Pepe]

I like Bishops better. They are more yummy and they are more

[lazs2]

beetle... you certainly don't have a constipation problem.... your only problem is you are spewing from the wrong end.   You must go through a lot of mouthwash.

furballers do not wish to change the game to force people to play with them... that is a strat guy and timid score guy thing... furballers only want opportunity... a place to furball.  this is percieved as a theat by your ilk because you believe that with something like closer fields.... everyone will simply have fun furballing and no one will be forced to play with you.

yes... it really is that simple.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[Toad]

Beet, there simply is no poster more full of it than you are.

What YOU want out of this game? LOL. You've made THAT pretty clear. More rules, more structure, less options for people with a different style.

Fields closer together wouldn't change the game at all from your standpoint. You already admit you take off from a field further back with a drop; it's already your playstyle. So why do you care if the fields come in from 1.25 sectors to .75 sectors. (BTW call HT and see what he's suggesting to MA mapmakers for field distance now. )

The only "strat" issue I have is fuel. It's simply moronic to be able to marginalize a large part of the planeset. Adjust the multiplier, add 50 tanks, make it tougher.. whatever. But at least make it so that 25% gives a decent sortie time.

Flew the CT with the fuel at 1.0 and, voila, fuel porking was no longer an issue. Good solution. Of course, it was the Slot map with intelligent field spacing.

Tell me.. what other things do Laz or NP want hardened? I'm under the impression they don't give a hoot about "strat" either.

You "poor buff guys" argument has been debunked in another thread. With closer fields their flying time would be the same overall because the distance to target would be about the same. It doesn't matter what row of fields you takeoff from if flying two sectors is still two sectors. It's density, not distance. I'm suprised that's escaped you..... continually.

LOL, plugging your manly stats again! Be careful, Laz might actually steal Tomato from you. Anyone that needs to measure that often......

Doesn't change that fact that you continually cry about the "big three" and then promote gameplay that encourages P-51 use.

Flew the MA for the first time in a long time last night. Flew early war, had a reasonable amount of fine. Fights were fine but transit time to the fights was pretty long in a P-40B. Slower plane you know, big map, fields far apart. I don't need other folks restricted with your darling RPS for me to have fun. Guess you do.