Lasting Gameplay

[WhalesHaveFeelingsToo]

One the gripes I have with team play in Altitude is that playing tactically has no long standing effect. Map control is limited since it is very difficult to obtain it for a long period of time. Killing opponents also has a very limited effect, only a matter of seconds are gained. I'm not saying tactics are completely irrelevant or useless, I would like it if the tactical process of a game was continuous as opposed to the alternating push/defend.

My suggestion as to how this could be implemented is damage to surroundings. This would be a limited, relatively difficult process, one missile wouldn't cause an area of its detonation to be destroyed. Some key obstacles would be impossible to damage so the map still retains its shape. The point of this would be that map control would be more important since it would open up new bomb running routes and make manoeuvring in certain areas easier.

An addition to this would be a power up which places a destroyable obstacle such as a block. This would accentuate the effects of controlling an area, and make areas easier to defend, for example by making a trench like structure.

[Boko]

Destructable maps, yes, go make this work Karlam. Not for ball or tbd tho, just wouldn't work, but for co-operative this would be a great option.

[shrode]

the most popular sports in the world are based on limited 'map' control where there is alternating pushing and defending.

The thing is, the more you control the map, the more likely you will score more goals/hit more bombs than the other team

[Smushface]

It's called turrets.

[Kuja900]

Ive watched you play, trust me there is a much deeper tactical level available that you have not yet attained.

[Wok3N^]

There is a very large tactical element in tbd without a destructible environment. Think about it.

5 planes on each side. Take a look at the map cave where there is a large middle rock thing that separates the left from the right. Both teams incessantly harass the other from the sides of the rock to bring down the others defense.

The minute there is a 5v3 situation or an outnumbered situation, that team may push because they know that there is a re-spawn time for the other team.

This is very basic but there are many tactical choices involved which vary based on aggression, positioning, timing, counterattacking and such.

[WhalesHaveFeelingsToo]

Turrets do not constitute map control because they are too close to the enemy base.

The difference between altitude and sports games is that in sport here are more options than shoot and move.

Woken, I never claimed that there weren't tactics. All the tactics you mentioned are singular actions, not a continuous plan which is my point.

Kuja, no one likes you.

[Wok3N^]

Positioning, timing, counterattacking are tactical because ur team has a general play style and decides before the game how they will do all of these things.

[WhalesHaveFeelingsToo]

I didn't say they weren't tactical. However, all of these things temporary tactics, they last a short amount of time and have no lasting effect. Example : Counter attack happens, gets killed, over. Unlike : wall damaged over 10 minutes, new permanent route formed, lasting effect.

[Wok3N^]

And map control in high level play is obtained and is kept. Think of loscity of how bombers and whales can push to the enemy side and hold a team inside their base.

[Smushface]

Killing turrets does constitute a major shift in map control. Incredibly useful tactics of killing certain tactics. So many examples, where to start.

Asteroids --> killing high and low turrets each open an additional bombing route.

Justice ---> Killing low turrets gives you the low route and killing high rets gives you more time to choose your bomb placement when going high.

Loco and Grotto each have map control specific turrets.

Mayhem and Core each have turrets that need to be destroyed before you can try a direct approach (unless of course, you have a ton of support and minimal resistance).

Etc. etc.

Regardless, if you don't think turret deaths constitute a permanent shift in the balance of map control balance, then you don't fully understand how tactics shift in this game. On many maps (assuming I can depend on my team to control middle without me) I make it a point to destroy turrets so I can spawn camp a bit. Consistently killing 1 person / tying up 2 or 3 people from every spawn wave constitutes a huge shift in map control and requires that turrets be out.

[kolobos]

Actually, it's not hard to turn Altitude into strategy game, all that needed is:

1. Ability to build turrets. Only when your team have enough resources.
2. Ability to obtain resources: special areas on the map, where at least one player should present for resources to be "mined", and no enemy players.

[Blind Pilot]

Rolling, turning, diving...
going in again.

Tactics 101


I have to say though, destruct-able objects would be sweet. Yar's Revenge FTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yars'_Revenge

[Vi*]

Actually, it's not hard to turn Altitude into strategy game, all that needed is:

1. Ability to build turrets. Only when your team have enough resources.
2. Ability to obtain resources: special areas on the map, where at least one player should present for resources to be "mined", and no enemy players.

Did I tell y'all about a dream I had once that was a cross between Altitude and StarCraft? Kinda like that, only of course there were also production buildings that would make bots you could lead into battle, and upgrade buildings where you could get new perks, etc.

[WhalesHaveFeelingsToo]

Woken, its impossible to hold an area for more than at most a couple of minutes. Games can take up to 30 minutes so this doesn't constitute a lasting tactic. Its like saying that standing between the trenches in WW1 for 3 hours had a lasting impact.

Turrets do have an effect, but a very limited one on most maps. They don't open up new bombing routes, they make it easier to use them. Thinking about how quickly a bomb attempt happens, the maximum impact they have is a few shots. Not only that, but they are easily destroyed and very linear.

I like the idea of having some kind of resource, an interesting idea would be not only to be able to destroy bits of maps, but to move them. Making turrets would be good if you could place them in limited areas, one thing which would be good would be if you could restore damaged or dead ones. Seeing how many dynamics this type of game play would offer a purely tactical plane could be established, one that edits maps in some way (just an idea, don't flame me on this).

[Evan20000]

Woken, its impossible to hold an area for more than at most a couple of minutes.

I wasn't going to get into this, but this is just false. Any group (2-3) planes that are well enough coordinated can spawntrap the opposing team and maintain powerup control until their runner finished them off or the other team makes a large coordinated attempt to break away. And holding the middle of the map for a couple of minutes is a huge advantage anyway.

[Pestilence]

Right, just like in most other games, you're not going to get that level of tactical or strategic play going on a public server with random strangers. You might get it to happen, rarely, when a she-mule gives birth, which is to say rarely, but it's not liable to happen at any other point. This is why God invented League Play so that you can join up with similar-minded people and secure game play with that kind of benefit.

[Derpel]

I would love destructable terrain. Also it would be nice to choose your own plane color in non-team based matches. Random colors for team matches are great though.

[Teething]

Isn't it more realistic to not hold ground for a long time? It's expensive to sit there and guard a piece of the map. It's a more effective use of time to take an important part of the map for a short ammount of time to weaken the other team for a specific reason. If it is extremely pivotal or say limiting them entirely to their base, that's worth it. Otherwise the only reason to stay put is so you can get further in faster. Even then, more agressive teams would still be trying to move forward.