I have trouble understanding people's resistance to adjusting the map a little. I admit I really liked lining; especially as a terr, I enjoyed timing respawns & distributing ships equally on each side of the line. But I like the cram just as much, it has a much stronger emphasis on timing, and it has really taught basers to be much more aggressive on pushing to get inside. I'm sure that a basing team of today could break the 5-year old lining defense in record time.
I think we all agree that the flagroom battle is the most exciting aspect of basing, but a basing game with just flagroom battles does get lame as well, for obvious reasons.
When the cram was new, I used to agree with the nay-sayers: find a way to break it, learn to play more aggressive, push harder, try new ship combinations, etc. But this was 5 years ago! From what I recall, it took at most two months of automated basing to switch from lining to cramming. After 5 years, players have perfected this strategy to impressive degrees, but it is still the same strategy. If nothing changes, the cram is here to stay as dominant as it is.
Regarding the proposed changes, right now I think that adding a second entrance is too major. If the goal is to make cram slightly less effective, we're looking at minor changes - hence my support of Flub's proposal and proposals similar to that.
I think we all agree that the flagroom battle is the most exciting aspect of basing, but a basing game with just flagroom battles does get lame as well, for obvious reasons.
When the cram was new, I used to agree with the nay-sayers: find a way to break it, learn to play more aggressive, push harder, try new ship combinations, etc. But this was 5 years ago! From what I recall, it took at most two months of automated basing to switch from lining to cramming. After 5 years, players have perfected this strategy to impressive degrees, but it is still the same strategy. If nothing changes, the cram is here to stay as dominant as it is.
Regarding the proposed changes, right now I think that adding a second entrance is too major. If the goal is to make cram slightly less effective, we're looking at minor changes - hence my support of Flub's proposal and proposals similar to that.
Comment