|
Post by malkcntent on Jun 7, 2008 14:35:42 GMT -5
I think folks can agree to disagree. Our goal is to minimize the role of vehicles in favor of infantry. I think we've accomplished that and the rules we've got governing vehicles and anti-vehicular weapons work well for the system we've got. The balance of reality vs. gameplay is always a challenging one but I think we've tackled it well so far. Our future goal is to continue to maintain that balance.
I've gotta agree with Clint here and when we do address the infantry vs. vehicles rules in a near-future Over the Wire, we'll probably be going this route.
In the meantime, folks can use whatever custom rules they like and we're always happy to hear about how they work and what suggestions people have for the game. Of course, we might not always go along with them, but that's to be expected. I think we can agree that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere further. Thanks for all your input everyone!
-Matthew
|
|
|
Post by pixelgeek on Jun 7, 2008 14:46:43 GMT -5
It sounds like perhaps you both might want to step away from this discussion.
Its looking a little heated and might be better served if everyone took a break and came back to it in a few days.
Just a suggestion from a disinterested bystander. :-)
|
|
|
Post by gimp on Jun 8, 2008 1:09:16 GMT -5
Sorry if I came across too strong and offended anyone. That was not my intent, nor was I ever feeling my part of the discussion was being heated.
I tend toward the pedantic when explaining my views, because I've seen too much confusion in the past when things weren't expressed clearly enough. I am curious to see how different issues get handled officially as AE continues. I'm sure there will continue to be parts I really like, and parts I would do differently, but I can always respect a well thought out opinion, even if I don't agree with it. Again, my apologies to any who may have been offended by my posts.
|
|