[Figment]

I don't think you understand the argumentation rather than that it'd be flawed.

You've been looking at this air cruiser thing "from the inside" for a decade, obviously - since it's your idea - you're going to like it and defend it.

However, your vision falls flat by not being connected to the rest of the game. An airbase, even as much as a vehicle creation pad, does not provide "mild support".

They DO NOT work AT ALL with small groups, given what is needed to take one out, or even get up there. You do not at all consider what other units are swarming around it, hampering any attempt to take one out. The level of organisation you require of people is simply too great.



Btw, anything airborne does not provide for "my kind" of playstyle. And I don't recall anyone ever pwning my arguments in any thread about PS design. I do recall things like people yelling the Galaxy as an AMS would be a GREAT idea during closed beta... And this reminds me of the same type of designing as that initial Galaxy idea. You make a shitload of assumptions in an attempt to create a context where this would be great, yet in the actual context, it would fall flat.

I'm usualy surprised people actually need to be explained how an already challenging MMO doesn't need "endbosses" of any kind. That includes mobile bases that negate terrain and therefore are disconnected to the fighting, while providing extra strength to an existing aerial superiority problem.