It's not fine the way it is. . .

[Grizzly]

Originally posted by Dica
Gee grizzly that sounds like an awfully familiar system.

Yep, to a large extent. Let's just say the concept is proven.

[Toad]

And so we continue to disagree.

The game changed significantly.

An increase in player numbers was a change that wasn't a "design change" per se. HT didn't "design in" more players, he advertised for them and also AW crumped. That's not the type of change I'm talking about.

I'm speaking of deliberate design changes DID affect gameplay. That statement is no "excuse for why the game is what it is", it's a simple fact.

People do not "play the same old way". Many of the "old ways" are gone. Take pin-point bomb sights vs the calibrated bomb sight. One can no longer "bomb the same old way". Seen any difference in the way bombers are used since that design change?

But we already know we disagree. Probably always will.

[Kev367th]

People still miss the whole point.
1 guy does have to be able to kill HQ, get some fighters up and kill him 1st.
But of course this would mean the furballers would have to do something else, wouldn't it! You wanna keep dar get up and kill him - simple!!!!!
What should be stopped is the gamey off map flying to get to HQ.
Us Bish would lose dar a lot more than we do if people didn't get up to intercept cons.
Can't see how you can blame it on numbers, I think since AH1 the numbers have declined slightly.
We've already got a crazy fuel sitution, lets not make things totally ridiculous.

[Mini D]

It's not  a simple fact toad.  It's an assumption.  A gameplay change is made... and numbers are going up.  You claim it's the gameplay change that made things "worse".  I believe, quite firmly, you need a gang to have a "gangbang".

The game has not been ruined.  You can still fly an airplane and shoot at the enemy.  It's just that the enemy is more prone to try to avoid your guns than most people would like.  It's no different than being an alt monkey or vulch... people just go for the advantage.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the game actually having a mission... a pre-defined objective... a purpose.  That way, you and the "just let us be" guys can sit and pretend you're having a really fun time playing with yourselfs (kinda like the CT is now).

Hell.. the CT sees more numbers than the old days of AH.  But you keep on insisting it's not the numbers... it's the game that makes it happen.

[Toad]

We're not talking about the same things Mini.

You started out saying

There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage. There's no reason to defend. There's no reason to attack.

I agreed; there isn't and there never was. UNLESS you find doing those things personally enjoyable.

Reread what I said. I never said gameplay changes made things "worse", whatever that is.

The short version is I had lots more fun when the gameplay was admittedly simplistic.

Remember in AW when all you had to do to "capture" a base was to exit on the enemy runway? Real simplistic, silly even. Led to some tremendous fun; still remember those days as a great time online. Numbers had nothing to do with it.

Same thing here. When the base capture was simple early on, I had fun participating. When it got more..... whatever....... I didn't. Numbers not a factor.

But thanks for telling me that when I think I'm having fun, I'm really not, I'm only pretending to have fun. I missed that! I'll study my fun more closely now.

[GScholz]

This is something I've wanted for a long time. The "base capture" war is probably just a leftover from the simple times of multiplayer air war simulation. The focus on AF capture must go; it promotes the bad game play we now have. Instead the game should focus on "battlefield capture" where the maps are divided into sectors. Each sector has a battlefield where all the adjacent vehicle spawn points lead to, and with "victory locations" that needs to be captured.

The air war will in essence be over this battlefield, but we can also do airfield denial operations like we do now. They just don't become the prime mission, and take away planes that could be used to win the war over the battlefield. Once a country has captured all the victory locations on a battlefield, that sector, and all its airfields and VHs fall to the victor, and the battle moves on to the next sector battlefield.

This system would allow for a realistic purpose for vehicles, and a more realistic use of airpower in support of ground forces. Strategic targets in nearby sectors would also add a dimension to the game play that is mostly ignored now (except the HQ bombing). Each sector could have a "HQ" or rather a ground control station. That would be more realistic and practical. We really don't need a HQ since we have no organized command structure, and the ground controls were the ones in direct communication with the planes.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Toad
Remember in AW when all you had to do to "capture" a base was to exit on the enemy runway? Real simplistic, silly even. Led to some tremendous fun; still remember those days as a great time online. Numbers had nothing to do with it.
 

When was that?
Musta been before my time
I remember when I first started AW The only base capture there was was of the 3 neutral feilds in the center. And even they required drunks

Then when in AWII it went to regular base capture of a countries bases you needed drunks.

[beet1e]

MiniD,

We may have had disagreements in the past about other matters, but not AH gameplay. On the subject of AH gameplay, I would even go to say that your views are my views. (Not just saying this because it's Mr. Toad with whom you are disagreeing) So can I ask you a question about maps? My current point of view, which I have held for a year or two, is that large maps go some way to dissipate the hordes. As you know, there is a large slice of the subscribership which belongs to the "it's MY $14.95" squadron, and does not want to coordinate in organised team effort with base capture as the goal. I have always felt that on some of the large maps like Pizza, that horde of 50+ guys cannot agree upon where to take off and which enemy airfield to fly to. So they get spread out along the front line. On the small maps, the front "line" might consist of only one green base and one red one, so that "where do we fly from" decision is made for them.

Mr. Toad, as for HTC not designing in new players, I don't entirely agree. Hitech and Pyro wrote a game for which the fee payable by players was $2/hour. Funked was the first guy to record his observation that  "$2/hour kept the tardz out". The new regime is the $14.95 flat rate pricing plan. Clearly that is affordable to many more people, but for HTC to recover sufficient gameplay revenues, they have to take on all comers, and make the game attractive to the masses.

I was even a little surprised when they did away with the 800yd spray hizooka shots (at an upward angle of more than 40° by Cod ), and it has to be said that they did receive account cancellations, and whine posts along the lines of "AH is half the fun it used to be". Maybe they now feel that the player base is strong enough to lose a bunch of pain-in-the-neck whining dweebs in order to make the gunnery more realistic, but that price plan, and the reduction from $30/month to $14.95/month was sure as hell designed to attract the masses, without which AH could not survive.

[Toad]

Maybe it was early Warbirds then. It's been a while since I started playing these games; things kinda run together.

Beet, changing pricing isn't a gameplay design change.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Beet, changing pricing isn't a gameplay design change.

Let's not split hairs. With a $2/hour pricing plan and a hard core subscribership of players who spent ~3 hours a day online, the game could get by with maybe a few hundred players.

Those days are gone. Instead of the time when some guys would have bills the size of car payments, top whack is now $14.95, reduced from $30/month shortly after I joined. Whether it's a business model change or a gameplay design change is immaterial. Bottom line is that the company needs 5,000 subscribers to rake in $75,000/month - far more than in the old $2/hour days. For that, the game had to have mass appeal rather than being designed for a niche market. I've got my own views on how that was achieved. But achieve it they did.

[Mini D]

That was early warbirds when you exited OTR to capture a field.  A single p-38 could capture a large airfield.  AH was never like that.

We're talking about the changes in AH toad... and you have to go back to warbirds to try to prove a point.  We talk about what's wrong with the game and the hord mentality, and you go to the game feature card being the reason for this (yes... I did read what you said).

I've seen alot of whines from you, toad (and lazs too), that blamed gameplay for behavior... citing things like "1 bomber is too impacting" and such.  It was worse in the old days... when 1 bomber could completely shut down 3 bases.  But you seem to forget that.  Selective then and now memory invalidates the glamorous memories when applied to the argument.

Field generals are not a new development.  Strat players are not some brand new concept.  Hordes are not something that just sprung up overnight.  These have existed to some degree since 1995 (as far back as I go with on-line sims).  The main thing that has changed the most dramatically is the numbers.  100 used to be a crowded arena in warbirds.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Mini D
There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage.  There's no reason to defend.  There's no reason to attack.  There's no reason to complete a mission.

Sure there is.  The reason is... to have fun!  This is and always will be the only reason for anything in this or any other game.  If you have some ToD strat or whatever, you will still be playing to have fun.

[Toad]

As you like. But that isn't what I was talking about.

Are you going to call the shutdown of AW and the resultant huge influx of players a gameplay design change too? Maybe that was as important or more important than the pricing model?

*********

No, Mini.

YOU'RE talking about "what's wrong with the game and the hord mentality".

I'm talking about having fun in the game.

I had tons of fun in AW. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.

I had tons of fun in WB. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.

I had tons of fun in early versions of AH when gameplay was pretty simplistic.

Can you detect the common element there?

By your only numbers matter, I'd be led to think then that the CT would be my nirvana right? It has low numbers like AW, WB, and early AH. However, I find the CT boring. How could that be Mini?

I mean if "numbers" is the only factor in my having fun?

Also, don't confuse me with others. For example, I challenge you to find a post where I complained that "1 bomber is too impacting". I don't believe I ever did. My "thing" was logging on and finding no frontline bases with fuel greater than 25%. That stuff really started happening AFTER they added the complex bomb sight and pretty much neutered buffs as point target killers.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
As you like. But that isn't what I was talking about.

Are you going to call the shutdown of AW and the resultant huge influx of players a gameplay design change too? Maybe that was as important or more important than the pricing model?

I know nothing about AW, but WB was forced to follow suit when AH started up as a flat rate game.

Mini is right - 100 was a crowded arena in WB. On its small maps, 30-60 was a good number, remembering that there were four sides - green, purple, red & gold. One night I couldn't sleep, so logged on to WB. It was US prime time, with 200 online. Far too crowded! I logged off immediately.  The most fun I had in the early days was flying for Purple during the early hours - maybe 50 players on a weekday morning. I still remember many of the names - including some guy called -lazs- But now in AH we have maps of a similar size but there are 500, 600 or more online.

Yep, it was simplistic - just shooting other planes, but I began to get bored. I'd learned all the chess piece moves, and needed a purpose. Shooting for the sake of it had run its course.

I know that capture the flag isn't much, but it's all we have for the time being, until TOD comes out some time in 2007.

But I take your point, and strat can be taken too far - as it was in WB 2.77 when nobody could understand it!

What was your ID in WB? Mine was scrmbl.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm talking about having fun in the game.

I had tons of fun in AW. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.

What were the numbers then?

I had tons of fun in WB. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.

What were the numbers then?

I had tons of fun in early versions of AH when gameplay was pretty simplistic.

What were the numbers then?  And... I do detect the concession here toad... or did that word "pretty" accidently slip in there?

Can you detect the common element there?

Yes I can, but I don't think it's the same one you believe it to be.

If you'll read my first post here, I cited the massive influx of players... it's you that is bringing the "gameplay changes" into the picture.  The changes to the game are negligable to the comparitave number of players playing in one arena toad.  Surely you must see this.  And it's time to stop pretending that I can't.

By your only numbers matter, I'd be led to think then that the CT would be my nirvana right? It has low numbers like AW, WB, and early AH. However, I find the CT boring. How could that be Mini?

Oh... I don't know... perhaps you're finding that doing the exact same thing for 9 years gets boring after a while?  Maybe you're finding that after being in an arena with 500 other people, 30-50 just doesn't cut it anymore?  Maybe you're finding that despite people just wanting to fight, engaging the same people over and over in the same manner just doesn't do it for you anymore?  I dunno.  but surely you have to admit that the strat is not the issue in the CT, where you still get bored... right?

One thing has shown itself to be true... no matter what strategy changes are made, the horde/gang-bang/alt-monkey/vulch/dweeb behavior continues.  Yet you continue to cite the game changes as the root cause.  Simplicity does not negate these things toad.  Simplicity works with small numbers, especially with enthusiasts.  It does not work with mobs.  Hell... just think small company vs a corperation.