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

[Toad]

Beet, in WB I was Toed. PS moved from AW to WB kinda late and my 1st choice was out.

*******
We look at the same experience and draw differing conclusions.

You're convinced it's numbers. That's an opinion; there's no real supporting documentation for it.

I'm convinced it's overly complex and contrived gameplay. That's an opinion; there's no real supporting documentation for it.

Of course one HUGE difference is that you are telling me why I am not having as much fun as I did previously. OTOH, I am examing my personal experience and deciding why I don't have as much fun as I used to have. Since it only applies to me, I think I'll go with the guy that knows me best.

"Pretty" is not a concession. I could have used "very" or "extremely"  just as easily.

BTW, I totally disagree on your assessment of my perspective on the CT as well. But there's no point in arguing it.

You view things through your own perspective. For example,

Personally, I'm looking forward to the game actually having a mission... a pre-defined objective... a purpose.

I can honestly say I don't seek that, never have. But if you get it in TOD, I'll be happy for you. It's something that none of the Main Arena games ever really had, not AW, WB or AH. I never missed it.

You know, for quite some time I read Beet's posts as he disparaged "Air Quake" and "Quakers" as if these were some form of low-life plague. I didn't really understand; oh, I knew Quake was some kind of FPS shooter game but I had never played it.

Not long ago, my son put Call of Duty on my computer. His didn't have enough HP to play it. I watched him play. I gave it a try. Hey... all of a sudden it was like the old days. Sit down to play at 10 PM and suddenly it's 2 AM and you feel like you've been playing 10 minutes. I remember when AW, WB and yes AH was like that for me. Sit down at the computer and the hours flashed by. Great mindless fun.

Then I find out that COD is a Quake derivative or something. Ah HA! This must be what Beet was talking about!

So, I guess at heart I'm really a Quaker. COD, the Quake-like game, delivers that fun and immersion that I play computer games to find. The clock races and that's a good thing; it means you're interested. AW, WB and AH used to be like that for me.

Now, if that makes me some lesser form of internet computer game player, so be it. Because in the "zoomed out" aspect of life, all of us intardnet computer games players are lesser forms to people with real lives. The idea that one form of game is somehow superior to another is laughable to me. I might even say play what you like, like what you play; that's why we have games.

[DoKGonZo]

An arena-based format is an almost impossible format to sustain. It gets harder and harder to do so as the number of players increases because (a) you have more people looking to exploit corner-cases in the system, (b) quantity start to become more important than quality, and (c) individuality gets harder to come by with so many names in the air.

On top of which, the longer you've played the more likely you've "been there, done that." It's hard to get back that original buzz from your first six months. And too easy to blame the "10,000 dweebs" for the downfall.


What we have in AH2 is a very good balance. Even if radar gets bombed, it just takes half a dozen people to stop furballing for 20 minutes to resupply it and it's usually right back up. The only issues I have with HQ bombing is that the effect is a bit more than one single person should be able to cause to maintain that balance.

I think it'd be way cool if the more damaged your HQ is the longer between radar screen updates. It better reflects the actual role of HQ and adds a nice "fog" to the whole arena. This would also allow the strat stuff to prolong the length of time radar needs to repair since it wouldn't be such a reason to log off. As radar degrades and stays degraded longer, you have enough info on screen to kind of know what's going on - but you end up relying more on vox when it comes to actual contact.

[Mini D]

Whoa... I don't seek it for the MA either toad.  I've said it wouldn't be possible... period.  I'm looking forward to TOD (if it ever materializes).

I'm not sitting here pretending the MA used to be something else when gameplay was different.  You are.  The issues you complain about have always existed, whether you chose to remember them or not.  Game features did not bring about this behavior (or at least... wasn't the driving force behind it).  Yet, it's the first card you go to every single time.

As far as the whole "quaker" thing goes.  It's not a label I've ever thrown on anyone.  But I do believe you are starting to come to terms with something... at least in regards to where your priorities lie.  If quake is what you truly want, surely you realize there are many better options than WW2 flight/combat sims.

And I'm all for people playing the games they want... can't say I've ever said otherwise.  I just don't see what that has to do with you insisting that AH isn't the way you want because there's too many other things to do.  Choice doesn't dictate behavior.  Limitting it does.

[Toad]

"I'm not sitting here pretending the MA used to be something else when gameplay was different."

Neither am I.

I am stating that the MA used to be more fun for me when gameplay was different.

Now, you're entitled to your opinion of that, but on my side of the fence there is no pretense nor is there any doubt.

It's just the way it is for me.

I don't think you even know the issues that concern me. For example the bomber one you put forth doesn't apply. Never did. I think you make up arguments and attribute them to me and then voice your opinion.

Gameplay is the most important aspect of any game. It's how people decide if they want to play it or not. Gameplay defines the game.

Your only "card" is numbers, as if gameplay has no input whatsoever.  Numbers are a factor in gameplay but they do not define the game. If that's you're only argument, there's nothing to argue about.

Yeah, COD simply reaffirmed my priorities. I want to have fun; I want to be so into the action that the hours slip by uncounted. That's nothing new, it's no "discovery", it's a reaffirmation.

See if I have to choose between a pin-point bomb sight and a restrictive calibrated sight for area bombing, I'll pick the FUN one. That's where my priorities lie; I play games to have fun.

Of course, now you'll tell me I didn't really have fun in AW, WB and AH. Because you just know, right?



Ta-ta, or should I say toodle-pip.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Toad
"I'm not sitting here pretending the MA used to be something else when gameplay was different."

Neither am I.

I am stating that the MA used to be more fun for me when gameplay was different.

No toad.  I'm not putting words in your mouth here.  You blame gameplay changes for the game no longer being fun for you.  You don't say it's a coincidence (like you're playing it off right now).  You're convinced it's not boredome or numbers... but gameplay changes.  Tell me... are you still playing TOD?  or Quake?

Now, you're entitled to your opinion of that, but on my side of the fence there is no pretense nor is there any doubt.

It's just the way it is for me.

There is a changing story toad.  You have a basic conflict here... you are saying it's simply how you feel or what you observe, but it's everyone and everything else that changed to cause it.  How are you blaming it on something that hasn't affected you?  And how do you believe that there's such a specific cause?  It's not fact based... it's purely feeling based.

I don't think you even know the issues that concern me. For example the bomber one you put forth doesn't apply. Never did. I think you make up arguments and attribute them to me and then voice your opinion.

It gets lost in the chorus toad.  There's a reason the (lazs) was thrown in with that statement.  If you stand side by side with the choir, it's hard to distinguish a solo voice.  So, no, I'm not familiar with the exact issues you have.  But, just by reading your text in this thread, neither are you.

Gameplay is the most important aspect of any game. It's how people decide if they want to play it or not. Gameplay defines the game.

Your only "card" is numbers, as if gameplay has no input whatsoever.  Numbers are a factor in gameplay but they do not define the game. If that's you're only argument, there's nothing to argue about.

There is very little about AH that defines the game toad.  Gameplay consists of doing one thing: loggin in and doing whatever you want.  That is what we call an "arena".  The people playing decide for themselves, the game does not decide for them.  Game features offer more choices, the players decide what they want.  The players are by far and away the driving force behind any current behavior in the MA.  To the point that most other things are negligable.

Yeah, COD simply reaffirmed my priorities. I want to have fun; I want to be so into the action that the hours slip by uncounted. That's nothing new, it's no "discovery", it's a reaffirmation.

Like I said before... are you still playing it?  Do you think you'll still be playing it in 2012?

See if I have to choose between a pin-point bomb sight and a restrictive calibrated sight for area bombing, I'll pick the FUN one. That's where my priorities lie; I play games to have fun.

Yeah... I know you play to have fun toad.  The thing you fail to realize is your definition isn't exactly the same as everyone else's.  You simply dismiss varying oppinions as "not as fun" choosing to use the term as some kind of holy grail instead.  I understand.  But... just to make it clear to everyone:

Things that ruin fun:

1) gameplay

Thangs that don't ruin fun:

1) hordes
2) monotony
3) boredome
4) lack of change
5) romantasizng the past

Of course, now you'll tell me I didn't really have fun in AW, WB and AH. Because you just know, right?

Tell you you didn't really have fun?  Now where have I done that?  Did I tell you the things you're *****ing about existed in the games you insist you had fun in?  Yeppers.  What else has changed toad?  You insist it's not you.  I think that's where you are very wrong.

[Rude]

Originally posted by GScholz
Knocking out radar coverage for an entire country is gamey. In WWII no country (that had radar networks) lost all radars due to a single bombing run. Even the Germans had some operational radar stations in 1945.

I say that radars should be able to be destroyed locally at each field, but the "bomb HQ - blind the entire country" must go. It is very bad for game play too since it is always the underdog with low numbers that get their HQ bombed, so it just adds to the effect of lopsided numbers.

I agree.....spoke with HT about it once.....he didn't like the idea, not sure why though.

[Rude]

Originally posted by GScholz
The problem with this game is that there are too many players that enjoy ruining other players fun without even fighting them. HQ raiders, suicidedweebs, gangbangers ... and of course the game actually accomodates these people and even encourage them with the scoring system.

What's going on here????

I'm in agreement with you not once, but twice.....sheesh!!!

[Rude]

Originally posted by 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.

Stop showin that little hard one you have for Toad....especially here in front of everyone.

Fact is, as AH was initially, it bred a completely different kind of fight and fun than does the current version....you're correct, the numbers have increased, but in that alone doth not lie the final nail in the gameplay coffin.

I agree with Toad....simple is good and complex, programmed and forced gameplay has brought about the likes of fuel porking, gangbanging and typical socialist gameplay....not too many individuals around anymore and when one does show up, out comes your mini to piss all over what they have to say.

Shame on ya.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree.  I have been trying to think of a good strat system built around sectors captured by ground forces.

Frankly, I think a thread exploring better gameplay would make sense.  However, HTC has their work cut out for them with AH2:TOD and it is likely a long time before a major revamp of the MA gameplay would be seen.

[Mini D]

bs rude.  Fuel porking... ok... but I do believe that's been somewhat reversed recently (75% max damage?).  The rest just get's lumped in there.

The only thing that's changed is who's doing what and how it's impacted things.

This is funny coming from two 13th guys.  I remember the 13th of the old days, and find it pretty damn hillarious to watch you guys reminice about them.

Alt monkey and gang-bang were two words used to describe your squad on a regular basis.  I can't remember engaging less than 3 of you in the "glory days".  Hell... I remember going 3:1 against TAS guys and finally hitting a radiator, just to watch all 3 of them run away.  Yes... these were the glory days, when all you had to do was fight.  No numbers advantages, no altitude advantages, no lamers running from fights.

But you guys keep going to the "fun" card.  It's your only defense against the cold harsh truth.

A little Q&A for both of you:

Q:  What is it that you find fun that you are not allowed to do in AH?

A:  Absolutely nothing.  You can hop in a plane and shoot at anything you like.

Q: What change would you make to the game that would alter your playing style?

A: Absolutely nothing.  You don't want to change what you're doing, but what everyone else is doing.  Your sense of fun pivots around everyone else sharing the same philosophy.  

Hell... let me hear that one about just having fun again.  Or... maybe that one about everyone just ruining your fun.

Everyone has had options to suicide fields before... what is different?  Scoring?  Hell no... it doesn't help your score to suicide anything.  Wait... it's gang-banging.  Err... no... that's always occured.  I remember getting vulched at a field while 12 planes hovered there before... with some of the names swearing AH isn't as fun any more in attendance.   It's the strat system... but wait... that doesn't really prevent you from doing anything.

Stick to that "ruining people's fun" thing.  I like it.  Hell.. that's something nash could use in the O'Club.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Mini D [/i]
 I'm not putting words in your mouth here.

Sure you are.  I could go through you post line by line and show it to ya to. To what effect? You can't even admit you were wrong about lumping me in with the buffs have too much effect crowd. You assign statements/philosophies to me that I don't hold or espouse. But then that's the only way to make your argument.


Right now, I'm not playing anything. My gaming computer melted and the parts are still coming in to rebuild it. When it's back up, I'll be playing COD, some AH and a little bit of AA.

  Gameplay consists of doing one thing: loggin in and doing whatever you want.  That is what we call an "arena".

Jeez, you should be embarassed to post that. Gameplay defines the game. Do you think the game would be different, appealing to a different crowd if every arena was "one life per nite"? That's gameplay and it would generate a huge change in player attitudes. Similarly, the change from the pin-point bomb sight to the calibrated one made buffs essentially disappear for quite a while. It has changed the way they're used significantly from the early days. Or do you want to deny that or just blame it on numbers again? Just two examples, there are more of course.

Tossing out stuff like that shows clearly that you and I are not even communicating. If that's all you think gameplay consists of there is no basis for discussion.

   The thing you fail to realize is your definition isn't exactly the same as everyone else's.

Really? Check my sig. It's been that for years and througout all that time I HAVE espoused a "do what you like" credo here on the BBS. All I ever asked is that the game allow me to do what I like as well.
 


   Did I tell you the things you're *****ing about existed in the games you insist you had fun in?  Yeppers.

Duh! Did I say they didn't? You think these things ruin my fun and that's where you are totally wrong.





  What else has changed toad?  You insist it's not you.  


No kidding? Maybe I have a reason to insist it's not me?

Let's see.

I had great fun in AW. I had great fun in WB. I didn't leave either one of those because of

1) hordes
2) monotony
3) boredome
4) lack of change
5) romantasizng the past

I left because I played a beta of something similar that I found even more fun.

I'm still playing AH because it can still be fun.

Riddle me this Mini:

How come there are still times when the hours slip past unnoticed for me in AH? I mean even though the NUMBERS are so big, there are hordes, monotony, boredom and lack of change and I romantically dream of the past....... I can still have a total blast. A good CV furball still spins the clock for me, for example.

Think about it.

Now, really, I'll argue this same thing with you again yet another time in another thread. Because you and I aren't talking about the same things so there can be no agreement.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Rude
Stop showin that little hard one you have for Toad....especially here in front of everyone.

Rude,
Toad & MiniD have an interesting discussion going here. You might want to butt out if all you can do is to surprise everyone with your wise-arse quips.

I've been following this discussion with interest. Some people (and they know who they are) seem to be blaming the strat or other complexities in the game for a reduction in their "fun". I call BS on this one. The gameplay problem as I see it is too many players in too small a space, leading to ganging/hording/porking. Perhaps this sort of thing did not happen during the early days. But I put it to you that the reason for what many of us see as the deterioration in gameplay has happened not because of the strat that has been introduced in the last few years, but because of the sharp rise in numbers that has occurred in that timeline. I would substantiate that by adding that this past month has seen a plethora of gameplay whines about numbers imbalance/ganging/hording even though as of AH2, fuel porkage has been limited to 75%. Many of the furballers cited the former 25% fuel porkage as the one single thing that was ruining their gameplay. That has been fixed, but guess what? The crap gameplay/fragfest continues with gay abandon.

It is clear to me, and Slapshot would agree with me, that the appalling gameplay to be seen in the MA these days is being caused by excessive player density. The only way to address this right now, while we wait for TOD or some other miracle, is to reduce player density. With the tools currently available, that could be done in one of two ways:

• Make two main arenas, with a 300 player limit on each;
• Deploy the large maps. Utilisation of the small maps in an arena with 600 players is akin to staging Test Cricket in my back garden.

MiniD said "You don't want to change what you're doing, but what everyone else is doing. Your sense of fun pivots around everyone else sharing the same philosophy." You know, I wish I had £1 for every time those thoughts had run through my mind this past couple of years. It's worthy sig. material. I always remember the claims that there were "no fights" on the pizza map. I posted film that proved the contrary, only to be told that "those were not fights". Yes indeed, I was made to feel that I was under some obligation to fly a P47 like a SpitV in a T&B engagement at 2K.

Say what you like about pizza, I'd rather see a relatively small skirmish like this one, than a 50v50 or 100 man horde on the small maps.

[Kev367th]

Anyone who can't find a fight on a big map at ANY time of day - just isn't looking.Unless of course what they mean is they can't find a fight where they have a 3 v 1 or better advantage.

[DoKGonZo]

Problem is you don't get sustained 300+ player loads for days on end. It peaks at certain hours and then drops off.

With the 2X fuel multiplier, knocking out fuel at a field is a pretty big deal. The terrains I've seen so far - regardless of size - are all pretty packed in. Was a map with fewer fields, more space between, and a 1X fuel multiplier ever tried?

In other words, if you have 600 people on a map, but there's too much distance between fields to sustain these field gang-bangs, would that have the results you're looking for? In which case you'd really have to orchestrate a field capture because of the transit time and the higher chance of being intercepted. Of course, an air field capture would suddenly become much more meaningful as well. There'd need to be some adjustments to things to make this work. TLike barracks would need to be hardened or it'd be just too easy to completely stop any forward progress.

I dunno ... it's just a thought. Take any terrain, and make half (or more on some maps) the fields vehicle fields instead, and reduce the fuel mult back to 1X. This effectively doubles the range between airfields while not really impacting GV's much.

Of course, if you even add 1 sector more of separation between fields there will be whining about how it "takes too long to get to a fight." And Lord knows you can't go 20 minutes without HO-ing someone or your hands start to shake.

    -DoK

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Problem is you don't get sustained 300+ player loads for days on end. It peaks at certain hours and then drops off.

With the 2X fuel multiplier, knocking out fuel at a field is a pretty big deal. The terrains I've seen so far - regardless of size - are all pretty packed in. Was a map with fewer fields, more space between, and a 1X fuel multiplier ever tried?

In other words, if you have 600 people on a map, but there's too much distance between fields to sustain these field gang-bangs, would that have the results you're looking for? In which case you'd really have to orchestrate a field capture because of the transit time and the higher chance of being intercepted. Of course, an air field capture would suddenly become much more meaningful as well. There'd need to be some adjustments to things to make this work. TLike barracks would need to be hardened or it'd be just too easy to completely stop any forward progress.

I dunno ... it's just a thought. Take any terrain, and make half (or more on some maps) the fields vehicle fields instead, and reduce the fuel mult back to 1X. This effectively doubles the range between airfields while not really impacting GV's much.

Of course, if you even add 1 sector more of separation between fields there will be whining about how it "takes too long to get to a fight." And Lord knows you can't go 20 minutes without HO-ing someone or your hands start to shake.

    -DoK

All good thoughts Dok, but there are those that dont' care to paricipate in the "field capture" ... "lets win the reset" line of thought. Which I am one of.

Their main intention is to "dogfight" and travelling a sector or more to just find a fight is considered painfull. There are some "strat" guys who don't really care to fly a sector or sector and a-half to try to capture a base either.

On the Trinity Map (large map), vehicle bases were changed to airfields to shorten the distance between some fields.

Have you had the chance to fly on festerMA or OZKansas yet ? Fester made multiple changes to these maps trying to balance/stagger the distances between airfields ... most who have flown these maps like the setup.

Balance on these maps is a fine line, and can be better tuned on the larger maps, as opposed to the smaller maps ... just not enough real estate.