I'm kind of coming at it from an average jow perspective. If I can't be successful in fighters, whats left? GVs and bombers? GVs take to long for all but the most patient people, so that leaves bombers.
Also, those who play the "win the war" game want to feel like they have an impact on the game. When you fly fighters (well enough to feel as if you are 'successful" the impact is the number of kills you have. If you up a fighter and are fodder for any red con that comes within icon range, how can you have an impact? Easy, you fly a bomber. You can blow enemy buildings up, and fly home satisfied.
Excellent wording Urchin - I admire how you can put it so simply.
I was thinking the same, but was also afraid that if I'd write about it it'd become a full-blown essay.
Like you've mentioned, the "average joe", indeed, is probably way more numerous than the 'experienced' in the game. On a loose estimate, I'd say about 80% of the entire MA population is 'average', including myself. So, the average joe does have a say in this - perhaps much more than even the self-proclaimed 'vets'.
What you've explained is the common motivation behind the various types of people in the Main Arena. Back in the glorious "old-days", before AH became the giant of on-line combat simulation games, everybody shared a certain similar attitude toward flight and combat. The bombers, vehicles, and the whole strat system itself was IMO a slight addition to the fun factor at best.
However, the MA has grown now. There are a lot of pilots in the Arena. We even have our own small version of "nationalism" between Rooks, Bish, and Knits. The once common goal shared by the small group of 'vets', has now changed to a larger common purpose of 'winning the war'. People fly to win for their own country - not for the sake of combat itself like the 'old ones' used to... and it's my point of view that this is what's making things shaky and complicated regarding these types of discussions.
Do I think the bomber gameplay is ideal? No, I personally don't. I think there needs to be some kind of strategic targets (factories that actually make stuff like different fighters, GVs, etc, maybe supply stockpiles, that sort of thing so bombers pilots will have something to do other than drop hangars at fields and stifling a2a fights.
I think there needs to be a lot more ground cover, and I don't think bombers should get ID tags on enemy vehicles (formations of bombers, that is), because I don't think it is good gameplay for formations of level bombers to be carpetbombing individual Panzers.
This is the part where I smack my head and nod my head madly in agreement.
I totally agree.
The phenomena common in the MA some people(including myself) perceive as 'problems', is indeed caused by the ever-enlarging rift between arena numbers and basic game mechanics. I personally think we now have enough people to set up a bit more complex strat system for the MA.
But in the meantime, I don't think that taking away the "easy mode" impact on the game (by hanger busting or CV killing) that newer players can enjoy is warranted simply because a handful of "vets" do nothing buy run suicide NoE missions.
The problem is, these things have a way of embedding itself so firmly that when the time for change comes it inevidently meets a huge ruckus of oppositions and protests. Frankly, newer people should be more motivated to try different things and actually get better in achieving the desired results without getting shot down all the time.
There's a school of thought in the MA (probably in any society) that assumes that the "newbie" as a closed and unchanging state of mind.
They treat the newbie like a spoiled child - if something becomes more complex, if something becomes more real, or if something requires a certain amount of practice - then they assume the newbie will not be able to adapt to it, and just quit the game. More realism, new changes, more complex strats, more perk to uber-planes, better DM, even better graphics and etc etc.. will just make it so difficult for newbies that they'll quit and stop playing the game.
I don't agree with that kind of thinking - and especially after having seen the success of IL2/FB and their players, I am very convinced that the "newbie" is an ever-changing state of mind that actively adapts to what's given to them.
Newbies learn, and they change.
If something becomes more difficult or harder, they just practice more. If something becomes more real(such as less icon info or no ammo counters) they adapt to it and start reacting differently according to situations. If the game graphics are enhanced they earn more money and upgrade their system. There could be fights and clashes and disagreements or discontent to what's good or bad, but the point is if things change people learn to adapt to it. Some people may quit, but obviously the new changes also draw in a lot more people who were previously uninterested by the 'lacking' aspects of the game.
In other words, if some sort of action is limited in order to make the game more sound or better towards realism(or any other purpose, for that matter), that doesn't automatically mean that the people who used to do that kind of stuff will feel that their fun is gone. They just simply adapt to the change(despite the gripes and complaints) and start to have their own kind of fun after the adaptation is complete.
Yeah, the newer people may enjoy hangar busting or CV killing or deck-alt runs and suicidal kamikazes. But that doesn't mean that they will not enjoy the new challenges of having to learn to do other things due to limitations.
.......
That being said,
I don't like the idea itself. Ironic, ain't it?
