Well, for what it's worth, here is my two cents on a way to try to solve what seems to be a general complaint about this game - score hoarding in it's varying forms. In essence, it is the continuing comments and issues around the lack of willingness to fight in the MA.
Just a little background and general comments first. I have been playing AH for quite some time. My posts may make me look like a Noob, but that is only because I took two years off, starting again last month. I first played AHI, starting in early 02, and played AH quite regularly until about two years ago, where I had to take time off for both work and school reasons. I only say this to perhaps show that I have some experience and history here.
I do agree that the game has changed. However, one can really look at this two ways. First, most of the complaining on the BBS comes from seasoned sticks who love a challenging fight and have the skills to prove it, for the most part I guess. They are not really concerned (generally) about scores and are most interested in mastering less than easy aircraft. For example, I very rarely see vets in Spit 16's or La-La's---the S.A.P.P's in their 38's, and recently seeing the Muppets in the Hawgs help show this. However, a majority of the people playing ARE concerned with scores, and therefore, fly planes or tactics that they feel will allow them to survive, even if those tactics are not the best in a more seasoned players mind.
Second, and I know this will tickle the ire of a few vets, one can argue that the same tactics that cause a few noses to wrinkle here would be considered proper if this was not a cartoon game. I am by no means an aviation expert, but, I have tried to really learn about WWII aviation over the years. One of the common points stressed by leadership in the fighter ranks, from the Flying Tiger days through Thomas McGuire's rules on the 38's use, was to stay fast and, in essence, boom and zoom and stay in the advantage. To a point, the tactics that are applied by these folk are simply in line with that thought, whether they know it or not.
Still this is a game, and what is right for some is completely against what others are looking for.
One other quick point: often posts seem irate, mean, pointed etc... Some are intended that way. However, only about 7% - 10% of a persons communciation actually gets through properly via text. Much of what a person is trying to say, and how they are saying it, get's lost. I think that inflames the issue.
One of the reasons I had to take off for two years was to attend Business School. One of the things drilled into our thick skulls there is that if one does not like the results of a certain "game" (they actually use this term), don't look at the players, first look at the game itself as well as the processes the game utilizes/rewards.
That said, here is what I propose:
The actions of picking/running/boom-zoom-scram, and just a general lack of engagement is a result of the game rewarding this behavior. It does so in two ways - Aknowledging multiple kills landed via 200 as well as the ranking system. These two "things", more than anything else, validate the actions that we see in the MA. If we would like a different result, change the system! I propose that one MA in late war be changed to operate with different rules. Still have base captures/strategy as intended, but simply remove the "kills landed" message, and, change the weight of ranking so the kills/death ratio does not factor in as heavily, or at all. I propose being farily harsh with the last idea (making it a non-issue) so as to really see if the idea works.
Coming from an IT background, I would assume that these slight modifications would not be difficult to implement. Also, I would not add a third MA, simply take Orange or Blue and apply the new rules to it. This might cause a new ranking system, but still, it can be tried as a few months long experiment, simply moved back if the idea does not work. Change can be a good thing, especially if it provides positive results.
I fully believe that is the social desire to land kills is taken away, we will see much more agressive fighting in the MA. In fact, one can even add new messages/scoring to promote the engagement of dogfights/acm.
As one of my strategy books says, "If you desire different results, do not change the players, change the game!".
Well.....thoughts?
Thanks,
Broc
As a side note, I have had some very fun fights of late - I agree there is nothing more ewarding here than a good multi-minute dogfight, even if I get shot down.
<S>
