Mission rewards.

[Krusty]

The very fact you are running a mission (with upwards of 20 pilots many times I've seen) leads you to a much higher success rate. Now, whatever you regard as "success" -- be it hangars, towns, strats, whatever -- is up to you but the missions increases your chances of reaching that goal.

So not only do you get the horde going, the numerical superiority, the coordinated effort of attack/bombing to finish your target off before the enemy can stop you, but you want PERKS on top of that?

I think the fact you're rolling in on a target with a horde and steamrolling the crap out of it is enough of a reward for most missions.

My $0.03 (taking inflation into account)

[caldera]

I have no problem being that player.

+ 1

[SmokinLoon]

Double or triple the perk points for players who land while in mission colors. 

Coding would be an issue, one can imagine.  Perhaps a minimum of 5 players to qualify for a legit misison?  Time in the air or in a gv? 

[_vic_]

I think the fact you're rolling in on a target with a horde and steamrolling the crap out of it is enough of a reward for most missions.

Krusty, I agree... however it doesn't work that way in practice. The system is rarely used.

I'm really just trying to think of a way to promote teamwork. The strongest aspect of this game is the persistent environment and large scale warfare, but I'm already getting bored of furballing randomly with no aim or goal other than for people to stat pad. I thought perhaps if there were another way for them to achieve their stat-padding desires while also supporting the greater team that everyone would win...

As someone mentioned earlier, perhaps a "minimum" number of required players for the mission to count would be sufficient...

Someone else mentioned NOE hordes... I used to play an MMO FPS game called "PlanetSide" that used a unique system. When you captured a base, the amount of "experience points" that you were awarded was directly proportional to the amount of resistance at the base... If there are more enemies than friendlies in the sectors at the time the mission is completed, then you get a nice bonus... If it's an NOE ninja-cap... then you get nothing. Simple enough.

I guess I should have known better than to try to post something constructive that might  actually benefit HTC and the game... I've seen the way people get ripped apart on these boards. Call me naive, but I thought the idea of playing in a massively multiplayer game was the social interaction aspect... but I digress.

Thanks for listening...
Tim

[Delirium]

Vic/Tim, I understand what you're trying to do but rewarding a mission is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

When I started, the dogfight was the supreme and the aim of a vast majority of the players. Yes, there were missions but it more often aimed at promoting a fight, than taking a base. Now, I've seen more than 45 guys do a mission to take a field and now we have whole groups of several squads combined that simply 'roll' one base after another. That isn't team work, that is ganging the other side for no reason than to take real estate.

I want to see less missions and I'm definitely not in favor of encouraging more to form.

[_vic_]

Delirium,

I respect that viewpoint, but if the goal isn't to take bases, then why is that the objective of winning the war? I understand that we all come to Aces High for different reasons... and I totally agree that "steam rolling" the competition isn't fun for ANYONE.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I log into the game, I pick an airfield with a darbar that's roughly equal for red and green, and I fly out and fly over and over again until I'm bored or angry.

I yearn for the cohesive teamwork of a unit, similar to when we fly FSO's. I like to fly as a wingman, or escort bombers, or any number of things where someone like myself (who is not a very good stick) can still feel like an integral member of the team... Having a bunch of random friendlies whom I don't know say, "Check 6!" (while helpful) doesn't really classify as "teamwork".

Midwar has the level of teamwork that I love, but they're usually *so* concentrated on taking bases that it just becomes a GV war... meanwhile the Late war arena doesn't have any feeling of teamwork whatsoever most of the time. The only communication that goes on comes in the form of "Alert xx" or "Check 6"... and I just wish there were more to it. When I started looking into flight sims there were two or three that I looked into seriously. I chose Aces High because it offered me a chance to work with a team towards a long term goal. The other games, which were "furball only" type games didn't keep my interest for more than a few weekends... now, I sit here wondering how much longer Aces High will be able to keep my interest if I don't feel as though I'm really part of the team...

And yes, I have a squad - and they are amazing guys... but I pretty much only get to see them during FSO's... and finding a good squad that fits my time zone is nearly impossible.

I guess the point is moot. I really thought it was a good idea, and I guess most people just want something different from this game than I do. There's always WWIIOL and Warbirds. I'll have to check them out.

Thanks all,
Tim

[dkff49]

I think instead of rewarding the horde (oh I mean mission participants) I think we should reward those that up to defend against them with extra perks. 

maybe horde (oh yeah again I mean mission) busting stats 

I have no problem being that player.

I too have no problem being that player

[Hap]

Vic, I say your idea is great!  It would tend towards the items you mentioned, and it would be a welcome antidote to the current state of affairs.

You would have loved Aces High from 2002 to 2004 or thereabouts.  The rules (field and arena setups) of the game differed and the feel of the game was much different.

[Hazard69]

I think instead of rewarding the horde (oh I mean mission participants) I think we should reward those that up to defend against them with extra perks. 

maybe horde (oh yeah again I mean mission) busting stats 

What stops you from launching a "defend base XX" mission? Same rules, same rewards only the other way around.
I personally think what the mission editor lacks is the ability to assign objectives. If implemented, the rewards (perks, merit badges, bragging rights whatever) can be awarded to those individuals that accomplish the goals and not to the "horde".
e.g.1: Attack mission : objective destroy 10 or more AXX town objects and land successfully
e.g.2: Defence mission: objective kill 3 or more enemy, land successfully and AXX must not be captured.

The more the conditions to complete the higher should be the reward. In above e.g. the defence mission would have more rewards if successfully completed.

My 0.02$

[Denholm]

Sounds like fun.

[dkff49]

First off I don't think there should be any additional rewards towards the use of missions. Which was kind of my point in my last post, it might have been a little overboard by offering a counter-idea but none-the-less was my point.

On your suggestion of base defence mission. It really would not work based on the fact that base defenders typically need to up several times due to the disadvantages that are associated with having to up from the field under attack. There would need to be an option to allow continuas uppers to continually up and fly under same mission for that to work.

For the base takers there is already reward for running mission and that is the increase in the odds of success for running it. I think most of the complaints that come about not enough teamwork come about because many people think that everybody should be playing to "win the war" and take bases. I say the less incentive there is to create a horde the better.

just my opinion

[Anaxogoras]

I respect that viewpoint, but if the goal isn't to take bases, then why is that the objective of winning the war?

It doesn't matter.  Field capture is dumb, though I still find myself doing it from time to time.  Base-capture-to-win-the-war is the same system HT/Pyro had in place in the earliest versions of Warbirds, ~15 years ago!

[dkff49]

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I log into the game, I pick an airfield with a darbar that's roughly equal for red and green, and I fly out and fly over and over again until I'm bored or angry.

I think that you may be mis-interpretting the large equal adr-bar.

Most times that is the result of a furball, where many if not most of the players there want it to stay that way. If you want to take bases this is not the place to look for it.

I can't really tell you what to look for when first coming in to game (in order to find the base takers) but looking for the biggest and equal dar-bar is not usually going to produce the outcome that you are looking for.