War Arena?

[Hap]

Might this change increase AH subscriptions? 

Turn the least populated WW2 arena into a "War Arena" as a test for a suitable duration so HTC can measure results.

It would play similarly as AH did in the past.

All fields/vbase/ports/cv's can be captured.  Reset happens when 1 country has lost all but 1 possession.  Fuel can be porked to 25%.

With older guys playing games, I fancy the internal decision making of the best route to a "win" would appeal to them.

Who knows, maybe the 40 to 70 yr old crowd would subscribe in droves?

[gyrene81]

   What on earth are you talkin about? 

You stayed up too long last night and had a nightmare didn't you?

[Lusche]

Why should older guys prefer a AH version, where it's back to two bigger countries continuously hammering on a smaller third until reset?

[HawkerMKII]

Agree Hap.....put the POINT of the game back...win war not just a furball MS flight sim game

[bagrat]

Agree Hap.....put the POINT of the game back...win war not just a furball MS flight sim game

this game is about winning wars. i though it was about bombing defenseless vehicles 

[The Fugitive]

Agree Hap.....put the POINT of the game back...win war not just a furball MS flight sim game

The problem with the "win the war" stuff is it's too gamey. Bases are to easy to grab because a large portion of the players don't care about loosing bases. How often does your squad defend bases?

I'd like to see base ack doubled with a higher hit percentage at undefended bases. This would simulate defenders. It would make things more challenging for attacker to take bases and there fore work better stratigies than the old 20 110's NOE mission.

If your here to just take territory, go play Risk, I here they have an on-line version now. The point of this game is combat, to fight your way to a goal. Whether that goal is to shoot the other guy down, ambush GVs in the field, or capture land the idea is to fight for it. As it is now it is far to easy to grab bases. Once the base takers start on a roll the horde forms and the fun for everyone else for the rest of the night drops off quit a bit.


..... oh and BTW, there is no furballing in MS flight sim, they don't even have bullets.

[grumpy37]

The interesting dynamic of this game is no matter what HTC had in mind as their idea of how the game should be played has nothing to do with the way it is played.  Older players, as in guys playing since the start of all this, feel it was initially a WWII combat/flight sim.  Newer players see it more as a "Game" with base capture the entire reason they log in and pay their $15.  Guys who want to furball can up and just about any base thats under attack and furball till their eyes bleed, or the base is captured.  Nice thing is then you just move to the next base.  Those players that feel they need a bigger purpose, or cant furball, do the base taking.  A good squad will have a balance of both types of players.  I would think the game as it is suits the general purpose for almost every player. 

[HawkerMKII]

To GAMEY.............

Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line! And yes our squad defends alot of bases. Maybe we should just take out the base capture completely then maybe it would not be to GAMEY

[gyrene81]

To GAMEY.............

Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line!

You sure about that? Some people are just looking for ways to pad their scores, others enjoy just fighting it out with other people, still others think it's fun to take bases, and there are those who enjoy long bomber runs to strats. The only thing that gets "won" is the map, the side with the most bases wins the map and when the next map loads, the "war" rages on.

[Lusche]

To GAMEY.............

Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line! And yes our squad defends alot of bases. Maybe we should just take out the base capture completely then maybe it would not be to GAMEY

The really great thing of MA gameplay is that there isn't a single, one and only, above all other goals. It's a giant sandbox in which we all play and set our own personal goals.

BTW, the OPs suggestions do not make winning the war any more point of the game than it is now. It's just asking to change the game mechanics back to the much more worse version we have now. The rules for winning the war weren't changed to get rid of this kind of gameplay, but to make it more meaningful and fun for all participants.

[The Fugitive]

To GAMEY.............

Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line! And yes our squad defends alot of bases. Maybe we should just take out the base capture completely then maybe it would not be to GAMEY

I have no problem with the win the war attitude. If it was more of a challenge I would most likely play that way more often. As it is now there is less strategy in the capture of bases than there is in a good game of Stratego. Right now "most" missions mean a over large group of players trying to stay NOE and grab bases as quick as they can. If a defense pops up the new strategy is to move to a different base 

My goals in this game is to have as many tight, adrenalin pumping dogfights as I can. I've taken thousands of bases with more missions styles than most people could think up in a day. We had guys that would spend weeks time launches and rendezvous at waypoints all over the map to hit different targets at certain times to draw the enemy one way and then another. What people do these days is drop a hundred bombs and 50 troops and then move on to the next base. A smart group of 4 or 5 guys could follow most squads around recapturing the base because after they take them they don't defend them.

Gamey, you bet! Unfortunately some people like to play that way so HTC keeps it as a possiblity. Like Lusche said, there are a lot of ways to play this game, and a lot of ways to have fun. I think suggesting to change things back to a way that  didn't work is foolish. Looking forward is the way to go. personally I think making things more challenging is a great way to keep things fresh. It gives people something to "work out", a problem to solve, a hurdle to jump.

I hope I never get to be one of the "top guns" ( like there is EVER a chance of that!) How boring would it be to know you'll win every fight you enter, capture every base you attack, kill every GV with one shoot. The thrill of the game is the challenge in the game. Why would any one want it to be easy?

[Hap]

Fugitive,

Old guys like me are all dotty.  Forgive/excuse us.  Laugh.  It's all good.  1 teeny low populated arena will cost the AH community nothing as a test.  Heck, leave fuel alone.  Give reset a chance somewhere.

We like it cause we are stupid and know no better.

[WWhiskey]

I have often thought about a progressive war arena! one were the days are months in the real world, so that every day a month of real time passes during WW2
 it would be set up so that the new planes would appear as they did in the war itself, the war could not be easily be won or lost and the players could keep a score of kills similar to what we have now but per aircraft and only if you did not die in it, the count would restart if you die!
 then you could have a panzer ace or a tiger ace and so on .
the arena would reset every so often say 60 days  or what ever time line you can make fit! the war could not be  easily won by either side so as to just make it a player/ plane ability type of place!
 I prefer jugs but am by no way the best in one yet i would fly the jugs all the way threw the war, upgrading every time they came up with new ones.
It may need some " tuning" but I think it would add something to the game as well as teaching the order of battle as far as equipment was implemented!

edit: as far as dieing is concerned, if you had 30 kills before you died, your 30 kills would stand as your score in that plane or gv, if you got 31 the next time, then you could hold more than one place in the order of k/d ratio per aircraft or gv!

[The Fugitive]

Fugitive,

Old guys like me are all dotty.  Forgive/excuse us.  Laugh.  It's all good.  1 teeny low populated arena will cost the AH community nothing as a test.  Heck, leave fuel alone.  Give reset a chance somewhere.

We like it cause we are stupid and know no better.

I's an old guy like you, and if your Hap1 from the old days and was in the 444th AirMafia then I'm also MDJOE, aka Maddogjoe, and I've been here a long time.

Like I said, I have no trouble with a "win the war" type play. The problem is there is no strategy any more. Players use the same 1 or 2 missions over and over and guess what? They get bored. There is no way to continue the push toward winning the war .... except by horde... so the missions fall apart and the war isn't won. Large maps also play a part in it as there are a lot more bases to take, but with the numbers available during peak time even that shouldn't be that big a problem. A 60 player horde broken into 3 battle groups each hitting a different base adds an element of competition. "My group got it's base, did yours?" Or maybe 30 guys split into two groups, main group of 20 hits a base and second part is timed out to arrive 10 minutes after the first so it can clean up while the defenders are low and slow chasing the first group.

Adding a challenge, or more obsticals that people have to over come makes things more interesting and keeps players engaged. Todays players get bored or frustrated and move on, mostly because they are kids playing a game. They NEED an "end game" like win the war to play, where us old times play for the sake of playing.

[Hap]

Players use the same 1 or 2 missions over and over and guess what? They get bored.

Hey Joe!  Yup, 'tis I.  And you're right.