Are there enough players?

[Scca]

In fairness. It might be better not posting such stats. Reason being is that people like playing for the team that wins the most. If new players see that one side is winning more often then the other two. they may be more inclined to also join that side. Thus creating a further imbalance in numbers at any given time.

That will work until ENY kicks in and they can't fly their ponyz and dweeb16's.

[Hoff]

Thanks m00t. As for the game, what's so bad about the system that World War 2 Online has? You can only attack towns with attack orders on them and the number of attack orders varies based on population. Also, strategic bombing has a real, noticeable, effect in that game. I'm not saying copy it completely, but maybe add in supply trains, convoys, etc. I think there was another game that had something similar to this, but I can't remember. The attack order thing would help with hordes destroying bases before defenses can be set up, because they will only be able to attack in 2-3 spots, allowing defenders to be much more prepared. It would also allow people to get ready for high altitude bombers. It might actually open up the game a bit and allow for more high altitude fights. Currently you kinda just have to make an educated guess and have a fast climbing plane to get the really high bombers. Maybe let it work like CVs, they set their own course randomly, but a high ranking player can change it. Same could be done for attacks, randomly set if a high ranking player doesn't set one within a certain timeframe.

Is it realistic? No, but neither are player caps. For the sake of gameplay I think that attack orders, supply trains, convoys, and more strategic targets that actually do something would greatly improve gameplay. Don't start ranting about how I should just go to World War 2 Online if I don't like it here. I like this game, it has a ton of different aircraft and has a quasi persistent quasi massive world to fight in. World War 2 Online is way more focused on the ground game and completely blows Aces High out of the water in that regard, but Aces High blows World War 2 Online out of the water in the air.

[Lusche]

In fairness. It might be better not posting such stats. Reason being is that people like playing for the team that wins the most. If new players see that one side is winning more often then the other two. they may be more inclined to also join that side. Thus creating a further imbalance in numbers at any given time.

I would agree for the current incarnation of the game. As is, it might be a bad idea (though I personally would love to have it just for statistical purposes )

However, I sometimes ask myself if we may reach a point where it might make sense to evolve the game and the "war" into something more persistant.

[grizz441]

In fairness. It might be better not posting such stats. Reason being is that people like playing for the team that wins the most. If new players see that one side is winning more often then the other two. they may be more inclined to also join that side. Thus creating a further imbalance in numbers at any given time.

Maybe, but there are also a lot of people that like flying for the underdogs.  How do you quantify the ramifications of stat keeping, good and bad, without trying it?

[Wiley]

Maybe, but there are also a lot of people that like flying for the underdogs.  How do you quantify the ramifications of stat keeping, good and bad, without trying it?

Well, looking at how peoples' behavior is currently with the current score stats, I think the extrapolation is pretty simple.  The majority like to win with relatively little investment of effort.  Being on the winningest side would likely be seen as a good way to do that.  When it comes to online games, expecting the worst possible outcome is rarely wrong. <g>

Hoff-  Most if not all of the stuff you've listed has been tried in one form or another since the days of AW and failed spectacularly for one reason or another.  Hence the backlash when you suggest them.  Your suggestions are fresh to you, but are less so to most people who frequent the boards.

I could be wrong, but I think some of those ideas might be worth a billionth look at some point.  The people who are coming into the game and are available to be attracted into the game are quite a bit more used to large numbers and just being one of the many faces in the crowd than a few years ago.  I personally don't think large numbers is the deterrant it may have been when the arenas were split those many years ago.

Now with that said, I don't think limiting peoples' targets or making strats negatively impact the enemy is a good idea.  Look at pretty much any online game, it is virtually impossible for something bad to happen to you anymore.  In PVP games, about the only penalty people are willing to put up with is dying and having to respawn.  Anything more than that generates ill will.

The limiting of the available targets was apparently tried here a few years ago and was somewhere between a colossal and gargantuan failure.  While I personally like the idea of funneling more people into a smaller area, a lot of people who play want the freedom to start something small at a place of their choosing on the map.  I just don't see it working.

Wiley.

[grizz441]

Well, looking at how peoples' behavior is currently with the current score stats, I think the extrapolation is pretty simple.  The majority like to win with relatively little investment of effort.  Being on the winningest side would likely be seen as a good way to do that.  When it comes to online games, expecting the worst possible outcome is rarely wrong. <g>

Sorry, but there is no way that can be "extrapolated".  In fact, there is no way to prove that the "majority like to win with relatively little effort" and how that even translates to flying for the side with more global war victories.  Win the War guys are underestimated.  They do like a good challenge.  Maybe not in a 1v1 combat sense, but they are challenging themselves in ways that most of us "vets" do not consider.  If there is no challenge people quit, I don't care who you are.  People also quit when there is no purpose.

[TheDudeDVant]

I do not recall the limited target set. I do think it is a good idea.

Don't make the current targets the only areas of fun, but give more perks for attacking the set target. Fewer perks for doing your own thing. Same thing for the defenders, more perks to defend the assigned target.

[Lusche]

I do not recall the limited target set. I do think it is a good idea.

That was the field capture order, and it was a horrible fail.

[Wiley]

In fact, there is no way to prove that the "majority like to win with relatively little effort" and how that even translates to flying for the side with more global war victories.

Ok, what's the motivation to up with a cloud of green and fly to a base where there's no opposition then?

Win the War guys are underestimated.  They do like a good challenge.  Maybe not in a 1v1 combat sense, but they are challenging themselves in ways that most of us "vets" do not consider.  If there is no challenge people quit, I don't care who you are.  People also quit when there is no purpose.

Well, I'm not a 'vet' so I can't particularly comment on that.  The challenge they appear to be working toward most of the time looks to me like 'to reset the arena as quickly as possible' whatever form that takes, usually overwhelming local force.  Perhaps a better phrasing would have been 'like to use the surest way to win'.

Wiley.

[TheDudeDVant]

That was the field capture order, and it was a horrible fail.

Going to hang on a limb and say if was implimented poorly then. We really need some way to focus the fight.

[Lusche]

Going to hang on a limb and say if was implimented poorly then.

I won't disagree with that statement

[Ardy123]

Sorry, but there is no way that can be "extrapolated".  In fact, there is no way to prove that the "majority like to win with relatively little effort" and how that even translates to flying for the side with more global war victories.  Win the War guys are underestimated.  They do like a good challenge.  Maybe not in a 1v1 combat sense, but they are challenging themselves in ways that most of us "vets" do not consider.  If there is no challenge people quit, I don't care who you are.  People also quit when there is no purpose.

I agree with Grizz on this but I see it as a totally different distinction.

There isn't "Win the war types" and "everyone else". Its, and I think what Grizz is getting at, the "I want to feel accomplished" and thats it.

AH has a very unstructured environment coupled with steep learning curves and this "I want to feel accomplished" desire can be satisfied by many means by which those who view the game as a sport would view as unfair. Granted, they may hide behind "Thats what real war is like", but even they know that is a BS argument (or they are totally moronic).

The conflict arises when people feel like "hey I put my time in to learn this game and you poked this effort by using huge numerical adv". The frustration rises and the general feeling of "working hard != reward" angers them. At the same time the horde thinks they did something and they all pat each others backs and fan each others egos as all 20 of them shot down one plane. This phenomenon is blamed as the 'Quake generation', the 'youngers', etc.. but its not, its just a simple matter that people want to feel accomplished by any means necessary and this is why Sports have rules.... (to level the playing field and limit the nonsense).

This puts HTC in a tough place. If he attracts too many new people, they all resort to "Any means necessary", and the older players quit out of frustration. If he doesn't attract enough new players, the game dies.

FYI, with the exception of a few, I think most of the vguys will move on to other aspects of the game, as they become better sticks for example...

[CptTrips]

See rule #4

[TheDudeDVant]

See rule #4

[ACE]

I agree with Grizz on this

I can imagine why.