Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game

[68ZooM]

i think alot of it has to do with the player base mentality, not as many true flight/fight purists in the game anymore, it was more about air combat and less about smash and grab like we see now

[BoilerDown]

I think we need more "goals" The game has been taken over by the "xbox generation", and there play revolves around a goal. For a vast majority it's "win the war". This generates they drive to win the war at all cost type of play that has I think anyway dropped game play. While I have no problem at all with the win the war part of the game I have a HUGE problem with how it's done.

Back when I was active with a squad, the biggest proponents of base taking and the biggest source of complaining that (non-squad) people weren't helping enough to win the war were also the "oldest" voices on vox.  I can't really say they were the oldest, but by the sound of their voice they coulda been.  Anyways I just don't see it as an X-Box Generation thing.  There is some demand for the goal oriented style of gameplay that comes from everyone.

I would like to see the creators of Aces High tamper with their formula a bit more.  The oft-complained-about two LW arenas is actually the best place to do it.  Put the experimental rules on the second arena in the list, and if that arena becomes more popular than the first arena in the list, you know you have a winner.  Otherwise, scrap it and try something else.  The first arena in the list is always naturally more popular based on human nature, if posts on these forums in the past are accurate.

As for what to try first, I'd say something like:  Strat targets being destroyed increase the amount of town (slightly) that can be up to still get a white flag for the towns affected by that strat.  As I recall factories and means of regening strat already naturally fit into such a system.

ENY and perk points...See above....Not everyone is a fighter ace like Eric Hartmann, or a tanker like Micheal Wittmann...And not everyone plays 24/7 to get "perk points" to take out the better planes/tanks....Some people struggle to get the points to get a certain tank/plane, then get quickly destroyed....Now they have regain all those points lost...That quickly tires, and hence, "steadily shrinking player numbers".....Everyone says, "it`s the pilot, not the plane", so who cares if a newbie takes out a Tempest without needing points?....And the, "everyone will just fly Tempests and use Tigers", does not hold water...FA had not such limitation, and people were flying a wide variety of planes...And ENY?...Good Grief....On one hand, people want a game as close to WW2 realism as possible, then they want ENY to, "balance the game"...

I think if perked aircraft weren't perked, they would be all you would see.  But you do have a good point about the new players.  So here's how I would do it: Make increasing Perk points for taking out an aircraft.  When an account is first opened the perk points are very low for all perked aircraft.  The perks increase steadily for every kill and thousand pounds of damage inflicted with perked aircraft on that account until the perks are normal level.  I would go with 10 kills or 10,000 damage to get to full perk value (only while flying perked aircraft).

[68ZooM]

I think more needs to be added to the capture feature of a town other than killing all buildings and letting auto-troops run, if they could incorporate a town capture method similar to what WWII online has to where it takes player controlled troops (First person Shooter) to hold/occupy a certain percentage of buildings for a set time to capture the town, of course he has to avoid enemy ground and air along with enemy ground troops i think a system like this would really add the Fun factor.

Another idea is to limit the amounts of planes or gv's you can up from one Field, so many planes of each model are allotted, instead of the endless supply. once planes become depleted it takes a certain amount of time (transport time) for them to reappear in the hanger, either you can wait for it to resupply or grab another type of plane or launch from a rear base in the plane you wanted. of course this would not apply if you land and tower out then you still have your plane at that AF even though it could be depleted and waiting for resupply, eh just a few thoughts

[DREDIOCK]

What we have, has been added to continue the growth of the game, which is still here to grow (which means someone is doing something right), as apposed to Air warrior, Warbirds, and Fighter Aces.  While some of the changes haven't been popular, they seem to have been in the right direction....seeing we are still here   Going back or doing away with those changes will only put us in the same boat as those other games.... 6 feet under.

Unfair comparison to include AW in that list.  Airwarrior had more stuff in the works. And it didnt die. It was murdered by EA.

[The Fugitive]

Back when I was active with a squad, the biggest proponents of base taking and the biggest source of complaining that (non-squad) people weren't helping enough to win the war were also the "oldest" voices on vox.  I can't really say they were the oldest, but by the sound of their voice they coulda been.  Anyways I just don't see it as an X-Box Generation thing.  There is some demand for the goal oriented style of gameplay that comes from everyone.

I would like to see the creators of Aces High tamper with their formula a bit more.  The oft-complained-about two LW arenas is actually the best place to do it.  Put the experimental rules on the second arena in the list, and if that arena becomes more popular than the first arena in the list, you know you have a winner.  Otherwise, scrap it and try something else.  The first arena in the list is always naturally more popular based on human nature, if posts on these forums in the past are accurate.

As for what to try first, I'd say something like:  Strat targets being destroyed increase the amount of town (slightly) that can be up to still get a white flag for the towns affected by that strat.  As I recall factories and means of regening strat already naturally fit into such a system.

There is a difference between the "older" players goals and the "gamers/Xbox" players goal only in how they go about it.

Personally as an "older" player I would love to join mission after mission being responsible for a certain segment of the plan to accomplish with "skill and daring" as they say instead of pure numbers/brute strength. I think to an older player the "doing" is as much fun as the end game.

From what I've seen of the Xbox/gamer generation while they seem to have fun doing what they are doing, they don't care about it, they just want to get it done. Smash one place and move on to the next.

Same end game, but a big difference on how they get there.

I think more needs to be added to the capture feature of a town other than killing all buildings and letting auto-troops run, if they could incorporate a town capture method similar to what WWII online has to where it takes player controlled troops (First person Shooter) to hold/occupy a certain percentage of buildings for a set time to capture the town, of course he has to avoid enemy ground and air along with enemy ground troops i think a system like this would really add the Fun factor.

Another idea is to limit the amounts of planes or gv's you can up from one Field, so many planes of each model are allotted, instead of the endless supply. once planes become depleted it takes a certain amount of time (transport time) for them to reappear in the hanger, either you can wait for it to resupply or grab another type of plane or launch from a rear base in the plane you wanted. of course this would not apply if you land and tower out then you still have your plane at that AF even though it could be depleted and waiting for resupply, eh just a few thoughts

I think HTC said that "someday" they would like to add a FPS element to the town captures. I think there are a number of things they could do with out going thru huge rewrites of the code, which a FPS portion to work with in the game would be. Making the attacking team responsible for capping and maintaining a defense on a base for 15 minutes would for the capture to stick would make a big difference in base capture.

Unfair comparison to include AW in that list.  Airwarrior had more stuff in the works. And it didnt die. It was murdered by EA.

Poor management killed AW. while I'll give you they were trying to make changes for the better in the game they got snookered by EA and it killed the game. Had EA NOT been only after the code, and had they really wanted to continue the game, it may still be around. We will never know. To this day I won"t buy anything that says EA on the box.

[RealDeal]

change the location of the fight

I think this post by Snuggie in th wishlist forum (as well as by others who have made similar proposals) has a lot of merit: To change the location of the fight. Change the basic landgrab system by changing the objectives.

A new map design could feature several larger towns/ cities as the actually capturable objectives, each one being supported by a small number of (small) air fields and vehicle bases (and, in coastal areas, by ports). Those fields are part of that cities "zone", and when the city get's captured, the bases will change ownership too. GV spawns are located at those cities.

I will flesh pout this concept later this evening, as there are still some flaws and a lot of open questions. But if it can be made workable, it may indeed shift the kind of fight from a standard "smash-cap-vulch" profile to a battle over a remote location.

As some of the Gv guys know, some of the best battles in the true sense do happen at locations like V135-136 on Ozkansas, where two bases hostile to each other spawn to a different location (without the spawns being just on top of each other), so that neither side has a significant "home turf" advantage, unlike in standard base attack situations when the attacker drives 5 minutes just to get killed by a Panther sitting on base (which can easily "land" if things get tough). Let's take this to a higher level!

I like all of that..I would also bring back strat bombing to support this type of game play..

[ink]

Talking with my son and his "gamer" friends I asked what would draw them to AH, and what do they look for in a game. The answers were simple, but how to incorporate them....... well here are a few thoughts.

Gamers look for competition, achievements, and side quests along with the main quest of "Win the War".

Add a training arena like Lusche said. Create half a dozen missions that the trainee MUST complete before they can enter the MA or other arenas. Nothing too horrible but things that push them toward "learning".

1st mission Chalkboard on the wall of the Training HQ gives you the basics of the mission, Take off, fly to next sector going to Angels 5 (5K in altitude) dive in on target at a 45 degree angle and strafe target down with guns, return to base and land successfully.

Candidate takes off (auto take off enabled, later missions it's not), grab to 5k fly to next sector and strafe down a building with guns (building hardness is set so that it takes 80% of the trainers planes ammo to take out), return and land for a completed mission.

Completed mission gives them an atta-bot and a plaque on the wall and access to the next mission. First mission gets them in the air for some basic flying, strafing of target teaches aim, angels for dives, compression for those who go too high, and how to pull out of a dive as well as landing, all basic skills needed to play the game.

Each mission successfully completed gives them a "award" (plaque on the wall) and teaches them some aspect of the game. missions can include bomber runs, dropping the last few buildings to get the "white flag" to pop, obstacle courses for a GV run to target and so on. Teaching the basics of the game getting a player use to the controls and giving them awards for succeeding. Once all 6 missions are complete the MAs open up for a taste of the real thing.

The MA's

The competition is there, but for many they KNOW they can't compete. This is what drives the hordes. In most cases it could take 8 months to a year to be an average fighter in this game. So while they are learning give them something else easier to strive for. This is where the Achievements and side quest come in. Add a new column in the score sheet called achievement points. Like all scores it's reset each month. Some achievements that earn points...

1 point for their first kill in each plane type they fly. With 83 planes to fly and get a kill in max is 83. If you get all 83, it gets rounded up to 100 as a bonus. Many have tried to get a kill in each plane, not many have succeeded, but as something to do as a "side quest" and you can add to your achievement points it something people have an option to do for themselves or by themselves.

1 point for a resupply run for a damaged base.

1 point for dropping supplies to GV (must have GVs in the area to use them)

1 point for RTBin in any vehicle or plane

1 point for bombing a strat

For side quests a number of missions could be added. to be used over and over again in the mission planner.

Mission 1, HQ bombing mission max 10 players 8 buffs, 2 fighters. Mission launches from a rearward base flies to enemy HQ bombs and returns. Successful landing is 10 achievement points for each that makes it.

Mission 2-6 assign a forward base as launch point, 20 guys max attack mission for next base. These missions won't come into play until the front opens the attack base to an attack mission. Again 10 achievement point to each who make it back.

Missions 7-15, pork run missions to enemy bases, max 5 people again either they are long mission behind enemy lines, or you wait until they become front line bases to shorten the trip. 5 achievement points for a successful landing.

Any player made mission using the mission editor with 20 or less slots available, 5 achievement points on a successful landing.


These are just a few things I can think of. These side quests, and I'm sure MANY more could be thought up and added will give people more options of game play, more options to achieve something and be successful, and be able to compete with other players even tho they have more experience.  While the "hot sticks" may get the 83 points for a kill in each plane a rookie could do the same by porking ord and dropping supplies. The "achievement points" would give a reason to do these other things and bring more stratiegyinto the game at the same time still having the win the war as the big prize!

wow HTC should read this these are some VERY good idea's 

[Lepape2]

wow HTC should read this these are some VERY good idea's 

I'm sure they are. More than likely this tread might give them a couple of ideas for later if they haven't though about it prior. Of course they can't implement all of it in one single shot but they got the wisdom and smartness to come up with innovative ideas and features from here, with our help if necessary.

[caldera]

Definitely would like using one of the Late War arenas as sort of a beta testing area for new ideas. 

[vNUCKS]

The underlying reality that makes universally accepted evolution in this game so difficult, is that the games "war" structure, scoring and perk system drive different behaviors, based upon different priorities for many players.  This can be a good thing, if each of these behaviors compliment one another, whereby accomplishing one priority also yields success in the lesser priorities for each player.  On the other hand, this can be a bad thing if choosing one priority requires virtually forsaking success in another.  This game can't be all things to all people all the time, but opportunities to make it more things to more people more of the time certainly exist.  

Consider: (these examples are in my no means meant to be all-inclusive of either types or reasons)

If you're measurement for success is rank, then the game's ranking system discourages high risk behaviors that are critical to winning the "war".
  Why up Buffs to sink a heavily defended CV that is attacking your base, when you can milk run a few towns for 10 times the damage points?  After all, even if you get attacked by 100 guys and shoot every one of them down from your tail gun, those kills won't count towards your rank, yet dying in the puffy ack counts against it.
   As a fighter, why would you engage in any fight in which you didn't have a significant advantage?  Upping that field under heavy attack is high risk behavior that offers no advantages to your rank, it's much safer to just let that field go, and grab 20k and look for the next unsuspecting and often irrelevant kill to the "war".
  Why would you run supplies, man a field gun?  No rank improvements there.

On the other hand, if you're objective is to win the "war", the game encourages you to avoid the fight.  
  Why let your opponent see you coming on a base take?  After all, if you sneak in NOE and smash and grab the town your chances of taking the base are much improved, and the only shots fired are likely to be against AI ack.
  Why stay up to fight the leftover and late defenders after you take a base?  They're unlikely to post any threat to recapturing the field, so it's best to just ignore them and look for the next undefended base.
  Why turn and fight that LA7 defending his field? He'll just re-up and offer more resistance to your capture if you shoot him down, it's better to just drag him away for as long as possible and draw out as much of his ammo to give your troops time to sneak in.

And then of course, there's the pure "thrill of the fight player", looking for that co-E, co-Alt, may the best man win fight, who is frustrated by the won't engage me w/o a huge advantage "Rank" player, and the "avoid unnecessary conflict" player intent on winning the war.

AH needs to focus it's evolution on giving these fundamentally different types of players a reason to engage one another.  The "Rank" driven players enjoy a good fight and winning the war too, the "War Winners" would certainly enjoy a higher rank and a good fight, and the "Thrill Seeker" would enjoy both winning the war and earning rank.  The problem isn't about the things we all love about the game. The problem is that many of the things we love about the game require us to give up a little of something else we love to obtain it.

I believe that one way (In addition to many of the above great ideas) to bring these priorities closer together is to better align the priorities of winning the war and earning score/rank closer together.  This seems to me to be a rather simple first step.

[falcon23]

FWIW...maybe if HTC gave people 30 days instead of 14 to try it out could go a long way in giving people an incentive to want to subscribe..just a thought.. I realize it is a bit off-topic,but hey,maybe it would work..

[JUGgler]

maybe a mehanism that gives a small amount of intelligence to missions that are being formed, so counter missions could be generated.

I think Grizz is correct the game as it is now is all about the individual "me me me me" there is nothing that brings folks to focus on a single goal or opposing that goal. A mission is formed <-- good for that, then you get the "skintags" clinging to the mission but for very different reasons. I actually think missions should have a risk and a reward. So too counter mission goers should have risk and reward.

I really don't know what could improve the game but it is getting very old and dull very quickly. I think it is the gameplay, not some change in the way I percieve the gaming experience.





JUGgler

[jedi25]

The bottom line, the game has become lame in many ways and something to bring more realism and players together for a single objective other base taking needs to be implemented..and this my 2 cent input..

[bacon8tr]

If recent game history has taught us anything it is that HTC is usually quite responsive to the player base.  Im sure that some changes will be coming forth that address this issue on some level.  Oh to be a fly on the wall at HTC. 

[Guppy35]

The bottom line, the game has become lame in many ways and something to bring more realism and players together for a single objective other base taking needs to be implemented..and this my 2 cent input..

LOL go back and read the thread I posted with my 2003 comments on AH after two weeks.  Not sure much has really changed, as what was lame then is lame now or something like that