Play quality

[dirtdart]

You had your typical timid tards back then. But not like you did when I left the game. I can only imagine its even worse now. Another reason I wont be back. I dont like paying to chase cartoon cowards.

You left a few months ago IIRC, .... not much has changed except we don't have as many folks raging tantrums on vent/vox to numb our minds.  In that respect the game has changed. 

I do miss a good implosion. 

[COndor06]

Its  satire This article is about the genre. Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"[2]—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.

You don't frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you,  you and all your silly English Kin-nig-ets.

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[Reaper90]

[Zoney]

"The Game" has only changed once in all the years I've played.  Even when "The Game" changed from AirWarrior to Warbirds and finally Aces High, it has pretty much been played the same.  The only change I have ever seen is when "The Game" went from an hourly subscription, (I had a $300.00 phone bill once, and many above $150.00), to an unlimited playtime monthly subscription.  If you were paying by the hour, (I think it was 2 bucks), you didn't "spend" alot of time doing anything BUT fighting.  Old players changed too when the monthly subscriptions became available and new players never had the "hurry up and fight" attitude because there was no longer a rush to have fun.

I certainly changed too.

The fun changed too, but it is still fun.  I think it's more fun.  I cannot for the life of me see where people have a hard time finding a fight.  There are fights everywhere, my biggest problem is getting out of the fight, then landing a couple kills, not getting in.  Finding a one on one gentlemen's duel in the main ?  Sorry, the main is not the dueling arena.


You want more fights?  Get out of your GV's and up a plane, any plane, any mission, please.

[Nathan60]

(Image removed from quote.)

lol too bad we cant embed videos  I went and  watched thsis  on youtube

[COndor06]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzIMHowtL8&feature=fvst

Run Away   Run Away   

[Westy]

"no offense ..

None taken. I prefer not to be subjected to it. Nothing wrong with me at all.
I simply have a higher standard of behavior than you do.

[coombz]

[grizz441]

Spoken like a true gamer!  You play the one thing you really like about the game, flying fighters. You have become one of the best sticks in the game. You started a game (learn to fly fighters) you practiced and played, and now your at the top as one of the top sticks, end game. You don't really have any intrest in the rest of the stuff that the game offers, and spend very little time playing with them. Which there is nothing wrong with, but expecting HTC to come up with some new challenge for a top notch fighter to bring the "thrill" back is un reasonable, after all the game isn't all about JUST fighters.

The strategy is mind numbingly dull and arguably broken in aces high.  That's part of the reason I don't generally participate, not because I have something against teamwork and working towards more country oriented goals.

[gyrene81]

"no offense ..

None taken. I prefer not to be subjected to it. Nothing wrong with me at all.
I simply have a higher standard of behavior than you do.

i beg to differ sir, i simply view the outbursts and childish rants as typical behavior found all over the retardnet. it's nothing more than a childish lack of self control which i find somewhat humorous as it illustrates just how hypocritically immature some adults can be. i'm willing to bet that unless you're bordering on sainthood, not only have you heard much worse but you have also had moments in real life when you have spoken the same or worse words loudly enough for someone besides yourself to hear.

and let's be honest here, how high can any of our standards be when we spend any amount of time playing a video game and sometimes whining about what we don't like about that game on the internet?

(Image removed from quote.)

       that is just too truthful        

[The Fugitive]

The strategy is mind numbingly dull and arguably broken in aces high.  That's part of the reason I don't generally participate, not because I have something against teamwork and working towards more country oriented goals.

And who creates the strategies? If we go by Webster's...

Strat´e`gy
n.   1.   The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship.
   2.   The use of stratagem or artifice.

So its up to the players to create the strategy. The problem with the players today is that a vast majority don't want to "play" the game they only want to win it as quickly as they can. Even if a player spent the time to organize a strategy, made plans using vehicles and planes, over laying missions and forcing battles along a wide front that would run for 4 hours it wouldn't be nearly as must fun or immersive as you would think because of how the "defending" players would react.

Most likely once they saw that a flight was over flying a base they would land/bail and look for another fight, or ignore the flights all together to launch their next NOE/horde mission. How much fun would a big battle plan be if no one showed up to defend against it? Forward running fighter sweepers would bail and go look for something more fun, The attacks would roll over base after base with minimum defense. and so on like we have now.

Until the players want to "play" the game all your going to get is the hordes we have and the unskilled/skilled runners protecting their scores.

[CAV]

Largely no changes since AW 1996.

I think this is largely true, there are not many changes since the very beginning of air warrior. Back in the days when we paid by the hour, most of us looked around and said" Great Game, Lets play War". Furballers never like it, because, war gets in the way of the furball. But furballers are few in number,no one cared.

In 2011 we're still trying to play war.... And the furballer still don't like it. And I still don't care.

Cav

[grizz441]

And who creates the strategies? If we go by Webster's...

Strat´e`gy
n.   1.   The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship.
   2.   The use of stratagem or artifice.

So its up to the players to create the strategy. The problem with the players today is that a vast majority don't want to "play" the game they only want to win it as quickly as they can. Even if a player spent the time to organize a strategy, made plans using vehicles and planes, over laying missions and forcing battles along a wide front that would run for 4 hours it wouldn't be nearly as must fun or immersive as you would think because of how the "defending" players would react.

Most likely once they saw that a flight was over flying a base they would land/bail and look for another fight, or ignore the flights all together to launch their next NOE/horde mission. How much fun would a big battle plan be if no one showed up to defend against it? Forward running fighter sweepers would bail and go look for something more fun, The attacks would roll over base after base with minimum defense. and so on like we have now.

Until the players want to "play" the game all your going to get is the hordes we have and the unskilled/skilled runners protecting their scores.

As I said before, it is as much the game's responsibility as it is the players.  There should be checks and balances that promote sound strategy that is also fun for all involved.  Here, I will give an example since we aren't being specific enough.  When you capture a base, the entire ack defense magically is up, allowing the attacking force to tower out and go somewhere else, despite there being some defensive resistance.  There is simply no CHECK to keep the initial attacking force defending their new territory.  This is on HTC for allowing this poor game play to occur.  

Here's another example: The strats are so far away and require so much to be destroyed for such little gain, that the investment/reward ratio is ludicrous and not worth the effort to attack them.  How long now has this been an inherent problem in the game?  

So there are a couple examples to prove my point that I am making, and I'm sure you will agree that it is both the player's and HTCs responsibility to create an environment that promotes quality game play.

[The Fugitive]

As I said before, it is as much the game's responsibility as it is the players.  There should be checks and balances that promote sound strategy that is also fun for all involved.  Here, I will give an example since we aren't being specific enough.  When you capture a base, the entire ack defense magically is up, allowing the attacking force to tower out and go somewhere else, despite there being some defensive resistance.  There is simply no CHECK to keep the initial attacking force defending their new territory.  This is on HTC for allowing this poor game play to occur.

I would love to see a squad follow the horde around and do nothing but steal bases back. 3 guys diving on ack can clear it in 2 to 3 passes each, drop troops and they have the base back. In most cases the horde ...like the locast they are destroyed everything on the field and they won't be able to defend it it any way.

The players can fix this with out any intervention from HTC. grab a few bases back like described above and you'll see some defense appear...... if they care about hold it that is. 

Here's another example: The strats are so far away and require so much to be destroyed for such little gain, that the investment/reward ratio is ludicrous and not worth the effort to attack them.  How long now has this been an inherent problem in the game?  

So there are a couple examples to prove my point that I am making, and I'm sure you will agree that it is both the player's and HTCs responsibility to create an environment that promotes quality game play.

Agreed, but taking away the ability to play the game the way you want for that $15 isn't good customer relations either. Can yiou imagine what the game would be like if you could knock the fuel to a team down to 25% by keeping the fuel depot down? 6 guys making continuous runs could keep it down, and there wouldn't be anything you could do to stop them. 25% won't even get you TO them let alone stop them. The next few hours are the horde rolling base after base even faster.

Just out of curiosity Grizz whats stopping you and say 4 or 5 other guys from following the horde around stealing bases back until they start defending? My guess is it is because you, and those friends, don't want to be bothered with doing the stuff that isn't fun. Killing ack wastes ammo that could be better used in shooting down other guys. Getting your plane damaged killing ack really makes fighting later a lot tougher and so spoils the fun of your fights. Which one of you wants to crawl along at 250 MPH in a goon to drop troops?

I KNOW its the players that have brought the game play down. I also know that if HTC coaded in the right carrots you could get these same players to change how they play. They shouldn't have to. If a few squads got it into there heads that they were going to bring strategy back into this game it would turn around eventually. But it's a lot of work, and everyone is really here just to have fun.

[Guppy35]

I think this is largely true, there are not many changes since the very beginning of air warrior. Back in the days when we paid by the hour, most of us looked around and said" Great Game, Lets play War". Furballers never like it, because, war gets in the way of the furball. But furballers are few in number,no one cared.

In 2011 we're still trying to play war.... And the furballer still don't like it. And I still don't care.

Cav

Come on Cav, if you were there in 96 there was no war win.  It was limited capture.  It made sense to participate more in that part of things as the brawl was over those bases that could be captured and there was a steady stream of defenders coming from the nearest uncapturable base so the vulch could never be sustained too long.  The fights extended from up high to the deck then.

'furballers' as described would be inclined to fly fighter sweeps to try and intercept the crowd coming from the rear uncapturable base.  There was no way to capture bases and avoid fighting like there is now.

I remember well when it changed, and was in the arena the first time folks figured out they could take every base.  It was sad cause it was like hamsters to the feeder bar.

Has the game changed since it went total capture?  Not much.  But there was a time when it took more work to take and hold a base.  The irony is you wanted the base because it moved you closer to the fight because you got a base on the other guys turf to get to the fight faster.  It was never a race to capture bases as fast and as combat free as possible as it is now.