Play quality

[bmwgs]

oh yeah they do.. new towns too hard. how do you think we got the white flag?. one of the old knight generals even complained about the frickin _layout_ of the new bases when they came out because he'd have to re-learn them.

Well maybe I stand corrected.  Then let me put it another way.  From my experience, reading this BBS, they complain a whole lot less than the other fraction.

 

Fred

[FALCONWING]

someone found wow and guild wars... 

Aion actually...but same difference...I guess having a huge subscriber base doesn't count for you...how many 100's of thousands peep play those games??  AW was one of the first true virtual online games with PvP (player vs Player)...but you wouldn't know it from its subscriber base etc.


Look I loved my time with AH....i hope it lasts forever....but where is the develpoment that would keep it interesting??? Why not have "instances" that squadrons could run (ie. intercept missions/strategic missions etc) that would award points/score/custom graphics on planes...etc. 

I respect you Oldman and your Point of view but honestly i don't drive to work the exact same way everyday so i find your analogy not very convincing. What IS convincing is that you are still having fun....that is all that counts..

all

[FALCONWING]

FalconWing, I use to hate you guys. You were one of the firsts "horde" type missions I ran into. Sure now and then country wide little general would get everyone pointed in the same direction now and then and create a horde, but you guys were an organized horde and you knew when it was squad night and you were in for a long night. But I'd take you guys back in a heartbeat at this point.

You guys fought! Sure your groups were large most of the time but you didn't make that one run at a base and then disappeared. If a decent number of guys upped to defend the fights would last until you guy took the base and moved onto the next strategic base in line. You guys didn't run willy-nilly all over the map looking for undefended bases. You took bases with a purpose. This V base because it spawns to that airfield and so on.

Your mega missions also helped to create the issues. Let face it, fighting against the horde is tough and a thankless "job". More often that not your out numbered, heavily, and "they" have the alt and speed (E) which more often than not is the deciding factor in a fight. So less and less people up to defend, because it just isn't fun. Next thing you know Your missions are rolling over base after base with ease. There is no challenge, it's easy and repetitious, and becomes boring. Your doing the same old thing mission after mission. By the time you called it quits I'll bet you weren't even assigning targets or directing the missions any more because they all knew what they were to do and just did it.

The "win the war" crowd is what is suppose to generate most of the combat in the game. Even back in Falconwings time this worked because they fought, so defenders defended. Todays players don't even bother to fight. If they run into opposition they just disappear and pop up at some other undefended area of the map looking for that quick grab again.

Again, most players don't "play" the game, they just run through as quick as they can guns blazing yelling LEROY JENKINS at the top of their lungs.

Shuffler the reason we ran those missions was because there was a protracted period of time when the bish were rolled all the time....rather then qq on forums (which never worked) we took matters into our own hands and organized like-minded individuals to recapture territory and improve overall morale....so if you feel that our mission were partly to blame for current gameplay then i guess you have to blame the unrestricted ability of players to grief each other without direct intervention by staff.


How many times have ideas like restricting the number of aircraft in a "zone" been proposed to avoid gangbanging?  AW had such a restriction....

I would have a hard time blaming players solely for bad gameplay.  Bad game mechanics cannot be ignored.
 
For example..and I haven't played in about 10 months....you say that folks quit attacking when opposed and instead hit an undefended base....my interpretation of this is:

1. bases are difficult/impossible to capture with reasonable opposition or not totally porking a base with overwhelming numbers
2. folks like the accomplishment of capturing bases....not getting slaughtered as they dive in heavy to get picked off by light "furballers"

3. the only option they see therefore is to quickly hit another base to try and have success

a possible fix would be to make towns more easily capturable and stay down longer so they could come back in light fighters and get goons/m3s in.....game mechanics see?


>

[Crash Orange]

Now dogfighters (or even those who like PVP combat) are the minority in an arcade,
fantasy "World of Landgrab" An environment that has no resemblance to anything
WW2-ish. Beyond the skin of the ride one. 

What would you do to make the game more like WW2?

It seems to me most of the whining by the self-proclaimed "simmers" here is (like always) from folks who just want a different but equally cartoonish and unrealistic fantasy game.

What would make the game realistic are things that would cut the subscriber base by 95%, and not because most players are immature console gamers. The most important by far would be non-replaceable pilots and planes - you get shot down, you can't re-up for a few days or a week (at which point you're assumed to be a newly reporting replacement); your side gets a set number of planes, and when they're wrecked, they're gone (with, again, a trickle of replacement aircraft every few days. Without that, any hope of anything remotely resembling a simulation of WW2 aerial combat is completely hopeless. But is that the sim you want to play? Do you think many people would pony up $14.95 for the privilege of being shot down once every few days or weeks and being banned from the game the rest of the time? (And if it were that way, do you think the average player would become more or less risk-averse?)

Guys who want the game to become and endless series of courtly 1-1 duels with the only price for the loser being a short trip to the tower are NOT looking for a sim.

(Not to mention, any concept of teams with even the roughest parity in numbers and experience would have to go straight out the window if you really want to simulate WW2. Side balancing in any manner is inherently "gamey" and unrealistic.)

I agree with grizz that the strategy side of the game is simplistic and in some ways silly and has a lot of room for improvement, and that the rules of the game drive a lot of gameplay. But we're all talking about ways to make it a better or slightly more realistic game. No one really wants a simulation.

[Wiley]

Look I loved my time with AH....i hope it lasts forever....but where is the develpoment that would keep it interesting??? Why not have "instances" that squadrons could run (ie. intercept missions/strategic missions etc) that would award points/score/custom graphics on planes...etc. 

Falconwing, AH is a different type of game completely from an MMORPG.  It is one of the few bastions of gaming left in the world where your success in game is mostly determined by skill as opposed to the amount of time and patience you have to keep doing a repetitive task in order to grow your character.

Reread the quoted paragraph.  I see intercept missions and strategic missions (such as they are) every night in the MA.  You didn't suggest any different gameplay from what's available, all you suggested was a "reward" that gives you something to pose with, or show off to other players.

If the gameplay in and of itself is not compelling, why will it suddenly become fun if you get a different skin if you shoot down 50 planes?

I don't mean this as a personal slam against you, Falconwing but IMO the fact that 'do repetitive task to get gear/levels/a different look for your character' has somehow been conditioned into people to be considered 'gameplay' saddens me horribly.  If you don't know what a Skinner Box is, google it, and then take a look at Aion.  It is 'hit the button, get a cookie' with pretty graphics, that is all.

MMORPGs make money.  It's what they're designed to do, and they do it by addicting people.

IMO a game like AH unfortunately has a shelf life with every single person who plays it.  Getting bored with it is inevitable because eventually your capabilities will plateau for long enough that you get bored.  For some it's 2 months, others 15 years.  Instanced grinding will do nothing to alleviate that.

Wiley.

[dirtdart]

I was getting a bit bored with it, then I tried flying a 38..........

[The Fugitive]

Shuffler the reason we ran those missions was because there was a protracted period of time when the bish were rolled all the time....rather then qq on forums (which never worked) we took matters into our own hands and organized like-minded individuals to recapture territory and improve overall morale....so if you feel that our mission were partly to blame for current gameplay then i guess you have to blame the unrestricted ability of players to grief each other without direct intervention by staff.


How many times have ideas like restricting the number of aircraft in a "zone" been proposed to avoid gangbanging?  AW had such a restriction....

That restriction in AW was due to technology. The servers couldn't keep up with more than the limit number without major warping issues.

I would have a hard time blaming players solely for bad gameplay.  Bad game mechanics cannot be ignored.
 
For example..and I haven't played in about 10 months....you say that folks quit attacking when opposed and instead hit an undefended base....my interpretation of this is:

I'm STILL playing and average around 15 hours a month and this is what my interpretation is...

1. bases are difficult/impossible to capture with reasonable opposition or not totally porking a base with overwhelming numbers

towns can be brought to "white flag" with 2 sets of buffs making 2 passes over the town. The only troble with capturing a town these days are most of the players in these mission are not trained, nor do they wish to learn how to play better. So lack of skill breeds numbers to do the same job a few people can do.

2. folks like the accomplishment of capturing bases....not getting slaughtered as they dive in heavy to get picked off by light "furballers"

That is what lead/sweep fighters are for, clearing the cap. Unfortunately players with limited skill have a hard time clearing a cap if anyone ever thinks to send a group in before the main mission gets there.

3. the only option they see therefore is to quickly hit another base to try and have success

They CAN'T fight for a base due to there limited skill set, so they go after easier game.

a possible fix would be to make towns more easily capturable and stay down longer so they could come back in light fighters and get goons/m3s in.....game mechanics see?



>

Towns are down far long enough for a well planned and marginally executed plan. In todays game this isn't an issue because rarely is there much of a defense put up at any base. Now and then you'll get a good battle going and even the furballers show up and have some fun, but for the most part the horde arrives and levels everything and while the defenders up at the next base over the goon finally catches up with the mission and they capture the base..... then disappear.

What would you do to make the game more like WW2?

<snip> to save space

No Crash, a Simmer isn't looking to simulate the whole war. When I log in my simmers experience is this....

Fugi, that crazy WWII pilot strolls out on the field. Todays mission is an attack on the enemies front line base. They have just gotten it setup so defense while heavy could be confused and so provide a few openings to maybe drive them back. Fugi will be going in heavy today with a couple of thousand pounders along with the rest of his wing. Their assignment is to knock down as much ammo supplies as they can and then provide cover for the heavys that are to rendezvous 15 minutes after we get there.

Thats it, just a "day in the life" type thing. With the war never finishing and continuing day after day I can pretend to be a fighter pilot one day, a tanker the next, or a general the next. I'm not one guy in this sim, I can be anybody.


OK, lets look at this, and give me an honest answer....

Your CO rolls a mission. He sends out sweep riders in a number of directions to get a feel for what out ahead. Your main target is a base 2 sectors south. 4 sets of buffs lumber into the air with 3 heavy fighters a goon and 6 light fighters for cover. Your heading is 150 until you get to the grid line then a turn to 090 keeping your dar bar in the same sector. As you climb out the light fighters get high over the buffs, 2 ranging a mile or so ahead while the other circle tight over the group. 5 miles from the eastern edge of the grid you change heading to 135 and cut the corner or the southern grid and just after you cross into the next eastern one you turn 180 giving the impression that your group is running 135 toward an eastern enemy base. Just as your about to make the turn to 225 and cross the 2 grid lines and head strait in toward the target The sweep fighters that had been assigned the eastern side of the grids spots a number of cons at 12k heading for home base that you launched from. Orders are giving to engage and try to drag north toward those sweep riders.

The forward fighter escorts cut the dar circle of the target base with the rest of the mission following. As the forward escort get over the target they spot uppers. Orders are given, those two fighters are to drop to 7k to be joined by two other escorts to harry the defenders. Hard deck is 4k mission is to keep them busy and or chase them away from the goons approach path. Heavy fighters are given orders to take out the VH and any GVs that got out, hanger first THEN GVs. Buffs make a single pass and carpet bomb the town going to white flag in one pass. Mean while, sweep riders are down enemy turned away/shot down/ or killed all sweep riders   All sweep riders up together (waiting in tower for enough to make a 3 ship wing) and head strait to target field at 5k for cap duty.

Defenders arte upping a bit faster as the town is flattened, but vehicles are down. Remaining bombs are released either at a base object if your clear, at the nearest tree if your not. All fighters help push the defenders either away from the flight path of the goon, or tight above the field. Kill orders are issued to anything stepping out of the ack. Slow planes are buzzed, fast planes are killed (slow planes are easy to kill while goon is in site, fast planes not so much). While the fighters keep the defenders busy buffs return and drop anything they have left on the field.

From here anything can happen, the goon could make it in and drop the troops for the capture, or a fighter of two might have slipped out from under the cap and get the goon, or a couple of troops and saves the base. Either way you have 40 people (20 per side)who have just had a good time fighting it out for a base maybe an hour or so of fun. Fighters looking for missions, fighter intercepting missions, buffs having a major roll in taking the base with out dive bombing, everyone having a roll and being counted on to "get'er done!"

Honestly, would that be an interesting and fun game to play? because thats the one we have!

[Guppy35]

What would you do to make the game more like WW2?

It seems to me most of the whining by the self-proclaimed "simmers" here is (like always) from folks who just want a different but equally cartoonish and unrealistic fantasy game.

What would make the game realistic are things that would cut the subscriber base by 95%, and not because most players are immature console gamers. The most important by far would be non-replaceable pilots and planes - you get shot down, you can't re-up for a few days or a week (at which point you're assumed to be a newly reporting replacement); your side gets a set number of planes, and when they're wrecked, they're gone (with, again, a trickle of replacement aircraft every few days. Without that, any hope of anything remotely resembling a simulation of WW2 aerial combat is completely hopeless. But is that the sim you want to play? Do you think many people would pony up $14.95 for the privilege of being shot down once every few days or weeks and being banned from the game the rest of the time? (And if it were that way, do you think the average player would become more or less risk-averse?)

Guys who want the game to become and endless series of courtly 1-1 duels with the only price for the loser being a short trip to the tower are NOT looking for a sim.

(Not to mention, any concept of teams with even the roughest parity in numbers and experience would have to go straight out the window if you really want to simulate WW2. Side balancing in any manner is inherently "gamey" and unrealistic.)

I agree with grizz that the strategy side of the game is simplistic and in some ways silly and has a lot of room for improvement, and that the rules of the game drive a lot of gameplay. But we're all talking about ways to make it a better or slightly more realistic game. No one really wants a simulation.

Here's where you lose audience quickly.  The second you make it about folk wanting nothing but 1 v 1.  That's total BS.   Using your crowd as an example.  Last night I flew for a bit and your mob was taking Vbase after Vbase.  I was flying Bish as they were low numbers and there was no way to get enough bodies to those spots before the mob took the base.  It got downright silly.  I finally said on 200 'At some point you gents are going to have to attack an airfield".  Didn't ever see it happen though.

That's why it's hamsters to the feeder bar for me right now.  You didn't want to fight, you, meaning your squad, wanted bases fast and with as little effort as possible.  To what end?  Reset the map and start over?  So what if it took a little longer and you actually fought it out a bit?

And its a BS excuse to blame the rules of the game for driving game play.  Unless you are a sheep, you do have a choice.  Why would you not want to bring your crowd and attack a place where you had to actually fight?  Since no one is really dying, what do you have to lose?

[DMGOD]

Here's where you lose audience quickly.  The second you make it about folk wanting nothing but 1 v 1.  That's total BS.   Using your crowd as an example.  Last night I flew for a bit and your mob was taking Vbase after Vbase.  I was flying Bish as they were low numbers and there was no way to get enough bodies to those spots before the mob took the base.  It got downright silly.  I finally said on 200 'At some point you gents are going to have to attack an airfield".  Didn't ever see it happen though.

That's why it's hamsters to the feeder bar for me right now.  You didn't want to fight, you, meaning your squad, wanted bases fast and with as little effort as possible.  To what end?  Reset the map and start over?  So what if it took a little longer and you actually fought it out a bit?

And its a BS excuse to blame the rules of the game for driving game play.  Unless you are a sheep, you do have a choice.  Why would you not want to bring your crowd and attack a place where you had to actually fight?  Since no one is really dying, what do you have to lose?

+ 1   

[Ardy123]

Here's where you lose audience quickly.  The second you make it about folk wanting nothing but 1 v 1.  That's total BS.   Using your crowd as an example.  Last night I flew for a bit and your mob was taking Vbase after Vbase.  I was flying Bish as they were low numbers and there was no way to get enough bodies to those spots before the mob took the base.  It got downright silly.  I finally said on 200 'At some point you gents are going to have to attack an airfield".  Didn't ever see it happen though.

That's why it's hamsters to the feeder bar for me right now.  You didn't want to fight, you, meaning your squad, wanted bases fast and with as little effort as possible.  To what end?  Reset the map and start over?  So what if it took a little longer and you actually fought it out a bit?

And its a BS excuse to blame the rules of the game for driving game play.  Unless you are a sheep, you do have a choice.  Why would you not want to bring your crowd and attack a place where you had to actually fight?  Since no one is really dying, what do you have to lose?

+1  

and a pic to validate his experience from that very same night, 38 vs 66

[Crash Orange]

You didn't want to fight, you, meaning your squad, wanted bases fast and with as little effort as possible.  To what end?  Reset the map and start over?  So what if it took a little longer and you actually fought it out a bit?

The same drivel, the same bullspit personal attacks, and yet, somehow, miraculously, we seem to rack up thousands of air-to-air kills every month without fighting or coming anywhere near the enemy. The last night I was on before tonight (Tuesday or Wednesday) we managed to rack up a good 20 or 30 kills between about ten of us defending against one NOE attack alone - a pretty impressive feat given that, as I read here, none of us ever get within 30 miles of the enemy by choice. I guess it's a good thing we have that standoff missile haxx!

All these rants, whines, and blubbering hissy fits, and it all leaves me with the same amusing image: a spoiled little sissy defensive captain throwing his helmet on the ground and jumping up and down and bawling, "Reffff! Coooooach! It's not fair! They keep throwing the ball to open receivers instead of throwing it where our guys are standing! Then they keep running faster than us and never giving us a chance to tackle them! Make them stop! It isn't faaaaaaairrr!!!!!"                 

Didn't any of you spoiled little brats have daddies to tell you when you were eight years old to quit crying and act like a man when you got whupped by an opponent's smarter game play? I guess not.

And its a BS excuse to blame the rules of the game for driving game play. 

It's no BS, it's simple fact. The rules and setup of the game determine what tactics are effective. The rules of football favor the forward pass, if dropped passes were treated as fumbles, or if defenders were allowed to tackle receivers before the catch, teams would stop passing. They aren't, so teams go on passing. It's no use whining that good sports would just run straight up the middle and straight into the maximum number of defenders every time; that's plainly not the way the game was meant to be played.

Likewise, in AH, the game setup has you attacking objectives right next to enemy airfields at which the defenders can instantly and endlessly reup no matter how many times they get killed (which is, of course, stupendously unrealistic in tactical/simulation terms even if you completely ignore the personal desire of RL pilots to live), so effective tactics are those that prevent the defenders from doing so. Fighting or not has nothing to do with it - if the defenders want to fight, there'll be one, if they don't, there won't. It's about changing the parameters of the fight so the defenders no longer have that "gamey" advantage. That will never change until that aspect of the game setup changes.

And as for the numbers whines, I thought we wanted a less gamey simulation? There was no "side balancing" in the war. Missions and fights where attackers and defenders were evenly matched in numbers, quality of planes, and situation were the exception. Missions where they even knew what odds to expect were the exception. If you want to fly like a real WW2 pilot did, if you want your experience to be more like the real thing (minus the part about people actually dying, of course) and less artificially gamey, learn to quit whining on the BBS and 200 and play the hand you're dealt like they had to do. At least in AH the numbers imbalance shifts all the time and almost never favors any one side for more than an evening. (For myself, I'd be happy with more effective side balancing, but I don't claim I want anything but a good, engaging game based on a flight sim.)

[The Fugitive]

The same drivel, the same bullspit personal attacks, and yet, somehow, miraculously, we seem to rack up thousands of air-to-air kills every month without fighting or coming anywhere near the enemy. The last night I was on before tonight (Tuesday or Wednesday) we managed to rack up a good 20 or 30 kills between about ten of us defending against one NOE attack alone - a pretty impressive feat given that, as I read here, none of us ever get within 30 miles of the enemy by choice. I guess it's a good thing we have that standoff missile haxx!

All these rants, whines, and blubbering hissy fits, and it all leaves me with the same amusing image: a spoiled little sissy defensive captain throwing his helmet on the ground and jumping up and down and bawling, "Reffff! Coooooach! It's not fair! They keep throwing the ball to open receivers instead of throwing it where our guys are standing! Then they keep running faster than us and never giving us a chance to tackle them! Make them stop! It isn't faaaaaaairrr!!!!!"                 

Didn't any of you spoiled little brats have daddies to tell you when you were eight years old to quit crying and act like a man when you got whupped by an opponent's smarter game play? I guess not.

It's no BS, it's simple fact. The rules and setup of the game determine what tactics are effective. The rules of football favor the forward pass, if dropped passes were treated as fumbles, or if defenders were allowed to tackle receivers before the catch, teams would stop passing. They aren't, so teams go on passing. It's no use whining that good sports would just run straight up the middle and straight into the maximum number of defenders every time; that's plainly not the way the game was meant to be played.

Likewise, in AH, the game setup has you attacking objectives right next to enemy airfields at which the defenders can instantly and endlessly reup no matter how many times they get killed (which is, of course, stupendously unrealistic in tactical/simulation terms even if you completely ignore the personal desire of RL pilots to live), so effective tactics are those that prevent the defenders from doing so. Fighting or not has nothing to do with it - if the defenders want to fight, there'll be one, if they don't, there won't. It's about changing the parameters of the fight so the defenders no longer have that "gamey" advantage. That will never change until that aspect of the game setup changes.

And as for the numbers whines, I thought we wanted a less gamey simulation? There was no "side balancing" in the war. Missions and fights where attackers and defenders were evenly matched in numbers, quality of planes, and situation were the exception. Missions where they even knew what odds to expect were the exception. If you want to fly like a real WW2 pilot did, if you want your experience to be more like the real thing (minus the part about people actually dying, of course) and less artificially gamey, learn to quit whining on the BBS and 200 and play the hand you're dealt like they had to do. At least in AH the numbers imbalance shifts all the time and almost never favors any one side for more than an evening. (For myself, I'd be happy with more effective side balancing, but I don't claim I want anything but a good, engaging game based on a flight sim.)

I know it's worthless to answer to you, because like a horse with a set of blinders on all you see is is what is in front of you and either don't care or ignore everything else around you, but here goes....

To you and many.....far to many.... this game has become "GRAB THE BASES!!!" and that is it, period, end game. Like most gamers you guys do the same things over and over again until you hit the "big boss" (the base) and over whelm him with your numbers/super powers.

To Guppy and many of us the actual fight is all we want. We don't care who owns the base or who is attacking it, all we see is a fight and that is what we go for. That is what this game was all about. A chance to pretend for a few hours a night to be a WWII fighter pilot, of Buff pilot in a mission, or a Tank commander leading an assault. All the thrill of the battle with none of that crappy stuff like fear, death, blood, loosing body parts, loosing friends, waiting for some supply group to replace the plane you just got shot out of. Just the "glory" of the fight.

If all you want to do is grab land why not try HERE. Its free and you can run the board day and night.

[FLS]

Maybe one day you guys can have this endless debate about who is more mature without insulting each other.   

[Trukk]

How would you compare play quality compared to a couple, 3, 4 years ago? Maybe even longer? I dont mean the game itself, which has improved, or even individual players. Im asking about how the player base now plays the game compared to years ago?

The playerbase on average is the same, you however are 3-4 years older, that's the difference.

[Masherbrum]

FalconWing, I use to hate you guys. You were one of the firsts "horde" type missions I ran into. Sure now and then country wide little general would get everyone pointed in the same direction now and then and create a horde, but you guys were an organized horde and you knew when it was squad night and you were in for a long night. But I'd take you guys back in a heartbeat at this point.

You guys fought! Sure your groups were large most of the time but you didn't make that one run at a base and then disappeared. If a decent number of guys upped to defend the fights would last until you guy took the base and moved onto the next strategic base in line. You guys didn't run willy-nilly all over the map looking for undefended bases. You took bases with a purpose. This V base because it spawns to that airfield and so on.

Your mega missions also helped to create the issues. Let face it, fighting against the horde is tough and a thankless "job". More often that not your out numbered, heavily, and "they" have the alt and speed (E) which more often than not is the deciding factor in a fight. So less and less people up to defend, because it just isn't fun. Next thing you know Your missions are rolling over base after base with ease. There is no challenge, it's easy and repetitious, and becomes boring. Your doing the same old thing mission after mission. By the time you called it quits I'll bet you weren't even assigning targets or directing the missions any more because they all knew what they were to do and just did it.

The "win the war" crowd is what is suppose to generate most of the combat in the game. Even back in Falconwings time this worked because they fought, so defenders defended. Todays players don't even bother to fight. If they run into opposition they just disappear and pop up at some other undefended area of the map looking for that quick grab again.

Again, most players don't "play" the game, they just run through as quick as they can guns blazing yelling LEROY JENKINS at the top of their lungs.

Actually the best missions to defend against were ROCSTAR3's.    He didn't put them up for the sake of playing "Whack-A-Mole" on the map, for the land grab like today's crap.     He posted them for the sake of having a tremendous fight for an hour or two, because he used fighters, not bombers.   His goal wasn't to flatten the base, but just to get as many kills as possible.   But you still had a good time being on the receiving end of them.    If anyone got shot down, you reupped and still had fun, even his participants.   They didn't "auger, bail, quit working the area" after they got shot down, they came back.    

I mean when the 29 was released, you had the V-Devils rolling them in at 5k or less.         That is considered "Awesome Mission Planning".