60 of my buddies vs the ack (hangars dropped)

[FLS]

Of course all the guys that havent answered because they not tuned to 200 (like myself) will not go to that base... 

No problem just PM everybody.   

[Karnak]

Not it's only offense, defense is individual. There are no rewards to defend like there is for offense. That's why I'm NOT asking to remove the hordes, I'm just looking for something to be put in to help combat <---- notice the word? .... the horde. People want to group up and horde, that's fine, give the defenders a way to be able to have a fighting <----- notice the word?.... chance against them.

This thread detailed my idea on how to get defense to smash into the offense at least some of the time rather than having unopposed hordes running around capturing bases:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325800.0.html

was talking to a friend and one of the things he didn't like about Aces High (he subscribed for about three months back in 2001) was the difficulty in finding a fight.  I was thinking about another MMO we play, World of Warcraft (sue me, but that is the one my RL friends play), and I thought that perhaps the daily quest idea could be transposed to Aces High.  They would not be structured like a player generated mission, but rather free form, bring your own tools and meet the requirement to get the reward.  The reward could be some score bonus, perk bonus or both, but nothing so high as to require participation by those disinclined.

The way I envision this would be system generated "quest" missions every one or two hours, whatever is balanced.  There would be a equal number of missions for each nation.  For example:

Bishops: Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A2 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A2 for an hour)
Bishops: Take A3 (Take field A3 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A4 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A4 for an hour)
Bishops: Attack Rook City (Bomb Rook city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Bishops: Defend Bishop City (Prevent the Knights from reducing Bishop City below 25% for an hour)

Knights: Take A5 (Take field A5 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A6 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A6 for an hour)
Knights: Take A4 (Take field A4 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A3 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A3 for an hour)
Knights: Attack Bishop City (Bomb Bishop City to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Knights: Defend Knight City (Prevent the Rooks from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)

Rooks: Take A2 (Take field A2 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A1 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A1 for an hour)
Rooks: Take A6 (Take field A6 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A5 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A5 for an hour)
Rooks: Attack Knight City (Bomb Knight city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Rooks: Defend Rook City (Prevent the Bishops from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)


As you can see, these mission quests are all pointed at another mission quest to encourage combat.

How would it work in gameplay?  While in the tower you would accept the mission you wanted to do, for example as a Bishop you could take "Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)".  Once the Mission Quest timer began (there might be a clock counting down to the mission start and then counting up until the time ran out) you would launch as normal, selecting your airplane or vehicle, and heading off for A1 to participate in the Bishop attempt to take it.  There would be no mass launching by the computer as in a player generated mission.  To determine if you were eligible for completing the Mission Quest and getting the score/perk reward the program would need to do a few spot checks to make sure you were participating in A1's sector and inflicting damage on A1 or A1's defenders.


The goal of this idea is not to mandate new behavior for all players, but rather to encourage a meeting of opposing forces to fight it out for something.  Players would be free to participate or not even without accepting the Mission Quest.  They would be free to use whatever airplane, vehicle or boat they wanted in order to participate, though a tank might well fail to score a City defense mission due to not damaging the attackers.  There should not be too many Mission Quests per iteration as it wouldn't be good to dilute the players interested in participating too much.

Concern:
A mechanism needs to be in place to discourage hordes.  This could be done via the ENY system reducing the rewards based on side balance, enough of an imbalance and the rewards would be zeroed out.

[Lusche]

I'm still all for my own idea of making certain points on the map much more important for the war victory than others. It should be a definite improvement in terms of actual combat particularly during the 'endgame' - because it's greatly reducing the value of  surprise NOE's against random, remote bases at that point, while not being too restrictive on the players at all other times.

And it should be much simpler to implement

[Karnak]

I'm still all for my own idea of making certain points on the map much more important for the war victory than others. It should be a definite improvement in terms of actual combat particularly during the 'endgame' - because it's greatly reducing the value of  surprise NOE's against random, remote bases at that point, while not being too restrictive on the players at all other times.

And it should be much simpler to implement

I wouldn't object to both to be honest.  I think the game needs to provide a few nudges to get players to go in certain directions.  It shouldn't force players to go in those directions so that they don't have to if they don't want to.

[The Fugitive]

This thread detailed my idea on how to get defense to smash into the offense at least some of the time rather than having unopposed hordes running around capturing bases:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325800.0.html

I think "quest" type missions would be too restrictive, along the lines of the "field capture line" that was tried out. Pointing people toward a base to draw the fight there removes ALL elements of surprise or strategy.

I'm still all for my own idea of making certain points on the map much more important for the war victory than others. It should be a definite improvement in terms of actual combat particularly during the 'endgame' - because it's greatly reducing the value of  surprise NOE's against random, remote bases at that point, while not being too restrictive on the players at all other times.

And it should be much simpler to implement

I agree, and the "zone bases" use to do this. On the other hand todays player isn't after "strategic" targets, nor do they plan their missions with any objectives other than "grab the next base". We use to take a V base because it spawned in the area of the field we were really after. That type of consideration isn't even brought up any more. If your going to make a base more important it's going to REALLY have to be important to catch these players attention.

I wouldn't object to both to be honest.  I think the game needs to provide a few nudges to get players to go in certain directions.  It shouldn't force players to go in those directions so that they don't have to if they don't want to.

I agree, but if your not going to force people to play certain ways, you still have to make room for those that want to play their way as well. FLS jokingly said "How about if the base takers announce on 200 which field they want to take and ask how many defenders will be there so they don't bring too many attackers?". How about they simulate spies/coastal watchers/underground? If a large amount of players up from a field you start getting system messages. 15-20 players up or cross a sector line you get a system message stating something along the lines of "Heavy troop movement detected in the north." With 21+ players you get more precise information like "Heavy troop movement in sector 12,8". This way players who like to horde can still play their game, and defenders can have half a chance to organize some sort of defense.

Everyone should be able to play the game the way they want, but not so much so that others....who are paying as well can't.

[Squire]

I will admit when I see a single P-51D, P-38L or Fw190 come into a undefended base from 20k diving at 550 mph and drops on the radar or some other target I usually groan a bit and ask myself "this again, really?" but its their 15 bucks <shrug>. You just have to go find a fight somewhere else or be fast enought to catch them which can be its own reward. If you got too upset about every bit of dull gameplay it tends to wear a fellow down.

[Lusche]

I agree, and the "zone bases" use to do this. On the other hand todays player isn't after "strategic" targets, nor do they plan their missions with any objectives other than "grab the next base". We use to take a V base because it spawned in the area of the field we were really after. That type of consideration isn't even brought up any more. If your going to make a base more important it's going to REALLY have to be important to catch these players attention.

And that "really important" I had in mind. I don't think the old 'zone base' would work that way, because the effect is way too subtle. It should be very 'attractive' for the war score or even a necessity for the final push - Winning the war by storming Berlin and not by a surprise "Operation Overlord" on a totally unimportant Norwegian fishing village

We could either simply assign different point values to different base types (from Vbase (low) to Large Airfield (high)) or create a kind of zone "capitals" that have to be captured. I would prefer the former one, as it doesn't make capturing of Vbases fully obsolete.
That way we wouldn't take away surprise and NOE's (which I do actually enjoy as a defender!), but as time goes on and the attackers have gained a foothold, they are much more likely to use it and to continue the push from there. And this can create more (epic?) battles instead of unopposed landgrabs until the map is over.

Surprise raids are great, I certainly don't want to see AH without them - but wouldn't it be much more fun to end the war with an epic battle...




...instead of of doing 2 or 3 basically unopposed NOEs at totally different places?

[Debrody]

Yups Lusche, ending the war with an epic, more or less even battle is WAY more fun than with an non-interceptable, practically unstoppable random-ish located noe 60lancs+50ponies gigahorde.
I like the idea, even tho i did not mean this to be a wish topic.

[Karnak]

I think "quest" type missions would be too restrictive, along the lines of the "field capture line" that was tried out. Pointing people toward a base to draw the fight there removes ALL elements of surprise or strategy.

How so?  Sure, for the purpose of that mission it is and that is kinda the point, to generate combat, but players would still be free to sneak bases just as they are now.  The way I envisioned it was not like player generated missions at all.  It would be up to each player to up as normal.

I agree, but if your not going to force people to play certain ways, you still have to make room for those that want to play their way as well. FLS jokingly said "How about if the base takers announce on 200 which field they want to take and ask how many defenders will be there so they don't bring too many attackers?". How about they simulate spies/coastal watchers/underground? If a large amount of players up from a field you start getting system messages. 15-20 players up or cross a sector line you get a system message stating something along the lines of "Heavy troop movement detected in the north." With 21+ players you get more precise information like "Heavy troop movement in sector 12,8". This way players who like to horde can still play their game, and defenders can have half a chance to organize some sort of defense.

Everyone should be able to play the game the way they want, but not so much so that others....who are paying as well can't.

Indeed and, barring absurdly small maps, I can't think of any way that my suggestion would block anybody from playing how they want to.  In fact that was one of the central criteria I had when creating the suggestion.  Players would still be absolutely free to horde and sneak bases and such.

[The Fugitive]

How so?  Sure, for the purpose of that mission it is and that is kinda the point, to generate combat, but players would still be free to sneak bases just as they are now.  The way I envisioned it was not like player generated missions at all.  It would be up to each player to up as normal.
Indeed and, barring absurdly small maps, I can't think of any way that my suggestion would block anybody from playing how they want to.  In fact that was one of the central criteria I had when creating the suggestion.  Players would still be absolutely free to horde and sneak bases and such.

That's what I mean, for the most part players would stay with the horde and continue as they are. There isn't any incentive to use the "quest" plans so they wouldn't.

Lusche,I can see the the big epic battle turning into a furball. While for some that is fun, but for other not so much. I remember when you won the war by taking out one team. The epic battle happened over the last field. People would either up hundreds of times to try and defend the last base while C47 after C47 tried to drop troops. It was so much a battle but a free for all that that had nothing but that final push for which ever side yo were on.

A point system might just setup more NOE's. Teams looking to sneak just enough bases to get the total points needed by picking a base here and there until the total is reached. Whats needed is a reason to defend. A reason to organize a defense. The only way to stop a horde attack is by having numbers in place to defend with. If there are going to allow the hordes they should have something to counter them other wise game play becomes lopsided.

[Karnak]

That's what I mean, for the most part players would stay with the horde and continue as they are. There isn't any incentive to use the "quest" plans so they wouldn't.

The reward was a number of perk points for the participants in a successful mission.   Other posters in that thread suggested other rewards as well.  Take a look at the full thread, not just my OP.

There definitely have to be rewards or there isn't a nudge, but the rewards can't be so large that players feel they have to participate if they don't want to.

[Lusche]

A point system might just setup more NOE's. Teams looking to sneak just enough bases to get the total points needed by picking a base here and there until the total is reached. Whats needed is a reason to defend. A reason to organize a defense. The only way to stop a horde attack is by having numbers in place to defend with.

We already have a point system in place. It's 1 base - 1 point. And that is the ultimate incentive for random base NOE's, as every base is worth the same. There is literally no reason to attack a defended place when you can grab an undefended one.
What my proposal would change is probabilities. If the attacker just needs 6 points from the defender's side to win, he might go for the large airbase that's worth exactly those 6 points - or he may smash'n'grab 6 Vbases worth 1 points each. So we have a high value target, and both sides know it - it's a great target for a last decisive attack, but the defender knows that and prepare himself. Or the attacker can go the 'easy', but longer road and continue to grab random small bases.

In the end, having higher value targets increases the probability they actually get attacked. And with that icnreased probability, the defender can better prepare himself and a battle can happen. If that battle really stalls, there is still a way to get enough 'point's by going for more smaller bases.

Nobody has to go for the big target, but it's worth trying. I don't want to change the very basic way of winnign the war, I just hope to see more 'fronts' and sustained thrusts towards a certain high-value location. (But without making things overly complicated, no intention to trun this into a real strategy game)

[Midway]

Why not just be happy with what we have...  hordes for those that want them... small fights for those that want them... 1 v 1s... 1 v2s... & 1 v3s, etc.. for those that want them... GVing for those that want it... bombing for those that want it... FPS for those that want that (have to bail first)...

AH has it all...  maybe quit complaining about one or two of these and use SA to seek what you want... plenty of choices allways available.

 

[Karnak]

Why not just be happy with what we have...  hordes for those that want them... small fights for those that want them... 1 v 1s... 1 v2s... & 1 v3s, etc.. for those that want them... GVing for those that want it... bombing for those that want it... FPS for those that want that (have to bail first)...

AH has it all...  maybe quit complaining about one or two of these and use SA to seek what you want... plenty of choices allways available.

 

Because what you describe is not what we have.  Lusche and I both critique our ideas with an eye towards maintaining all the options that currently exist while trying to think of additions that could make the game better.

[Midway]

Because what you describe is not what we have.  Lusche and I both critique our ideas with an eye towards maintaining all the options that currently exist while trying to think of additions that could make the game better.

I can find any/all of these just about any time of day or night.