if u want to keep players...

[Lusche]

Should kills and death's be factored into winning the war?

That would be a great incentive for 'fyling safe', i.e. avoiding combat if you aren't sure you will win.
Also the cry of "you are wasting resources!" would really become true for the first time. "Don't up that P-39 from there, you will die you &/%&%!" Everybody would then be a direct part of the war.

What if only the front bases were capturable?

And then?  

Does the war really need to be winnable/losable?

Yes, absolutely. It gives many players a reason to fight and to play, a purpose. They fight to win this war, or at least to prevent someone else winning it. A purpose (no matter how silly that purpose may sound to some) helps to retain players.

IMHO a different question could be if the war has actually to be won the way it is now....

[FLOOB]

AW was a more popular flight sim and some would argue more fun. Yet there was no winnable war. The only purpose a player ever needs is to have fun.

[NatCigg]

indeed, some would have there way some would not. The War allows everyone to have fun.  yet, the concept is a hopefull theory, whos got the money to try it out?

[Lusche]

AW was a more popular flight sim and some would argue more fun. Yet there was no winnable war. The only purpose a player ever needs is to have fun.

Exactly. Fun.

Things are evolving. The concepts of fun may be changing. Player generations are changing. Expectations are changing. 25 Years ago you were going crazy by the mere fact you could fly something vaguely resemling a WW2 plane alone.
This would not be that much fun today. 'We' were mostly pure WW2 aviation enthusiasts, and that folks are getting rarer by the year.

The original ELITE was widely praised by critics and immensely popular & successful in it's time. Nobody would care for such bland graphics and what basically amounts to a non-existing gameplay anymore.


Let me add a personal remark: If this game would have lacked the war and all the additional dimensions of gameplay it provided, if it had been a more or less pure air combat 'simulator'... it's extremely unlikely I had played & payed for longer than maybe 2 years. If at all.

[FLOOB]

I don't agree that the concept of fun changes. I do agree that expectation changes, but really that has to do with graphics. Outdated graphics isn't what has turned gameplay in the MA to toejam.

[Lusche]

I don't agree that the concept of fun changes. I do agree that expectation changes, but really that has to do with graphics. Outdated graphics isn't what has turned gameplay in the MA to toejam.

I was told that this game has already been ruined by the gamers when I joined AH in 2005. And many things I see being lamented on the BBS had been actually worse back then.
Far more vulching, far more dbl teaming by both bigger country's on the small one (thanks to the victory criteria in effect back then); massive and enarly unstoppable NOE raids (dar limit 500ft!) which captured dozens of airfields within two hours, giant hordes that killed FH's not just on a single field but completely shut down whole fronts (for example ROOK LCA in 2006); easier spawn camping due to terrain and smaller spawn radius...

[FLOOB]

Oh things have gotten much worse since 2005. If I wasn't a knight owl I would have canceled my account a long time ago. Between about 12 noon to 12 midnite US time you either join the horde or do nothing. I rarely ever log on during those times.

When AH first started bases were much much easier to capture but nobody really cared because players were preoccupied with playing aces high instead of being preoccupied with winning aces high.

And that's really the crux of the problem. Something needs to change to redirect players preoccupation with taking bases and winning aces high back to having fun and playing aces high. As I said, it seems to me taking bases and winning the war has now become the point of the MA. Even more so now than when I came back to AH in 2011.

[Lusche]

When AH first started bases were much much easier to capture but nobody really cared

Actually they cared a lote and captured bases at  much higher rates, not only in total but also per player/ per played hour. More players had much more base captures than today.

And there was a high incentive for winning the war, as for a logn time it was the only way to have a map change.

[Lusche]

Changes in the rate of base captures had been largely caused, as far as i can see, by changes in base / map layout as well as changing population densities in the arena(s).

[FLOOB]

Actually they cared a lote and captured bases at  much higher rates, not only in total but also per player/ per played hour. More players had much more base captures than today.

And there was a high incentive for winning the war, as for a logn time it was the only way to have a map change.

I'm not sure what stats you're looking at but there was no map change because there was only one map.

[Lusche]

I'm not sure what stats you're looking at but there was no map change because there was only one map.

You may just talk about AH beta? I went through all those threads about map changes and war winning in the early years of AH... which would make no sense if it had been only one map

[FLOOB]

(Image removed from quote.)

Changes in the rate of base captures had been largely caused, as far as i can see, by changes in base / map layout as well as changing population densities in the arena(s).

A decline in quantity of base capture is indicative of how preoccupied players have become with base capture, hence the rise of hordes to overcome defenders.

[FLOOB]

You may just talk about AH beta? I went through all those threads about map changes and war winning in the early years of AH... which would make no sense if it had been only one map

Maybe, I was talking about when all you had to do to capture a base was deack it, and there were no towns.

[Lusche]

A decline in quantity of base capture is indicative of how preoccupied players have become with base capture

That's a very far-fetched interpretation in my opinion. The last big drop in the rate of base captures, for example was simply caused by HTC makign them more difficult. The moments the new, larger towns were introduced, the number of captures dropped.
Not the players changed - the rules did.

But what the chart shows that the players of AH1 were capturing a mighty lot of bases for not caring about base captures at all.


I will not disagree that player motivations, game culture have changed and have some effects... but they are smaller than apparently perceived.
And the war had always played a big role in AH 1&2, bases had been grabbed by hordes or sneaked, fields had been shut down, CVs were sunk, and there was much ado about it on the BBS.
Even back in the golden days.

[FLOOB]

I've also seen a few old time players who've returned to aces high, only to promptly leave it when they've seen what it has become. I don't want to put words in Toad's mouth so I'll just post a quote.

Clearly the > point < is not "winning the war". The point of this game, according to its owner and designer, is to have fun at different types of combat.

Further, "Conquering bases is just a means to promote combat" . Obviously, "conquering bases" equates to "war winning".

So if you view Pyro's comment that I posted and you view this comment by HT that I posted, you will see there is no mention of "capture the flag".

Additionally, in the beginning back in 1999, the web page did not have the pronouncement you are basing your argument upon. It had a statement basically aligned with Pyro's comment that the game was about air combat.


Once again, quite simply and using Pyro and HT as sources, the game is mainly about aerial combat and it's purpose is to have fun at different types of combat. The whole base capture/war winning aspect is there as "a means to promote combat and hence fun".

The context: a newer player is trying to say that the point of aces high is to win the war. But it's hard to fault the newer player for having this perception given the state of aces high currently.