Porking. Needs to be changed.

[The Fugitive]

Removing the option of strafing ords would be less diversity than the choice of strafing or bombing. The purpose of the wish seems to be to force some people to play differently than they choose to play.  Some players would be happier if other players were less happy. Sound like a winner?

Nobody wants to talk about realistic rebuild times for more authentic realism?   

One of the strengths of the game is that different people can play together with different goals, different playing styles, different abilities, etc and everybody can still have a good time. Or they can complain if that suits them better. The good old days weren't better because the ords were harder to put down. Play the way you want to play and don't worry about the choices other players make.

Of course, lets stand by and watch the game degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Lets all just play the game the way we want and we can watch as players continue to leave.

Suggesting a change to bring about a different type of game play isn't a bad thing. Ignoring little problems until they become big problems is. Curbing one type of play isn't a bad thing. Remember the days of only a few ack on a field? A single guy had no trouble taking it down, now it is pretty tough to do.  A change was made then, maybe its time for a new change?

[kvuo75]

nobody ever complains that the barracks are too tough.. why not?

the complaint is always the ammo (bombs) are too easy to disable.

[FLS]

Of course, lets stand by and watch the game degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Lets all just play the game the way we want and we can watch as players continue to leave.

Suggesting a change to bring about a different type of game play isn't a bad thing. Ignoring little problems until they become big problems is. Curbing one type of play isn't a bad thing. Remember the days of only a few ack on a field? A single guy had no trouble taking it down, now it is pretty tough to do.  A change was made then, maybe its time for a new change?

I just answered a player's question. I didn't say it shouldn't change. I said nobody has stated a good reason to change it. If you guys are all smarter than Hitech that's great but you probably still have to convince him with something more than your desire to try it and see what happens.

[bozon]

nobody ever complains that the barracks are too tough.. why not?

the complaint is always the ammo (bombs) are too easy to disable.

Because nobody cares about barracks. That one only affects the guy trying to bring a goon/m3. The ammo bunkers affect many more players that want to carry bombs. I suspect that most of those who want to be able to suicide-strafe ammo bunkers are those that want to attack airfields with GVs.

Tough objects on airfields are good for buff players. Soft objects porkable by a single La7 are bad for buffs and good for GVs.

[The Fugitive]

I just answered a player's question. I didn't say it shouldn't change. I said nobody has stated a good reason to change it. If you guys are all smarter than Hitech that's great but you probably still have to convince him with something more than your desire to try it and see what happens.

Personally I don't think anyone from HTC plays the game regularly any more. Long hours working on the update, and in Hitechs case a budding family isn't going to leave much time or energy to play games. I know at that time in my life my playing time fell off heavily.

The game was designed and built when he and Pyro were young wild fighter jocks. As they matured the game evolved adding bombers and strategy bringing in its "heyday". Now, with HTC concentrating on the new graphics engine and the player base changing/evolving away from the deep "chess game" of old to a more run and gun grinding it out type of play to stack up a pile of achievements/objectives it needs to be tweaked again. Back then HTC seemed to be much more aware of what was going on in the game and how players were playing it because they were playing it too. Many a night you would see one or another of them in there chit-chatting with the players base. Now they seem to avoid it as they are hammered with questions. Questions do to them believing there are issues in the game maybe?

I don't think any one is saying they are smarter than Hitech, but they are trying to help by pointing out what they see as issues because maybe they don't think Hitech is playing and seeing what is going on. What was good before isn't good now because of the way the game is now played. You can tell that by how the numbers have dropped away. I saw one guy, typing on the "help" channel last night saying he was done because all they do here is spawn camp as well as the crappy graphics. So another "new" player comes in checks it out and is gone. Increase the size of the spawn area making it harder to camp and maybe he stays. But was Hitech on last night? Did he see this players complaints? Is he considering an adjustment to help retain tankers from another game that are more into the "hunt" than the "kill"? I doubt it, so some of us are here to help. Hopefully he reads this thread, and checks it out. 

[RedAgony]

Of course, lets stand by and watch the game degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Lets all just play the game the way we want and we can watch as players continue to leave.

Suggesting a change to bring about a different type of game play isn't a bad thing. Ignoring little problems until they become big problems is. Curbing one type of play isn't a bad thing. Remember the days of only a few ack on a field? A single guy had no trouble taking it down, now it is pretty tough to do.  A change was made then, maybe its time for a new change?

I'm going to have to agree with Fugitive, I'd hate to say that it is a trend though.  The generations that play games today show en masse, that less effort - instant gratification is what is profitable.  Take a look at games like War Thunder, and world of tanks/warplanes.  Anyone who was REALLY interested in WW2 aircraft/technology would see these games as a farce.  But what do the subscription numbers show?  A company can make the most money by catering to the 16 year old who has a mouse and wants to see an explosion 5 minutes into starting a game.  The "realistic" modes of those games have exponentially less paying customers, and as a duty to your investors, majority rules and the wants of the realism community get ignored.

I would see Aces High as the last bastion of hope for the people that appreciate the nuances of WW2 tactics and tech.  But if you make it too "realistic" you don't get that cash from the guy who's going to leave anyway for the next hot release.

Yes I could play the way I want to play and not care what other people do.  But why then, is the game multiplayer?  Cooperation should be involved I think.  It's not about "forcing other people to play the way I want them to,"  it's about creating an arena where realism can be appreciated just a bit more.  Scenarios are great but again, if every flight made in this game lasted for 3+ hours, nobody that had a (happy) family life would be able to play in any meaningful way.

[Lusche]

  Anyone who was REALLY interested in WW2 aircraft/technology would see these games as a farce.

This has also been said about Aces High, and not only by a few.

[JVboob]

I'm going to have to agree with Fugitive, I'd hate to say that it is a trend though.  The generations that play games today show en masse, that less effort - instant gratification is what is profitable.  Take a look at games like War Thunder, and world of tanks/warplanes.  Anyone who was REALLY interested in WW2 aircraft/technology would see these games as a farce.  But what do the subscription numbers show?  A company can make the most money by catering to the 16 year old who has a mouse and wants to see an explosion 5 minutes into starting a game.  The "realistic" modes of those games have exponentially less paying customers, and as a duty to your investors, majority rules and the wants of the realism community get ignored.

I would see Aces High as the last bastion of hope for the people that appreciate the nuances of WW2 tactics and tech.  But if you make it too "realistic" you don't get that cash from the guy who's going to leave anyway for the next hot release.

Yes I could play the way I want to play and not care what other people do.  But why then, is the game multiplayer?  Cooperation should be involved I think.  It's not about "forcing other people to play the way I want them to,"  it's about creating an arena where realism can be appreciated just a bit more.  Scenarios are great but again, if every flight made in this game lasted for 3+ hours, nobody that had a (happy) family life would be able to play in any meaningful way.

Well said! I just wish I had friday night off every now and then ive had 1 friday off since May 2014

[captain1ma]

the game is about balance. not necessarily realistic, but not necessarily fake either. sure its got its share of things that could never be done, but that's part of the balance. if its too realistic, you'll lose people. if its too gamey, you'll lose people. the game is balanced to do a little of both. its not a re-creation of world war 2, otherwise the first time you died, you would be banned from the game, and no none would shoot at each other. 

I don't want to play a game where I have to worry about trim, or propeller pitch, or attitude.... I want to hit the E key, fly around in a relatively realistic looking airplane and shoot at people shooting at me! I want to get together with a bunch of guys, and try to capture a base, or try to blow up a HQ. that's my draw to the game.

you want realism try flying dcs.... its crap! yeah it looks great, but I cant fly it. I CAN however fly Aces high.

long and short, enjoy aces high for what it is, yes it has its flaws, but it has lots of fun factor. for those that cant fly a real plane. stop your whining and try to kill each other in cartoon planes. its a game!

[Tilt]

I would agree with the concensus that Ammo bunkers should not be attritable by 50 cals and HE cannon........

unless


occasionally the bunker door is opened and the attacker came in at the right angle and the right time.......   right over the appropriate gguns.


Thus adding a little skill and timing to the action.


Graphics would change the brown door to a black hole at the appropriate time.

[FLS]

Personally I don't think anyone from HTC plays the game regularly any more. Long hours working on the update, and in Hitechs case a budding family isn't going to leave much time or energy to play games. I know at that time in my life my playing time fell off heavily.

The game was designed and built when he and Pyro were young wild fighter jocks. As they matured the game evolved adding bombers and strategy bringing in its "heyday". Now, with HTC concentrating on the new graphics engine and the player base changing/evolving away from the deep "chess game" of old to a more run and gun grinding it out type of play to stack up a pile of achievements/objectives it needs to be tweaked again. Back then HTC seemed to be much more aware of what was going on in the game and how players were playing it because they were playing it too. Many a night you would see one or another of them in there chit-chatting with the players base. Now they seem to avoid it as they are hammered with questions. Questions do to them believing there are issues in the game maybe?

I don't think any one is saying they are smarter than Hitech, but they are trying to help by pointing out what they see as issues because maybe they don't think Hitech is playing and seeing what is going on. What was good before isn't good now because of the way the game is now played. You can tell that by how the numbers have dropped away. I saw one guy, typing on the "help" channel last night saying he was done because all they do here is spawn camp as well as the crappy graphics. So another "new" player comes in checks it out and is gone. Increase the size of the spawn area making it harder to camp and maybe he stays. But was Hitech on last night? Did he see this players complaints? Is he considering an adjustment to help retain tankers from another game that are more into the "hunt" than the "kill"? I doubt it, so some of us are here to help. Hopefully he reads this thread, and checks it out.

We all want AH to continue to be successful. You will notice that there is still not a single reason proposed why changing bunker hardness would improve game play. It would simply align with some player preferences. I understand it's not historically accurate but neither is the basic MA game play. 

As far as what hurts the game and why the numbers are lower, you're all just guessing. Let's be honest about that.

[RedAgony]

You keep pointing at "gameplay", this isn't an issue where there is a bug that needs to be fixed. 

Games are changed all the time, those changes aren't always bug fixes.  Making some objects harder is a change to balance.  Strafing without bombs shouldn't be just as effective (altitude aside) as strafing WITH bombs.

[FLS]

You keep pointing at "gameplay", this isn't an issue where there is a bug that needs to be fixed. 

Games are changed all the time, those changes aren't always bug fixes.  Making some objects harder is a change to balance.  Strafing without bombs shouldn't be just as effective (altitude aside) as strafing WITH bombs.

You're using the term game play differently than I am. Balance is part of game play. The biggest issue in game play is actually player attitude. Because you are in charge of your attitude and you choose how to play the game your game enjoyment is in your hands.

[Changeup]

You're using the term game play differently than I am. Balance is part of game play. The biggest issue in game play is actually player attitude. Because you are in charge of your attitude and you choose how to play the game your game enjoyment is in your hands.

Hmmm, FLS, there seems to be quite a few arguments for gameplay based on the OPs suggestion and his pictorial.  You've turned gameplay into player attitude from no argument at all.

You say you aren't saying it shouldnt be changed but all of your posts are vehemently against it and your stated reason is:  it won't add to gameplay. 

These folks disagree with you and have given reasons why along with realism being more attractive than "In WWII you didn't get 10,000 kills per month." 

Of course I could still be wrong huh? Well, someone is being autisticly rigid toward change Mr FLS and it's not any of us.

[The Fugitive]

We all want AH to continue to be successful. You will notice that there is still not a single reason proposed why changing bunker hardness would improve game play. It would simply align with some player preferences. I understand it's not historically accurate but neither is the basic MA game play. 

As far as what hurts the game and why the numbers are lower, you're all just guessing. Let's be honest about that.

Now your telling the OP its his fault due to his attitude  Are you being obtuse or evasive?

It would help game play in that it would be more of a challenge. It would also encourage players to not only fly heavy it would encourage players to learn to fight heavy as well as to dive bomb to accomplish their task. Is that spelled out well enough for you? I'm sure HTC got the drift a number of post ago.

The point of a game is to become proficient enough at as many different things as one can to do well in the game...... what ever those thing you are trying to do well at are. Cutting corners by gaming the game in one way or another does nothing but lead to boredom making players face a choice. Learn to do things better, breaking old habits they have learned already, or quit. In our nation of "I want it now, and you owe me" people which do you think most will choose?

As for why people are leaving the game, just listen to players in the arenas. They are vocal and have no qualms about voicing their dissatisfaction.