loss of members

[The Fugitive]

A lot of the recent questions seem to revolve around whether or not the current style of gameplay is the correct gameplay for the longevity of the game,  almost as stay the same and die or change and continue

For a game that has been on line and operating for over 10 years I think they have a pretty good game. The problem is not with the game, but how people seem to go out of there way to "game the game" by cutting corners and not really play in the true spirit of the game. Im think HTC didn't build the game so that players can avoid interacting as much as possible.


I think the only things that are needed are small tweaks to stay ahead of those that look to cut corners and avoid player interaction.

[Hungry]

For a game that has been on line and operating for over 10 years I think they have a pretty good game. The problem is not with the game, but how people seem to go out of there way to "game the game" by cutting corners and not really play in the true spirit of the game. Im think HTC didn't build the game so that players can avoid interacting as much as possible.


I think the only things that are needed are small tweaks to stay ahead of those that look to cut corners and avoid player interaction.

I know what you're saying and I'll be back in the fall for sure (still pays the monthly) but if that's how people treat it and the player base is ? declining, then the gameplay still needs to change????

[Vudak]

...Im think HTC didn't build the game so that players can avoid interacting as much as possible.

I don't think they meant to, but I think the way the sandbox is set up, the game is kind of built right now to encourage people to avoid interaction.  I think the best way to make this game fun again is just to make sure that base takers and base defenders are reasonably likely to run into each other most of the time.

1. Enormous maps despite low populations
2. Radar underlap and ease of destruction (at least locally) which makes it fairly easy to avoid detection
3. Country switch times that don't allow people to self-balance (and really, what can a "spy" possibly do in this game aside from tell people where you are and what you're up to and allow there to be a confrontation).
4. Maps that encourage whack-a-mole style gameplay rather than epic fights over critical areas.  Most fields are vanilla and a dime a dozen.  There are very few maps that have decisive areas that attackers are willing to throw everything in to take, and defenders are willing to throw everything in to defend. 

[Hungry]

I don't think they meant to, but I think the way the sandbox is set up, the game is kind of built right now to encourage people to avoid interaction.  I think the best way to make this game fun again is just to make sure that base takers and base defenders are reasonably likely to run into each other most of the time.

1. Enormous maps despite low populations
2. Radar underlap and ease of destruction (at least locally) which makes it fairly easy to avoid detection
3. Country switch times that don't allow people to self-balance (and really, what can a "spy" possibly do in this game aside from tell people where you are and what you're up to and allow there to be a confrontation).
4. Maps that encourage whack-a-mole style gameplay rather than epic fights over critical areas.  Most fields are vanilla and a dime a dozen.  There are very few maps that have decisive areas that attackers are willing to throw everything in to take, and defenders are willing to throw everything in to defend.

Maybe regardless of the map size the game just needs a bigger "prize" for people to fight over, obviously winning the map (the War) just doesn't cut it anymore

[Brooke]

3. Country switch times that don't allow people to self-balance (and really, what can a "spy" possibly do in this game aside from tell people where you are and what you're up to and allow there to be a confrontation).

Country switch has been discussed a lot in other topics.  The conclusion was that HTC tried allowing it without restriction and found that it increased imbalance (i.e., the opposite of what we all want).

However, to some folks, the best idea seemed to be to allow country switching at any time to a country with fewer players.

As far as I know, that hasn't been tried, and it seems like it would be guaranteed to decrease imbalance.

[Hungry]

Country switch has been discussed a lot in other topics.  The conclusion was that HTC tried allowing it without restriction and found that it increased imbalance (i.e., the opposite of what we all want).

However, to some folks, the best idea seemed to be to allow country switching at any time to a country with fewer players.

As far as I know, that hasn't been tried, and it seems like it would be guaranteed to decrease imbalance.

As long as the switch doesn't just cause a new imbalance, which causes a new imbalance, which causes a new imbalance

[Vudak]

Country switch has been discussed a lot in other topics.  The conclusion was that HTC tried allowing it without restriction and found that it increased imbalance (i.e., the opposite of what we all want).

However, to some folks, the best idea seemed to be to allow country switching at any time to a country with fewer players.

As far as I know, that hasn't been tried, and it seems like it would be guaranteed to decrease imbalance.

I was under the impression the reason the time has been tinkered with is because people who can't stomach combat would scream to high holy hell about spies ruining their NOE raids and sinking carriers they were trying to hide.  I'm not sure I'm buying the imbalance argument when there's barely any of the old guard left who'd actually switch to a lower country to take on the odds either, but maybe I'm underestimating the number of people who would switch?

Regardless, the only country that needs to be switched to is the low #s one so that be a fine thing to try.

But placing this aside (it was kind of an earmark anyway), I do think the way the sandbox is set up favors those who want to avoid combat rather than those who want to find it.

[Brooke]

I would really like to be able to switch to the lower-number country whenever I wanted.

What keeps me from switching these days is switching to the lower-number country only to have it fluctuate and then be the higher-number country, and I'm stuck.  So, I only switch when things get horrendously lopsided.

[Hungry]

I would really like to be able to switch to the lower-number country whenever I wanted.

What keeps me from switching these days is switching to the lower-number country only to have it fluctuate and then be the higher-number country, and I'm stuck.  So, I only switch when things get horrendously lopsided.

And if you weren't "stuck" and again could switch to the lower side maybe not you but certainly it would be abused by some

[The Fugitive]

I don't think they meant to, but I think the way the sandbox is set up, the game is kind of built right now to encourage people to avoid interaction.  I think the best way to make this game fun again is just to make sure that base takers and base defenders are reasonably likely to run into each other most of the time.

1. Enormous maps despite low populations

Agreed, the big maps must go FOR NOW. Once the numbers climb back up  bring them back in.

2. Radar underlap and ease of destruction (at least locally) which makes it fairly easy to avoid detection

I wish dar towers were a bit tougher to take out as well. However, as lond as bar dar reads low enough to the ground so NOEs don't get a free ride Im ok with it as it is.

3. Country switch times that don't allow people to self-balance (and really, what can a "spy" possibly do in this game aside from tell people where you are and what you're up to and allow there to be a confrontation).

The ENY swings are the reason for the longer switch time, not spying. Short times allowed quick large swings messing with ENY.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,361462.msg4811379.html#msg4811379

4. Maps that encourage whack-a-mole style gameplay rather than epic fights over critical areas.  Most fields are vanilla and a dime a dozen.  There are very few maps that have decisive areas that attackers are willing to throw everything in to take, and defenders are willing to throw everything in to defend.

Bring back the zones. It made some bases more valuable than others and so those were fought foe more. The only problem with that is it take a map rebuild to fix I think.

The other things could be fixed/tested in AH2 now.

Nice to see you back again Vudak <S>

[Vudak]

Hi Fugi,

I'll be flying for another month or two before I get burnt out again I'm sure It has nothing to do with graphics, btw.

Since you bring up ENY...  Just a thought because I only started this game in 2004 and numbers were pretty healthy by then.  This was when ENY restrictions were first coming out.  I remember flying for several months without them.

I'm just going to throw this out there for consideration - is every single change that we now take for granted really necessary, useful, or conducive to good game play with player #s a fraction of what they once were?  Every game has a bell curve of players..  It starts with 0 and it eventually unfortunately goes back there.  In the meanwhile, #s reach points where certain changes are necessary.  Towards the top of the curve, you had the split arenas.

Some things have changed with the curve and others seem to just stick around regardless. 

I guess what I'm saying is that data and debate from 2014 doesn't necessarily mean anything in 2016 if you have less players now.  Maybe we should look to what the arenas looked like when similar numbers were around (and the game was rising)?

Or maybe it was awful and those changes were years behind when they were needed - I don't know, I wasn't here.

[The Fugitive]

The clientele was different back then. Far more players looking to "fight WWII". Today it is just another game that just happens to use WWII equipment. The relevance is no longer important.

In the old days we were all WWII pilots fighting for our country against the nasty Bish, Rooks, Knights. Missions were planned and organized, people were held to there assignments and players trained to get good to be able to achieve those assignment with out letting their teammates down.

Now its who/how to grab bases the quickest way as possible to reset the map. There is nothing behind the mission other than getting the base and moving on to the next one.

I the old days we could bomb and bail, but you didn't do that because you were suppose to bring that plane home. You didn't go for the HO because you could lose that fight in a single pass and you were suppose to shoot that guy down and bring your plane home. You didn't plant you plane next to the bomb you dropped on your jabo runs because you were expected to cover your squad/team mates runs and you were suppose to bring that plane home.

Now, it is much quicker to crash the plane with the bombs as there is no penalty and you can get in twice the runs and so twice the bombs. Flatten everything and then run in 5 goons/M3s because nobody can cover them any way.

Different time, different player, same game.

I think the tweaks to the game cant move backwards to what we had before as that no longer is valid. I do think however that the game tweaks must progress with the way players look to get around things in the game. I cant say that I know Hitech's mind, but I cant believe that what we have today is what he had in mind when he built the " best WW2 and WW1 combat experience online! " as it says on the main web page.

[Rich46yo]

No squeekers. In a nutshell no squeekers.

[Oldman731]

The clientele was different back then. Far more players looking to "fight WWII". Today it is just another game that just happens to use WWII equipment. The relevance is no longer important.

Agreed.

- oldman

[Guppy35]

I would really like to be able to switch to the lower-number country whenever I wanted.

What keeps me from switching these days is switching to the lower-number country only to have it fluctuate and then be the higher-number country, and I'm stuck.  So, I only switch when things get horrendously lopsided.

Wouldn't you think there would be a way to allow folks the option to switch to a lower number country?   At the same time not allow switching to a higher number country?  I'd think odds would be the guys who want to fight would switch to balance things out.