Let's get more people back in the skies!

[Vudak]

A good idea, but then I have never understood why kill shooter exists in the first place.  It doesn't in similar games, and it's inclusion detracts from the simulation of real-world risks of friendly fire. 

Trust me, it's the way it needs to be in the MA.  The whines would be astronomical (and justified) if it didn't exist and every griefer and/or idiot could shoot down friendlies at will.

In short we have killshooter because there would be nothing realistic, whatsoever, about the way your own teammates flew and shot if it was on.  We all have a responsibility to watch where we aim and killshooter punishes the person who breaches that duty.

It's very hard to killshoot yourself unless you're ganging up on one con anyway.  You can choose not to do that. You can't stop other friendly's from following you around though. 

[8thJinx]

Furballers and the Strat type players have ALWAYS been the two sides in this game. When there was a furball lake map the strat players complained about "wasted resources" namely the players furballing. When ever the strat type players grab all the bases at a tank town area like NDilse map the furballer complain..... think you posted something like that recently Violator. Catering to one type isn't going to grow the other.

There needs to be a balance. Take away the resupply of the towns, making the strat guys fight for them instead of resupplying them. No that the TT base CAN be capture, and the furballer should help cap/fight to keep them.  Instead of having the game set up to "take away" something as most griefer type  (both furballer and strat type griefers) players do, make it so they are rewarded better for NOT griefing.

This is a furballer vs base taking approach.  I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact you make a good point in framing the entire issue it this way.  But pulling the rug out from under the base taking players, and assuming they will simply accommodate the furballers instead, doesn't seem to be a plausible approach to this.  All you'll do is trigger the base taking players into complaining the base taking part of the game has been crippled.

You've done a good job of isolating the issue, imho, but I think we need to think a little more about what needs to be done.

Also, keep in mind that a game like War Thunder seems to pay a lot more attention to classic game theory (focusing on that upper left corner of the matrix, which is where you're heading), but sucks because of the lack of freedom (timed and balanced arenas, etc), while AH is not strictly bound by classic game theory, but has a ton of freedom (and that makes it unique).       

[Ack-Ack]

A good idea, but then I have never understood why kill shooter exists in the first place.  It doesn't in similar games, and it's inclusion detracts from the simulation of real-world risks of friendly fire. 

Does kill shooter keep friendly units from intentionally shooting and killing one another?  Yes and no.  Yes it keeps people from shooting each other directly, but it also allows people to game the game.  I've lost count the number of times I softened up an opponent only to have someone fly into my gun stream.  I go boom, they clean up and get credit for the kill.  Yes, some were accidental, but others I'm fairly certain were not.

It's to prevent players from griefing by team killing their own side.

[The Fugitive]

This is a furballer vs base taking approach.  I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact you make a good point in framing the entire issue it this way.  But pulling the rug out from under the base taking players, and assuming they will simply accommodate the furballers instead, doesn't seem to be a plausible approach to this.  All you'll do is trigger the base taking players into complaining the base taking part of the game has been crippled.

You've done a good job of isolating the issue, imho, but I think we need to think a little more about what needs to be done.

Also, keep in mind that a game like War Thunder seems to pay a lot more attention to classic game theory (focusing on that upper left corner of the matrix, which is where you're heading), but sucks because of the lack of freedom (timed and balanced arenas, etc), while AH is not strictly bound by classic game theory, but has a ton of freedom (and that makes it unique).     

The fighter guys want more fights, set it up so the strat guys cant cut corners and have to fight.

In return give the strat guys something for fighting for the war, perks/points for grabbing a base, more perks/point for getting a large base, even MORE perk/points for taking a base with under 15 people. Make a point system, V bases 1, Small bases 2, med base 5, and large bases 10. first team to 200 wins the war!

How to coad this, beats me, Hitech is the genius coader. At this point "win the war" is the only goal strat guys seem to have. Can they be interested in something else or do they need to be herded into playing the game with out cutting corners?

[8thJinx]

The fighter guys want more fights, set it up so the strat guys cant cut corners and have to fight.

Now you're simply saying the game has to be played your way.  I'm not really a strat bomber or raider type, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I get turned off by the "force them all to play the way I want it played because that's the way I like to play" argument.  In reality, all you're trying to do is artificially re-create something that existed with a higher player count, by making a not-so-insignificant number of the remaining players abandon the the game play features that they enjoy.  Not a great solution imho.

[The Fugitive]

Yes I want everyone to play my way, I want them to bomb strats, bomb towns, create fighter caps and sweep, spawn camp spawns, have rolling battles in GVs, bomb GVs with fighters and med bombers, capture towns and everything else there is to do in this game.

The fighter option you quoted is only one of several suggestions in that post.

This is a combat game that is losing the combat portion of the game. If it continues why would people continue to PAY to play it? After all, it is much easier to avoid any contact with other players if you play OFFline and don't need to pay to play it that way.

The strat players are going to have to learn to fight and the fighter guys are going to have to learn to "join the team" and help win the war. 

[FESS67]

The crux of it as I see it is that we have to force the fight.

wwiionline used to do this reasonably well in that it had lots of town to fight over but not all were able to be captured all the time.  You had to open routes to the next town in order to assault it.  You could not simply bypass the fight.

I have no idea how hard a supply and command system would be to implement into the current game - especially since it would require effort to be taken away from the current goal of AH3, but I think it would help to some extent to satisfy both camps.

I would love to see it work along the lines of:  <please note these are ideas and not hard and fast numbers to get hooked up on>

• Fewer 'front line' bases - these are in contact with the enemy.  They can be taken by ground or airborne troops.  They can be bombed by all aircraft in the game.
• 'Rear Echelon' bases - these have a direct link to friendly front line bases.  They can be taken by airborne troops at a rate of 2 x that required for a front line base take.  They can be bombed by all aircraft in the game at a damage rating of .5 of the front line base.  There is no enemy GV link to these bases.
• 'Strategic reserve bases' - these do not have a direct link to Front line bases.  They can only be damaged by bombers and are toughened with respect to the other types of base.  Can be captured by airborne troops at a rate of 5 x a front line base.

The fighting should be mostly at or near the actual front with some effort on the rear.  If you want a base you have to set up the attack criteria and then go at it.  It may be that the base take conditions for a front line base need to be relaxed considerably to allow for 'easier' takes however maybe also not allow all FH to be destroyed therefore enabling a defence to be mounted.

[Invictus84]

It's to prevent players from griefing by team killing their own side.

I get what it's supposed to do and even noted that in my post.  As I said, the problem is it detracts from game.  It also could be handled in other ways which would not, such as community involvement, temporary bans for repeat offenders, points or kill subtraction, or a combination of these things.  This is how it is done in other online air combat communities, so what makes Aces High different?

It's very hard to killshoot yourself unless you're ganging up on one con anyway.  You can choose not to do that. You can't stop other friendly's from following you around though. 

How do I choose not to gang up on one con when I was the only one engaged with him in the first place when another friendly jumps in?  In other games, I might get points subtracted or even a warning which would be waved if I could prove no ill intent, but the rude friendly finds himself taking off in another plane and might eventually be banned if he continued to act that way.

Trust me, it's the way it needs to be in the MA.  The whines would be astronomical (and justified) if it didn't exist and every griefer and/or idiot could shoot down friendlies at will.

In short we have killshooter because there would be nothing realistic, whatsoever, about the way your own teammates flew and shot if it was on. 

It would be realistic if the other players on your team were teammates. What you describe is not a team or simulated air combat.  It's air quake.

[bustr]

You guys may be looking at this backwards because your frame of reference is as guys who want to fight. Most players don't want to fight by your definition but, they do want to fight. They want to follow a group and fight from the comfort of being in a group and not being responsible for anything but pulling the trigger now and again. You can see this easily by how many players now seem to balk at really going somewhere and picking a fight like many of you will.

POTW has recently moved over to rooks because of ENY. I see the same thing there and it takes place on the knights side. Both sides if a small group starts going somewhere and breaks things with a purpose, all the green guys follow and fight as long as the initiative is maintained by the small group who picked the fight. This has always been the heart of how action is generated in the MA.

The majority of players in our game are followers not leaders, nor are they lone wolfs who value the contest between fighters more than not loosing. You cannot force them to fight by rigging the game, they will quit. They will follow to a fight that meets their comfort level. This is why missions worked so well and attracted so many followers.

Your solutions cannot be ones of forcing or system pressuring them to fight when they don't want to. They will happily contribute to initiatives as part of a semi organized group. They will not in their minds feed you their scalp when they know they will loose for their trouble.

Off peak time has an obvious numbers problem which is the reason fights are slim. On peak time has a problem with anyone stepping up and initiating. The lone wolves want to follow the green guy herds to get their fix while the green guys mostly want to follow anyone who initiates with name value in their minds. Not a whole lot of that these days so each country is down to a cadre of regulars who either initiate or scatter across the map doing something.

In the MA if you want people to go somewhere and do something to generate action. Lead the action and start it yourself. Not as many do it anymore. 

[Chris79]

This is the way i see it. HTC provides us the tools in which to have fun, but it is our perogitive to use them properly. It seems as though there are a certain small group of people, and I am by no means singling anyone out, that want HTC to magicly provide a furball, and then a air spawn 3k above it. Sometimes, when scanning thought a particular map if i see no fights i attempt to create one. Believe it or not de-acking a field is a great way to start a fight. I.E, hey guys field999 is de-acked. 9 times out of 10 multiple freindlies will start heading to that base. In turn, the other "country" will see the opposing dar bar and attempt a defense. Sometimes it turns into a 5 minute vulch fest and a quick bass take, other times it generates a furball that lasts several hours. Either way its entertainment. There are multiple other ways to stir up a fight, thats just an example. Also, when you see a new "handle" doing something stupid like slow crawling up a b17's 6 or trying to ho a Jug with a Zeke, lend some practical advice instead of being a jackhole, it may be the diffence from a 2 weeker to a subscriber.

[Vudak]

I get what it's supposed to do and even noted that in my post.  As I said, the problem is it detracts from game. 

It really doesn't detract from the game.  You just want your irresponsible shooting to affect someone else, whereas now, it affects only you.  It's the way it should be. 

If you're having problems with killshooting yourself enough to be upset about the feature, then what you're really having problems with are situational awareness and possibly target selection which are both much bigger things to focus your energy on.  I really wouldn't worry about killershooter in the MA.  Give yourself another 6-8 months of developing your skill set and it likely won't be a problem for you any more.

[Lusche]

Any teamkill solution that involves petitions in any way, reviews, judgements and manual banning place a significant additional workload on a company that's basically just 3 people. I don't think Skuzzy would be pleased much...   

Also, the MA environment and its population can't be necessarily compared to other games environments... heck, it's environment is even much different than other places in AH, in particular special events like scenarios and FSO. "Losing kills or points" or "banned after the x offense" would still make you treat every pilot you don't know & trust really well as a potential enemy.
"Hey look, that's this Lusche knowitall from the forums... hes coming back to the field in a 262... now watch this LOL"
Killshooter is an elegant solution to that problem. Of course it sucks at times, but not nearly as often as with no killshooter.
I guess I killshot myself something like a dozen times (at most) in the MA... and I have more than 11K hours of gameplay behind me... 

[Invictus84]

Guys, respectfully, you don't get it.  Not sure why, maybe because you've never really played other flight combat sims.  AH is an abberation.  Even WAR THUNDER, a game some of you regularly put down, has bloody friendly fire.  Are there griefers there? Sure, but its minimal.  In all my years playing on all of them I've been shot down by a friendly a handful of times. If the community is filled with people who are that immature, its not a wonder that it is slowly shrinking.

This community never ceases to amaze me with its close-minded, insular mindset.

[Lusche]

Guys, respectfully, you don't get it.  Not sure why, maybe because you've never really played other flight combat sims.

Or maybe because we actually did, and have up to several decades of experience in different places? Maybe because we actually know what we are talking about when we speak of the specific MA environment?

If the community is filled with people who are that immature, its not a wonder that it is slowly shrinking.

I think most of us have simply stated reasons. Now look at this own last post of yours and do tell me how it's more mature than what AKAK, Vudak and I wrote.

[FESS67]

Guys, respectfully, you don't get it.  Not sure why, maybe because you've never really played other flight combat sims. 

Air warrior, BF1942 (ok dubious), wwiionline, Fighter Ace, DCS, IL2, ROF, AH, I am sure there are a few more -like back in the early days there was that great helicopter sim I forget the name of.