End of Full Dar

[Wiley]

This game like it or not in the MA is capture the flag using toys land\sea\air. It evolved that way becasue of who was paying money to play it up to 2009. Today, the MA is mostly stalled field captures with bored customers getting picked by air combat greifers. How many average Joe customers really believe they will capture a field opposed to they are going to another location to fail? Give them back NOE and let the average paying customer feel good about himself and this game again. We have had the last 9 years of "what" to make them feel good about themselves for their $14.95? The resident gurus of ACM telling them constantly they suck, are cowards, and are killing this game by avoiding combat with real Aces High men? When they had NOE for 8 years until 2009, they were willing to take their chances every day becasue there was also the chance they would achieve their objective. Today, even flying in a group at 30k gets you killed by the ACM sharks. What is the point if that is all you can expect for your $14.95?

So... the enemy players are there for what, ambience?  We need to bend the game to the point where defense is ineffective so that everybody can feel good about themselves?

Maybe the path forward is to turn it into a co-op game like Destiny where there's no PvP, only token NPC defenders so everybody can feel good.   

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

So... the enemy players are there for what, ambience?  We need to bend the game to the point where defense is ineffective so that everybody can feel good about themselves?

Maybe the path forward is to turn it into a co-op game like Destiny where there's no PvP, only token NPC defenders so everybody can feel good.   

Wiley.

Everyone gets a flight award..... weeeeEEEEEEeeeee   

[ccvi]

... so everybody can feel good.   

Exactly that is needed. There's only the big question is how to achieve it.

[Wiley]

Exactly that is needed. There's only the big question is how to achieve it.

Well, being that theoretically when PvP occurs someone loses, clearly we need to remove that aspect of the game.

Wiley.

[Vraciu]

Well, being that theoretically when PvP occurs someone loses, clearly we need to remove that aspect of the game.

Wiley.

Pillow fight!!!!!!!!!   

[Lusche]

Well, being that theoretically when PvP occurs someone loses, clearly we need to remove that aspect of the game.

Wiley.

That's what actually 'The War' in the MA is for.
Most player are (and always have been) fodder for a few hot shots. Dying much more than you can ever hope to kill can be extremely frustrating.
A war scenario can mitigate this feeling somewhat by still giving you a sense of purpose or accomplishment when helping to defend that base or getting that last needed base capture.
Fly in those troops, drive the supplies that bring the ords back up, cover the runway with your Flak while the fighter pros try to get airborne. Maybe whittle down the enemy a bit with your single fighter kill every few sorties or just tie up the enemy forces for the crucial few moments before you go down in flames.
For those players team effort and team success > individual success.

This is why I always found even noncombat options of gameplay to be quite important for player retention.
The balance of risks, rewards and impact are another matter, of course.

[1stpar3]

That's what actually 'The War' in the MA is for.
Most player are (and always have been) fodder for a few hot shots. Dying much more than you can ever hope to kill can be extremely frustrating.
A war scenario can mitigate this feeling somewhat by still giving you a sense of purpose or accomplishment when helping to defend that base or getting that last needed base capture.
Fly in those troops, drive the supplies that bring the ords back up, cover the runway with your Flak while the fighter pros try to get airborne. Maybe whittle down the enemy a bit with your single fighter kill every few sorties or just tie up the enemy forces for the crucial few moments before you go down in flames.
For those players team effort and team success > individual success.

This is why I always found even noncombat options of gameplay to be quite important for player retention.
The balance of risks, rewards and impact are another matter, of course.

EXACTLY... You cant always get what you want, all the time. You do however have to be IN THE GAME for when WHAT YOU WANT HAPPENS.

[Shuffler]

Well, being that theoretically when PvP occurs someone loses, clearly we need to remove that aspect of the game.

Wiley.

Ahhh but if they were both looking for a fight..... did anyone really lose?

[FLOOB]

Heh.  Good observation.  Unintended consequences. 

In 2001 AH was a fighter game.  There were a few dedicated bomber people, but the focus was fighter v fighter combat, and most of us instinctively understood that and wanted that.  (GVs were something you did occasionally, just to see what it was like.)  When AW died and I moved here, I vividly remember thinking that the win-the-war concept might generate conduct that "the old crowd" would not approve.  And so it did.  Now, all these years later, AH is pretty close to what WWII Online was aiming at:  A WWII simulation, not emphasizing any one aspect thereof.  The old crowd thinned out, and the replacements were people more interested in other features of the game.  That's bound to discourage members of the old crowd, and we are nothing if not vociferous about it.  But we really shouldn't be complaining that the game has taken on a broader appeal.  In a way, it's a measure of HTC's foresight.

- oldman

Nailed it. As the years have gone by the focus of the player population has become less about dogfighting and more about winning the war. If one's goal is base capture, dogfighting really isn't that relevant. Coming from AW and WB, base capture was a sideshow in our minds. Then again if all we wanted was dogfighting we'd all be in the wwI arena. Then again, again, back in the 90's I don't remember the AW wwI arena being empty. What were the arena pop numbers like when AWIII finally closed it's doors?

[Vraciu]

Nailed it. As the years have gone by the focus of the player population has become less about dogfighting and more about winning the war. If one's goal is base capture, dogfighting really isn't that relevant. Coming from AW and WB, base capture was a sideshow in our minds. Then again if all we wanted was dogfighting we'd all be in the wwI arena. Then again, again, back in the 90's I don't remember the AW wwI arena being empty. What were the arena pop numbers like when AWIII finally closed it's doors?

Warbirds was all about taking and defending fields in the middle of a dogfight.  The fronts would roll along with an ebb and flow (two-sided war).     The three-sided war here has stifled a lot of that because of the lower numbers.  Back when you 500 players I am sure the dynamics were similar to WBs with the moving fronts.

Also, WBs was a total victory concept, so when it came down to the last few bases defenses really stiffened making for some great fights.   Here there really is no visceral sense of who is winning or losing.   I am always surprised to see a map won.  If you aren't constantly clicking on the war status button you really have no idea what the stakes are.
 

[mERv]

I’m not attacking him at all.  It’s all good natured ribbing and he knows it—or should.  He can attack me all he likes (I have no idea where it is coming from so will just let it slide—maybe I’m being punk’d).

To address the larger point...   I wish I had the answer.   Hitech is working on it.  Hopefully the feedback here by all involved has been helpful to him on some level and he winds up with something that resolves a few of the gameplay issues raised.

A little good faith and encouragement is in order I think. 


It’s a little hard to kill something you can’t see or find.   I am CAPABLE of bombing GVs but they’re harder to find than ghost air cons so I don’t bother very often.

I don't think either one of us have attacked each other. I think skuzzy is a little trigger happy but hey got to keep the peace... It's becoming a point where rule 4 is invoked over almost anything if you point out facts about a player. Skuzzy isn't in the game so from the outside looking in he percieves it as an attack. I would imagine V is experiencing the same thing in regards to rule 4. I'm sure this will get violated as well when in all fairness I'm simply describing what happened ...

[icepac]

I remember coming from 3 bases left to winning the map in warbirds.

[Wiley]

That's what actually 'The War' in the MA is for.
Most player are (and always have been) fodder for a few hot shots. Dying much more than you can ever hope to kill can be extremely frustrating.
A war scenario can mitigate this feeling somewhat by still giving you a sense of purpose or accomplishment when helping to defend that base or getting that last needed base capture.
Fly in those troops, drive the supplies that bring the ords back up, cover the runway with your Flak while the fighter pros try to get airborne. Maybe whittle down the enemy a bit with your single fighter kill every few sorties or just tie up the enemy forces for the crucial few moments before you go down in flames.
For those players team effort and team success > individual success.

This is why I always found even noncombat options of gameplay to be quite important for player retention.
The balance of risks, rewards and impact are another matter, of course.

I agree with your points above.  What I wonder about though is if that's enough motivation for a lot of the current players.  Anytime you see people complaining about people running because they're "playing for score" what they usually actually mean is they're running because they're playing not to die.  By behavior I've seen, especially during the radar test, it seems to me the vast majority play not to get killed, regardless of what's going on in the area or the war.

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

I don't think either one of us have attacked each other. I think skuzzy is a little trigger happy but hey got to keep the peace... It's becoming a point where rule 4 is invoked over almost anything if you point out facts about a player. Skuzzy isn't in the game so from the outside looking in he percieves it as an attack. I would imagine V is experiencing the same thing in regards to rule 4. I'm sure this will get violated as well when in all fairness I'm simply describing what happened ...

Actually if comparison to Skuzzy, you are an outsider.

[mERv]

Actually if comparison to Skuzzy, you are an outsider.

and yet I have wasted at least a thousand more hours in the game than he has in the last 8 years.... So apples and oranges shuffler. With all respect it's a desk job where as on my end it is just an escape that I had to pay just to get my butt handed to me long enough to where I learned how to adapt and overcome. Accomplishing many things you wouldn't even consider worth your own time.
Things entire squads would accomplish all by myself because I played so much at times I couldn't count on anyone else due to low numbers during dead hourse or simply diversifying my time investment into 3 accounts just to make sure the job got done .. because the numbers weren't there. Several players have done this with no action so I figured why can't I? They allow shades, why can't I run 3 PC's all on the same side
I'm just saying my rule 4 was not an attack but only percieved as such because skuzzy is on the outside looking in. Call it like I see it no offenses intended to skuzzy or V. I have been rule 4rd on some sketchy lines and I'm sure when he returns to his desk or logs in on a weekend I won't have this account and it will h
Be banned again... Wizz was tolerated until I became so loud mouthed on drunken rants over these very issues way before any of you saw it that the office said enough and banned me.

I even had an account banned and pc locked from game once. All over a rant involing the squad that folks on bbs seem to associate me with and my rant while drunk, over their handling of one of their senior members dislike of me switching sides and complete disrespect towards me because I went bish for 1 night due to no fights. I drunken ranted how that same behavior lead to some degree having one of their former members ending up Kia after they as a group pretty much did the same thing to him. They whined about it to Dale and having secretly recorded the rant and being so outspoken and troublesome on bbs over things everyone complains about today HTC said that's enough and flipped the switch . when the truth of the matter was they bully people and I had enough and finally let that squad have it... who just so happens quit this game and has dogged Dale and skuzzy for years over the mishandling of shades and other issues.

Now look at this game . . . Numbers are everything. All of the bad has surfaced to llthe point it's undeniable while bbs members attacked me while I was screaming "wolf" for 3 years.

When I get fed up I speak the truth and don't hold back. Censorship has protected this game until now. Numbers don't lie... It's broken, they think they can win with VR while cannabilizing what used to make this game great, and bask in the ego of the inner circle. Well that's just great, just ruin one of the greatest games of all time and let it die a slow painful death. It's like the game was a psyop that has ran it's course and is rotting away