Missions, PUGs, and new players

[DmonSlyr]

While I wish we could get more people in missions. I think what you are presenting would be a big task for hitech and crew. IMO, setting up map "zones" based on importance would attract more players to a specific area. So, if you attack or Jabo/bomb, tank, or shoot down fighters in the "zone", you will get more perks or points. Colored zones would encourage players to fight in specific areas.

Tutorials should walk you step by step to setting up your joystick, mouse, gear, ect. They should show what darbars are and how they work. How the radio works. And how the GUI works. Not my strong suit.

Maps that have fields that funnel the flow of action really work well. That's why Fester's map was a success even though it was big. Buzzsaw for example doesn't provide very much flow and throws every one in the middle, which doesn't benefit the overall objective of taking bases to win the map. New players just want to find the action quickly while pretending like they are doing something to help their team. Colored Zones of importance would accomplish this much easier and allow for players to group up easier and know where to attack/defend.

[ccvi]

What you suggest is to turn AH into a single player experience, with human player maybe doing things in the background. AH will fail miserably at that since every game out there does it better.

I disagree with almost everything you wrote in the previous post.
You keep thinking of missions as a way to capture a base. You have to stop thinking that. A mission can have a different goal and getting into combat with opposing players is what make this game tick. The bases, the captures, the strats are all just means to make combat happen.

Feel free to disagree as much as you like, but the objective of this game is to capture territory. If you think otherwise, you might be playing the wrong game (http://hitechcreations.com/aircraft-preflight/aces-high-objectives).

Missions should contribute directly or indirectly to the objective in some convincing way. That's anything from destruction of enemy factories to resupplying ones own, protecting ones fields as well as capturing enemy ones. Take away that part of the game, there's just the fight left. Every boxed with some kind of multi-player mode can offer that. Some argue those have lesser flight models and simulation, others think some are better. But more importantly most of them come without a monthly fee.

The idea that players choose multi-player games because they want to play with others is probably pretty wrong. Just as anecdotal evidence the first hit on google (https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/do-you-play-multiplayer-games-alone-1765911/) shows a large number of players of multi-player games playing alone, at least some of the time. I think its like taking walk in downtown, because everyone is there. It doesn't mean someone wants to talk to anyone. What's going on in here can provide a nice background setting for activities that do not require a high amount of communication.

This threat isn't about providing a setting for sating your thirst for blood. Its about keeping noobs entertained long enough to understand the game sufficiently to be able to enjoy it. Noobs that leave after 10 minutes. Noobs that cannot fly straight after auto-takeoff disengages. You suggest to lead them to be slaughtered, while being watched by other humans. No matter how welcoming the mission leader is, the emotionally taxing nature of this setting comes with a more negative effect than any almost single-player activity ever could.

[APDrone]

Feel free to disagree as much as you like, but the objective of this game is to capture territory. If you think otherwise, you might be playing the wrong game

Pardon me, I gotta chime in on this one.

Your objective of this game is to capture territory.

Somebody else's objective of this game it to pursue achievements.

Yet another person's objective is to improve their K/D ratio.

Yet another person's objective is to de-vulch a field with 88s.

And on and on and on.

There is no one way to play the game.. took me a couple years to figure that out.

This game offers many things to many different types of play.  Creating a poison environment by insulting people's choices does the game no good. 

 

[ccvi]

Pardon me, I gotta chime in on this one.
Your objective of this game is to capture territory.

My or your or anyone elses personal objective doesn't matter. Those are all just subjective objectives.

Read the games manual. Link provided above. I know, reading manuals, noone does it.

[The Fugitive]

My or your or anyone elses personal objective doesn't matter. Those are all just subjective objectives.

Read the games manual. Link provided above. I know, reading manuals, noone does it.

I read it and it says ...."Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the team objective in Aces High. "

Doesnt mention what a player should or shouldnt be doing or what they may choose as their objective. I guess that leave the options open, right?

The other night we were on the "Crater" amp and there was nothing going on on the Rooks front. My squad, the 56th, and bunch of JUG heads had 6 or 7 guys flying. A couple of us got in bombers, one in a goon, and the others in Jugs.... of course  After we captured 2 bases, a number of other Rooks joined in and before you know it we had the horde show up to try and slow us down. Turned into a fun time for a couple hours. WHY? because there were missions to attack a base. The 56th isnt known as a base capturing squad, we can if we want. We prefer to fight it out with other fighters. In this case as we rolled missions we got more and more people involved with the "fun" we were having and game play ....in that area improved and was a blast until the side imbalance became a bit over whelming.

Missions are a great thing for this game. Dont think of it as leading newbs to slaughter, but look at as LEADING newbs!  The more interaction with them we can generate the more information they will suck up, the more comfortable they will become in communicating, the more comfortable they will become with asking questions. No one is going to turn a newb into an ACE over night, but the more we can get comfortable in the game the more we will have signing on.

[Ciaphas]

My or your or anyone elses personal objective doesn't matter. Those are all just subjective objectives.

Read the games manual. Link provided above. I know, reading manuals, noone does it.

Meh, they are all byproducts of one another... .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BaldEagl]

Feel free to disagree as much as you like, but the objective of this game is to capture territory. If you think otherwise, you might be playing the wrong game (http://hitechcreations.com/aircraft-preflight/aces-high-objectives).

AH follows much of the form of one of it's predecessors, Air Warrior (as have many other WW air combat flight sims that followed).  AW only had two maps; Europe and Pacific, which both ran simultaneously 24/7.  I started in 1996 and played primarily on the Europe map which only had three capturable bases along with factories and base objects which could be destroyed at the non-capturable bases.  Since capturing the three capturable bases didn't really do anything for you the point of the game was to fly and fight in WWI and WWII aircraft and, to a very limited degree, vehicles.

So, coming from that base, it's not surprising many AH players couldn't care less about capturing territory, instead, playing for their own personal objectives.  Capturing territory is only one limited aspect of AH.

So, before you ask why AW isn't still around it was because EA bought it for other business purposes and quickly closed the doors on it.

The idea that players choose multi-player games because they want to play with others is probably pretty wrong. Just as anecdotal evidence the first hit on google (https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/do-you-play-multiplayer-games-alone-1765911/) shows a large number of players of multi-player games playing alone, at least some of the time. I think its like taking walk in downtown, because everyone is there. It doesn't mean someone wants to talk to anyone.

After leading a 60+ player squad in AW I spent the vast majority of my time in AH playing alone.  It wasn't that I wanted to play WITH others, it's that I wanted to play AGAINST other, real human beings.  In it's best form AH is a sport that allows you to test your skills against the best.


I've been thinking about what would help AH and have come to the conclusion that it's missing tool tips.  You know that silly MS Office paperclip guy.  But every relatively complex program (and game) includes tool tips.  I'd envision beginner, intermediate and advanced, any of which could be selected or deselected at any time.  Even if they just pointed you to the key commands and dot commands would be a step in the right direction.

[Oldman731]

In it's best form AH is a sport that allows you to test your skills against the best.

Good lord, I agree with BaldEagle.  Who would have guessed?

- oldman

[Litjan]

For me the fight is exciting - but only a means to achieve my objective of "furthering my countries cause" (aka winning the war).
And I would venture out and say its that way for a majority of the players - otherwise you would see the matchmaking arena populated with all you "I just care about a good fight, really!!" players. Everytime the subject comes up, we get a lot of people that just care about the fight, yet the one arena that is "just about the fight" is always empty. Hmmm.

Individual goals are differing in many ways, and with every gameplay decision HiTech alienates the one side of the spectrum but makes the other side happy.

If you look at other MMOGs out there, there is always a large section for PVE - and PVP is actually loathed by a large percentage of players. A lot of people arenīt the aggressive fighter-pilot Maverick type, they want to help the cause, take part, be good at what they do, have success. They are happy to fly the goon, bomb a strat, bring supplies, shoot down attackers in a Wirble to help defend their base.

I think ccvi is right in that making the "single-player-experience" (aka PVE) worthwhile is the right way to RETAIN players in their first minutes and hours in AH and gently introduce them to the vicious and frustrating PVP part later on.

Sorry, sharks, I know you need fodder. But eat the hatchlings before they reproduce, and you will eventually starve.

Litjan

[Shuffler]

Feel free to disagree as much as you like, but the objective of this game is to capture territory. If you think otherwise, you might be playing the wrong game (http://hitechcreations.com/aircraft-preflight/aces-high-objectives).

Missions should contribute directly or indirectly to the objective in some convincing way. That's anything from destruction of enemy factories to resupplying ones own, protecting ones fields as well as capturing enemy ones. Take away that part of the game, there's just the fight left. Every boxed with some kind of multi-player mode can offer that. Some argue those have lesser flight models and simulation, others think some are better. But more importantly most of them come without a monthly fee.

The idea that players choose multi-player games because they want to play with others is probably pretty wrong. Just as anecdotal evidence the first hit on google (https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/do-you-play-multiplayer-games-alone-1765911/) shows a large number of players of multi-player games playing alone, at least some of the time. I think its like taking walk in downtown, because everyone is there. It doesn't mean someone wants to talk to anyone. What's going on in here can provide a nice background setting for activities that do not require a high amount of communication.

This threat isn't about providing a setting for sating your thirst for blood. Its about keeping noobs entertained long enough to understand the game sufficiently to be able to enjoy it. Noobs that leave after 10 minutes. Noobs that cannot fly straight after auto-takeoff disengages. You suggest to lead them to be slaughtered, while being watched by other humans. No matter how welcoming the mission leader is, the emotionally taxing nature of this setting comes with a more negative effect than any almost single-player activity ever could.

If you take a game where you capture territory and another where you have dogfights in WWII aircraft, the dogfighting game would win every time.

[ccvi]

If you take a game where you capture territory and another where you have dogfights in WWII aircraft, the dogfighting game would win every time.

There's plenty of dogfighting games out there. If you take one with and without a monthly fee the one without will win every time.

Players without any interest in the main objective are still here of course. Because they have ever been (unable to adapt to new), because of people they have known for decades (many of the dead by now), and because the asymetric fights created by many players working towards the main objective provide a personal advantage for pure a2a over a setting that provides balanced fights.

How does that work for new players?

[DmonSlyr]

Maps that provide "paths of attack" ie bases that can be taken in a path like structure provide the best outcome for all of the types of players. You have defenders on one side and attackers on the other. Each person is helping to win the war with their team no matter if they mean to or not, no matter what they chose to roll. Maps that have a TT or FT do not help the war effort. Therefore it takes players away from the strategy to win the map (even if they aren't trying), to only furballing. If there is a map that can provide both a "path to action" and alllow for all teams to meet in the middle if the fight is weak in their side, than I think most of these issues would fix themselves.

In all reality. I think it would benefit AH more to switch to smaller maps at 3AM eastern time - 9AM estern time. This would be a lot better for European flyers who have a hard time finding enough action.

[The Fugitive]

If you take a game where you capture territory and another where you have dogfights in WWII aircraft, the dogfighting game would win every time.

Not any more Shuff. Todays "gamers" have shown over and over again that they just dont have the time to get proficient in fighters to make it worth their while.

Jump in a gun, easy, just point and shoot
Run supplies, easy, drive and duck under trees until your a mile away from town and drop.
dive bomb in hvy buffs, easy, just dump a whole load of a B17 on a single hanger. Cant miss.

The game is the same and those of us who like to fight in fighters can find a few fights now and then, nothing like it use to be years ago, but they are there. The difference is the new players want to jump in and be pros NOW. If that cant happen they are gone.

Maps that provide "paths of attack" ie bases that can be taken in a path like structure provide the best outcome for all of the types of players. You have defenders on one side and attackers on the other. Each person is helping to win the war with their team no matter if they mean to or not, no matter what they chose to roll. Maps that have a TT or FT do not help the war effort. Therefore it takes players away from the strategy to win the map (even if they aren't trying), to only furballing. If there is a map that can provide both a "path to action" and alllow for all teams to meet in the middle if the fight is weak in their side, than I think most of these issues would fix themselves.

In all reality. I think it would benefit AH more to switch to smaller maps at 3AM eastern time - 9AM estern time. This would be a lot better for European flyers who have a hard time finding enough action.

They tried this for a few months and it sucked. Next time your in the game right click on the map and near the bottom of the list you'll find "field order". Clicking on it use to put up the "lines" on the map to show you the order of capture.

[DmonSlyr]

What sucked? Paths of action or switching the maps during off hours?

All Im saying is that when people know there is an "objective" on the map that is most critical at the time, more people will show up there to achieve that objective, and know where to go to find the most fights/action. It's not forced, as others can still fly any where on the map and attack anything they want. It just provides an objective for people to find the action and be apart of the effort.

[The Fugitive]

BOTH!

The paths of action sucked because one everyone knew where the attack was coming from/going to. This caused issues with many NOT wanting to fight for the base in an attack, as well as having a cap sitting at 25k to crush any attack coming in. It took all the strategy and surprise out of any attack.

Switching maps always has its complaints due to the fact the players dont log on and off at set times. Switching a map at 1am est is still in the middle of someones flying/playing time. They have to give up on a map.... where they may be close to winning, to switch to a map where they may be losing. When they had the two MAs shut down to a single MA each night to try and keep the numbers viable in the Euro time slots it helped with the but ticked of a lot of people while doing it.