HTC refuses to adapt. When AH first came out, it was unique enough, that you could make your own rules and players would have to conform to play. Some of the rules were obvious, "a video game has to be widely appealing and easy to learn." Another rule, game developers follow, is to "never allow groups to fall into rivalries, lest the infighting eclipse the game." I also develop game content, that's how I knew how to make those skins. here's an image of one of my developments.
(Image removed from quote.)
Your solution to the polarity of rivalries appears to be the introduction of a triad and a mild incentive to change allegiances, through imposition of ENY. Despite the reluctance of most players to change countries, to address the ENY dissatisfaction, you maintain the position that the only valid way to alleviate the dissatisfaction, is to change and since you've done all that is necessary, any additional dissatisfaction, is the fault of the player. So the country rivalry remains and you refuse to do anything further about it. In the old days, you could maintain your artificial environment, but now that more and more games challenge the appeal of AH, the only thing you have left to sell to me, is the community, which these policies impact.
So now we get to the state of these rivalries. When I first joined, the Rook country got all the heat. As a Bish, we considered the knight country to be the proxy of the Rooks and we would win maps, if the end rivalry between the two giants, allowed us our opportunity. Somehow, that greatness got transferred to the Bish. Bish wins more maps, consistently, over the past several years, than the other two countries combined. It is why you have nerfed our ammo. Attribute it to a strong weekday presence, skills, whatever. I personally don't think wins, in and of themselves, are a big deal. The game is about war fighting and a win is an obvious goal. However, it is ALWAYS achieved by the number of focused players and ENY has only a nominal effect on that. Winning a map is not a consequence of great tactical prowess, it is a consequence of numbers involved. That is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be perceived that way. For whatever reason, other subscribers really seem to begrudge those 25x3 perk points.
Over the years, this rivalry grows, astonishingly, unchecked by HiTech. There are players in each country, solely dedicated to making the lead country, currently Bishop, fail, or lose, or maybe die? They seem very dedicated. You have players, calling themselves hero's, openly and vocally opposing specific squadrons in other countries, and what, HiTech, this is all part of the game? And the noobs think, what?
Your policy of governance seems to be complaint based. "Oh, the resupply dweebs are ruining the war fighting experience, remove the m3!" "Oh, the hidey tanky things are ruining the war fighting experience, give us a screaming obnoxious storch, that we can hound and harass and generally limit the war fighting experience, since our skills prevent us from doing so directly." Storches literally stop the fight. As soon as one ups, most tanks go into hiding and stay until it leaves. As to governance, you just leave these situations, until another slew of complaints motivates adjustment.
FYI, the storch SUCKS. You need to limit the storch to 15 minutes fuel, or something. It does not speed up the battle, the instance of people hiding tanks, is wholly eclipsed by people upping storches to harass tankers, presumably because they can cause the tank player to lose score, while suffering very little risk - which brings us to the biggest problem of the game.
Rather than celebrate the virtual nature of internet gaming, you have actually hypersensitized the fear of death. The biggest problem with the game is the fear of death. You've created a venomous environment of reputation. You have players that consider themselves to be elite, who's highest goal is to record a kill without dying and you mix that with a very complex system of scoring, which I did not understand for YEARS. I did not understand, why, when we almost have a field, all the skilled players stopped helping. They did so, because the scoring system incentivises personal reputation over war fighting goals. It is actually a negative scoring system (it penalizes a player for dying, rather than celebrating the players achievements). As an example, I will fight mightily, during a base take, killing several opponents and leveraging the take, before I die. I should be rewarded equally. Instead, a defender who manages a kill and lands, before the field is lost, will earn a higher score. That does not incentivise engaging the game, it incentivises taking advantage of someone else engaging the game - and that kills new recruits.
Now I'm going to focus on that whole reputation thing, for the one or two of you still reading. We've entered a new chapter of the game, where the numbers have fallen to the point that a country is not represented, at all, but the game continues. Twice over this holiday season, I've joined the game in the morning after one of these sessions - and I've been appalled. This time I'm calling you on it. Countries should not be allowed to capture beyond the required 20%, there should be a penalty for "gouging." This was our gift for Christmas Day:
(Image removed from quote.)
In this next case, the map is 7 hours old, as of this morning. Obviously a crew of freaks went around taking unopposed fields. This is not war fighting, think about it, it is wrote dropping guns, running troops. It is all about imagining the effect it will have on a perceived rival, later. Arguably more work, than game. This is toxic, it kills new accounts and I can't believe I have to make a complaint to get this to your attention.(Image removed from quote.)
I perceive push back and it's understood all opinions are valid. It's anticipated that people will have personal perspectives. You'll want to agree, or couch dissent in terms that relate to attendance. Gather evidence of surging subscriptions, etc.
KILROY err, Mr Roboto?
You make some claims I'm not sure are true but maybe based on passion for the game?
I'm not sure this case ever existed quoting you "you could make your own rules". Examples please?
Now, the ENY, I kind of agree with. I hate to say it but I do. However, the inclination to change sides is "slightly" tempered by the inability to change sides within a set timeframe. I'm not sure that time frame is long enough.
I'd much rather see us go back to EW, MW and LW arenas.
I'm not sure where you are going with this statement "There are players in each country, solely dedicated to making the lead country, currently Bishop..." I've seen map wins go many ways, so I'm not sure what this statement means or where the evidence leads to that statement.
I'm totally lost on your argument about the storch aircraft.
Reputation. I think you drifted from your point. Player reputation is not tied to taking bases, so I'm confused.
But your statement of "In this next case, the map is 7 hours old, as of this morning. Obviously a crew of freaks went around taking unopposed fields. This is not war fighting, think about it, it is wrote dropping guns, running troops. It is all about imagining the effect it will have on a perceived rival, later. Arguably more work, than game. This is toxic..." assumes a primary goal of the game designers. And, it's honestly a good question to be posed. Is the purpose of Aces High to provide "FAIR" game play or "FAIR" fighting? There is a huge difference.
This is a game built on war. It is a game, none-the-less. But, what is "fair" should be defined by the game limits. Is there bad play? or bad respect? Sure! We've built our own code of conduct in this game. But, that code of conduct outside the general rules of the game does not make it "official". And, what one person determines as "fair" isn't the same as another player.
While I agree with some of your premises on a cursory level, overall, I'm not sure your subject for this topic has any weight.
GrandpaChaps
