This Game Dies Because

[AAIK]

I'm just going to ride this game until it ends.

You are a better person then I. I forsook friendships for the sake of not participating in a heavily declining game.

[scott66]

I'm with fugi...I never bail

[Oldman731]

Storches literally stop the fight.

I learned so many things from this post, but this one is probably the most remarkable.  All these years, and I didn't know that the Storch was magic.  I'm gonna get me one.

- oldman

[Ciaphas]

 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.

If the Storch is stopping a GV attack then it has done it's job and is a valuable asset to the side using it. Next time bring a flak wagon and shoot it down. If you know that a certain event is going to take place, you should be able to plan and in most cases remove the threat. This game has proven that it takes all kinds to win a war. If you are solo stomping a field and don't bother to bring the right gear to finish what you started, that's your fault and no one else's.

The fact that you receive any score at all after dying means that you are being rewarded for your effort. As far as how much, well, you died and the other guy didn't. He had the greater achievement because he removed a threat to the base he was defending regardless of the big picture outcome of losing the field after landing. The score system doesn't take "what if'" situations in to account and it shouldn't. The fact of the matter in the scenario you outlined is: The defender shot you (the threat) down and landed his kill. He was then rewarded for that kill. You can have equal opportunity or you can have an equal outcome but you can not have both as they do not exist in the same space for one scenario.

[DmonSlyr]

If "staying alive" is your only metric to attempt getting a good score. You are doing it wrong.

If the majority of players in AH are playing for score. I feel bad for them.

You can still help the war effort and still get a good score. Hell just look at my score last month. I took 3-4 bases, bombed areas that needed bombed, and tanked in places that needed support, all in under 25 hours.

I do find that many complaints are because people lack the skills and blame it on the game, rather than learn the game better, practice, get better at their weaknesses, and use better SA.

Are there some issues like Match play, far base distances, m3 resupply, too big of maps, and stupid side switch times. Yes. But those are issues that only a game dev can solve.

Why do people insist that players should die more for them to have fun? It's a natural instinct not to want to die. Why would I want to fly 25 miles to a base only to die quickly? Who plays a game trying to die quickly? Especially in a game like AH with a big world map. People don't want to die at all cost. It's not because of score. It's because of natural instinct. This is a really hard game because it's open world and you can't expect people to roll over for you, not gang you, and give you the benefit of the doubt. You have to figure out how to beat those guys and gain the advantage. That's the grand strategy of AH. That's what makes it better than most other games, but also makes it harder. Most people simply can't handle it because it gears more toward natural instincts rather than just run out, shoot, die repeat.

[Spikes]

Welp.....I'm getting buttered popcorn and Buffalo Wings ready in advance of the arrival of Vraciu, CpTrips and FLS. 

[CptTrips]

Let me get the ball rolling....

2-sides RULE!

3-Siders smell of elderberries!

[100Coogn]

Coogan

[CptTrips]

[ccvi]

If "staying alive" is your only metric to attempt getting a good score. You are doing it wrong.

While there is some contradiction between score and playing/dieing for the team objective, the bigger contradiction is between team objective and what would be the normal ideal behavior.

Examples.

Bomb and bailers. If empty bombers bail when an interceptor is getting near, the interceptor is doing something wrong. That is, getting near empty bombers at all. When bombers are empty, the correct strategy is to stay away. Don't shoot them, don't scare them, hope they RTB. RTBing cost them 30% of their flying time. Time they would spend getting more bombs after being shot or bailing.
From the other point of view, the correct behavior  of course is not to wait for an interceptor to get near, but to bail right after drop.

Generally, spending time to shoot anything that tries to RTB is a bad idea. Equally stupid as RTBing itself.

Shooting something that is trying to defend somewhere away from the field. Do not waste time to hunt it down. Because when shot, it respawns at the target.

Dropping bombs on GVs at the spawn. Let them drive first. Drop bombs when they are reaching their destination. It takes them a lot more time per bomb needed to kill them.

Killing damaged GVs in tactically inferior locations. Leave them alive, if they respawn they'll be fully operational and close to their map room.


The only thing that is limited is player time. To win the game ensure that the enemy is not using their time efficiently. It is a very strange way to play the game, but the proper one to play the team objective.

[hitech]

HTC refuses to adapt.

Wow, now I see the problem. I'll get write on that adapting thing.

HiTech

[FLS]

Wow, now I see the problem. I'll get right on that adapting thing.

HiTech

I'll tell you when to adapt! 

 

[guncrasher]

Wow, now I see the problem. I'll get write on that adapting thing.

HiTech

Didn't you read the other thread where we counsel you?  We haven't yet given you permission to adapt.


semp

[Vraciu]

Didn't you read the other thread where we counsel you?  We haven't yet given you permission to adapt.


semp

Counsel does not require granting/accepting permission or consent.   Counsel = Advice.   In this case, bad.

[Volron]

I mean, why didn't you just stop reading the forum and continue to play?

Cause logic.