but can you get a consensus on what awful or good game play is?
Good question Semp if slighlty loaded. You don't need a consensous in an inherently zero sum-game multiplayer combat sim. You need to support all
opportunities of gameplay on the frustration-reward line if you aren't to drive preference-factions away. The purely ACM-combat fans clearly have been if you look for independent reviews of AH. Not my opinion. Go and look, you will notice the strong theme of that point (even ex AH-players).
Memory likely won't serve accurately now, and I'm too busy / lazy to bother researching. But I think the Yak-3 was the last fighter aircraft to be introduced. Quite a long time ago. After came the 88-mm, several tanks, the TU-2 maybe? Side-switching was changed (arbitrarily it seemed like) to 24-hours - the protest of which essentailly drove the majority of the Muppets and their kin away. The DA was removed and replaced by something even less popular (about which several informed suggestions were offered and disregarded). Private arenas are possible if you're prepared to dedicate your computer and self to is essentially as they only persist for 20-minutes and no one who doesn't know you will go there alone. There are some events but not on the 24-7 basis of the MMOG. Every suggestion bar one, as far as I can remember, to enhance this aspect of gampeplay rejected and dismissed by both the forum members (a subset of actual players) and the company who runs the game.
All those things in sequence and combination rather points to a bias
against the ACM-faction.
nrshida is right. Everybody who disagrees with him is wrong. There, that was easy.
It's a shame I evidently present this way when I post. It ought to be true but apparently isn't that the stronger, more evidenced 'argument' (an echange of diverging or opposite views, not the f**k you, nah f**k you kind of daily life / roadrage argument) should have more weight than weaker arguments or - as in this case for example - ones based on informal fallacy. It's neither here-nor-there
who is saying this or that or
why they're saying it. The question is do they have a
point? Do they
evidence their argument?
It is really a weird situation when people like Violator and I are marginalised for being fanatical about prop-driven air-combat in a game entitled Aces High. Waaaaaaay off base to assume we want everyone to play our way on some sort of weird power-trip on our behalf. I don't know about Violator because I think he has limitted time (as now do I actually). But when I was a very active player I have spent an awful lot of time training other players one-on-one with the only motivation to enhance their AH-ACM experience. I had offered this to anyone who asked, even enemies. I fought Robert Shaw in the DA. Bought his book, annotated it, tore sections out and threw it away. Here was the last repository of Prop-driven ACM. Not IL-2, not DCS, not in printed manuals. Here in the hands and eyes of remarkable players. Nearly all gone now.
naw nishida believes in what he believes, i think different but we both have the same idea in mind. just different paths to it.
I like this idea. A small map, 256. Outer perimeter at 7500 ft, with everything sloped to a central area at 100 ft. Bases in close proximity, no more than 22 miles apart. The slope to the central area would help focus the combat due to the altitude assistance from the outer areas.
Unfortuantely I am not good enough with this medium to make a prototype but I think you very much have the gist. More than 7500-ft would disallow pickers to float around on a top layer and still leave at will.
