Small maps

[Banshee7]

Honestly, I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to have three bases next to each other on every map that are uncapturable. This would give the fighter jocks a place to play while leaving the rest of the map to the base takers, bomber pilots, GVers, and anyone that wants to avoid combat. I think the fighter pilots are the ones making the most noise while representing a minority group. I’ve always said an uncapturable TT/FT would be a middle ground because it doesn’t negatively affect anyone.

[Animl-AW]

Honestly, I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to have three bases next to each other on every map that are uncapturable. This would give the fighter jocks a place to play while leaving the rest of the map to the base takers, bomber pilots, GVers, and anyone that wants to avoid combat. I think the fighter pilots are the ones making the most noise while representing a minority group. I’ve always said an uncapturable TT/FT would be a middle ground because it doesn’t negatively affect anyone.

Remember, the core of the game is dog-fighting. Everything incites and promotes that to happen.

[Banshee7]

Remember, the core of the game is dog-fighting. Everything incites and promotes that to happen.

With the current player base, I disagree. I think those that want to dogfight are in a minority compared to those that want to steamroll undefended bases.

*Edited to add that setting three bases aside for the fighter guys does not force anyone to change their play style, whereas changing map sizes would.

[DmonSlyr]

You need all levels of the AH ecosystem fighting in the same area surrounded in a battle. That's what makes the game exciting. It's not necessarily about X by X map. It's more about base layout and strategy. That's why everyone loved Festers map. It created "path of action" as I like to call it. VH bases in-between fighter bases but not so many that saturated take off and spawn points. On small maps, if you add a bunch of mountains it only just creates just super high alt fights for the most part, and getting low in a mountain is a dogpile trap. But paths to action is what you want to foster large battles for all gameplay types.

[Shuffler]

Map size and terrain size are not the same per se. Buzzsaw is a good example.

Also… please get rid of buzzsaw!!!

[CAV]

I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to have three bases next to each other on every map that are uncapturable.

As I recall.... This was Tried in AirWarrior long ago in FR BIG PAC. It failed miserably.  It ended up screwing up the scoring, as there was no way to turnoff scoring from those bases. And once the Battlefront moved past these three bases, Groups of players and squads would launch missions from the uncapturable bases to the main battle area. In retaliation the warfighters would launch non-stop strikes against the bases and basically keep them flattened so no planes at all could launch. That ended any thoughts of any future  "Official" fightertowns. 

CAV

[fd ski]

Let me throw in a wrench here.

Problem with large maps and small player base is vicious cycle - you come in, there is 15 people per side, but you fly around for 30 minutes and can't find a fight. Everyone is flying by their lonesome somewhere off the in the world. You log off. Player count stays low. This is especially apparent during EURO timezomes.

My proposal:
1. leave large maps.
2. have a script running that disables bases further away from the center so that number of open basis (and capturable ones) is proportional to number of people online.

Issues to be solved:
- strategic targets and ability to defend them ( or lack of thereof since bases there could be disabled). Maybe always leave one "non-capturable" base open for interceptors? At least on maps where those strategic targets are somewhat centralized.
- win condition. Dynamic scaling could trigger a win without captures/action. Maybe win condition would scale with size. Three scales available, in small - win condition is 90% of own and 50% of others, in medium 90% of own and 35% of others, and so on...

Either way, we need to find a way to make a small population server fun again, cause now, if there is less then 50 people online, i personally log off, and I suspect others do too.

 

[Mongoose]

Basically the 512 X 512 are the large maps.  256 X 256 are considered small maps. Almost all the maps in rotation now are small maps.

 There are some maps available for the practice arena that are 128 X 128 and 64 X 64.  You can select these maps for the offline practice arena so you can see what some of these extra small maps look like.

Right now the custom arenas are not working.  Once they get fixed (and they will get fixed), you can take a couple friends into the extra small arenas to see what combat would look like.

[Eagler]

Fd ski

Your suggestion involves coding...

I think that has been determined as not to be a possible solution as any new coding seems out of the question these days..

We are down to trying to make aces high great again (MAHGA hats otw lol) with map modifications only...

Eagler

[Banshee7]

As I recall.... This was Tried in AirWarrior long ago in FR BIG PAC. It failed miserably.  It ended up screwing up the scoring, as there was no way to turnoff scoring from those bases. And once the Battlefront moved past these three bases, Groups of players and squads would launch missions from the uncapturable bases to the main battle area. In retaliation the warfighters would launch non-stop strikes against the bases and basically keep them flattened so no planes at all could launch. That ended any thoughts of any future  "Official" fightertowns.

CAV

Yeah, that does sound hideous. What if those bases only allowed fighters to up? I know you can select those settings on the map because it accidentally happened with the new one. I’m just tossing out ideas. I don’t think there will ever be a perfect solution. Maybe with the current numbers the outcome would be different.

[The Fugitive]

We had a number of maps with a FT in the center and as you can see they are all gone.

Issues were with it as CAV said was once the "war" moved around the uncapturable bases they used them as a back door. Also GVs would make there way to the center and start popping the low flying fruit spoiling the fighters fun. The win the war types would also hate that "resources" were being wasted because flyers were fighting for no gain and so would pork the fields and/or take out the hangers just to spoil the fights.

Even in the hey days I dont remember seeing more than 40-50 MAX fighters going at it out of 500 players on line, so 10%. Today that would mean what 10-14 guys who would use it at peak. Id rather see coading time spent on fixing ENY, adjusting hvy bombers so they cant be flown as a fighter and adjusting the resupply so the M3 isnt the first thing players think of when a base is under attack.

[popeye]

We had a number of maps with a FT in the center and as you can see they are all gone.

Even in the hey days I dont remember seeing more than 40-50 MAX fighters going at it out of 500 players on line, so 10%. Today that would mean what 10-14 guys who would use it at peak.

Northco, Crags, and Badlands all have center fields available to dogfighters -- not uncapturable, but very easy to defend due to close spawn points from uncapturable fields.  No one seems interested.  (Northco even has a GV battle area far removed from bomb****s, that has never been used.)  It seems that NDisles is the only map where center field dogfights are popular, maybe due to tradition.

[Banshee7]

We had a number of maps with a FT in the center and as you can see they are all gone.

Issues were with it as CAV said was once the "war" moved around the uncapturable bases they used them as a back door. Also GVs would make there way to the center and start popping the low flying fruit spoiling the fighters fun. The win the war types would also hate that "resources" were being wasted because flyers were fighting for no gain and so would pork the fields and/or take out the hangers just to spoil the fights.

Even in the hey days I dont remember seeing more than 40-50 MAX fighters going at it out of 500 players on line, so 10%. Today that would mean what 10-14 guys who would use it at peak. Id rather see coading time spent on fixing ENY, adjusting hvy bombers so they cant be flown as a fighter and adjusting the resupply so the M3 isnt the first thing players think of when a base is under attack.

Completely understandable. I just realistically dont see anything changing within the game and it’s coading. I could be very wrong, and I hope that I am. There’s a lot of small changes that I think could make a drastic difference in gameplay. The sad thing is I think those changes would eventually run off the core player base of this game because it would make things more challenging for them.

Northco, Crags, and Badlands all have center fields available to dogfighters -- not uncapturable, but very easy to defend due to close spawn points from uncapturable fields.  No one seems interested.  (Northco even has a GV battle area far removed from bomb****s, that has never been used.)  It seems that NDisles is the only map where center field dogfights are popular, maybe due to tradition.

It seems like almost every time I’ve gotten on those bases we’re captured by one side during the early morning hours. NDIsles will always be my favorite map.

[popeye]

It seems like almost every time I’ve gotten on those bases we’re captured by one side during the early morning hours. NDIsles will always be my favorite map.

I've never seen center fields on Northco captured.  All three completely undamaged at the moment.

[Banshee7]

I've never seen center fields on Northco captured.  All three completely undamaged at the moment.

Honestly, I don’t know which map that is off the top of my head lol. I know when NDIsles was up the other day, rooks had taken the entire island except for one base. They were actively trying to take that base, too, but a few fighter jocks came in with some resistance and they quit upping in that sector entirely.