Problems and Solutions for the Main Arena:

[eskimo2]

Hitech,
Thank you very much for your response!

I especially liked:

quote: (Hitech)
"Our current plan is to create bigger terrains with 4 times as many bases."
This is an excellent solution that will help alleviate many of the problems that I have outlined in my post.  The breathing room should make most people happy.  Wars may become epic!

------------------------------------------------------------
You asked,
quote: (Hitech)
"Has the main arena changed or have you changed?"

Both, I think most players change over time, and clearly the main arena has changed with the introduction of trains and cargo.
One big difference is that I can't remember the last time I saw The HQ, or any strat target, being hit to the point of effecting the overall war in the Main Arena.  Before the introduction of trains and cargo, strat targets were regularly used as war waging tools.
Another big difference is that the arena has also become much fuller than it ever was in the past.  This is great news in most respects, but it has greatly influenced game-play.

-----------------------------------------------------------
quote: (eskimo)
"If player feel that organized missions are too likely to be intercepted or well-defended against, or sneak captures are too unlikely to be successful, and strat targets are a waste of time, what are they to do? Join in the furball... or join in the gang-bang. "
quote: (Hitech)
"On the flip side if missions are to easy to achive there is no feeling of ocomplishment when completed."

Very true,
I am looking for a balance and unpredictability.
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote: (eskimo)

"Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Why is this better?
Instead of being MANDATORY targets for successful strat raids, train killing would become an ALTERNATIVE method for denying the enemy the benefit of operational strategic sites."

quote: (Hitech)
"The alternative becomes a real problem when you wan't to balance strat targets.
Suddenly something like a city with lots of buildings get changed to why kill all the city at all, when a few fighters just killing the train will have the same effect.

This would result in even less roll for bombers, and less of a need for orginazation.
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others."

Again,
I'm just looking for balance.
If you had to spend a greater effort and amount of time killing trains to achieve the same task, train killing fighters would simply be a less efficient alternative to hitting the target directly with bombers.  In my example, "Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%" You would be better off taking a bomber and getting results immediately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Air Raid" stuff is way cool!
It will add a lot to the game!
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote: (Hitech)
"It is not our desire to have more organized players in the arena.
It also is not our desire to discorage organized players.

It is our desire to bring the most fun to the widest range of people."

Sounds good!  Smart plan!
------------------------------------------------------
quote: (Hitech)
"In general I see your ideas as viewed from the attacker view point only."

Your right, my ideas in this post are mostly expressed from an attackers point of view.  But I am also an devoted defender.  I love defense, at any odds.  That's why God created A6Ms, right?
 ----------------------------------------------------
quote: (Hitech)
"When ever you try plan game play, you have to put yourself on both sides of the fence. If you think it would be great fun to sneek under radar and go hit the HQ, ask yourself the question is it great fun if the other side does that to you."

No.
Being shot down isn't great fun either.
- But the trade off is well worth it.
And I don't like it when the enemy captures one of my country's bases or CVs.
- But the trade off is well worth it.
Losing the war is not fun.
- But the trade off is well worth it.

It is a war-game after all.

Again,                
Hitech thank you for your response!
When I originally wrote the above post, I hadn't yet given the CT a fair chance.
Perhaps the CT is the place for more strategically diverse wars?

eskimo

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by Preon1


The point is being lost here.  Eskimo has offered up some good suggestions for revamping a strategic system that could highly benefit from some updating.  The purpose of these changes is not to alienate a demographic of players, but to maintain the interest of another.  In the end, total enjoyment (or HTC profits) is the goal.

Nobody's saying that it's not a tough balance to establish, but I think if you look at (many of) Eskimo's suggestions, and some of the revisions that have been made through this discussion, you'll find that limited change would merely enhance the game for those interested in the wargaming side of it without serious detriment to the Fighter MMOG people.

I read Eskimo's points, and I also think that they are basically ways to favor the offense, as have been most of the suggestions for "improving" strategic play in AH.  I don't like Eskimo's ideas, and I said so back in January (read several posts back.)

I understand that Eskimo is just trying to make the game more enjoyable by making some changes that he feels will improve his enjoyment of the game without harming others'.  The problem is, just like the guy driving down my street with his Snoop Dogg cranked up high for maximum enjoyment, it will have an effect on others whether you and Eskimo realize it or not.  I said this much in January as well; these offense-favoring ideas  will have an effect on the play of others, and not all of these others (myself included) will appreciate it.

So, yes, I have read Eskimo's ideas and the revisions, and I still would not welcome the advent of these changes.  As I said before, they add to the defenders' tasks, make the current defense tasks more difficult, and aggravate the consequences of failing in any of them.  What do the people who would like to continue their "non-involvement with the WAR" get in return?  Why should they not see these measures as a big stick to knock them into playing a different way?

That last message from me was a direct response to Beet1e's statement.  I've detected an undercurrent, whenever this discussion arises, that the game should be tweaked so the "air Quakers" will have to play "our way."  This is the first time I've ever seen it stated so baldly, however.  I'm just checking to see if I've jumped to any conclusions here.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by eskimo2
quote: (Hitech)
"The alternative becomes a real problem when you wan't to balance strat targets.
Suddenly something like a city with lots of buildings get changed to why kill all the city at all, when a few fighters just killing the train will have the same effect.

This would result in even less roll for bombers, and less of a need for orginazation.
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others."

Again,
I'm just looking for balance.
If you had to spend a greater effort and amount of time killing trains to achieve the same task, train killing fighters would simply be a less efficient alternative to hitting the target directly with bombers.  In my example, "Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%" You would be better off taking a bomber and getting results immediately.

eskimo

I really like this idea.  When the mossie came out I figured that I would fly alot of NOE sorties in it, hitting trains and the like.  But there just isn't any point, unless the train is heading to a base that is about to be captured.  I don't want to shut down a base in one strafing pass on a train or truck convoy.  But it would be nice if it had some effect.

[eskimo2]

pbirmingham

Thank you for expressing your views.
I think that you are a good spokes person for you "side".
What I don't understand, however, is exactly how you foresee the above ideas negatively impacting your game-play.  
How often do you think radar will go down if resupply is revamped?
Exactly what tasks do you use radar for?  
How do you personally compensate your game play when your country loses its radar?

And just so I/we have a better concept of where you are coming from, what % do you consider yourself a furballer, 100% being a furball purist.
What else do you do besides furball?
How much do you care about the overall war effort?
How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you.   
How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?

How much time to you spend defending bases?
Do you like defense?

Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country?

I cut-n-pasted the following from an earlier response, please read and respond;

"I really don't think that an arena that promotes strategic game play greatly conflicts with the needs of furballers. In a strategic arena, strat guys and buff drivers have a variety of targets to attack. They often hit cities, HQs, rear bases, and sometimes even trains, convoys, fuel, ammo, depots and training facilities. This takes a lot of pressure off of busy front line bases. Before the current strat set up, the last place that I or my squad would want to take a bomber/s to would be to a furball base. A base that is involved in a furball typically has been under sporadic attack for hours. This means that its hangers, ack, troops, fuel, radar, ammo and town are all out of sequence in regards to being up or down. Not a good target for bombers or base capture. A furball base also has tons of fighters at who knows what altitude, that are bound to give bombers or jabo planes a very hard time, and likewise a poor chance of getting through. Lastly, a furball base is difficult to capture because there are typically tons of enemy fighters already airborne, ready and willing to defend it even if the attackers manage to flatten the base/town.
In a strategic arena, any target is better than a front-line base that is involved in a furball.

In the current set up, the only good strategic use of a bomber is to kill a CV or to kill hangers at a front line base. Strat targets rebuild too quickly to have an impact on the game. With the current numbers in the main, rear bases are nearly impossible to capture. Come in high or low, with many or few, you will be met in force.

How has the current set up impacted strat guys? Strategic game play in AH is nearly dead. Strat guys can join a mission, or get in a bomber and go pork an enemy furball-suppling base, or go join the nearest furball.
When I am in a strat mood, I often find myself staring at the map, unable to find anything interesting to do.

What would a move toward a more strategic set up mean to furballers? That strat guys will be much more likely to leave furball bases (and fighter hangers) alone. I.E. furballs are likely to last longer.
It also means that sometimes furballers and everyone in a given country, may be without overall radar.
Some claim that this makes it hard to find a fight. I have furballed without the aid of radar. It is neither difficult nor time consuming to find a good fight or furball without radar. You can either ask where the furball/fight is, or you can check all the front line bases in your country and visually look from the tower. Typically, a furball exist where one of your country's bases is closest to an enemy base. Once you find a furball, you are probably set for hours.
The other consequence to furballers and everyone in a given country is that they cannot use the map and radar while they fight. Many players, especially newbies, may feel "lost" or venerable without this aid. Most players are able to learn how to fly and fight without it and can rely on traditional SA to enjoy the furball.

The real trade off for a move toward a more strategic set up for fuballers is:
Occasional loss of in-flight radar VS. furballs less likely to be interrupted by bombers or strat guys porking fields and hangers."

Do you agree to the basic premiss that strat guys will be more likely leave furball targets alone if they had better alternatives, as described above?

I guess I just want a clearer picture of how you think some folks will be "knocked" into playing a different way if any of the above ideas are implemented.  
Especially, how exactly do you think furballs will change?

Thanks,
eskimo

P.S.
All furballers are invited to answer any of the questions in this response.
As always, civility and clarity will illicit like responses, greater respect and understanding.

[Sabre]

I find some of the tidbits in HiTech's response heartening, but also feel some dissappointment.  I love this game, and have boundless respect for HTC's whole crew.  But HiTech's response leaves me somewhat confused as to the direction he plans to go in with AH.

When 1.08 was first released, the addition of trains and convoys appeared to set the stage for a renaissance in on-line combat games.  At last there would be a true logistical and strategic element in the game, where all the aspects of air combat would come into play.  Instead, the only strategic elements in the game (hitting cities and radar) were essentially rendered moot.  Some say that what some of us are asking for will take something away from those that just want to fly fighters against fighters.  Yet, in fact we're now fighting just to get back what we had before 1.08.  To wit, the ability to fly meaningful bomber and jabo raids that involve more than just attacking fields.

I've never felt that 1 or 2 people should be able to have a drastic affect on the entire arena.  However, if I get 12 guys together to go hit a city or refinery or factory, or to take out every convoy and train around a depot, it should have a noticeable effect.  The very fact that you could shut radar down for an entire country made the HQ worth defending, which made escorts important, etc.

My bottom line question to HiTech though is in regards to the promised bomber enhancements.  Adding dispersion, fixing the guns firing through your own plane (not mentioned by HiTech, but definitely required), and adding the multiplane formation option sounds grand, but will there be anything worth bombing?

HiTech was dead on when he said that many of the suggestions Eskimo and others have made favor the offense.  That's the nature of warefare.  The attack has the initiative, and generally controls the time and place where combat will occur.  The important point to remember is that nothing precludes the "defender" from going on the offensive.

I know HTC is trying to find a balance.  My own opinion is that balance has swung too far over towards fight-on-fighter combat as the sole focus of the game.  I'm just looking for ways to swing it back a little bit.  In any event, this has been a pretty good debate for the most part.  And I appreciate that HiTech chimed in, even if the tune he was singing wasn't all to my liking.  Still, I almost missed HiTech's comment...

Im not happy with the current strat balance either.

This gives me hope that he has not shut the door on changes to enhance strategic gameplay.

[Seeker]

"And just so I/we have a better concept of where you are coming from, what % do you consider yourself a furballer, 100% being a furball purist."

80% I do the odd buff sortie, but to honest it's mainly an attempt to improve my pathetic ranking. And I don't like the fact the the rankings are slanted towards the "total cyber warrior"; and that to gain a high rank one is forced into activities that have no real interest; such as buffing, GV etc (the corraly is that buff drivers are forced into fighters for the same reason - do they like this?)

"How much do you care about the overall war effort?"

Absolutly nothing. And I find the constant exhortations by the arena generals one of the most irritating aspects of online play.

"How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you. "

Marginaly - not at all if there's a good furball somewhere else.

"How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?"

Not at all.

"How much time to you spend defending bases?"

About 50/50 - depends where the fights are.

"Do you like defense? "

I like the fights - defense/offense is irrelevant in that context.

"Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country? "

Absolutly not. I've been flying rooks recently because they seem outnumbered. Should that change - so would I.

General response to the big cut n' paste:

My personal opinion is that the landgrab war/strat thing sucks; and I object somewhat in being dragged into it. It promotes gang banging, and an obsession with kills rather than fights. I've no interest in being #7 in a conga line to finish off one lonely enemy, I've no interest in bouncing people unawares - where's the challenge in that? I'd check 6 them if I could.

My position is there's nothing to win or lose - only experience to be gained. My perfect night is a series of great, challenging fights where I feel I have a fair chance of winning and that I'll learn something - regardless of whether I win or not.

All the above is to be taken in an MA context - Scenarios and events are a totaly different thing.

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by eskimo2
pbirmingham

Thank you for expressing your views.
I think that you are a good spokes person for you "side".
What I don't understand, however, is exactly how you foresee the above ideas negatively impacting your game-play.  
How often do you think radar will go down if resupply is revamped?
Exactly what tasks do you use radar for?  
How do you personally compensate your game play when your country loses its radar?
[

Let's see -- radar currently goes down either (1) never or (2) three or four times an hour.  This is strongly dependent on the state of your country at the time.  When it's your turn in the barrel, you're going to be in the dark, so to speak.  With resupply made more difficult, I imagine radar will not go down any more frequently, but once it goes down it will tend to stay down, because there is nothing the defenders can do to make it come up faster.  Furthermore, its speed of recovery will be strongly dependent on the state of the trains -- a distributed target that must be defended.

I use radar to (1) find fights and (2) evaluate threats to targets in my home country.

And just so I/we have a better concept of where you are coming from, what % do you consider yourself a furballer, 100% being a furball purist.
What else do you do besides furball?
How much do you care about the overall war effort?
How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you.   
How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?

How much time to you spend defending bases?
Do you like defense?

Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country?

Let me define "furballing" here.  I mean looking for a fight with other fighters, where you and your opponents are roughly (very roughly) at parity.  Taking on an opponent with an altitude advantage  fits, as does taking on unequal odds, but getting bounced by three high bogies does not.  A cold-sweat-inducing fight from 20K to the deck, where I lose, is better than getting a kill on someone who thought he was alone in the sector, when I'm in the "furball" mindset.  This is not smart warfare, where you secure crushing advantages over your opponent as quickly as possible, and exploit them to the fullest.  

I'd say my furball percentage is between 50 and 60 percent.  When I'm not furballing, I'm either flying JABO missions in support of field captures, gooning in support of a field capture (driving the bus, I call it,) re-supplying damaged fields with my Magic Goon, driving a panzer in support of a field capture, or defending a field in a plane or ground vehicle.

I don't care much for the overall war effort, I must say.  Basically, I think that the "war" is highly sensitive to imbalances in the number of players.  If your country is outnumbered, there is no way you can avoid losing lots of territory.  If your country is the largest and the other two concentrate their efforts on you, again the defense of your territory is very difficult.  In my opinion, this is an integral flaw in the notion of a war that can be won by taking most of the opponent's territory -- you can be forced to fight every fight at a disadvantage, because if you do not fight, you will be at an even worse disadvantage later.  The greater the fraction of your fields are capturable, the more slippery this slope becomes.

Because of this, I view every base lost as a regrettable event, because I know that things are just going to get worse.  Face it -- if you're down to five fields, you're going to constantly be taking off into a cloud of enemies with more energy, because there are no longer any clear fields to take off from.

I probably spend a tenth or so of my flight time in base defense.  I like it if the enemy planes are not so dense that my wheels never leave the ground.  When I can get a 109F4 up, it's a blast.  Otherwise, it is an exercise in sheer frustration.

As far as obligation to my "country" goes, that depends on what you mean.  I generally ignore the petit Napoleons (though I can play one myself on the squad channel) but I will give six calls, clear the six of friendlies, and help out .  I join missions if they look like fun.  I don't do any of this out of "obligation" in that I'd feel bad if I didn't do them (squad members are another matter,) but because I appreciate it when I get six calls and help.

The real trade off for a move toward a more strategic set up for fuballers is:
Occasional loss of in-flight radar VS. furballs less likely to be interrupted by bombers or strat guys porking fields and hangers."

Do you agree to the basic premiss that strat guys will be more likely leave furball targets alone if they had better alternatives, as described above?

Unless the "strat" guys can have their fun without knocking out fields, no.  The fields have to go sometime for someone to win the "war."  If it is too dangerous to bring JABOs into a furball field to shut it down, the trio of 30-K Lancasters will appear overhead soon.

There's a basic tension here between people who want to win the "war" and people who, for various reasons, do not.  Remember that "strat" here is another way to say "thinking about winning the war."  To win the war, you have to take the bases.

I guess I just want a clearer picture of how you think some folks will be "knocked" into playing a different way if any of the above ideas are implemented.  
Especially, how exactly do you think furballs will change?

I think people will be forced to choose between furballing and losing all their bases, much as beet1e predicts.

There is an easy way to resolve the conflict, though.  If there were this "fightertown" area in an isolated area of the map, where you could always go for a quick furball, I would care little what was done with the rest of the map.  I'd still goon, jabo, tank, whatever, but I'd always be able to step out of the war and just have a little dogfight.

[lazs2]

preon said "THE POINT(s)
-Not everybody gets a constant kick out of taking off and mixing it up with fighters.
-Not everybody is totally bummed when they see that an organized assault has made them move to another furball.
-A good number of people really enjoy organizing and winning bases (such organization is fleeting at best in the MA because, as you said, people aren't usually in there for more than an hour).
-Newbies don't always want to fight in furballs. When I was new, I was completely wow'ed by the HQ raid (pointless these days).

What we strat types want is a chance to pull off an operation involving several people working closely together that will damage one front enough that after we land we MIGHT be able to take a base or 2 in the next half hour while that front recovers (as opposed to a base every 4 hours depending on who's got numbers in the furball) Personally, I don't think that a system like that would ruin the play of a person who is there for only an hour because there's a whole other front to move to (they don't care who wins the war right?).

Anywho, I've wasted a lot of time on this. I think I'll get back to the real world.


__________________
"Knowledge is Power,
Power Corrupts."
-Preon1
""""

preon..  I think my, and many others, style of fighting echos pbirmingham, vortex and seekers.  --  I don't say that "everyone" enjoys fighting in fighters but...If they don't then they shouldn't have a huge effect on fighters.

-- no, everyone is not "totally bummed" when they see an organized assault that makes em move to another furball...If... A lone, suicide fluff or two dropping fighter hangers at the only field that is good for a close furbal is "organized' then organized players don't deserve to play.   5 minutes more of flight time is 10 minutes round trip... doing nothing..  15 minutes hangar  downtime is 1/4 or so of the time most guys spend in a AH session.   I have never seen a good furball last more than 15 minutes or so before some talentless, suicide fluffer comes over above the fur and tries to kill the fighter hangers only.   If you are lucky there are 2 places that have roughly even fites (good furs).

--organizing and winning bases is fine but porking bases till they come up again is entirely different.   Personally I don't want to see organized gangbanging..  from either end.  

-- newbies may or may not want to fight.   If they want to get good in fighters tho they got to get down and dirty and die a lot.  HQ raids and joining an "organized gangbang" won't teach em 1/10 as much.

The whole thing comes full circle.   1 or 2 players should not have a huge impact on the many in a 24/7 game.   There should not be a huge imbalance in resources when people log on unless the "war" is very close to being "won"   as was pointed out... having the radar down longer and more often effects the normal player too much.
lazs

[lazs2]

Oh... and in this huge arena we may be getting.... is there any chance that one small "area" could be used as an early war plane only area?
lazs

[Preon1]

Originally posted by lazs2
The whole thing comes full circle.   1 or 2 players should not have a huge impact on the many in a 24/7 game.   There should not be a huge imbalance in resources when people log on unless the "war" is very close to being "won"   as was pointed out... having the radar down longer and more often effects the normal player too much.
lazs

Agreed.  So how about a compromise?

Given that there will be a much larger map, how about sectioning off strategic assets?  Instead of a universal headquarters and strategic assets, how about regional targets?

When each map is reset, the larger countries each have four regional areas.  This isn't a fully baked idea yet, but the jist will be that if I get together with a dozen other pilots and really trounce the strat of one region, then those flying for that country who don't like not having dar can simply go to a region with their strat still up.

I think I'm going to start a new thread with this idea... ...later today.

[straffo]

a drunk idea ....


We have waypoint for Task force what about  adding a Furball waypoint ?

Furballer and strat addict should be pleased with this idea no ?



hips ...

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Preon1


Agreed.  So how about a compromise?

Given that there will be a much larger map, how about sectioning off strategic assets?  Instead of a universal headquarters and strategic assets, how about regional targets?

When each map is reset, the larger countries each have four regional areas.  This isn't a fully baked idea yet, but the jist will be that if I get together with a dozen other pilots and really trounce the strat of one region, then those flying for that country who don't like not having dar can simply go to a region with their strat still up.

I think I'm going to start a new thread with this idea... ...later today.

Preon1,
This is a GREAT idea!
and yes, do post it so that we can see what others think of it.
eskimo

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by straffo
a drunk idea ....


We have waypoint for Task force what about  adding a Furball waypoint ?

Furballer and strat addict should be pleased with this idea no ?



hips ...

Another good idea!

This thread may have value afterall.

eskimo

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... and in this huge arena we may be getting.... is there any chance that one small "area" could be used as an early war plane only area?
lazs

I wouldn't mind seeing this either.
But isn't this really a form of limiting the plane set?
Wouldn't it take less SA and skill to fight in such an environment?  
There would be less variety of planes to oppose...  Yes?
Sounds like a little CT in the middle of the MA...?
Again, your idea is fine, but it sounds like you are contradicting what you have said in the past about the CT.

eskimo

[beet1e]

I think we should wait to see what happens with 1.09, as it appears from Hitech that the strategy will change dramatically with the new release. We should resume our discussions after we have seen it.

I like the suggestions of preon1 and eskimo2. I would welcome anything that increases the strategic/stealth element, and moves away from the mindless gangbang culture. The only times I see a field captured are as a result of a gangbang. That's no fun at all.