Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DmonSlyr on April 03, 2023, 12:38:41 PM
-
So I've been noticing for a while that it seems like both knights and rooks are relentlessly ganging bish until they are forced to fight each other. Yesterday Knits took 45% of bish bases while the rooks were also fighting bish. The bish had 12 freaking players on until 4pm, where only 5-8 where actively flying. Rooks and knits had about 25-29 players each where about 20 on avg were on the board.
Then the knights finally start going after Rooks. The Rooks put up a small fight but still many of them wanted to continue to fight bish. Eventually knits captured a couple of rook base but then were halted by about 6 or so rooks who kept them from capturing more. The whole day it was practically ganging on bish and then tiny little fights vs rooks and knits. Then about 6-8pm the rooks got tired of fighting knits and it was back to fighting Bish. The fights were measly all day for the knits. I expected more from the rooks. I've been noticing this trend. It's creating very poor gameplay. There could have been some great battles between rooks and knits but they insisted on taking out a side with 10 players. I feel like the community is going to need to fix this issue. It was tough to find some battles all afternoon and evening yesterday that were worth it to roll. Then I finally move to bish to help out and the fight totally died. Was frustrating for me. I'm not sure how to solve this issue, but its making gameplay pretty stale when 2 sides are jumping one side all day.
-
When I am a knight at 8pm est I find that usually no one fights us
Yes they then roll basically undefended bases..
I switched to rook the other night just to have something to shoot at
These lower subscriber numbers indicate the game should be reduced to 2 sides imo
Eagler
-
These lower subscriber numbers indicate the game should be reduced to 2 sides imo
Eagler
Agreed.
-
Were we in the same maps? I was on from 8-11 est and most of the action was knights vs rooks. I personally made three Lanc runs to a knight vbase that was busy the whole time.
Never once has any side stopped attacking another side because a third side was attacking it. This is a silly complaint that needs to end. The development alone of two sides makes it a moot point. You all should be careful what you wish for. Two sides changes the dynamic of this game almost completely.
-
So I've been noticing for a while that it seems like both knights and rooks are relentlessly ganging bish until they are forced to fight each other. Yesterday Knits took 45% of bish bases while the rooks were also fighting bish. The bish had 12 freaking players on until 4pm, where only 5-8 where actively flying. Rooks and knits had about 25-29 players each where about 20 on avg were on the board.
Then the knights finally start going after Rooks. The Rooks put up a small fight but still many of them wanted to continue to fight bish. Eventually knits captured a couple of rook base but then were halted by about 6 or so rooks who kept them from capturing more. The whole day it was practically ganging on bish and then tiny little fights vs rooks and knits. Then about 6-8pm the rooks got tired of fighting knits and it was back to fighting Bish. The fights were measly all day for the knits. I expected more from the rooks. I've been noticing this trend. It's creating very poor gameplay. There could have been some great battles between rooks and knits but they insisted on taking out a side with 10 players. I feel like the community is going to need to fix this issue. It was tough to find some battles all afternoon and evening yesterday that were worth it to roll. Then I finally move to bish to help out and the fight totally died. Was frustrating for me. I'm not sure how to solve this issue, but its making gameplay pretty stale when 2 sides are jumping one side all day.
If there wasn't double the numbers on bish for such a long time
-
Were we in the same maps? I was on from 8-11 est and most of the action was knights vs rooks. I personally made three Lanc runs to a knight vbase that was busy the whole time.
Never once has any side stopped attacking another side because a third side was attacking it. This is a silly complaint that needs to end. The development alone of two sides makes it a moot point. You all should be careful what you wish for. Two sides changes the dynamic of this game almost completely.
Here is my picture for proof taken at 2:54 yesterday. Now, I am not saying we should move to 2 teams, and this isn't a complaint. I am simply pointing out to the community how we can make the gameplay more enjoyable for all sides. It seems so many times when I log that both sides are jumping the bish and I am trying to discuss why that might be and how we can get all sides to partake in combat rather than gang jumping one side with the low #s.
(https://i.ibb.co/8XHTj1Y/Crags-4-2-23.png)
-
When I am a knight at 8pm est I find that usually no one fights us
Yes they then roll basically undefended bases..
I switched to rook the other night just to have something to shoot at
These lower subscriber numbers indicate the game should be reduced to 2 sides imo
Eagler
The 2 country concept and debate goes back decades. There are some reasonable reasons for 3 instead of 2. One is so that one country can never, most likely not, dominate the maps, if it gets too big. If ones gets too big the other just falls to dust, no fights to have. There are other reasons, but a lot of thought was put into these debates, even back in AW days, where 3 countries pretty much started. In the end, it always ended up it's the better concept in the long run.
IMO, 2 countries will not change the gameplay for the better. I'm sure you have your reasons to disagree, and that's fine. I just don't see much traction there.
-
Here is my picture for proof taken at 2:54 yesterday. Now, I am not saying we should move to 2 teams, and this isn't a complaint. I am simply pointing out to the community how we can make the gameplay more enjoyable for all sides. It seems so many times when I log that both sides are jumping the bish and I am trying to discuss why that might be and how we can get all sides to partake in combat rather than gang jumping one side with the low #s.
(https://i.ibb.co/8XHTj1Y/Crags-4-2-23.png)
Wasn’t referring to you specifically but it’s a super common MA complaint. I can see both sides. Unless it’s a flip a switch to go from three to two and back then back to three if number increase then it’s a viable option to explore. Animl mentioned another good radon to stay at three.
What time zone are you in? I try hard only limit myself to playing at night any time between 7P-12A EST. Way too easy to log in and before you know it its next Thursday. Looks like I’m picking the best times I guess.
Lush e can come with the receipts for us but there were over 40 each side when I hopped on last night around 830-9.
-
So I've been noticing for a while that it seems like both knights and rooks are relentlessly ganging bish until they are forced to fight each other.
Try logging on around 9am EDT. You will usually find the Bish outnumber both other countries combined. That morning, at 9am, it was Bish 17, Knit 8, and Rook 3. Bish were attacking Rooks and ignoring the Knits who were attacking them. (Apparently the Knits got carried away. :D)
Though the sides were unbalanced, at least the two low-numbered sides were both fighting the higher number. Often, one of the low-numbered sides will align with the higher -- THAT is a common problem to be solved by players.
-
Though the sides were unbalanced, at least the two low-numbered sides were attacking the higher number. Often, one of the low-numbered sides will align with the higher -- THAT is a common problem to be solved by players.
I think in the end with are always left with the caveat of Dale can’t fix human nature.
-
2 sides with forced side balancing
Eagler
-
Try logging on around 9am EDT. You will usually find the Bish outnumber both other countries combined. That morning, at 9am, it was Bish 17, Knit 8, and Rook 3. Bish were attacking Rooks and ignoring the Knits who were attacking them. (Apparently the Knits got carried away. :D)
Though the sides were unbalanced, at least the two low-numbered sides were both fighting the higher number. Often, one of the low-numbered sides will align with the higher -- THAT is a common problem to be solved by players.
Ahh, yeah it's crazy, I logged in a few minutes ago, same map and the bish have recaptured all of those bases. It seems to me, and I've seen this before, is that one squad is causing a lot of rifraff in the morning when no one else is playing, thus forcing both teams to gang them to reclaim those bases for the rest of the day. Once the #s build up during later hours it's not so bad, but during the afternoon on the weekends it makes for stale gameplay. That is why I'm trying to figure out what the community can do to solve this issue. Whats it's gonna take to have the knights and rooks fight each other more?
2 sides with forced side balancing
Eagler
Unfortunately you will have squads quit over that, which won't be good.
-
Yep God forbid they have to fight each other
Many of us could give a flip
Eagler
-
Your picture isnt a good example since Bish own Rook bases. If Bish are busy it stands to reason that Rooks should take some of their bases back. They are also trying to win and human nature will always favor the easier base takes when trying to catch up. Teams will attack the path of least resistance. Even when I am the only person online for a team people will stop attacking and go against the other side that isnt interested in defending.
-
I think in the end with are always left with the caveat of Dale can’t fix human nature.
ahhhh but I think he can :cool:
If Hitech added some code to force teams to switch fronts it would help that. Say Bish take two bases from the KNights, the code makes it so the Bish cant capture another Knight base until they capture one base from the Rooks. That would force a team to continually switch fronts to advance to win the war. No running a team to being down 45% of their bases.
Another thing he could do is once a team hits 25% of one of the other teams base capture he could make the towns harder to kill, regenerate faster, or make it take more troops to capture. There are a number of ways Hitech could "fix human nature". It just takes some creative programming and he has already proved he can do that.
We as players are never going to be able to "fix" any of this. Its human nature to take the easy path, and its easier to continue rolling bases against a team that is already beaten down.
Most players dont care about whether there are any fights. The vast majority are looking to spawn camp for easy kills, grab undefended bases, or sneak them, and if they are looking for kills in a fighter they look to pick and run and when they are forced to fight all they do is HO. Most wouldnt know an "aircombat maneuver" if you hit them in the head with one.
-
ahhhh but I think he can :cool:
If Hitech added some code to force teams to switch fronts it would help that.
That would lose me. Not that anyone may care lol but I feel like I’m not alone here.
-
Anything you say or do to promote combat in here, will likely lose half the player base. The majority of the remains here aren't here to fight. They prefer flying around in herds, hiding in buildings with tanks, or 30k in buffs gathering points while some jabronis pump in supplies to reverse the damage.
I find it a struggle to even want to log in here anymore. I keep my account open for some prayer that something will change.
I've been preaching the 2 sided toejam for awhile, along with smaller maps. You might lose half the bottom feeders here, but the action generated from the other half may actually spark some life into it.
Just the opinion from someone who has been here from the start, and watched every aspect of the decline in game play in correlation with declining numbers and the same game dynamics.
-
2 sides with forced side balancing
Eagler
-1
Will never work, the forced side balancing will finish off the game. :(
-
ahhhh but I think he can :cool:
If Hitech added some code to force teams to switch fronts it would help that. Say Bish take two bases from the KNights, the code makes it so the Bish cant capture another Knight base until they capture one base from the Rooks. That would force a team to continually switch fronts to advance to win the war. No running a team to being down 45% of their bases.
Another thing he could do is once a team hits 25% of one of the other teams base capture he could make the towns harder to kill, regenerate faster, or make it take more troops to capture. There are a number of ways Hitech could "fix human nature". It just takes some creative programming and he has already proved he can do that.
We as players are never going to be able to "fix" any of this. Its human nature to take the easy path, and its easier to continue rolling bases against a team that is already beaten down.
Most players dont care about whether there are any fights. The vast majority are looking to spawn camp for easy kills, grab undefended bases, or sneak them, and if they are looking for kills in a fighter they look to pick and run and when they are forced to fight all they do is HO. Most wouldnt know an "aircombat maneuver" if you hit them in the head with one.
While I totally agree with the 2nd part, not so much the 1st part.
just IMO
When it comes to making new settings,....I tend to look at these games as a covered terrarium like environment. AH is a perfect example, where inside it's created its own biosphere. Lift the top and let the moisture out and things start to die as the biosphere is no longer working, it has to rebuild that environment long after the lid goes back on. Make one setting to please one group, and the other group tend to leave and go to a game they can game. Which is okay IF you have newbie replacements. A lot of what I read on other boards a common mention was that AH3 dumbed some things down, as an excuse to leave.
I've seen all these observations/arguments repeat themselves constantly over the decades. Nothing has really changed. Some things may be more noticeable because of lower numbers and they just stick out more.
Hordes can be broken. I try to do it often by not so much defending as heading to the source base of the horde and hitting them coming up. This will either force them to defend that base, moving the fight back to them, or they come up other bases, which sometimes splits the horde up to not be flying together as much. Some will stay and defend, someone will up other bases, but they are separated now. Doesn't always work, but a lot of times it does. I can spark something over a horde base all by myself by just capping it. Cap 3 bases and it disturbs the flock of geese.
I also notice these are more of frontline wars. In the past if that became an issue, I'd purposely go over or around the horde and hit deeper bases.
You're right, my biggest pet peeve, they not only horde, but they will HO every plane in sight and/or run. We have a squad on the Rooks side that does that exclusively. Best thing to do with them is as I stated above.
Humans can deter it, they just aren't thinking of the ways.
Bases are a reason to fight. Land grabbing was not the intention. I call it kicking the bee hive for a fight.
-
Nothing more fun than sneaking in and taking out all the barracks and a small field or vbase.
-
I agree. The hoard in my view is pretty much one squad in the rooks in prime time. Ganging and picking/running if singled out if the hoard can't get to him. Planes of choice, Yaks and P51's
I fly Bishop or Knights if Bish is dead for fights. Flew rooks a couple of times but I don't do the hoard, and in prime time that is, what it is.
But at least they are in planes. So theres that..
-
Double post
-
When you have one team rolling bases, it is hard to switch to another front. Everyone wants to keep the momentum going.
The answer would be for the squad leaders look at the strategic situation and make the decision when it is time to change fronts. Making a rule change to force people to play differently would be counter-productive.
Hitech has stated that they tried two teams, and it didn't work nearly as well as three teams. For years people have been saying, "things are different now." That doesn't change the fact that it's been tried, and didn't work.
If you make it so that the game works better with smaller numbers, you will always have smaller numbers. If you make the game so it will support larger numbers, then you have room to grow.
-
When there is no vehicle spawn into the field being taken the horde changes direction.
-
ahhhh but I think he can :cool:
If Hitech added some code to force teams to switch fronts it would help that. Say Bish take two bases from the KNights, the code makes it so the Bish cant capture another Knight base until they capture one base from the Rooks. That would force a team to continually switch fronts to advance to win the war. No running a team to being down 45% of their bases.
Another thing he could do is once a team hits 25% of one of the other teams base capture he could make the towns harder to kill, regenerate faster, or make it take more troops to capture. There are a number of ways Hitech could "fix human nature". It just takes some creative programming and he has already proved he can do that.
We as players are never going to be able to "fix" any of this. Its human nature to take the easy path, and its easier to continue rolling bases against a team that is already beaten down.
Most players dont care about whether there are any fights. The vast majority are looking to spawn camp for easy kills, grab undefended bases, or sneak them, and if they are looking for kills in a fighter they look to pick and run and when they are forced to fight all they do is HO. Most wouldnt know an "aircombat maneuver" if you hit them in the head with one.
I agree and disagree here. Yes he could add code, but I think it should be to incentivize players to attack the other side rather than force them. Like making it give you far more perks or something to that effect. Though perhaps over 35% should probably cut off being able to capture bases. If one team only has 60% of bases, then both teams should not not be allowed to capture their fields anymore. So I am with you there. I'm just getting disappointed when I log in and there is no action on my side or my side has a huge hoard. If I switch to help the other team, I may have to wait 6 hours to switch again where the fight could be totally different. The "switch to the lowest side thing" is okay, but that doesn't mean there will be action or that you can defend a horde on both sides attacking it by yourself.
IMO, the entire point of smaller maps with closer bases is to encourage people to roll a plane and fight. With smaller fronts they know where the fight is and how to fight back with more friendlies. This builds up the #s because there is something going on. I think its ridiculous to pander to people who want to play Microsoft flight simulator in an combat game. That is why so many people looking for large scale battles have left. You can't fix the way people fly and play the game, but you can fix their perimeters of where they can fly which would bring back the action and create a better combat environment rather than a stale map with players scattered all over and really no reason to roll for one 25k B17 or 1 190D floating around.
-
Hmmm,.. So, if we stop people from taking bases, or as easily, it disturbs the map rotation. Changing one thing can lead to having to change other things to accommodate it. right now, we can't rely HT on changing anything. There would also be a crowd saying it's not realistic to harden bases more then reality, that's when it becomes arcade >IMO< Pretty much no matter what is changed in game play using coding COULD result in more leaving, we don't have the newbie base to allow that.
Lets not change things with code because other players are gaming the game to death,... game the ones doing it. Don't play by their rules. I gave a few suggestions in above replies. In fact last night I did attack the horde source in two different hordes, one it slowed them down, and the other it dragged the fight away and back to their own base, the horde was fractured. Of course some logged too.
-
Yup, that is why I created the title the way I did. I was just addressing Fugitives remarks. I'd love to see the player base get back to the action and not be so worried about hoarding undefended bases, but what I can do besides speak out about it?
I was thinking about switching to the bish to fight the massive hoard knights, but then they would have all thought I was a dick since I had already been moving CVs. I really wanted those damn point opportunities to beat Snailman in fighter rank on the last day but I decided to keep my dignity and not switch. I'm not really that interested in Jaboing bases and running thru ack, so I sat in the tower for a while until knights got their 45% to keep bish back and started to attack rooks which created a little fight so I was intrigued to roll. Unfortunately Rooks didn't put up the fight I was hoping really and wasn't able to find enough action while I had time to play to get the points. I was able to pull out a few good sorties but then the rooks went back to fight the bish.
-
I think we are the community of the un-pleaseable. Pretty much always have been. Those enthusiast who still have 2 more things that need to be tweaked to create euphoria, just 2 more,.... always 2 more. :) Not that they aren't needed, but always 2 more. :)
-
I think we are the community of the un-pleaseable. Pretty much always have been. Those enthusiast who still have 2 more things that need to be tweaked to create euphoria, just 2 more,.... always 2 more. :) Not that they aren't needed, but always 2 more. :)
.... and in 2 weeks. :aok
-
.... and in 2 weeks. :aok
YES!, 2 tweaks in two weeks. LOL
-
Trains and trucks I can lol, those are my 2 things