Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ghi on July 30, 2013, 09:55:52 PM
-
There's no way to reset this huge maps with this settings; huge town, high reset %; , low #; boring gamming, nothing fun in MA;
I suggest change maps, if are not won every 48 hours; I love this game, but the gaming experience is the lowest ever , low # of players spread on huge maps with more bases than players stalled for weeks; you are kicking out and the old loyal clients.
-
This should be in the Wish List.
Coogan
-
TRINITY all in favor thumbs :aok
-
TRINITY all in favor thumbs :aok
LOL!!! that was the worst of the bunch when it came to trying to get it reset! Sure that will help :rolleyes:
-
170 players on this afternoon. Not a single furball on all three countries. Bish and Rooks were camping the spawn at the vBases. Knits were one giant blob of goo on the map taking back all the bases they previously lost. Flew for *4* sectors in the biggest enemy darbar I could find and found only three planes.
-
There should be a 4th AI country that just flies in and steals all the corn from everyone's soup. :noid
-
+1000 Having the same map for half a month is ridiculous.
-
Furball lake!!!!!!! :rock
-
ghi. . .whining . . .about not not being able to kill a town? :lol
Oh this can't be real life. Why don't you assemble your ridiculous P38 horde more often, without making the next target so predictable. 20% is better than Midwar war winning percentage, 33% would just make it insane but anything lower than 20 would make it waaay too easy for the bish.
:noid
**EDIT** : repeated something twice lol
-
Please remove this map from the rotation. There are never any good air combat on it. It is terrible.
-
Furball lake!!!!!!! :rock
^^ This, Furball lake FTW :rock
-
Exactly
Yesterday 180 players on line, but no fun, BORING
-
Please remove this map from the rotation. There are never any good air combat on it. It is terrible.
Guessing, its the beta2?
-
Air combat is not the priority
-
ghi. . .whining . . .about not not being able to kill a town? :lol
Oh this can't be real life. Why don't you assemble your ridiculous P38 horde more often, without making the next target so predictable. 20% is better than Midwar war winning percentage, 33% would just make it insane but anything lower than 20 would make it waaay too easy for the bish.
:noid
**EDIT** : repeated something twice lol
You should have edited your whole stupid response.
-
This should be in the Wish List.
Coogan
you are out of context
-
Exactly
Yesterday 180 players on line, but no fun, BORING
Logged on yesterday to find the same scenario. Logged off after 15 minutes.
-
Same here. No fun, no furballs. Maybe –and this is only a suggestion- its time for two countries in AH due too decrease in players number?
Bish and all the rest.
-
TRINITY all in favor thumbs :aok
:aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Same here. No fun, no furballs. Maybe –and this is only a suggestion- its time for two countries in AH due too decrease in players number?
Bish and all the rest.
Hitech said that would never happen. One or two new mid-size maps would sure be nice though.
-
This is one of my favorite maps...more realistic! Furballs aren't a very realistic WWII air combat fighting style :old:
I flew in a furball last night...15 or 20 planes all buzzing around in a small area at 2 thousand feet or less. Looked like a WWI dogfight, but they were using WWII planes :D
-
You should have edited your whole awesome response.
:aok
-
Furballs aren't a very realistic WWII air combat fighting style
Perhaps not but a lot of players enjoy the close quarters air combat.
-
Perhaps not but a lot of players enjoy the close quarters air combat.
I get that, but what I don't get is that it would seem the furballers could simply start one by agreeing to a spot on the map through Channel 200 to meet and fight, leaving the rest of the map for those who prefer to play differently. But instead, the furballers seem to want to force furballs through smaller maps. Furballs can become hard to avoid on small maps and possibly just as many players don't want to furball as those who do. On a large map you get a choice of playing styles, on a small map you have fewer choices. Could it be that since less players furball on large maps there are less players you actually want to furball?
-
This is not about furballs and furballing. Actually GHI as as far away from being a furballer as possible.
And wishing for more intense activity and more battles instead of spread out cons all over map doesn't make you a 'furballer'.
-
There are LOTS of different things to do in AH that don't involve picking and running.
-
And regarding the current map, Compello:
The reason why we seem to be stuck on this map for the largest part of this tour are the updates, which either did reset the rotation (skipping a lot of the maps that were due to show up). Or resetting the arena map timers as happened at the last host patch, when compello's timer was reset.
Without that reset, we would not be on that map anymore.
-
:aok
TRINITY all in favor thumbs :aok
-
I'd be happy with a map maker program for AH that didn't crash every 10min on Win8.
-
I strongly disagree with the OP. I have always been able to find good fights on this map, so I'm not sure exactly what he's looking for. Perhaps we should have some sort of course in the TA to help educate people on how to find fights?
Off topic, I agree that we should bring back Trinity, but with the TT changed to have a VBase in the center, whose blinking would indicate to others that someone is in there.
MH
-
LOL!!! that was the worst of the bunch when it came to trying to get it reset! Sure that will help :rolleyes:
Agreed i remember spending 2 or 3 months in that map "trinity" it was really bad,
that said maps time out after a week bring it back.
-
If the 7 day auto change was interfered with, maybe a manual map change might be in order?
Wiley.
-
It's funny to see guys complaining about a map hanging around in the forums and then see the same guys type "I don't take fields, I just furball" on channel 200.
Furballing is "map independent".
If you want a new map, earn it by beating the enemy into submission like they did in real life.
-
It's funny to see guys complaining about a map hanging around in the forums and then see the same guys type "I don't take fields, I just furball" on channel 200.
Furballing is "map independent".
If you want a new map, earn it by beating the enemy into submission like they did in real life.
So...fly in a horde or sit in the tower is what you're saying. K.
-
Some new maps would be nice. How long has it been since the last one was released? HTC is on the ball with a lot of things. Unfortunately, maps ain't one of them.
-
How long has it been since the last one was released?
Eight months.
-
:aok
:cheers:
:rofl
:aok
-
A fight with two enemy is illogical.
Ask Germans.
They have the experience about it :bolt:
-
So...fly in a horde or sit in the tower is what you're saying. K.
I take plenty of fields with a select few and have never flown in a horde.
My point is that that map should have zero effect on the furballers who can't be bothered to take any fields because a furball can exist anywhere on any map.
-
Agree, quicker rotation smaller maps and closer fields
-
TRINITY all in favor thumbs :aok
No. The fact you even threw it into the pot after the issues/complaints brought up by the OP in this thread demostrates your cluelessness in regards to Trinity and it's stagnation, uneveness, and multiple violations of the MA-map guidelines and standards held to all maps.
LOL!!! that was the worst of the bunch when it came to trying to get it reset! Sure that will help :rolleyes:
Yup. :rolleyes:
Some new maps would be nice. How long has it been since the last one was released? HTC is on the ball with a lot of things. Unfortunately, maps ain't one of them.
And the only guy to of been able to produce a MA map in years for the community, HiTech/Pyro keep stealing recently to help skin new content. How are we gonna get another new MA map from Greebo like this!? :devil :bolt:
-
Wonder why the AH map team for the Scenarios doesn't make new MA maps.
Seems it should be faster for them since they spend so much time with the process. Even the AvA map makers. Otherwise for the neophyte just coming to the process, it reads like a nightmare in the terrain forum. Maybe HTC intended it that way with the extreme complexity and confusion of the map making application and process. Or if the application were simplified enough for the average person to build good maps, the amount of additional development would require charging real industry pricing for the application.
-
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
+1
-
Terrain Maker crashes for me, so I gave up.
:rolleyes:
-
Terrain Maker crashes for me, so I gave up.
:rolleyes:
I started one a few years back.
I had planned a meshing the pacific with that of Germany.
It is a very tedious a time consuming process.
What usually ends up is my ADHD mind goes break time!
And I end up in the MA for 5 hours :bhead
-
Wonder why the AH map team for the Scenarios doesn't make new MA maps.
Seems it should be faster for them since they spend so much time with the process. Even the AvA map makers. Otherwise for the neophyte just coming to the process, it reads like a nightmare in the terrain forum. Maybe HTC intended it that way with the extreme complexity and confusion of the map making application and process. Or if the application were simplified enough for the average person to build good maps, the amount of additional development would require charging real industry pricing for the application.
I think it is due to a lot more criteria to the MA maps than a scenario/AvA maps
-
I take plenty of fields with a select few and have never flown in a horde.
My point is that that map should have zero effect on the furballers who can't be bothered to take any fields because a furball can exist anywhere on any map.
Not really. Huge maps with a limited player base means the action is spread across to much area resulting in far fewer large furballs.
Back when we had 500 players on a big map it really didnt matter. Now? OK your on a huge map with 200 players on it. Or say even 300. Well 1/2 are going to be in GVs and 30% are going to be in the wind. So now you have 40 or 50 players actively flying on each side over a map with many dozens of bases to each chess piece spread over large areas. I'd often think the HQ was down when in fact it wasnt just because there were so few dots and Dars. Furballing is a spontaneous event that feeds on itself.
Fewer fliers spread over large areas = boredom = players logging off = fewer furballs.
-
you know the map is too big when there are more bases on it than players.
-
Agree. Last night was pretty dead.
Map problem as I see it is some maps are o for to short a time while others are on for too long a time.
Solution.
24 hour minimum
48 hour maximum
That way everyone gets a chance to play on their favorite maps and yet no map is up so long that people start to hate playing on it
-
No. The fact you even threw it into the pot after the issues/complaints brought up by the OP in this thread demostrates your cluelessness in regards to Trinity and it's stagnation, uneveness, and multiple violations of the MA-map guidelines and standards held to all maps.
Yup. :rolleyes:
And the only guy to of been able to produce a MA map in years for the community, HiTech/Pyro keep stealing recently to help skin new content. How are we gonna get another new MA map from Greebo like this!? :devil :bolt:
wow another person that thinks he known all things regarding what people want and dont want :rolleyes:
-
wow another person that thinks he known all things regarding what people want and dont want :rolleyes:
Aren't you doing the same when you just claimed in wishlist that more players want Trinity back than not?
For all people that didnt like trinity there's more of us that do.
:P
-
wow another person that thinks he known all things regarding what people want and dont want :rolleyes:
Ummm... so, by your tone, you do? :lol :rofl
If you're mad now/before, wait until this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176625.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,209609.0.html
I know nothing, and those lists/guidelines are quite extensive and created by someone who clearly knew what they were talking about, but you getting mad at me repeating what HiTech Creations has mandated...
:rofl :rofl :lol :lol :aok :ahand
I'll repeat it 500 times, Trinity as we used to know and love it, was the biggest insult ala the guidelines and standards set by HTCs for map creators to adhere to for MA map submissions. A bar set very high, and Trinity was well below it, yet somehow it made it to the contenders table.
It's this similar ignorance you and others have that keeps that selective memory strong enough to keep comming to this forum like a 2-yo wishing for his bottle back. You're too old, it's broken, get back to bed and over it.
Sorry if you don't like my attitude, you and others on that Trinity bandwagon before and after its removal are just ignorant of your insult to the hard working and dedicated map creators who strive to have their creations meet those guidelines and make it into the map rotation. Go read up on it, think about it, and then stop asking for a piece of turd into the MA-map-rotation-sandwitch.
There were some things I liked about Trinity too, but those things I liked were bugged or not evenly represented across all three front lines (only two countries would get lucky, the third was SOL), per the guidelines. There was a lot I didn't like about Trinity too, but those (surprise) too were terrain bugs, unevenly distributed resources, or features that were a deterant to promoting action across the fronts - all deliberatley spelled out and to be avoided in the MA map guidelines.
-
Ummm... so, by your tone, you do? :lol :rofl
If you're mad now/before, wait until this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176625.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,209609.0.html
I know nothing, and those lists/guidelines are quite extensive and created by someone who clearly knew what they were talking about, but you getting mad at me repeating what HiTech Creations has mandated...
:rofl :rofl :lol :lol :aok :ahand
I'll repeat it 500 times, Trinity as we used to know and love it, was the biggest insult ala the guidelines and standards set by HTCs for map creators to adhere to for MA map submissions. A bar set very high, and Trinity was well below it, yet somehow it made it to the contenders table.
It's this similar ignorance you and others have that keeps that selective memory strong enough to keep comming to this forum like a 2-yo wishing for his bottle back. You're too old, it's broken, get back to bed and over it.
Sorry if you don't like my attitude, you and others on that Trinity bandwagon before and after its removal are just ignorant of your insult to the hard working and dedicated map creators who strive to have their creations meet those guidelines and make it into the map rotation. Go read up on it, think about it, and then stop asking for a piece of turd into the MA-map-rotation-sandwitch.
There were some things I liked about Trinity too, but those things I liked were bugged or not evenly represented across all three front lines (only two countries would get lucky, the third was SOL), per the guidelines. There was a lot I didn't like about Trinity too, but those (surprise) too were terrain bugs, unevenly distributed resources, or features that were a deterant to promoting action across the fronts - all deliberatley spelled out and to be avoided in the MA map guidelines.
Well for all the "bugs" it might have bring it back till you make a new one.
to me it didnt matter what side you were on always found a good fights
as long as it timed out aft a week.
-
ghi. . .whining . . .about not not being able to kill a town? :lol
Oh this can't be real life. Why don't you assemble your ridiculous P38 horde more often, without making the next target so predictable. 20% is better than Midwar war winning percentage, 33% would just make it insane but anything lower than 20 would make it waaay too easy for the bish.
:noid
**EDIT** : repeated something twice lol
Try an edit so that it might make sense. What the heck do those numbers even mean?
-
What the heck do those numbers even mean?
The numbers are the percentage of bases required to win the war.
-
Wonder why the AH map team for the Scenarios doesn't make new MA maps.
Making any map has a certain amount of creative stuff and repetitive boring stuff to do. Both types of map let you set up the coastlines, elevations and field placements which is interesting while you are working it out but a bit tedious to actually do. With an AvA or special events map the creator can also play around with lots of interesting stuff like changing terrain textures, adding objects or new field layouts and altering clutter and end up with something that looks completely different to anyone else's work.
However the creative side is very limited on an MA map, you can alter a few textures if they aren't too big but that's about it. Also there is way more boring repetitive stuff to do on an MA map. There up to 255 fields and towns to place by hand, plus the strat cities. Then there are hundreds of spawn points to position. Then there are roads to route for every field, unless you like them running straight up cliffs etc. Once you are done you spend ages bug testing it and end up with a terrain that doesn't look or play a lot different to any other MA terrain. So basically making an MA terrain involves way more grind and a lot less artistic payoff at the end.
-
So basically making an MA terrain involves way more grind and a lot less artistic payoff at the end.
But that's what video game programmers are PAID to do. Oh, wait...
-
Making any map has a certain amount of creative stuff and repetitive boring stuff to do. Both types of map let you set up the coastlines, elevations and field placements which is interesting while you are working it out but a bit tedious to actually do. With an AvA or special events map the creator can also play around with lots of interesting stuff like changing terrain textures, adding objects or new field layouts and altering clutter and end up with something that looks completely different to anyone else's work.
However the creative side is very limited on an MA map, you can alter a few textures if they aren't too big but that's about it. Also there is way more boring repetitive stuff to do on an MA map. There up to 255 fields and towns to place by hand, plus the strat cities. Then there are hundreds of spawn points to position. Then there are roads to route for every field, unless you like them running straight up cliffs etc. Once you are done you spend ages bug testing it and end up with a terrain that doesn't look or play a lot different to any other MA terrain. So basically making an MA terrain involves way more grind and a lot less artistic payoff at the end.
If a couple MA map submission requirements were changed/removed, could more fun/enjoyment be had creating maps? The requirements that make it so bland were ceated about a decade ago do seem a bit archaic today.
-
The problem is that all the interesting and creative stuff can add enormously to the terrain's size, which is something HTC likes to avoid for MA terrains. Also custom objects and fields can create bugs in a terrain that could cause a player's FE or the host itself to crash. HTC absolutely can't afford to have the MA crash so they are very conservative about what can be put into MA maps.
If HTC were to create and bug test some new stuff that could be put into MA terrains (new types of fields, strats, bridges etc.) that might spark some interest from map builders.
RPM, most AH maps are player-created on an unpaid voluntary basis.
-
Just out of curiosity Greebo, how many hours did you invest, start to finish? Perhaps HTC would be willing to reward x number of months free play for a map. Seems fair to me.
-
I spent four years on my MA map, but that was in periods of a few weeks every few months, in-between skinning planes. A lot of that time was spent figuring out the TE, correcting my mistakes and redesigning the map to suit strat and terrain changes to the game. So if I was motivated (which I am not) and gave up skinning stuff for the game I could probably make another one to that standard in a few months.
-
The problem is that all the interesting and creative stuff can add enormously to the terrain's size, which is something HTC likes to avoid for MA terrains. Also custom objects and fields can create bugs in a terrain that could cause a player's FE or the host itself to crash. HTC absolutely can't afford to have the MA crash so they are very conservative about what can be put into MA maps.
If HTC were to create and bug test some new stuff that could be put into MA terrains (new types of fields, strats, bridges etc.) that might spark some interest from map builders.
RPM, most AH maps are player-created on an unpaid voluntary basis.
Hmmm... well, 10yr+ old regulations, and typical AH user now can download more than 10mb an hour....
How much of an impact in size are we talking, within reason (a couple/few custom textures/objects that is then stamped/copied many times over the map)? 10/20/50/100/200/500MBs?
-
TRINITY all in favor thumbs :aok
Yup, bring it back! Especially if we have an automatic reset as suggested.
-
There are LOTS of different things to do in AH that don't involve picking and running.
whaaaat? :O
-
Eh Greebo, let me know what you think of my updates to avachanl running in the AvA for the next two weeks. /endshamelessplug
Hmmm... well, 10yr+ old regulations, and typical AH user now can download more than 10mb an hour....
How much of an impact in size are we talking, within reason (a couple/few custom textures/objects that is then stamped/copied many times over the map)? 10/20/50/100/200/500MBs?
Taking your post as a request for information: At the default texture size of 512x512 pixels, a full set of LAND textures would add 12 textures x 257 KB = 3 MB, and double that for water textures. The good news is that it would be unnecessary over kill. A better answer is to select a few key textures like beach, grass, two farmland and possibly the two forest textures, and then create 'high res' 1024x1024 textures at 1MB each. That's 6 textures x 1 MB = 6 MB in additional size. Oops! Okay, you probably won't get a way with adding 6 MB to your MA terrain size.
For insight why you'd want to increase the texture size; each ground texture covers 4 square miles and a single pixel covers 20.6 feet. Using a 1024 texture covers only 10 feet of ground per pixel, and that works much better for drawing things like trees and clumps of bushes. The terrain can look pretty spectacular with that size texture.
Custom objects are a different story. If you can use existing textures to cover the surfaces, then their size is negligible. My arched stone bridge adds 20KB, then it's used repeatedly without adding more to the terrain size.
Custom objects are not allowed in MA terrains because of quality concerns. Concerns like missing texture mapping making them see-through from one side. Or surfaces that drop through the terrain, which can also cause a player to drop through the terrain.
-
RPM, most AH maps are player-created on an unpaid voluntary basis.
I guess I should have used [sarcasm]But that's what video game programmers are PAID to do. Oh, wait... [/sarcasm] to make that clearer. ;)
-
Making any map has a certain amount of creative stuff and repetitive boring stuff to do. Both types of map let you set up the coastlines, elevations and field placements which is interesting while you are working it out but a bit tedious to actually do. With an AvA or special events map the creator can also play around with lots of interesting stuff like changing terrain textures, adding objects or new field layouts and altering clutter and end up with something that looks completely different to anyone else's work.
However the creative side is very limited on an MA map, you can alter a few textures if they aren't too big but that's about it. Also there is way more boring repetitive stuff to do on an MA map. There up to 255 fields and towns to place by hand, plus the strat cities. Then there are hundreds of spawn points to position. Then there are roads to route for every field, unless you like them running straight up cliffs etc. Once you are done you spend ages bug testing it and end up with a terrain that doesn't look or play a lot different to any other MA terrain. So basically making an MA terrain involves way more grind and a lot less artistic payoff at the end.
6
this is why I stopped trying to make MA maps.....
also if the TE was more user friendly and the restrictions in vertice count on the terrain itself were upped....it would be much better for map makers.
-
Making a new small good map won't help, because with this reset settings we'll see it for few hours/month. They have plenty of small fun maps for low and high # of players,like Mindanao,Baltic,.....; but are getting reset in hours and MA is dominated in time by boring large inactive maps: if the reset % for large maps would be reduced to 12-15% and for small maps increased to 25-30% , both small and large maps would get reset in about same time.
-
Eh, I don't know how to feel about this. Ndisle and FesterMA are the two maps I love the most. Plenty of action due to the high usage of CVs, lots of NOE missions since it's mostly water which in turn leads to either a furball (yay) or a quick 5 minute flight consisting of rape the noobs (yay-er). Even better is a tank town with airbases, which means a constant source of action. I would hate to see the either map change because of a time limit since they are quite big, but then again, I would love to see maps like the last one (at the end of the last tour) go away forever.
-
GHI can't "win ze war!" So he seems to feel the need to come here and whine about it.
If you can't find a fight, do what I do, gather up a few squadies and go harass a base for a while. They will eventually up to shoot you down and if you do it right you can end up with a good firball.
I personally like the larger maps because the bish are easier to stop when those idiotic P-38 missions start rolling. When you want a fight, you can find one or even start one. If you don't want to fight, there are plenty of places for you to go where you can avoid the fight for some easy perk farming.
So as to the OP, no.
-
Trick is to have a faster plane than a hog or 38.
J0ker will fight(or pick with style)
TKO will fight. But you need to seclude them from the group
As for the rest of them idk. Haven't seen hoagi, and a few others in a while.
Hoagi, bush and
cane I always run into :bhead
-
GHI can't "win ze war!" So he seems to feel the need to come here and whine about it.
If you can't find a fight, do what I do, gather up a few squadies and go harass a base for a while. They will eventually up to shoot you down and if you do it right you can end up with a good firball.
I personally like the larger maps because the bish are easier to stop when those idiotic P-38 missions start rolling. When you want a fight, you can find one or even start one. If you don't want to fight, there are plenty of places for you to go where you can avoid the fight for some easy perk farming.
So as to the OP, no.
Nobody could win the war. Personally I don't care for the, to borrow a few phrases from you, "idiotic" "whine" you "felt the need" to post. Get back to me when you've been playing AH as long a ghi. You may have a new perspective by then.
-
Nobody could win the war. Personally I don't care for the, to borrow a few phrases from you, "idiotic" "whine" you "felt the need" to post. Get back to me when you've been playing AH as long a ghi. You may have a new perspective by then.
:aok
Small maps need 30-35% requirement, and large maps need 12-15% requirement to balance out up time in the MA, otherwise large maps completely dominate the rotation.
-
Ummm... so, by your tone, you do? :lol :rofl
If you're mad now/before, wait until this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176625.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,209609.0.html
I know nothing, and those lists/guidelines are quite extensive and created by someone who clearly knew what they were talking about, but you getting mad at me repeating what HiTech Creations has mandated...
:rofl :rofl :lol :lol :aok :ahand
I'll repeat it 500 times, Trinity as we used to know and love it, was the biggest insult ala the guidelines and standards set by HTCs for map creators to adhere to for MA map submissions. A bar set very high, and Trinity was well below it, yet somehow it made it to the contenders table.
It's this similar ignorance you and others have that keeps that selective memory strong enough to keep comming to this forum like a 2-yo wishing for his bottle back. You're too old, it's broken, get back to bed and over it.
Sorry if you don't like my attitude, you and others on that Trinity bandwagon before and after its removal are just ignorant of your insult to the hard working and dedicated map creators who strive to have their creations meet those guidelines and make it into the map rotation. Go read up on it, think about it, and then stop asking for a piece of turd into the MA-map-rotation-sandwitch.
There were some things I liked about Trinity too, but those things I liked were bugged or not evenly represented across all three front lines (only two countries would get lucky, the third was SOL), per the guidelines. There was a lot I didn't like about Trinity too, but those (surprise) too were terrain bugs, unevenly distributed resources, or features that were a deterant to promoting action across the fronts - all deliberatley spelled out and to be avoided in the MA map guidelines.
I call BS.
Where exactly were all these major MA terrain violations on Trinity? Second were they also major terrain violations when it was created/introduced? Finally, if there were all these violations why did HT adapt it over many others to update for MA use again? There are still a LOT of big maps that have never been updated and put back into use. So why this faulty (IYO) map?
To set the record straight I always liked Trinity. One man's pleasure is another man's pain. I also know and respect the person who made the map; an in-game adversary and friend. Where's yours? Ahhh... that's right.
I get not liking a map (NDIsles for me). Someone mentioned a 24/48 min max map rule further up... good idea.
Then bring back all the maps from the beginning. Rules violations! You haven't seen anything. What a pup. Maybe you're the ignorant one.
-
Oh the old maps :old:
-
Making a new small good map won't help, because with this reset settings we'll see it for few hours/month. They have plenty of small fun maps for low and high # of players,like Mindanao,Baltic,.....; but are getting reset in hours and MA is dominated in time by boring large inactive maps: if the reset % for large maps would be reduced to 12-15% and for small maps increased to 25-30% , both small and large maps would get reset in about same time.
That is the catch.
Good maps are small and get reset quickly. Bad maps are huge, boring and last for days - the result is most of the time we will have a bad boring map in the MA.
The simplest solution that does not include removing maps from the rotation is to repeat maps in the rotation. A map with 100 bases should appear twice as often as a map with 200 bases.
Example:
if we had 4 maps Small1, Small2, Big1, Big2, then a rotation could look like:
Small1 - Small2 - Big1 - Small1 - Small2 - Big2
My own preference is also to remove some huge maps from the rotation altogether, like this "Compello" map or some similar name. It is the most boring map for air war in the rotation.
-
I call BS.
Where exactly were all these major MA terrain violations on Trinity? Second were they also major terrain violations when it was created/introduced? Finally, if there were all these violations why did HT adapt it over many others to update for MA use again? There are still a LOT of big maps that have never been updated and put back into use. So why this faulty (IYO) map?
To set the record straight I always liked Trinity. One man's pleasure is another man's pain. I also know and respect the person who made the map; an in-game adversary and friend. Where's yours? Ahhh... that's right.
I get not liking a map (NDIsles for me). Someone mentioned a 24/48 min max map rule further up... good idea.
Then bring back all the maps from the beginning. Rules violations! You haven't seen anything. What a pup. Maybe you're the ignorant one.
How old are you? Shut your foolish yap up. Do you even remember the posts on this forum 2-months prior to Trinity's removal?... in comparison, the voices asking for it back are litteraly a pathetic wimper.
I've said it many times, I'm getting really sick of you children attacking me for a year now, like Trinity being taken down is my fault. Sorry if I'm the only adult here wasting his time with the children trying to explain grown-up concepts. All you need a timeout, sit down or fix Trinity, otherwise I don't want to hear it (and I honestly don't know who does).
Again, there were a couple things I liked about trinity, doesn't mean it had no place in the MAs.
Personally I hope it burns now, and I hope you do know the creator so you can assure us he got rehab and therapy shortly after its release. All I've seen from its diehard supporters have been personal attacks against me (for some laughable reason) or kneejerk "yeah Trinity" responces from that guy who hasn't read any of the other threads made on this subject in the last year (+).
Why?
I thought it was definetley not good; not enough CVs, bugy and gamey vehicle spawns, 10k canyons and 20k mountains to encourage plenty of spontaneous action across the fronts, a neglected ignored and overlooked tank town and assets in the center middle, overlapping towns on bases, absence of shore batteries for costal defense of bases, wide spread of air bases...
Why? You makes no sence.
The (large) map is roughly 33% water, yet each side only gets 4 CVs, 2 for each front and with starting postitions (at closest) 8-setors away. The few and far sea battles are maybe only awesome because the 10k canyons and 20k mountains on the starting front lines are so conducive to plenty of spontaneous action on the fronts or lack tehre of? I assure you, it is not from it's generous supply of CVs for sea battles and engagements, although I agree with you that when they do finaly arrive the action is best to be had on the map.
Land battels are a joke on trinity. The towns overlap many bases, necesitating deacking and often flattening all hangars before base capture is possible. Many bases do not have dynamic vehicle spawns available, in that after defending they can go offencive. Of the few dynamic spawns, and especialy along the front lines, there are gamey and unrealistic spawns that for the most part shouldnt be in the MAs (they also only exist on two of the three fronts, and they are unbalanced - both valid reasons to not be in the MA.). If instant tank action is wanted, there are bases for it inthe DA. If gamey spawns so tank duels across a canyone and fron two mountains is desired - go make a custom terrain and host a private arena. The MAs are for MA gameplay.
Air battles... until you break through teh fronts along the 20k mountain ranges and 10k canyons, are few and far between compared to many other maps available in the rotation. The few choices at the onset funnels most air combat into specific and confined areas... a waste for such a large map, really limiting player's choices, and mostly causing a concentration that many (especialy this weekend!) voice much disdain over in the MAs. If you don't like feeling constrained and limited in what options you can make - don't look to Trinity.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176625.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,209609.0.html
Good old Lusche was getting curious again, and here are the results of that curiosity:
Where did we fly in tour 151, on which terrains did we spend out times on the most?
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/25031710.jpg)
Some terrains have been up twice in this extraordinary long tour. Here the detailed breakdown:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/e6a2007c.jpg)
And this is the approximate time at which the terrains had been reset (CDT)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/a7501bc6.jpg)
Now for the question which started this whole analysis: Which terrain is seeing the most GV combat? This chart shows the tank usage (kill+death) share of total usage by terrain:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/080d4fbf.jpg)
I was a bit surprised by seeing the notoriously GV-unfriendly Mindanao and Baltic still not that far away from the average. I would have expected much lower numbers.
And finally (on this topic): The use of Naval fighters - I was wondering how much naval fighters are getting used from land bases. We have two non-CV terrains in rotation, mesaview and beta2:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/66a415dd.jpg)
Number shown is the usage in % of all fighter usage.
So much for Part I. Part II will be coming shortly, taking a look at the stats of the Me 410 and Ju-87G :old:
I know you'll choke on your pride before I hear any apology. Goodbye, you are the first person I've ignored on this forum (making you or your opinion lower than even Midway to me).
-
Well for all the "bugs" it might have bring it back till you make a new one.
to me it didnt matter what side you were on always found a good fights
as long as it timed out aft a week.
Matt, please see Lusche's statistic from about a year ago that he posted (quoted in my previous post). It's not that it only broke multiple MA map requirements for submission. Nor was it a matter of "as long as it timed out after a week", we still wound up playing on that map over 1/3 of the time... 42% alone in one of its last months. ~42% of your gameplay a random-chance with getting access to one of the good Vbases/Vspawns on the map, 42% of your gameplay time climbing over 10-20k mountains lining the front lines, 42% of your gameplay on a map made 1/3 of water with only 4cvs.... repetitive to the degree of masochism.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/25031710.jpg)
Also, since I would guess 2/3s of players requesting Trinity back for that great GV action it provided...
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/080d4fbf.jpg)
-
The problem here is lack of maps. Can we agree that HTC needs to step it up in this area instead of relying on player support? Resting on your laurels is the downfall of gaming. Yes, new planes are cool and essential. But so are new maps.
-
The problem here is lack of maps. Can we agree that HTC needs to step it up in this area instead of relying on player support? Resting on your laurels is the downfall of gaming. Yes, new planes are cool and essential. But so are new maps.
+1000 ^^^^this^^^^
-
The problem here is lack of maps. Can we agree that HTC needs to step it up in this area instead of relying on player support? Resting on your laurels is the downfall of gaming. Yes, new planes are cool and essential. But so are new maps.
:aok :joystick: bring it back
-
I call BS.
Where exactly were all these major MA terrain violations on Trinity? Second were they also major terrain violations when it was created/introduced? Finally, if there were all these violations why did HT adapt it over many others to update for MA use again? There are still a LOT of big maps that have never been updated and put back into use. So why this faulty (IYO) map?
To set the record straight I always liked Trinity. One man's pleasure is another man's pain. I also know and respect the person who made the map; an in-game adversary and friend. Where's yours? Ahhh... that's right.
I get not liking a map (NDIsles for me). Someone mentioned a 24/48 min max map rule further up... good idea.
Then bring back all the maps from the beginning. Rules violations! You haven't seen anything. What a pup. Maybe you're the ignorant one.
I would like to know what all these "violations" were on that map as well. The only problem with Trinity is the unrealistic mountain ranges. Trinity was built back when people and squads still ran missions, NOT NOEs. Many a fight happened over those mountains. Buffs wallowing through the canyons with fighters duking it out high over head. Once a foot hold was started on the other side the race was on.
Game play has changed and so the map became a major complaint and so it was removed. There are 13 maps at the moment in the rotation. There are 4 that we had that are no longer in rotation. Trinity, FesterMA, AKDesert, and one that had a "Fight Town" in a crater/lake area in the center, I don't remember the name of it.
Trinity is no longer playable due to changes in game play that make it unpopular. With lower numbers and half of those fighting at either 135, or A1 there were very few planes in the air. (my opinion only)
FesterMA was being redone to the new standards of terrain. Fester said he had spent many hours repainting and molding the terrain to be a work of art. Due to having a issues with a number of people here on the boards he said he trashed it and quit.
AKDesert was lost. The original source files went missing by the original builder and so it could not be updated. SMpizza was a smaller "green" version (AKDesert had sand and stone textures) made to keep the memorys.
The fighter town map that was removed was always said to have been removed due to customer complaint....much like Trinity. Fighters furballed at FT and the land grabbers "didn't like all those "resources" being wasted", or so they said :devil so they would come in and take the bases there and kill the furballs. Much like they do to the Vbases on ndisles or the other maps that have the center "island" setups.
The problem here is lack of maps. Can we agree that HTC needs to step it up in this area instead of relying on player support? Resting on your laurels is the downfall of gaming. Yes, new planes are cool and essential. But so are new maps.
While it would be nice to see some new maps, the lack of them isn't really an issue. The problem is the game play on them. Ndisles was up last night and this use to be a fun map with lots of fights. You could count on the CVs to be taking one of two paths to their first and most likely ONLY target of the night :devil GVs run the middle island. 28, 9, and 8 are the hotspots to fight if not furballing over TT.
Last night however the few fighters over TT turned into "pick fests" as nobody can let a fight play out as the "kill" is more important than the fight these days. The Rook horde was in full swing poping base after base in a very predictable strait line, but the Bish couldn't be bothered to defend... as most team don't bother, as they were busy going after the Knights with their horde. They did finally respond when the Rook horde attacked 22 on the center island.
Personally I ran a B24 milk run all the way to the southern most Bish base (30?) and back north drawing only one guy up to fight and he got two of my formation with some awesome shooting <S> vSIXo. Over 10 sectors running THROUGH radar circles and only one guy came after me. It is now either be IN a horde or fly against one. Gone are the days or missions you can fight in.
+1000 ^^^^this^^^^
Greebo made the most recent map and he took a lot of crap for it. People complained about colors, lay outs any thing you could think of. Why would someone WANT to make a map after seeing what he went through. He said if he dropped everything else and was pumped to do another one it would still take months. Now if HTC dropped everything to make a new map we would get what 2, 3 a year? At which point people would be complaining about them with in a couple weeks and looking for new maps again because the same crappy style of play we have now would be on the new maps and so nothing would change. On top of that, to get those few "new maps" we wouldn't get any new planes or vehicles, nor would there be any updates to the art work of existing plane set. Thing of how THAT would go over.
-
So give incentives for players to make them then. Volunteer work only goes so far. It's silly relying on the players to make your own game fun.
-
So give incentives for players to make them then. Volunteer work only goes so far. It's silly relying on the players to make your own game fun.
It IS up to the players to make it fun. They don't have to build maps to do that either. Some of these "armchair" Generals could make things a blast if they really want to but more and more of them only want to be the "hero" for grabbing as many bases in a row as they can.
-
Eh Greebo, let me know what you think of my updates to avachanl running in the AvA for the next two weeks. /endshamelessplug
Very nice Easyscor. Looking at your white cliffs of Dover I though it would be nice if HTC could make something like those cliffs as an MA terrain-allowable object. Plus they could do gorges, sharp ridges, a detailed volcano rim and so on. These could be placed in an MA terrain by the map designer to break up the monotony of the terrain and add some visual interest.
I did once ask HTC what the maximium size an MA terrain could be, but I don't think I got a straight answer from them. IIRC it was something along the lines of judging it on a case by case basis.
-
Ndisles was up last night, and still had tons of fights, one large furball and a few smaller fights of about 2-3 vs 2-3. It was awesome being on a map where there was ample opportunity for fights with 140 people on at 2:30AM. A few of us half-heartedly tried to hit a base and got 5-6 nits to respond. If Compello had been up it would have been nothing but a ghosttown with that many people on. Small maps definately need a boost in the rotation. I had a blast last night and hope Ndisles is still up today for more fun.
-
People want to fly the same stale mission profiles over and over and compel HTC to change something instead of varying thier mission profiles to include earning a new map.
-
How old are you? Shut your foolish yap up. Do you even remember the posts on this forum 2-months prior to Trinity's removal?... in comparison, the voices asking for it back are litteraly a pathetic wimper.
I've said it many times, I'm getting really sick of you children attacking me for a year now, like Trinity being taken down is my fault. Sorry if I'm the only adult here wasting his time with the children trying to explain grown-up concepts. All you need a timeout, sit down or fix Trinity, otherwise I don't want to hear it (and I honestly don't know who does).
Again, there were a couple things I liked about trinity, doesn't mean it had no place in the MAs.
Personally I hope it burns now, and I hope you do know the creator so you can assure us he got rehab and therapy shortly after its release. All I've seen from its diehard supporters have been personal attacks against me (for some laughable reason) or kneejerk "yeah Trinity" responces from that guy who hasn't read any of the other threads made on this subject in the last year (+).
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176625.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,209609.0.html
I know you'll choke on your pride before I hear any apology. Goodbye, you are the first person I've ignored on this forum (making you or your opinion lower than even Midway to me).
Oh no! Ignore? Please please please don't ingore me. :rofl
I've read all the threads on Trinity. Put a timer on it. Simple enough.
What does my age matter?
I should appologize to you for you bashing my friend who's not here to defend himself? And then you do it again just before asking for an appology? What a tool.
You want to spew this trash at the people who give back to the commmuinty and create things for the game you play? You hope those people's work burns and they have to get rehab? Again... where are your creations/contributions? Oh right... you don't have any. But speaking of being childish those concepts are about as childish as they come. Grow up.
So, to the matter at hand... where were all these violations? Oh right... there weren't any. It was simply an over dramatization.
-
People want to fly the same stale mission profiles over and over and compel HTC to change something instead of varying thier mission profiles to include earning a new map.
if that was true then they would not be asking for a change, would they? These kinds of posts are ridiculous. Are you saying that having a new map would bother you some how?
Last I checked I had a job and it is not creating maps. That should be the game developers job. You know, the one we pay? HT can say yes or no to requests as they see fit but what compels a player to blame or even attack the other customers for requesting new stuff makes me wonder.
-
Matt, please see Lusche's statistic from about a year ago that he posted (quoted in my previous post). It's not that it only broke multiple MA map requirements for submission. Nor was it a matter of "as long as it timed out after a week", we still wound up playing on that map over 1/3 of the time... 42% alone in one of its last months. ~42% of your gameplay a random-chance with getting access to one of the good Vbases/Vspawns on the map, 42% of your gameplay time climbing over 10-20k mountains lining the front lines, 42% of your gameplay on a map made 1/3 of water with only 4cvs.... repetitive to the degree of masochism.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/25031710.jpg)
Also, since I would guess 2/3s of players requesting Trinity back for that great GV action it provided...
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/tour%20151%20stats/080d4fbf.jpg)
I see your point but theres alot of mapS without mountains that to get repetive.
:salute
-
Greebo made the most recent map and he took a lot of crap for it. People complained about colors, lay outs any thing you could think of. Why would someone WANT to make a map after seeing what he went through. He said if he dropped everything else and was pumped to do another one it would still take months. Now if HTC dropped everything to make a new map we would get what 2, 3 a year? At which point people would be complaining about them with in a couple weeks and looking for new maps again because the same crappy style of play we have now would be on the new maps and so nothing would change. On top of that, to get those few "new maps" we wouldn't get any new planes or vehicles, nor would there be any updates to the art work of existing plane set. Thing of how THAT would go over.
I like Greebo's map, the best one in the line up. But if HT can have a team to update aircraft and the game in general, why not have some one to make maps, if the players have to make them why not somehow make it easier to do. Seems to me if HT staff would do it they would know the in's and out's right from wrong of making a map, less time to debug a player submitted map, yes-no?
-
Maps should fit every style of game play.
Very few in the rotation do.
-
There were some players who complained CraterMA's arena map colours were too bright and that was fair criticism. So i sent HTC a dulled down map and since they have applied it I've not heard anything more about it. Other than that I've had a lot more positive feedback than negative about CraterMA. I wasn't expecting universal approval but even if I had got it I still wouldn't be making another map.
The reason I don't intend to make another map is that there isn't much I could do differently than on my first one. I'd be using the same few base types, fleets, strats and a choice of two sets of terrain tiles. There's only so many ways you can lay out the fields and spawn points. If there was a bunch of new stuff that could be applied to MA terrains, (bridges, new bases, strats etc.) then it might give me and other map makers some incentive to make one.
-
if that was true then they would not be asking for a change, would they? These kinds of posts are ridiculous. Are you saying that having a new map would bother you some how?
Last I checked I had a job and it is not creating maps. That should be the game developers job. You know, the one we pay? HT can say yes or no to requests as they see fit but what compels a player to blame or even attack the other customers for requesting new stuff makes me wonder.
Some of us feel that the constant complaints by certain players about “stale” maps masks the real problem, which is a stereotyped and myopic style of game play on the part of these same players. In such a case, yes, “they would be asking for a change”, but without justification. It is always easier to blame a problem on outside factors, than on one’s own behavior.
Although there are always exceptions, I think that based on what I see posted here, most of the complainers ignore the original core of this game (derived from its predecessors back to Air Warrior), which is simulation of individual plane (and later vehicle) combat. Unfortunately, since it requires effort to improve one’s skill in such combat, and instant gratification is now the norm, many have joined hordes engaging in strategic sweeps of the map in order to “win the war”. I postulate that in such cases, the Base A, Base B, Base C, etc. sequence gets boring – hence the perceived “need” for new maps. This is the real problem.
Of course, if new maps (supporting all styles of game play) were “free”, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the resources needed to produce them are limited, the knowledge on how to do so to support all game play styles (including GVs) is mostly absent, and in any case many of us are more interested in new planes, GVs, etc. We have this preference perhaps because we are to some degree in touch with the “core” elements of game play referred to above.
MH
-
There were some players who complained CraterMA's arena map colours were too bright and that was fair criticism. <snip>
Actually, I liked that part of it. On my equipment, at least half of the maps are not colorful enough. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease... :frown:
MH
-
Is that your rat?
-
I think if HTC were able to lower some of the requirements for their maps I would be willing to make one and perhaps a few others would be able to as well.
Personally, I think we should have a lot more things to work with than what we do. You can only come up with so many variations with few parts before you start to duplicate. That is what we have here. No matter the map, it's the same thing, high alt mountains into canyons. Some with or without water. Big maps, small maps. etc etc. If we had more things to work with, we could have more variations of maps and different map styles to suit each style of player.
People want to fly the same stale mission profiles over and over and compel HTC to change something instead of varying thier mission profiles to include earning a new map.
While I agree with this, I don't as well. Here's why. You can capture a base by leveling the town with lancs, with p38s or even a 'fun' mission in spit 1s. However, you still need the town down, the town deacked, and troops to capture it. So if you go by the mentality of winning the war, you have to do the same (sometimes repetitive) things over and over again. The only thing that changes is the map, but the way of capturing bases and winning the war stays the same. I will submit another wish on this later, need time to think on it.
if that was true then they would not be asking for a change, would they? These kinds of posts are ridiculous. Are you saying that having a new map would bother you some how?
Last I checked I had a job and it is not creating maps. That should be the game developers job. You know, the one we pay? HT can say yes or no to requests as they see fit but what compels a player to blame or even attack the other customers for requesting new stuff makes me wonder.
No, he's saying that sometimes the player has to put forth initiative if they want something different. You can give one kid a stick and they would have a blast, give another kid a stick and they would ask "what am I supposed to do with this"? Some things a developer can't change, no matter what they do or how hard they try, it is sometimes up to the player to make the difference.
We are not asking you to create maps, we are asking those who want to create maps, to create maps. If a kid wants a sandwich and you make it for him, and they don't like it. Have them make their own sandwich! The fine employees of HTC are doing the job, that we pay them for. Everyone has their right to their own opinion, no need to flame someone else if their opinion is different than yours.
No intent to flame or degrade or insult in this post.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
I like Greebo's map, the best one in the line up. But if HT can have a team to update aircraft and the game in general, why not have some one to make maps, if the players have to make them why not somehow make it easier to do. Seems to me if HT staff would do it they would know the in's and out's right from wrong of making a map, less time to debug a player submitted map, yes-no?
I would love to be hired by HTC to do nothing but build maps. Of course Hitech has already said that if he hired someone to build maps he'd have a laundry list of other things he'd need done first, so it would be a while before they could get to maps.
I understand that the set pieces are limited for a Main arena map, but the way the base lay out should be pretty endless. Sure your going to repeat some things more often than not, but each map will have a spot or two that is just a bit special. Greebos map is the Tank town in the crater, Festers is CV battles and the line of V bases, Ndisles is it's tank town and so on. I think the things that would "make" new maps are these little things that crop up like V135 on Trinity.
-
Lol, nice back pedaling. He said they want to run the same missions and therefore they ask for new maps witch does not make any sense no matter how u try to twist it.
On the stupid sandwich example, look at it this way. An adult paid you for a sandwich in your sandwich shop. After many years of the same sandwich he is asking that maybe you can provide some other sandwich on the menu. Your response would be make your own?
As for the fine HT employees, I never said they are not. My argument is against players flaming and shooting down any request for anything new like maps or graphics.
How many more planes do we need? The models have been done for years right? A new map or graphics would not hurt anyone will they?
-
Lol, nice back pedaling. He said they want to run the same missions and therefore they ask for new maps witch does not make any sense no matter how u try to twist it.
On the stupid sandwich example, look at it this way. An adult paid you for a sandwich in your sandwich shop. After many years of the same sandwich he is asking that maybe you can provide some other sandwich on the menu. Your response would be make your own?
As for the fine HT employees, I never said they are not. My argument is against players flaming and shooting down any request for anything new like maps or graphics.
How many more planes do we need? The models have been done for years right? A new map or graphics would not hurt anyone will they?
"People want to fly the same stale mission profiles over and over and compel HTC to change something instead of varying thier mission profiles..." Is what Icepac said. Pretty much doing the same thing over and over again, then wondering why it gets old and boring. New maps aren't the answer in terms of changing the gameplay, unless you do it in a different way.
Which is where my.. example came into play. New maps were asked for, Greebo made one. It received heavy criticism, but the majority liked it overall. Point being, if you don't like how someone else did something, then YOU do it and see if it's any better.
"Last I checked I had a job and it is not creating maps. That should be the game developers job. You know, the one we pay?" Try not to insult people. Doesn't help you in the long run.
We need more planes yes. But HTC is limited on resources. So I understand if they only make a few planes instead of a new map, or add something different to the game that is needed. Sure there are many things that are needed and wanted in the game. I think of it as the job of the customer, the player.. to understand their position and do whatever we can to help.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
You are missing the point I think. If every one wrote their own AH because they did not like something there would one person in every arena. Further more, people don t have the time or the expertise to create a game like AH. That is why we pay some one that did it. This is nit a charity. It is a paid service. We can make requests and the service provider can say yes or no. I dont see were u or your friend come into the equation.
It is the equivalent me saying if u dont like reading the requests, then dont read them.
I pay for the sandwich so I dont have to make my own. Same sandwich for over 10 years.
-
Maybe the question is,,,,,,new maps or add different things to old map, like many have asked for, rail yards etc?
-
You are missing the point I think. If every one wrote their own AH because they did not like something there would one person in every arena. Further more, people don t have the time or the expertise to create a game like AH. That is why we pay some one that did it. This is nit a charity. It is a paid service. We can make requests and the service provider can say yes or no. I dont see were u or your friend come into the equation.
It is the equivalent me saying if u dont like reading the requests, then dont read them.
I pay for the sandwich so I dont have to make my own. Same sandwich for over 10 years.
Out of curiosity, what sandwich would you eat for 10 years? Personally, a BLT for me :cheers:
:salute
Maybe the question is,,,,,,new maps or add different things to old map, like many have asked for, rail yards etc?
I would personally like to see bridges be used and put into the terrain and used for tanks to get across. We have trains, just not in any place where people see them, because the only places they are located at, are at areas where you need to be 20k+ to live long enough to hit your target. Then those poor vessels at the ports, just sitting there, perhaps making them useful would have some benefit.
We have the puzzle pieces, just have to put them together. Personally, I would be happy if just ONE map had the above, as a 'tester'. If it goes OK with everyone, then go map by map and update it. If it doesn't go well, then officially say "This didn't work". And move on. So we don't get more duplicate wishes in the future.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
You are missing the point I think. If every one wrote their own AH because they did not like something there would one person in every arena. Further more, people don t have the time or the expertise to create a game like AH. That is why we pay some one that did it. This is nit a charity. It is a paid service. We can make requests and the service provider can say yes or no. I dont see were u or your friend come into the equation.
It is the equivalent me saying if u dont like reading the requests, then dont read them.
I pay for the sandwich so I dont have to make my own. Same sandwich for over 10 years.
I think your missing the point. If you go to Subway and get a ham and cheese, or go to any other sandwich shop and order a ham and cheese, it's STILL a ham and cheese.
Running the same old NOE, or horde mission on a new map is going to get you the very same thing, bored.
You are paying for what HTC provides, a server connecting you to many others in a virtual world where you can fight others with out really hurting any one.... well other than there feelings and we see a LOT of that! No where does it say they will ADD content, but they do. Should they add maps? not my call as I'm not party to their plans or business model.
I am very sure on the other hand that if the players do something other than the "same old thing" they WILL find more fun in this game, and it's not up to HTC to provide that.
-
All this talk of sandwiches and now you've made me hungry for a Subway and I can't get one cause its 11:30pm and they're closed :cry