Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Dica on August 05, 2004, 11:54:47 PM
-
oops, didn't realize I started a new thread. . .
I meant to reply to this one (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125863)
Just skimmed the thread, and found that I agree with those who think that something needs to be done to change the way AH is played. I don't play this game because it isn't any fun for me anymore. I sometimes logged on looking for a fight, but dar was porked and it was all about the hordes. So I logged off. Sometimes I logged on and my country was beating the snot out of another country. No good battles, just lopsided hording all the time.
After a while, I just give up and cancel my account again. Every so often I get the itch to come back and play some, but every time I get turned off by the lopsidedness. It seems like I remember other similar games in other times that had this problem handled somehow. I could be wrong, and even if I am right I don't know how to fix it. But I won't be playing anymore unless things become fun again. I think maybe one of the biggest equalizers would be always on RADAR. Im sure plenty would hate to see it, but as a fighter jock I would consider coming back to AH.
Mike Yurich
Acid (479th Raiders)
-
AACCIIDD!
:)
-
Sorry, I think thats a pretty silly advantage to stake your 'coming back' on.
Radar then and now could be knocked out... Oh well.
Enjoy your retirement.
-
Originally posted by KurtVW
Sorry, I think thats a pretty silly advantage to stake your 'coming back' on.
Just as silly an advantage as with the way, way out of proportion numbers situation now and dar constantly being porked?
-
Knocking out radar coverage for an entire country is gamey. In WWII no country (that had radar networks) lost all radars due to a single bombing run. Even the Germans had some operational radar stations in 1945.
I say that radars should be able to be destroyed locally at each field, but the "bomb HQ - blind the entire country" must go. It is very bad for game play too since it is always the underdog with low numbers that get their HQ bombed, so it just adds to the effect of lopsided numbers.
-
I must agree that killing HQ should not kill radar at every field. What I feel is if HQ is down and you took off from field 19, you would only be able to see field 19's radar and not any other fields. The only way to see all radar while HQ is down is to go to each and every one of your fields. Also I think the DarBar should never be disabled. If a field is under attact, more then likely you are going to get reports on about how many cons there are.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Knocking out radar coverage for an entire country is gamey. In WWII no country (that had radar networks) lost all radars due to a single bombing run. Even the Germans had some operational radar stations in 1945.
I say that radars should be able to be destroyed locally at each field, but the "bomb HQ - blind the entire country" must go. It is very bad for game play too since it is always the underdog with low numbers that get their HQ bombed, so it just adds to the effect of lopsided numbers.
Yep, I agree.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yep, I agree.
Me too, it's a little over the top,. >>>IMO
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I must agree that killing HQ should not kill radar at every field. What I feel is if HQ is down and you took off from field 19, you would only be able to see field 19's radar and not any other fields. The only way to see all radar while HQ is down is to go to each and every one of your fields. Also I think the DarBar should never be disabled. If a field is under attact, more then likely you are going to get reports on about how many cons there are.
This gets my vote.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111099&highlight=radar+idea
posted my idea for radar ages ago, unfortunately the image i made is no longer uploaded.
-
I'm IN
map wide dar should not be able to be disabled, but only on a local/field level, which makes a tactical strike worthwhile, but not overpowering.
-
but but but what about the ME163s:D
-
lol Hitech put 163's in game to defend hq. which made it real hard for bombers to go for hq sides only need 1 or 2 to stop raid. Try defending your hq. Bombed Nits dar on trinty 3 times 1 sortie. Even after first bombing not 1 guy came out to shoot bombers down. All i had to do was wait 23 mins start back in......
Now this "why should I have to defend hq can't I just go say no more killing hq on bbs".
and excuse of when side down to 3 fileds dar is always out. What do you need dar for if your down to 3 fields out numbered. ?your not going to plan mission, and You know enemy is at everyone of your bases. So I don't get this about dar?
-
Originally posted by rod367th
lol Hitech put 163's in game to defend hq. which made it real hard for bombers to go for hq sides only need 1 or 2 to stop raid. Try defending your hq. Bombed Nits dar on trinty 3 times 1 sortie. Even after first bombing not 1 guy came out to shoot bombers down. All i had to do was wait 23 mins start back in......
Now this "why should I have to defend hq can't I just go say no more killing hq on bbs".
and excuse of when side down to 3 fileds dar is always out. What do you need dar for if your down to 3 fields out numbered. ?your not going to plan mission, and You know enemy is at everyone of your bases. So I don't get this about dar?
BIIIIG YAAAAAAAWN
-
Originally posted by rod367th
and excuse of when side down to 3 fileds dar is always out. What do you need dar for if your down to 3 fields out numbered. ?your not going to plan mission, and You know enemy is at everyone of your bases. So I don't get this about dar?
I`m sure you wouldn`t . I wonder why.
It`s not just 3 fields anymore . Numbers are so imbalanced it stays porked on a regualr basis. It might help some if you would quit making it a point to go out of your way to pork Nit and Rook dar every time the wind changes. I think a lot of it is done in retaliation. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Dica
oops, didn't realize I started a new thread. . .
I meant to reply to this one (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125863)
Just skimmed the thread, and found that I agree with those who think that something needs to be done to change the way AH is played. I don't play this game because it isn't any fun for me anymore. I sometimes logged on looking for a fight, but dar was porked and it was all about the hordes. So I logged off. Sometimes I logged on and my country was beating the snot out of another country. No good battles, just lopsided hording all the time.
After a while, I just give up and cancel my account again. Every so often I get the itch to come back and play some, but every time I get turned off by the lopsidedness. It seems like I remember other similar games in other times that had this problem handled somehow. I could be wrong, and even if I am right I don't know how to fix it. But I won't be playing anymore unless things become fun again. I think maybe one of the biggest equalizers would be always on RADAR. Im sure plenty would hate to see it, but as a fighter jock I would consider coming back to AH.
Mike Yurich
Acid (479th Raiders)
Come back Acid, come back!
Just pretend it's like AW and C81 just got its tower bombed knocking out 'dar.
ack-ack
479th FG 'Riddle's Raiders'
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Knocking out radar coverage for an entire country is gamey. In WWII no country (that had radar networks) lost all radars due to a single bombing run. Even the Germans had some operational radar stations in 1945.
I say that radars should be able to be destroyed locally at each field, but the "bomb HQ - blind the entire country" must go. It is very bad for game play too since it is always the underdog with low numbers that get their HQ bombed, so it just adds to the effect of lopsided numbers.
Id say its more "Lamey" than "Gamey"
-
Now this "why should I have to defend hq can't I just go say no more killing hq on bbs".
Well rod, you are a dedicated HQ killer so I expected you to feel this way.
IMO 1 guy can screw up a whole countries fun. its a stupid way to handle the radar situation. But hey gamey lamey is the word.
pfft the mA is horse hockey...
-
Really its a part of the game, HQ killing. I know Rod loves doing it. Errr um killing HQ that is. :o
Best way to stop it from happening is to deffend the dam thing when you see a con inbound. If you need it that much to fly, then it's a good idea to deffend it.
Do I like it when our dar is knocked out? uhh, NO! Will I deffend our HQ? I'll normaly auger for the chance to ruin a players long flight to MY HQ.
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Now this "why should I have to defend hq can't I just go say no more killing hq on bbs".
Well rod, you are a dedicated HQ killer so I expected you to feel this way.
IMO 1 guy can screw up a whole countries fun. its a stupid way to handle the radar situation. But hey gamey lamey is the word.
pfft the mA is horse hockey...
so 1 guy can destory it and 1 guy can stop him right>?
-
The problem with this game is that there are too many players that enjoy ruining other players fun without even fighting them. HQ raiders, suicidedweebs, gangbangers ... and of course the game actually accomodates these people and even encourage them with the scoring system.
-
I agree - porking dar for an entire country is gamey. But I still think that a bomb run on a target deep behind enemy lines is a valid strategy. Perhaps a better way would be for local radars on each field to have a certain range and to be porkable, and for destruction of HQ to simply slow down radar rebuilds for that country.
-
The thing about killing HQ is that in real life it would not effect all fields the way it does in this game. All it would do is hurt the communication between the fields and the organization within that country. Many times I log on and HQ was already dead, I never had the chance to defend it, so why should I suffer because others did not want to defend it! The problem with loosing DarBar is you end up flying into a sector with 20-30 cons and your by your self, no fun at all. But killing HQ should account for something. So maybe, like someone said earlier, things should remain the same and just increase the amount of damage it takes to kill HQ. That way it takes several groups of bombers to kill it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Knocking out radar coverage for an entire country is gamey. In WWII no country (that had radar networks) lost all radars due to a single bombing run. Even the Germans had some operational radar stations in 1945.
I say that radars should be able to be destroyed locally at each field, but the "bomb HQ - blind the entire country" must go. It is very bad for game play too since it is always the underdog with low numbers that get their HQ bombed, so it just adds to the effect of lopsided numbers.
Agreed and I have suggested same thing many times. HQ= All Radar has always been a sore spot for me as one of the worst features of AH - it just doesn't make sense. But it ain't gonna happen, the person who's opinion counts loves it just the way it is.
-
I must agree w/ Dica/Acid, the current style of play addopted by the AH majority is boring at best.
The hordes are ridiculous, all 3 countries do it. Due to lopsided numbers, some countries do it more than others-
Seeing as how I just renewed, I have the leasure of having faith that SOMTHING will change the hordes ways BEFORE next billing cycle. Or this will be my last month as well.
Horde=Bored
Anton
:cool:
-
Zanth - I love your posts. ;)
-
Well destroying HQ does take out the C&C center, so I can see losing sector counters. The force strengths for the entire theater would be consolidated and tracked at HQ.
But like others have said, it doesnt make sence to take out local radar. The loss of ability to know what is going on at the other end of the map doesnt mean you wouldnt know whats going on in your back yard.
-
The only thing I know is radar coverage helps to ease the lopsided numbers. Knowing where the enemy planes are helps the outnumbered country respond better. To log on and find out radar was out just meant I would play a couple sorties. I would end up gangbanging or get gangbanged, then get bored and log off. And logging on to find radar AND counters were off just prompted me to log right back off again without even looking to see if my squad mates were on lol.
One might argue that I just have crappy SA; that I could fly around scouting first; or that I should ask for position reports on VOX. All three might be accurate, but no thank you I'll just go play something else that doesn't feel like a second job. I'm not knocking AH, I think its a great game for a certain niche croud. Unfortunately for me, I fall just outside of that niche. It *could* be a great game for a lot of folks, but IMO it places far too much emphasis on recreating an air war that happened 60 years ago as opposed to creating a cool air combat sim with planes from an air war that happened 60 years ago.
At some point realism starts detracting from the fun. I'm all about fun games, I could care less if they are realistic as long as I have a blast playing them. As for comments about me basing my subscriber status on silly things like game mechanics; I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. :)
Mike Yurich / Acid
479th Raiders
-
Dica
Flying without radar is a good thing once & a while. It forces you to treat every dot as a hostile till proven otherwise.
It vastly increases the pucker factor AND immersion.
It makes you THINK about where you are, where you are most likely to find the enemy.
Plus, Bases under attack STILL FLASH!
DUH, must be a bad guy there eh? So take off from one thats not flashing, go to one that is. How hard is that?
Its mostly mindset, accepting that your country is being beaten into submisison, yet finding the will to fight
for it anyway.
Yes its harder, good challenges always are.
-
Realistic? There's lots in this game that's not "realistic" to the way things were in WWII, or real life in general for that matter. If this game were truely realistic most of the players here wouldn't even be able to get their planes off the ground, much less bomb anything.
If taking out radar for the entire country bugs you, then consider that in WWII most areas, countries didn't even have radar. Be glad we even have it. Actually, the radar is HT's way of making the game more playable. In the real world, every single base would have people stationed at them, in the game we don't have enough people to do that, so we need a mechanism to keep track of what's happenening so we can at least respond and make the game playable. Otherwise, we'd lose fields left and right to raids we never had a clue was coming, or fields that we never even knew were being attacked.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Dica
So take off from one thats not flashing, go to one that is. How hard is that?
Damn hard when there is not one that is not flashing.
-
It's the fields that shouldn't have radar to be bombed and dar-bar that should be the only thing that disappears with HQ going down. The dot dar at fields should never go out.
That said, none of this matters. There is no game change shy of removing all of the players and then handpicking who to let back in that will solve the current problem. A thread like this gets started and everyone starts to get all warm and fuzzy about a "consesus" being reached and then the reality of the MA slaps them in the face like a dead fish.
People only do what they want in this game. There is absolutely zero reasons to do anything else. HQ needs defending? Only if someone wants to do it. One side needs more numbers? Only if people want to play/switch/whatever. There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage. There's no reason to defend. There's no reason to attack. There's no reason to complete a mission.
Here's one person that hopes TOD gives AH a sense of purpose again. It hasn't had that for a long time.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There is absolutely zero reasons to do anything else. HQ needs defending? Only if someone wants to do it. One side needs more numbers? Only if people want to play/switch/whatever. There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage. There's no reason to defend. There's no reason to attack. There's no reason to complete a mission.
Is there a reason for this? ;)
-
What about if HQ controlled the percentage chance for a dot to be showed on radar? That is, if HQ is up full then everything is as it is now. If radar is 100% down, then every dot has only a 50% chance of being painted (or being added to the dar bar). And then everything scales in between. This would more or less reflect the reduced efficiency of HQ being able to send reports out to the field due to being bombed out. You could also change the frequency of these updates with HQ damage. So maybe if HQ was 50 down the dots to be painted or not gets rechecked every 2 minutes as opposed to every minute at 75% up. Obviously once a dot is in icon range it gets painted.
This wouldn't completely blind a country if HQ was doinked, but it sure could lead to some unpleasant surprises when 10 icons suddenly turn out to be 20 - or if you scramble 10 planes to meet what you think is 10, but really is just the 5 dots being shown; and meanwhile the real strike is elsewhere and you're out of position. You'd have fog of war instead of pitch-black-night of war. Taking out HQ would yield a good tactical and operational edge, without being so sweeping that people log off for an hour.
Or maybe just have the rate of radar updates conrolled by HQ damage. Dunno ... lots of ways to do this.
The real problem with complete radar outage is that the MA is so horde-centric.
But the 109G10 is pretty good at getting up after anything below 15K if they're spotted soon enough - just gotta keep eyes open when you land and see the threat inbound. And you can always take 10 minutes out from furballing to resupply HQ if it goes down.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage. There's no reason to defend. There's no reason to attack. There's no reason to complete a mission.
Absolutely true. It has ALWAYS been true, right from Day One Beta.
In my own experience though, the reason I did that stuff was for the fun of it. As I've said before, I had more fun in the "early days" when everything about the gameplay was simplistic. Seems to me that as ever more "stuff" was added to the gameplay the fun quotient declined.
Oh, it was more complex, more detailed more realistic but...... less fun.
But that's probably just my personal problem.
-
Why not just try defending your HQ?
People keep talking 'real life', real life a lot of places didn't even have radar of any kind. Gamey is people flying off map to get to HQ, if there was no off map flying then that would make it easier to intercept. Just make it 5 mins off map you die.
Of course this is yet another whine by the furballers who want as much as possible to make their life easier, just like the 75% fuel thing, no night etc. Next we will have dayglo pink skins so we show up better.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Of course this is yet another whine by the furballers who want as much as possible to make their life easier, just like the 75% fuel thing, no night etc. Next we will have dayglo pink skins so we show up better.
:lol
Come to think of it, in the BoB film, there was a radar station at Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, a tiny little island about 16 miles across just off the south coast of England near Southampton. They relayed information to the guys in Stanmore, just north of London, who despatched the squadrons. In the film, the radar station gets knocked out very early on by Stukas. Stanmore then has to rely on the Royal Observer Corps - ie. there wasn't a radar station on each and every air base, so maybe HTC has it right in principle, but wrong for it to be deep behind that country's lines. It would have to be near the front line to do any good.
-
I think the problem with AH game play is that the strat system degrades a country's ability to defend. Thus a country with fewer numbers gets a double wammy when DAR and radar go down. Couple that with the base capture concept leads to gang attacks and land grabbing. While there needs to be an incentive to fight and a reward for victory, disabling a country's ability to play the game degrades players' fun. While this may not be an issue to the conquering country, it can stiffle the growth of AH... not good for anyone.
I propose a change in the incentive and reward system as follows:
* Do away with base capture, or limit it to only the forward bases. Instead, make it so the bases can be destroyed so they cannot be used for a period of time (a half hour). Perhaps have some neutral bases located at strategic locations that can be captured to mount an attack.
* Make the HQ invincible to assure a country will always have a good base to fly from. Distribute the strat system among various targets located deep within enemy territory, plane factories, fuel and ammo depots, refineries, steel mills, ball bearing factories, armories, etc. This will provide the buffs with many targets and require planning to gain access without being spotted (like destroying radar at bases between to create blind corridores).
* Reward a country with victory for destroying the assets of the opposition, rather than taking aqway the opponent's bases. For example, award points for strat damage and declare victory when a country accumulates a certain number of points. Of course, the points will be taken away as the strat damage they inflicted rebuilds or is resupplied, but the ability to rebuild and resupply is affacted by certain damage, promoting strategic planning.
Advantages:
* Players will still have the arena reset for a goal.
* Planning and teamwork will be rewarded.
* No matter how bad a country is damaged, players will still have bases to fly from and an area to operate in.
* More realistic and consistent variables for strategic planning (as is, the need for planning decreases as the enemy bases are reduced).
* A single person will be much less able to blind or cripple an entire country.
* A country will have the ability to defend and a chance to recover right up until the end.
* There may be a greater variety of game play, like bombing runs, interception of bombers, escorts, scouts, patroling, and even land grabbing to an extent.
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
* Do away with base capture, or limit it to only the forward bases.
Oh boy, here we go.
Base capture is what makes the game tick for most.
-
all depends on your definition of "realism." is realism having a clipboard with a digital display showing you where all the bad guys are right next to you in the plane? is realism a lone plane disabling troops and radar among other things at a large airfield? is realism having icons to identify who is good and who is bad? is realsim just appearing on the runway in a brand new plane again and again and again after dying? no taxiing? your engine starts up automatically. you have the ability to let the plane take off by itself. is that realism?
come on fellas the game is very far from realistic. if you dont like dar and they fix that whats next? what will you guys start complaining about now? first it was fuel. now you want dar. HTC tries very hard to please its patrons. but the game is how the game is. if you really cant deal with it, then leave. no one is hand-cuffing you to your computer with a gun to your head ordering you to play it (to the best of my knowledge). in fact you actually PAY for these services. you had two weeks to see if you liked it. you had two weeks to see how "realistic" the game play was. you chose to pay and you chose to take the game as it was.
i dont like radar either. i've always thought it was stupid. but its a smalll price to pay for the fun i have the rest of the time. and if the fun no longer out weighs the disgust, then this is definately not for you.
-
Gee grizzly that sounds like an awfully familiar system.
:)
-
Dunno if I'd go that far. Things work pretty well as it is. The loss of HQ/radar is just somewhat dramatic in its overall effect. And it's too easy to game this kind of attack on many maps.
If the .50 cal was a little more useful for taking out acks, barracks, etc. you might see more bomber folks down in the fight in A20's too - so they may feel more involved in the flow. But that's another issue entirely.
-
I agree with Jackal. AH without base capture would be as futile as Chess without Kings.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Absolutely true. It has ALWAYS been true, right from Day One Beta.
In my own experience though, the reason I did that stuff was for the fun of it. As I've said before, I had more fun in the "early days" when everything about the gameplay was simplistic. Seems to me that as ever more "stuff" was added to the gameplay the fun quotient declined.
Oh, it was more complex, more detailed more realistic but...... less fun.
But that's probably just my personal problem.
What was added/not added had nothing to do with it except for one area: The number of players went up.
I saw this behavior in the early days of AH too... it's just that there weren't enough people to matter. Blame it on additions to the game all you want... it has nothing to do with it. The numbers are higher and more people can play the EXACT SAME WAY THEY USED TO PLAY IN THE "OLD DAYS".
This behavior is not new. It's not something some group brought to the game. It's not something that was created. It's what happens when people are just left to mill around with no real sense of purpose. The larger the group, the more pronounced.
I know that doesn't fit with your excuses for why the game is what it is toad... but the only way to get what you're looking for is to only let certain people play the game. Letting anyone play how they want, when they want and do whatever they want will always result in this type of behavior... even moreso when there are the numbers to support the ganglike behavior.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I agree with Jackal. AH without base capture would be as futile as Chess without Kings.
rofl Why am I getting this dejavu feeling?
-
Originally posted by Dica
Gee grizzly that sounds like an awfully familiar system. :)
Yep, to a large extent. Let's just say the concept is proven.
-
And so we continue to disagree.
The game changed significantly.
An increase in player numbers was a change that wasn't a "design change" per se. HT didn't "design in" more players, he advertised for them and also AW crumped. That's not the type of change I'm talking about.
I'm speaking of deliberate design changes DID affect gameplay. That statement is no "excuse for why the game is what it is", it's a simple fact.
People do not "play the same old way". Many of the "old ways" are gone. Take pin-point bomb sights vs the calibrated bomb sight. One can no longer "bomb the same old way". Seen any difference in the way bombers are used since that design change?
But we already know we disagree. Probably always will.
-
People still miss the whole point.
1 guy does have to be able to kill HQ, get some fighters up and kill him 1st.
But of course this would mean the furballers would have to do something else, wouldn't it! You wanna keep dar get up and kill him - simple!!!!!
What should be stopped is the gamey off map flying to get to HQ.
Us Bish would lose dar a lot more than we do if people didn't get up to intercept cons.
Can't see how you can blame it on numbers, I think since AH1 the numbers have declined slightly.
We've already got a crazy fuel sitution, lets not make things totally ridiculous.
-
It's not a simple fact toad. It's an assumption. A gameplay change is made... and numbers are going up. You claim it's the gameplay change that made things "worse". I believe, quite firmly, you need a gang to have a "gangbang".
The game has not been ruined. You can still fly an airplane and shoot at the enemy. It's just that the enemy is more prone to try to avoid your guns than most people would like. It's no different than being an alt monkey or vulch... people just go for the advantage.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the game actually having a mission... a pre-defined objective... a purpose. That way, you and the "just let us be" guys can sit and pretend you're having a really fun time playing with yourselfs (kinda like the CT is now).
Hell.. the CT sees more numbers than the old days of AH. But you keep on insisting it's not the numbers... it's the game that makes it happen.
-
We're not talking about the same things Mini.
You started out saying
There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage. There's no reason to defend. There's no reason to attack.
I agreed; there isn't and there never was. UNLESS you find doing those things personally enjoyable.
Reread what I said. I never said gameplay changes made things "worse", whatever that is.
The short version is I had lots more fun when the gameplay was admittedly simplistic.
Remember in AW when all you had to do to "capture" a base was to exit on the enemy runway? Real simplistic, silly even. Led to some tremendous fun; still remember those days as a great time online. Numbers had nothing to do with it.
Same thing here. When the base capture was simple early on, I had fun participating. When it got more..... whatever....... I didn't. Numbers not a factor.
But thanks for telling me that when I think I'm having fun, I'm really not, I'm only pretending to have fun. I missed that! I'll study my fun more closely now.
-
This is something I've wanted for a long time. The "base capture" war is probably just a leftover from the simple times of multiplayer air war simulation. The focus on AF capture must go; it promotes the bad game play we now have. Instead the game should focus on "battlefield capture" where the maps are divided into sectors. Each sector has a battlefield where all the adjacent vehicle spawn points lead to, and with "victory locations" that needs to be captured.
The air war will in essence be over this battlefield, but we can also do airfield denial operations like we do now. They just don't become the prime mission, and take away planes that could be used to win the war over the battlefield. Once a country has captured all the victory locations on a battlefield, that sector, and all its airfields and VHs fall to the victor, and the battle moves on to the next sector battlefield.
This system would allow for a realistic purpose for vehicles, and a more realistic use of airpower in support of ground forces. Strategic targets in nearby sectors would also add a dimension to the game play that is mostly ignored now (except the HQ bombing). Each sector could have a "HQ" or rather a ground control station. That would be more realistic and practical. We really don't need a HQ since we have no organized command structure, and the ground controls were the ones in direct communication with the planes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Remember in AW when all you had to do to "capture" a base was to exit on the enemy runway? Real simplistic, silly even. Led to some tremendous fun; still remember those days as a great time online. Numbers had nothing to do with it.
When was that?
Musta been before my time
I remember when I first started AW The only base capture there was was of the 3 neutral feilds in the center. And even they required drunks
Then when in AWII it went to regular base capture of a countries bases you needed drunks.
-
MiniD,
We may have had disagreements in the past about other matters, but not AH gameplay. On the subject of AH gameplay, I would even go to say that your views are my views. (Not just saying this because it's Mr. Toad with whom you are disagreeing) So can I ask you a question about maps? My current point of view, which I have held for a year or two, is that large maps go some way to dissipate the hordes. As you know, there is a large slice of the subscribership which belongs to the "it's MY $14.95" squadron, and does not want to coordinate in organised team effort with base capture as the goal. I have always felt that on some of the large maps like Pizza, that horde of 50+ guys cannot agree upon where to take off and which enemy airfield to fly to. So they get spread out along the front line. On the small maps, the front "line" might consist of only one green base and one red one, so that "where do we fly from" decision is made for them.
Mr. Toad, as for HTC not designing in new players, I don't entirely agree. Hitech and Pyro wrote a game for which the fee payable by players was $2/hour. Funked was the first guy to record his observation that "$2/hour kept the tardz out". :lol The new regime is the $14.95 flat rate pricing plan. Clearly that is affordable to many more people, but for HTC to recover sufficient gameplay revenues, they have to take on all comers, and make the game attractive to the masses.
I was even a little surprised when they did away with the 800yd spray hizooka shots (at an upward angle of more than 40° by Cod :eek: ), and it has to be said that they did receive account cancellations, and whine posts along the lines of "AH is half the fun it used to be". Maybe they now feel that the player base is strong enough to lose a bunch of pain-in-the-neck whining dweebs in order to make the gunnery more realistic, but that price plan, and the reduction from $30/month to $14.95/month was sure as hell designed to attract the masses, without which AH could not survive.
-
Maybe it was early Warbirds then. It's been a while since I started playing these games; things kinda run together.
Beet, changing pricing isn't a gameplay design change.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet, changing pricing isn't a gameplay design change.
Let's not split hairs. With a $2/hour pricing plan and a hard core subscribership of players who spent ~3 hours a day online, the game could get by with maybe a few hundred players.
Those days are gone. Instead of the time when some guys would have bills the size of car payments, top whack is now $14.95, reduced from $30/month shortly after I joined. Whether it's a business model change or a gameplay design change is immaterial. Bottom line is that the company needs 5,000 subscribers to rake in $75,000/month - far more than in the old $2/hour days. For that, the game had to have mass appeal rather than being designed for a niche market. I've got my own views on how that was achieved. ;) But achieve it they did. :aok
-
That was early warbirds when you exited OTR to capture a field. A single p-38 could capture a large airfield. AH was never like that.
We're talking about the changes in AH toad... and you have to go back to warbirds to try to prove a point. We talk about what's wrong with the game and the hord mentality, and you go to the game feature card being the reason for this (yes... I did read what you said).
I've seen alot of whines from you, toad (and lazs too), that blamed gameplay for behavior... citing things like "1 bomber is too impacting" and such. It was worse in the old days... when 1 bomber could completely shut down 3 bases. But you seem to forget that. Selective then and now memory invalidates the glamorous memories when applied to the argument.
Field generals are not a new development. Strat players are not some brand new concept. Hordes are not something that just sprung up overnight. These have existed to some degree since 1995 (as far back as I go with on-line sims). The main thing that has changed the most dramatically is the numbers. 100 used to be a crowded arena in warbirds.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage. There's no reason to defend. There's no reason to attack. There's no reason to complete a mission.
Sure there is. The reason is... to have fun! This is and always will be the only reason for anything in this or any other game. If you have some ToD strat or whatever, you will still be playing to have fun.
-
As you like. But that isn't what I was talking about.
Are you going to call the shutdown of AW and the resultant huge influx of players a gameplay design change too? Maybe that was as important or more important than the pricing model?
*********
No, Mini.
YOU'RE talking about "what's wrong with the game and the hord mentality".
I'm talking about having fun in the game.
I had tons of fun in AW. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.
I had tons of fun in WB. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.
I had tons of fun in early versions of AH when gameplay was pretty simplistic.
Can you detect the common element there?
By your only numbers matter, I'd be led to think then that the CT would be my nirvana right? It has low numbers like AW, WB, and early AH. However, I find the CT boring. How could that be Mini?
I mean if "numbers" is the only factor in my having fun?
Also, don't confuse me with others. For example, I challenge you to find a post where I complained that "1 bomber is too impacting". I don't believe I ever did. My "thing" was logging on and finding no frontline bases with fuel greater than 25%. That stuff really started happening AFTER they added the complex bomb sight and pretty much neutered buffs as point target killers.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As you like. But that isn't what I was talking about.
Are you going to call the shutdown of AW and the resultant huge influx of players a gameplay design change too? Maybe that was as important or more important than the pricing model?
I know nothing about AW, but WB was forced to follow suit when AH started up as a flat rate game.
Mini is right - 100 was a crowded arena in WB. On its small maps, 30-60 was a good number, remembering that there were four sides - green, purple, red & gold. One night I couldn't sleep, so logged on to WB. It was US prime time, with 200 online. Far too crowded! I logged off immediately. The most fun I had in the early days was flying for Purple during the early hours - maybe 50 players on a weekday morning. I still remember many of the names - including some guy called -lazs- ;) But now in AH we have maps of a similar size but there are 500, 600 or more online.
Yep, it was simplistic - just shooting other planes, but I began to get bored. I'd learned all the chess piece moves, and needed a purpose. Shooting for the sake of it had run its course.
I know that capture the flag isn't much, but it's all we have for the time being, until TOD comes out some time in 2007.
But I take your point, and strat can be taken too far - as it was in WB 2.77 when nobody could understand it!
What was your ID in WB? Mine was scrmbl.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm talking about having fun in the game.
I had tons of fun in AW. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.
What were the numbers then?I had tons of fun in WB. Gameplay was pretty simplistic.
What were the numbers then?I had tons of fun in early versions of AH when gameplay was pretty simplistic.
What were the numbers then? And... I do detect the concession here toad... or did that word "pretty" accidently slip in there?Can you detect the common element there?
Yes I can, but I don't think it's the same one you believe it to be.
If you'll read my first post here, I cited the massive influx of players... it's you that is bringing the "gameplay changes" into the picture. The changes to the game are negligable to the comparitave number of players playing in one arena toad. Surely you must see this. And it's time to stop pretending that I can't.By your only numbers matter, I'd be led to think then that the CT would be my nirvana right? It has low numbers like AW, WB, and early AH. However, I find the CT boring. How could that be Mini?
Oh... I don't know... perhaps you're finding that doing the exact same thing for 9 years gets boring after a while? Maybe you're finding that after being in an arena with 500 other people, 30-50 just doesn't cut it anymore? Maybe you're finding that despite people just wanting to fight, engaging the same people over and over in the same manner just doesn't do it for you anymore? I dunno. but surely you have to admit that the strat is not the issue in the CT, where you still get bored... right?
One thing has shown itself to be true... no matter what strategy changes are made, the horde/gang-bang/alt-monkey/vulch/dweeb behavior continues. Yet you continue to cite the game changes as the root cause. Simplicity does not negate these things toad. Simplicity works with small numbers, especially with enthusiasts. It does not work with mobs. Hell... just think small company vs a corperation.
-
Beet, in WB I was Toed. PS moved from AW to WB kinda late and my 1st choice was out.
*******
We look at the same experience and draw differing conclusions.
You're convinced it's numbers. That's an opinion; there's no real supporting documentation for it.
I'm convinced it's overly complex and contrived gameplay. That's an opinion; there's no real supporting documentation for it.
Of course one HUGE difference is that you are telling me why I am not having as much fun as I did previously. OTOH, I am examing my personal experience and deciding why I don't have as much fun as I used to have. Since it only applies to me, I think I'll go with the guy that knows me best.
"Pretty" is not a concession. I could have used "very" or "extremely" just as easily.
BTW, I totally disagree on your assessment of my perspective on the CT as well. But there's no point in arguing it.
You view things through your own perspective. For example,
Personally, I'm looking forward to the game actually having a mission... a pre-defined objective... a purpose.
I can honestly say I don't seek that, never have. But if you get it in TOD, I'll be happy for you. It's something that none of the Main Arena games ever really had, not AW, WB or AH. I never missed it.
You know, for quite some time I read Beet's posts as he disparaged "Air Quake" and "Quakers" as if these were some form of low-life plague. I didn't really understand; oh, I knew Quake was some kind of FPS shooter game but I had never played it.
Not long ago, my son put Call of Duty on my computer. His didn't have enough HP to play it. I watched him play. I gave it a try. Hey... all of a sudden it was like the old days. Sit down to play at 10 PM and suddenly it's 2 AM and you feel like you've been playing 10 minutes. I remember when AW, WB and yes AH was like that for me. Sit down at the computer and the hours flashed by. Great mindless fun.
Then I find out that COD is a Quake derivative or something. Ah HA! This must be what Beet was talking about!
So, I guess at heart I'm really a Quaker. COD, the Quake-like game, delivers that fun and immersion that I play computer games to find. The clock races and that's a good thing; it means you're interested. AW, WB and AH used to be like that for me.
Now, if that makes me some lesser form of internet computer game player, so be it. Because in the "zoomed out" aspect of life, all of us intardnet computer games players are lesser forms to people with real lives. The idea that one form of game is somehow superior to another is laughable to me. I might even say play what you like, like what you play; that's why we have games.
-
An arena-based format is an almost impossible format to sustain. It gets harder and harder to do so as the number of players increases because (a) you have more people looking to exploit corner-cases in the system, (b) quantity start to become more important than quality, and (c) individuality gets harder to come by with so many names in the air.
On top of which, the longer you've played the more likely you've "been there, done that." It's hard to get back that original buzz from your first six months. And too easy to blame the "10,000 dweebs" for the downfall.
What we have in AH2 is a very good balance. Even if radar gets bombed, it just takes half a dozen people to stop furballing for 20 minutes to resupply it and it's usually right back up. The only issues I have with HQ bombing is that the effect is a bit more than one single person should be able to cause to maintain that balance.
I think it'd be way cool if the more damaged your HQ is the longer between radar screen updates. It better reflects the actual role of HQ and adds a nice "fog" to the whole arena. This would also allow the strat stuff to prolong the length of time radar needs to repair since it wouldn't be such a reason to log off. As radar degrades and stays degraded longer, you have enough info on screen to kind of know what's going on - but you end up relying more on vox when it comes to actual contact.
-
Whoa... I don't seek it for the MA either toad. I've said it wouldn't be possible... period. I'm looking forward to TOD (if it ever materializes).
I'm not sitting here pretending the MA used to be something else when gameplay was different. You are. The issues you complain about have always existed, whether you chose to remember them or not. Game features did not bring about this behavior (or at least... wasn't the driving force behind it). Yet, it's the first card you go to every single time.
As far as the whole "quaker" thing goes. It's not a label I've ever thrown on anyone. But I do believe you are starting to come to terms with something... at least in regards to where your priorities lie. If quake is what you truly want, surely you realize there are many better options than WW2 flight/combat sims.
And I'm all for people playing the games they want... can't say I've ever said otherwise. I just don't see what that has to do with you insisting that AH isn't the way you want because there's too many other things to do. Choice doesn't dictate behavior. Limitting it does.
-
"I'm not sitting here pretending the MA used to be something else when gameplay was different."
Neither am I.
I am stating that the MA used to be more fun for me when gameplay was different.
Now, you're entitled to your opinion of that, but on my side of the fence there is no pretense nor is there any doubt.
It's just the way it is for me.
I don't think you even know the issues that concern me. For example the bomber one you put forth doesn't apply. Never did. I think you make up arguments and attribute them to me and then voice your opinion.
Gameplay is the most important aspect of any game. It's how people decide if they want to play it or not. Gameplay defines the game.
Your only "card" is numbers, as if gameplay has no input whatsoever. Numbers are a factor in gameplay but they do not define the game. If that's you're only argument, there's nothing to argue about.
Yeah, COD simply reaffirmed my priorities. I want to have fun; I want to be so into the action that the hours slip by uncounted. That's nothing new, it's no "discovery", it's a reaffirmation.
See if I have to choose between a pin-point bomb sight and a restrictive calibrated sight for area bombing, I'll pick the FUN one. That's where my priorities lie; I play games to have fun.
Of course, now you'll tell me I didn't really have fun in AW, WB and AH. Because you just know, right?
;)
Ta-ta, or should I say toodle-pip.
-
Originally posted by Toad
"I'm not sitting here pretending the MA used to be something else when gameplay was different."
Neither am I.
I am stating that the MA used to be more fun for me when gameplay was different.
No toad. I'm not putting words in your mouth here. You blame gameplay changes for the game no longer being fun for you. You don't say it's a coincidence (like you're playing it off right now). You're convinced it's not boredome or numbers... but gameplay changes. Tell me... are you still playing TOD? or Quake?Now, you're entitled to your opinion of that, but on my side of the fence there is no pretense nor is there any doubt.
It's just the way it is for me.
There is a changing story toad. You have a basic conflict here... you are saying it's simply how you feel or what you observe, but it's everyone and everything else that changed to cause it. How are you blaming it on something that hasn't affected you? And how do you believe that there's such a specific cause? It's not fact based... it's purely feeling based.I don't think you even know the issues that concern me. For example the bomber one you put forth doesn't apply. Never did. I think you make up arguments and attribute them to me and then voice your opinion.
It gets lost in the chorus toad. There's a reason the (lazs) was thrown in with that statement. If you stand side by side with the choir, it's hard to distinguish a solo voice. So, no, I'm not familiar with the exact issues you have. But, just by reading your text in this thread, neither are you. Gameplay is the most important aspect of any game. It's how people decide if they want to play it or not. Gameplay defines the game.
Your only "card" is numbers, as if gameplay has no input whatsoever. Numbers are a factor in gameplay but they do not define the game. If that's you're only argument, there's nothing to argue about.
There is very little about AH that defines the game toad. Gameplay consists of doing one thing: loggin in and doing whatever you want. That is what we call an "arena". The people playing decide for themselves, the game does not decide for them. Game features offer more choices, the players decide what they want. The players are by far and away the driving force behind any current behavior in the MA. To the point that most other things are negligable.Yeah, COD simply reaffirmed my priorities. I want to have fun; I want to be so into the action that the hours slip by uncounted. That's nothing new, it's no "discovery", it's a reaffirmation.
Like I said before... are you still playing it? Do you think you'll still be playing it in 2012?See if I have to choose between a pin-point bomb sight and a restrictive calibrated sight for area bombing, I'll pick the FUN one. That's where my priorities lie; I play games to have fun.
Yeah... I know you play to have fun toad. The thing you fail to realize is your definition isn't exactly the same as everyone else's. You simply dismiss varying oppinions as "not as fun" choosing to use the term as some kind of holy grail instead. I understand. But... just to make it clear to everyone:
Things that ruin fun:
1) gameplay
Thangs that don't ruin fun:
1) hordes
2) monotony
3) boredome
4) lack of change
5) romantasizng the past
Of course, now you'll tell me I didn't really have fun in AW, WB and AH. Because you just know, right?
Tell you you didn't really have fun? Now where have I done that? Did I tell you the things you're *****ing about existed in the games you insist you had fun in? Yeppers. What else has changed toad? You insist it's not you. I think that's where you are very wrong.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Knocking out radar coverage for an entire country is gamey. In WWII no country (that had radar networks) lost all radars due to a single bombing run. Even the Germans had some operational radar stations in 1945.
I say that radars should be able to be destroyed locally at each field, but the "bomb HQ - blind the entire country" must go. It is very bad for game play too since it is always the underdog with low numbers that get their HQ bombed, so it just adds to the effect of lopsided numbers.
I agree.....spoke with HT about it once.....he didn't like the idea, not sure why though.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The problem with this game is that there are too many players that enjoy ruining other players fun without even fighting them. HQ raiders, suicidedweebs, gangbangers ... and of course the game actually accomodates these people and even encourage them with the scoring system.
What's going on here????
I'm in agreement with you not once, but twice.....sheesh!!!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
That was early warbirds when you exited OTR to capture a field. A single p-38 could capture a large airfield. AH was never like that.
We're talking about the changes in AH toad... and you have to go back to warbirds to try to prove a point. We talk about what's wrong with the game and the hord mentality, and you go to the game feature card being the reason for this (yes... I did read what you said).
I've seen alot of whines from you, toad (and lazs too), that blamed gameplay for behavior... citing things like "1 bomber is too impacting" and such. It was worse in the old days... when 1 bomber could completely shut down 3 bases. But you seem to forget that. Selective then and now memory invalidates the glamorous memories when applied to the argument.
Field generals are not a new development. Strat players are not some brand new concept. Hordes are not something that just sprung up overnight. These have existed to some degree since 1995 (as far back as I go with on-line sims). The main thing that has changed the most dramatically is the numbers. 100 used to be a crowded arena in warbirds.
Stop showin that little hard one you have for Toad....especially here in front of everyone.
Fact is, as AH was initially, it bred a completely different kind of fight and fun than does the current version....you're correct, the numbers have increased, but in that alone doth not lie the final nail in the gameplay coffin.
I agree with Toad....simple is good and complex, programmed and forced gameplay has brought about the likes of fuel porking, gangbanging and typical socialist gameplay....not too many individuals around anymore and when one does show up, out comes your mini to piss all over what they have to say.
Shame on ya.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is something I've wanted for a long time. The "base capture" war is probably just a leftover from the simple times of multiplayer air war simulation. The focus on AF capture must go; it promotes the bad game play we now have. Instead the game should focus on "battlefield capture" where the maps are divided into sectors. Each sector has a battlefield where all the adjacent vehicle spawn points lead to, and with "victory locations" that needs to be captured.
The air war will in essence be over this battlefield, but we can also do airfield denial operations like we do now. They just don't become the prime mission, and take away planes that could be used to win the war over the battlefield. Once a country has captured all the victory locations on a battlefield, that sector, and all its airfields and VHs fall to the victor, and the battle moves on to the next sector battlefield.
This system would allow for a realistic purpose for vehicles, and a more realistic use of airpower in support of ground forces. Strategic targets in nearby sectors would also add a dimension to the game play that is mostly ignored now (except the HQ bombing). Each sector could have a "HQ" or rather a ground control station. That would be more realistic and practical. We really don't need a HQ since we have no organized command structure, and the ground controls were the ones in direct communication with the planes.
I agree. I have been trying to think of a good strat system built around sectors captured by ground forces.
Frankly, I think a thread exploring better gameplay would make sense. However, HTC has their work cut out for them with AH2:TOD and it is likely a long time before a major revamp of the MA gameplay would be seen.
-
bs rude. Fuel porking... ok... but I do believe that's been somewhat reversed recently (75% max damage?). The rest just get's lumped in there.
The only thing that's changed is who's doing what and how it's impacted things.
This is funny coming from two 13th guys. I remember the 13th of the old days, and find it pretty damn hillarious to watch you guys reminice about them.
Alt monkey and gang-bang were two words used to describe your squad on a regular basis. I can't remember engaging less than 3 of you in the "glory days". Hell... I remember going 3:1 against TAS guys and finally hitting a radiator, just to watch all 3 of them run away. Yes... these were the glory days, when all you had to do was fight. No numbers advantages, no altitude advantages, no lamers running from fights.:rolleyes:
But you guys keep going to the "fun" card. It's your only defense against the cold harsh truth.
A little Q&A for both of you:
Q: What is it that you find fun that you are not allowed to do in AH?
A: Absolutely nothing. You can hop in a plane and shoot at anything you like.
Q: What change would you make to the game that would alter your playing style?
A: Absolutely nothing. You don't want to change what you're doing, but what everyone else is doing. Your sense of fun pivots around everyone else sharing the same philosophy.
Hell... let me hear that one about just having fun again. Or... maybe that one about everyone just ruining your fun.
Everyone has had options to suicide fields before... what is different? Scoring? Hell no... it doesn't help your score to suicide anything. Wait... it's gang-banging. Err... no... that's always occured. I remember getting vulched at a field while 12 planes hovered there before... with some of the names swearing AH isn't as fun any more in attendance. It's the strat system... but wait... that doesn't really prevent you from doing anything.
Stick to that "ruining people's fun" thing. I like it. Hell.. that's something nash could use in the O'Club.
-
Originally posted by Mini D [/i]
I'm not putting words in your mouth here.
Sure you are. I could go through you post line by line and show it to ya to. To what effect? You can't even admit you were wrong about lumping me in with the buffs have too much effect crowd. You assign statements/philosophies to me that I don't hold or espouse. But then that's the only way to make your argument.
Right now, I'm not playing anything. My gaming computer melted and the parts are still coming in to rebuild it. When it's back up, I'll be playing COD, some AH and a little bit of AA.
Gameplay consists of doing one thing: loggin in and doing whatever you want. That is what we call an "arena".
Jeez, you should be embarassed to post that. Gameplay defines the game. Do you think the game would be different, appealing to a different crowd if every arena was "one life per nite"? That's gameplay and it would generate a huge change in player attitudes. Similarly, the change from the pin-point bomb sight to the calibrated one made buffs essentially disappear for quite a while. It has changed the way they're used significantly from the early days. Or do you want to deny that or just blame it on numbers again? Just two examples, there are more of course.
Tossing out stuff like that shows clearly that you and I are not even communicating. If that's all you think gameplay consists of there is no basis for discussion.
The thing you fail to realize is your definition isn't exactly the same as everyone else's.
Really? Check my sig. It's been that for years and througout all that time I HAVE espoused a "do what you like" credo here on the BBS. All I ever asked is that the game allow me to do what I like as well.
Did I tell you the things you're *****ing about existed in the games you insist you had fun in? Yeppers.
Duh! Did I say they didn't? You think these things ruin my fun and that's where you are totally wrong.
What else has changed toad? You insist it's not you.
No kidding? Maybe I have a reason to insist it's not me?
Let's see.
I had great fun in AW. I had great fun in WB. I didn't leave either one of those because of
1) hordes
2) monotony
3) boredome
4) lack of change
5) romantasizng the past
I left because I played a beta of something similar that I found even more fun.
I'm still playing AH because it can still be fun.
Riddle me this Mini:
How come there are still times when the hours slip past unnoticed for me in AH? I mean even though the NUMBERS are so big, there are hordes, monotony, boredom and lack of change and I romantically dream of the past....... I can still have a total blast. A good CV furball still spins the clock for me, for example.
Think about it.
Now, really, I'll argue this same thing with you again yet another time in another thread. Because you and I aren't talking about the same things so there can be no agreement.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Stop showin that little hard one you have for Toad....especially here in front of everyone.
Rude,
Toad & MiniD have an interesting discussion going here. You might want to butt out if all you can do is to surprise everyone with your wise-arse quips.
I've been following this discussion with interest. Some people (and they know who they are) seem to be blaming the strat or other complexities in the game for a reduction in their "fun". I call BS on this one. The gameplay problem as I see it is too many players in too small a space, leading to ganging/hording/porking. Perhaps this sort of thing did not happen during the early days. But I put it to you that the reason for what many of us see as the deterioration in gameplay has happened not because of the strat that has been introduced in the last few years, but because of the sharp rise in numbers that has occurred in that timeline. I would substantiate that by adding that this past month has seen a plethora of gameplay whines about numbers imbalance/ganging/hording even though as of AH2, fuel porkage has been limited to 75%. Many of the furballers cited the former 25% fuel porkage as the one single thing that was ruining their gameplay. That has been fixed, but guess what? The crap gameplay/fragfest continues with gay abandon.
It is clear to me, and Slapshot would agree with me, that the appalling gameplay to be seen in the MA these days is being caused by excessive player density. The only way to address this right now, while we wait for TOD or some other miracle, is to reduce player density. With the tools currently available, that could be done in one of two ways: - Make two main arenas, with a 300 player limit on each;
- Deploy the large maps. Utilisation of the small maps in an arena with 600 players is akin to staging Test Cricket in my back garden.
MiniD said "You don't want to change what you're doing, but what everyone else is doing. Your sense of fun pivots around everyone else sharing the same philosophy." You know, I wish I had £1 for every time those thoughts had run through my mind this past couple of years. :aok It's worthy sig. material. I always remember the claims that there were "no fights" on the pizza map. I posted film that proved the contrary, only to be told that "those were not fights". :lol Yes indeed, I was made to feel that I was under some obligation to fly a P47 like a SpitV in a T&B engagement at 2K. :rolleyes:
Say what you like about pizza, I'd rather see a relatively small skirmish like this one, than a 50v50 or 100 man horde on the small maps.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/pizzafun.jpg)
-
Anyone who can't find a fight on a big map at ANY time of day - just isn't looking.Unless of course what they mean is they can't find a fight where they have a 3 v 1 or better advantage.
-
Problem is you don't get sustained 300+ player loads for days on end. It peaks at certain hours and then drops off.
With the 2X fuel multiplier, knocking out fuel at a field is a pretty big deal. The terrains I've seen so far - regardless of size - are all pretty packed in. Was a map with fewer fields, more space between, and a 1X fuel multiplier ever tried?
In other words, if you have 600 people on a map, but there's too much distance between fields to sustain these field gang-bangs, would that have the results you're looking for? In which case you'd really have to orchestrate a field capture because of the transit time and the higher chance of being intercepted. Of course, an air field capture would suddenly become much more meaningful as well. There'd need to be some adjustments to things to make this work. TLike barracks would need to be hardened or it'd be just too easy to completely stop any forward progress.
I dunno ... it's just a thought. Take any terrain, and make half (or more on some maps) the fields vehicle fields instead, and reduce the fuel mult back to 1X. This effectively doubles the range between airfields while not really impacting GV's much.
Of course, if you even add 1 sector more of separation between fields there will be whining about how it "takes too long to get to a fight." And Lord knows you can't go 20 minutes without HO-ing someone or your hands start to shake.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Problem is you don't get sustained 300+ player loads for days on end. It peaks at certain hours and then drops off.
With the 2X fuel multiplier, knocking out fuel at a field is a pretty big deal. The terrains I've seen so far - regardless of size - are all pretty packed in. Was a map with fewer fields, more space between, and a 1X fuel multiplier ever tried?
In other words, if you have 600 people on a map, but there's too much distance between fields to sustain these field gang-bangs, would that have the results you're looking for? In which case you'd really have to orchestrate a field capture because of the transit time and the higher chance of being intercepted. Of course, an air field capture would suddenly become much more meaningful as well. There'd need to be some adjustments to things to make this work. TLike barracks would need to be hardened or it'd be just too easy to completely stop any forward progress.
I dunno ... it's just a thought. Take any terrain, and make half (or more on some maps) the fields vehicle fields instead, and reduce the fuel mult back to 1X. This effectively doubles the range between airfields while not really impacting GV's much.
Of course, if you even add 1 sector more of separation between fields there will be whining about how it "takes too long to get to a fight." And Lord knows you can't go 20 minutes without HO-ing someone or your hands start to shake.
-DoK
All good thoughts Dok, but there are those that dont' care to paricipate in the "field capture" ... "lets win the reset" line of thought. Which I am one of.
Their main intention is to "dogfight" and travelling a sector or more to just find a fight is considered painfull. There are some "strat" guys who don't really care to fly a sector or sector and a-half to try to capture a base either.
On the Trinity Map (large map), vehicle bases were changed to airfields to shorten the distance between some fields.
Have you had the chance to fly on festerMA or OZKansas yet ? Fester made multiple changes to these maps trying to balance/stagger the distances between airfields ... most who have flown these maps like the setup.
Balance on these maps is a fine line, and can be better tuned on the larger maps, as opposed to the smaller maps ... just not enough real estate.
-
OK. But if you do the arbitrary segmentation of the MA into two 300-person arenas, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it won't take a week before some people realize they can flood one of these arenas at peak time and get the gang-bang orgy they desire. And if you juggle the code to balance out the sides, then some people won't be able to fly with their squadrons because of this.
Trinity was insane with so many fields. I was amazed it ended as fast as it.
If you just want to have a dogfight in a hurry, then a more spread out map may not hurt you. Just look for which friendly base is most likely to get attacked next and go there. The fight will come to you.
And there are other options. Suppose you made all single-runway fields for re-arm only? You can't get a new plane, only re-arm the one you're in. Still valuable to capture, still allows quick return to the furball, but given the mortality and HO rates a lot of people will have to exit there and replane at the nearest major field.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK. But if you do the arbitrary segmentation of the MA into two 300-person arenas, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it won't take a week before some people realize they can flood one of these arenas at peak time and get the gang-bang orgy they desire. And if you juggle the code to balance out the sides, then some people won't be able to fly with their squadrons because of this.
Trinity was insane with so many fields. I was amazed it ended as fast as it.
If you just want to have a dogfight in a hurry, then a more spread out map may not hurt you. Just look for which friendly base is most likely to get attacked next and go there. The fight will come to you.
And there are other options. Suppose you made all single-runway fields for re-arm only? You can't get a new plane, only re-arm the one you're in. Still valuable to capture, still allows quick return to the furball, but given the mortality and HO rates a lot of people will have to exit there and replane at the nearest major field.
-DoK
No argument from me on your first paragraph.
Trinity at one time was nicknamed "Inifinty" ... thats how hard it was to reset. I think that with all the unhappy people (due to the horde syndrome), most just log off in disgust and don't put up the fight that they use to.
Looking for a base under attack was what I use to do mostly and it did provide all the enjoyment that I needed. As of late, I find that there aren't as many willing to up and it most inevitably turns into a gangbang. I'll up a certain amount of times under these conditions, but there is a point where I say "enough is enough".
Your last paragraph/idea has merit and could be considered food for thought.
I can't really put my finger on where it all went sour. In AH I, we use to have over 700 people loged on and the "horde" never really played a large part in putting a damper on gameplay as we see it now .. or as we want to see it ... I really can't put my finger on just "one" thing that has caused the MA malcontent that is spewed all over this BBS.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
All good thoughts Dok, but there are those that dont' care to paricipate in the "field capture" ... "lets win the reset" line of thought. Which I am one of.
Bollocks! I winged with you and we took down a town ready for the goon to make the capture. Here you are, levelling the town. You were good at it. I could tell you'd had practice. ;) You say one thing, and you do another. How about that for a new squad mantra? :D:lol;)
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/sstown.jpg)
-
Getting desperate for entertainment, aren't you Beet?
You still have the same old e-mail addy? The naranja one at yahoo?
-
The cycle of a game like AH being "no fun" is just part of the deal. Happened in AW, WB, ... all of 'em. At some point either you change or the game changes ... and then it's no longer "the same."
Horde Warrior is easier to sustain when it's only a 5 or 8 minute flight back to the base being vultched. You get shot down, you re-up and are right back in no time. Look at the radar map and you can see the drool-trail of The Horde going from their nearest base to where they're vultching. And that's where it gets boring, really. The front becomes static.
From an "I just want to dogfight" perspective, I'd think you'd find the over-use of head-ons much more of an issue than the base proximity. Not just in individual fights, but in the fact that they give whoever has more numbers even more of an edge.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Bollocks! I winged with you and we took down a town ready for the goon to make the capture. Here you are, levelling the town. You were good at it. I could tell you'd had practice. ;) You say one thing, and you do another. How about that for a new squad mantra? :D:lol;)
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/sstown.jpg)
Beeet.....I am just about the same as Slap and alot of other guys. I could care less about land grabbing. I will however if asked lend a hand to the team. Doesnt mean nothing in the grand scheme of thing.
Dok has a point as well. I Find HO's much more of a nuisence than flying a lil longer to a fight.
Being good at hitting something doesnt mean your a steady participant in those duties.
I say the HEAK with Towns...make it back to the old way of Fighters capping and while the suicide JABOS downed all the hangers and base capture came right behind em.:aok
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Horde Warrior is easier to sustain when it's only a 5 or 8 minute flight back to the base being vultched. You get shot down, you re-up and are right back in no time. Look at the radar map and you can see the drool-trail of The Horde going from their nearest base to where they're vultching. And that's where it gets boring, really. The front becomes static.
I call this scenario "conveyor belting". I agree entirely with what you said, except that the furballers think that even 6 minutes is too long a flight between bases. I timed an RTB in a P47, and even on the pizza map it was only 6 minutes. The furballers get bored with that. They want it down to 2 or 3. And the very scenario you describe above becomes a reality.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Horde Warrior is easier to sustain when it's only a 5 or 8 minute flight back to the base being vultched.
I think you are not considering the effects of other close bases on the defense. Sure the vultchers can come back--and they always will regardless of distance--but the defenders can up from another close base. So the vultchfest is easily aborted or prevented with close base spacing.
With far bases, the defenders don't have that option. You either up a "capped" field and get vultched, or you join a horde of your own color.
This is true both in theory and in practice. Log in at USPT on Pizza, and what you'll find is a bunch of monocolor blobs far away from each other, milkrunning bases. You rarely find a relatively even fight, regardless of numbers imbalance.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I Find HO's much more of a nuisence than flying a lil longer to a fight.
It's not about flying a little longer for a fight. It's about finding a fight at all, with relatively even numbers.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Bollocks! I winged with you and we took down a town ready for the goon to make the capture. Here you are, levelling the town. You were good at it. I could tell you'd had practice. ;) You say one thing, and you do another. How about that for a new squad mantra? :D:lol;)
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/sstown.jpg)
Don't be so myopic my dear Brit friend. My main objective in this AH life, at the moment, IS NOT capture and reset. Yes, if I am in the area and there is NO ONE TO KILL, I will chip in and help with a capture ... gotta find something to do after flying all that way.
Practice ? ... I guess so ... Myself and any MAW squaddie are experts at capture. I flew with the MAW for almost 2 years and was CO of the 3rd MAW for awhile.
3rd MAW's objective was ack suppression first and then near base CAP. The other MAW squads had different objectives. When all combined, they are practically un-stopable.
-
Slap, my yankee-doodle-dandy - I have no problem with you doing what you did. Heck, I was there doing it with you after we killed a few cons. But why do you feel the need to wash your hands of this sort of thing on this board? No-one's going to make you wear a bell round your neck you know, and you won't have to wear a sign bearing the word "UNCLEAN".
:confused:
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The cycle of a game like AH being "no fun" is just part of the deal. Happened in AW, WB, ... all of 'em. At some point either you change or the game changes ... and then it's no longer "the same."
Horde Warrior is easier to sustain when it's only a 5 or 8 minute flight back to the base being vultched. You get shot down, you re-up and are right back in no time. Look at the radar map and you can see the drool-trail of The Horde going from their nearest base to where they're vultching. And that's where it gets boring, really. The front becomes static.
From an "I just want to dogfight" perspective, I'd think you'd find the over-use of head-ons much more of an issue than the base proximity. Not just in individual fights, but in the fact that they give whoever has more numbers even more of an edge.
"Horde Warrior" or "conveyor belt" is a double-edged sword as phookat has pointed out. Beet whine of the "conveyor belt" is simply a guise for him wanting to jump a base with a small hordelet and once capped, wants to fly unopposed or vultch the crap out of anybody until the goon arrives.
I have noted that you have mentioned HO in some of your posts. Seems to be a bone of contention for you. Head-ons don't present a problem for me. Its probably because I am so use to it, that I know exactly when to make the move to avoid it.
Once I see a guy firing from 1.0 to 800 out, I drool. I would say that 8 out of 10 times, that guy will die within 2 turns and most times withing 1 turn. When I don't see the HO is when I know that I am in for a good fight.
Dok, I know that you have just recently returned ... some friendly advice ... ALWAYS expect the HO and ALWAYS be prepared to avoid it.
Merging nose to nose these days is not an option. You must cause angles before the merge, causing the enemy to adjust. Barrel-rolls are quite effective against a surprise oncoming HO ... it won't get you on the guys 6, but it will allow you to continue the fight.
I am sure you know how to fight ... I am not being condecending here ... just trying to help ya adjust to the new AH.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I think you are not considering the effects of other close bases on the defense. Sure the vultchers can come back--and they always will regardless of distance--but the defenders can up from another close base. So the vultchfest is easily aborted or prevented with close base spacing.
With far bases, the defenders don't have that option. You either up a "capped" field and get vultched, or you join a horde of your own color.
This is true both in theory and in practice. Log in at USPT on Pizza, and what you'll find is a bunch of monocolor blobs far away from each other, milkrunning bases. You rarely find a relatively even fight, regardless of numbers imbalance.
Bingo!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Slap, my yankee-doodle-dandy - I have no problem with you doing what you did. Heck, I was there doing it with you after we killed a few cons. But why do you feel the need to wash your hands of this sort of thing on this board? No-one's going to make you wear a bell round your neck you know, and you won't have to wear a sign bearing the word "UNCLEAN".
:confused:
Beet .. honestly ... no hand washing here ... I DON'T CARE ABOUT BASE CAPTURE AND RESETS.
I am, and have been true to that for quite awhile now. That still doesn't mean that I WON'T participate in these activities, it just that I really DON'T care.
-
I don't see the dilema, what does it matter if they care or not? Everyone will have their own opinion.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is something I've wanted for a long time. The "base capture" war is probably just a leftover from the simple times of multiplayer air war simulation. The focus on AF capture must go; it promotes the bad game play we now have. Instead the game should focus on "battlefield capture" where the maps are divided into sectors. Each sector has a battlefield where all the adjacent vehicle spawn points lead to, and with "victory locations" that needs to be captured.
The air war will in essence be over this battlefield, but we can also do airfield denial operations like we do now. They just don't become the prime mission, and take away planes that could be used to win the war over the battlefield. Once a country has captured all the victory locations on a battlefield, that sector, and all its airfields and VHs fall to the victor, and the battle moves on to the next sector battlefield.
This system would allow for a realistic purpose for vehicles, and a more realistic use of airpower in support of ground forces. Strategic targets in nearby sectors would also add a dimension to the game play that is mostly ignored now (except the HQ bombing). Each sector could have a "HQ" or rather a ground control station. That would be more realistic and practical. We really don't need a HQ since we have no organized command structure, and the ground controls were the ones in direct communication with the planes.
This is a pretty good idea that might help promote 'fighting'.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I think you are not considering the effects of other close bases on the defense. Sure the vultchers can come back--and they always will regardless of distance--but the defenders can up from another close base. So the vultchfest is easily aborted or prevented with close base spacing.
You and Dipstick (and Mars01) are entitled to your point of view, but it is diametrically opposed to mine and others like me - which is why we need both types of map in order for all tastes to be accommodated.
I maintain that if you are being vulched, and you have opposition of equal number to the vulchers, you can up in manoeuvrable planes and pick 'em off. Many of them will auger trying to bounce you, or will die killshooter deaths as they dispute whose kill you should be. If they do that on pizza, they're off the scene for at least 6 minutes. But you can re-up immediately...
...Admitttedly, there is a third way, which would be for more mannable field ack. It always pisses me off when we are trying to level the town ready for a goon, and so few people lend a hand. There'll be about 20 of 'em trying to vulch that lone Spit/N1K/LA7 that keeps popping up. :rolleyes: They deserve to get acked!
Slapshot - no need to shout.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Originally posted by Mini D [/i]
I'm not putting words in your mouth here.
Sure you are. I could go through you post line by line and show it to ya to. To what effect? You can't even admit you were wrong about lumping me in with the buffs have too much effect crowd. You assign statements/philosophies to me that I don't hold or espouse. But then that's the only way to make your argument.
Right now, I'm not playing anything. My gaming computer melted and the parts are still coming in to rebuild it. When it's back up, I'll be playing COD, some AH and a little bit of AA.
Tossing out stuff like that shows clearly that you and I are not even communicating. If that's all you think gameplay consists of there is no basis for discussion.
BS.
I notice you had to cite an example that has zero to do with choice to even try to make a point toad. You're correct on their being no basis for discussion... but for entirely different reasons than you're citing.
You did not answer the question: CAN YOU DO WHAT YOU LIKE TO DO IN THE ARENA? CAN YOU JUST FLY AND SHOOT?Really? Check my sig. It's been that for years and througout all that time I HAVE espoused a "do what you like" credo here on the BBS. All I ever asked is that the game allow me to do what I like as well.
Wow... great sig toad. Maybe you should check your posts. What else has changed toad? You insist it's not you.
I had great fun in AW. I had great fun in WB. I left because I played a beta of something similar that I found even more fun.
THat's odd. It seems to me that WB was a bit more complex than AW at the time.. and AH was a bit more complex than WB at the time. The only real difference was that each of the new sims had less planes.
And then... in the grand scheme of things, you never spent more than 2 years with a sim? How long have you been with AH? And how much different would you say the games actually are to play? Really? Riddle me this Mini:
How come there are still times when the hours slip past unnoticed for me in AH? I mean even though the NUMBERS are so big, there are hordes, monotony, boredom and lack of change and I romantically dream of the past....... I can still have a total blast. A good CV furball still spins the clock for me, for example.
Think about it.
Wow... nice to see you admit it. The odd thing is... this isn't a riddle I need to answer, it's one you need to figure out.
Why would it be that some nights you have fun and others you don't? Could it be that some nights people are chosing to do the things you find fun and other nights they're not? Could it be that limitting them to having what you consider to be fun might be in direct conflict with that self-righteous sig you've been touting?
nah... it must be the gameplay.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You and Dipstick (and Mars01) are entitled to your point of view, but it is diametrically opposed to mine and others like me - which is why we need both types of map in order for all tastes to be accommodated.
Nope. We can have a single type of map like FesterMA, which includes both types of gameplay.
Originally posted by beet1e
I maintain that if you are being vulched, and you have opposition of equal number to the vulchers, you can up in manoeuvrable planes and pick 'em off. Many of them will auger trying to bounce you, or will die killshooter deaths as they dispute whose kill you should be. If they do that on pizza, they're off the scene for at least 6 minutes. But you can re-up immediately...
Ever actually tried this on a large-spaced map, as a defender? Your theory does not account for the facts.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Ever actually tried this on a large-spaced map, as a defender? Your theory does not account for the facts.
I have, and it was OK as long as the numbers were balanced to begin with, and there was no conveyor belting.
Another time I remember, at A23 on pizza, was when I was IB with a heavy P47. The enemy had their defences set up nicely - co-alt N1K,Spit, MOSS at 20K... I dumped my eggs and tried to run as all four defenders followed my dive. The MOSS got me. So then, there they all were at deck alt in the canyon - and my friends arrived at A23 at about 10K. The enemy couldn't get back into the fight. It was their mistake that it ended that way. It would have been enough for one or two of the four guys up to engage me. But no. They all had to come after me, like a junior soccer match in which the whole team goes for the ball. :rolleyes: So for them it would have been "Waaah - we don't have a field 2 mins away from which to launch our LA7s" - and I don't think they deserved one. It was entirely their own fault that they then could not defend against the incoming - not the fault of the map. At few of them got in GVs, so at least we were spared the forlorn cry of "waaaaaah - milkrunning undefended bases" :lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I have, and it was OK as long as the numbers were balanced to begin with, and there was no conveyor belting.
Another time I remember, at A23 on pizza, was when I was IB with a heavy P47. The enemy had their defences set up nicely - co-alt N1K,Spit, MOSS at 20K... I dumped my eggs and tried to run as all four defenders followed my dive. The MOSS got me. So then, there they all were at deck alt in the canyon - and my friends arrived at A23 at about 10K. The enemy couldn't get back into the fight. It was their mistake that it ended that way. It would have been enough for one or two of the four guys up to engage me. But no. They all had to come after me, like a junior soccer match in which the whole team goes for the ball. :rolleyes: So for them it would have been "Waaah - we don't have a field 2 mins away from which to launch our LA7s" - and I don't think they deserved one. It was entirely their own fault that they then could not defend against the incoming - not the fault of the map. At few of them got in GVs, so at least we were spared the forlorn cry of "waaaaaah - milkrunning undefended bases" :lol
Why didn't you fight?
-
Originally posted by DipStick
Why didn't you fight?
I did, the sortie before that - and landed 5 kills. But a P47D25 is no match for a turnfite against Spits, N1Ks - and as I said, I was outnumbered 4-1 at that moment. But I have studied the nature of AH dweebs, and I just knew that if I dived away, they'd all follow - leaving the base wide open for my guys, who weren't far behind. I thought I might even get away, but I didn't realise how fast that MOSS was.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The cycle of a game like AH being "no fun" is just part of the deal. Happened in AW, WB, ... all of 'em. At some point either you change or the game changes ... and then it's no longer "the same."
So true... I think the solution to this is to provide choices. There are many different ways to play the game and the arena design and game function needs to accomodate these. We could have different arenas for each type of game play, but that would divide the community and some arenas would lack adequate numbers.
So, how can a single arena sustain so many different tastes? I think the AW4W and AW3 Beta era did it best. These were the days they had over 2000 players online each night, more on weekends. It should have been chaos, but the players did a pretty good job of self organization.
Game play would occur in seperate parts of the arena, each without interfering with the other. A player might grow weary of the endless furball and move to another area where more organized play was taking place. Perhaps it was a relatively small group of players doing battle over a few bases, or a group of buff enthusiasts land grabbing in a deserted corner of the arena. These were the hay days and enthusiasm didn't seem to wain as it does now.
This also happens in AH to an extent, but is constantly interfered with by the land grabbing hordes. A country with a number advantage seeks to capture the entire arena, while most in a country with low numbers are doing their own thing and do nothing to stop them. This is a severe limiting factor on game play, especially when a country gets squeezed into a small number of bases. Limitations on game play also limit variety and choices. Players become frustrated and bored with the "hampster wheel" (tm: Pasha) sooner. Perhaps this explains the failure of AH for sustained growth.
As long as arena capture by land grab exists, I fear there is no solution.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You and Dipstick (and Mars01) are entitled to your point of view, but it is diametrically opposed to mine and others like me - which is why we need both types of map in order for all tastes to be accommodated.
I maintain that if you are being vulched, and you have opposition of equal number to the vulchers, you can up in manoeuvrable planes and pick 'em off. Many of them will auger trying to bounce you, or will die killshooter deaths as they dispute whose kill you should be. If they do that on pizza, they're off the scene for at least 6 minutes. But you can re-up immediately...
...Admitttedly, there is a third way, which would be for more mannable field ack. It always pisses me off when we are trying to level the town ready for a goon, and so few people lend a hand. There'll be about 20 of 'em trying to vulch that lone Spit/N1K/LA7 that keeps popping up. :rolleyes: They deserve to get acked!
Slapshot - no need to shout.
I tell ya what Beet ...
DipStick, Leviathn, Mars, and I will fly over your base and you get 3 buddies to up with you, and we will see if you can get airborne before we run out of ammo ... hehehe.
Augering while vulching is not as common as you make it out to be ... it factors very little into the attrition equation.
I do agree that bases should have lots more mannable acks.
-
Originally posted by anton
Seeing as how I just renewed, I have the leasure of having faith that SOMTHING will change the hordes ways BEFORE next billing cycle. Or this will be my last month as well.
Horde=Bored
Anton
:cool:
Well, I have been able to find some fun. In fact last nite I was having a great time in a fair sized battle that went back & forth for hours. When I realized I was having fun, I had to stop & look at the roster to see what the numbers were like. There was less than 10 players difference on all three sides. It was great to see & fun to fly in. I hope it continues.
Anton
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I did, the sortie before that - and landed 5 kills. But a P47D25 is no match for a turnfite against Spits, N1Ks - and as I said, I was outnumbered 4-1 at that moment. But I have studied the nature of AH dweebs, and I just knew that if I dived away, they'd all follow - leaving the base wide open for my guys, who weren't far behind. I thought I might even get away, but I didn't realise how fast that MOSS was.
So you took one for the team eh? Hehehe I would've fought. Might not have won, probably not but still would have gave it a go. You never know Beet. I have killed alot of spits and niks in my jug. The more you fight at a disadvantage the more you learn.
PS... Mossies are real fast on a downhill run. ;)
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
...
As long as arena capture by land grab exists, I fear there is no solution.
Again, I've only been back a short while, but the sense I get is that the quest for perk points has become a little too dominant a theme. And whenever individual scores overshadow team accomplishments, you will see people optimize their style of play towards this. Only natural. Which is why you see vultches going on with apparently no attempt being made to take the field. It's all about racking up multi-kill sorties to get more perks. At least that's how I interpret it. Which also is nothing new to the genre.
Unfortunately, this dynamic only seems to exaggerate the gap between people who play constantly and those who don't. Perks are a great way to balance uber-planes, but there is a cost to gameplay. As things stand now, you can get more fighter perks in a couple hours of vultching than you would for a whole weekend's work trying to win a reset. So I don't know if the concern about "land grabbers" is all that justified - the payoff for a MA reset is pretty negligable.
If field capture isn't the objective in the arena, then what would be? The nice thing about field capture is it keeps things more or less fluid and it provides a mechanism for rotating through various terrain maps. And to be fair, I don't see how changing the arena objectives would stop Horde Warrior. We had that in AW when there were no fields to capture at all. The trick is making it less beneficial a tactic.
So ... what if you did something like: harden all groud targets to be impervious to gunfire below 20mm, and also harden field assets to need 2x or 3x the number of bomb hits to go down, and make winning a reset worth 125 perks in each category. Now winning a reset has meaning but you can no longer capture a field with just Jabo's - you need attack bombers in there ... meaing it won't be all fighters overhead anymore. This is just an example ... not saying it is "the answer" ... but by just changing a few little things you can something get pretty big changes in overall gameplay.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I have, and it was OK as long as the numbers were balanced to begin with, and there was no conveyor belting.
There is *always* conveyor belting, regardless of base spacing. You are under the erroneous impression that having an extra 5 min flying time between bases is going to stop people from joining a conveyor belt horde. It doesn't. They have nothing better to do--if they don't log off, they'll join the horde like they always do.
Furthermore, once again, your theory does not explain the facts. The facts are that large-spaced maps are filled with hordes, and small-spaced maps are filled with fights (both big and small).
But this discussion is actually not really necessary. Some people like large-spacing and others don't. The solution is a map that has both large- and small-spacing, such as FesterMA. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
What we have in AH2 is a very good balance. Even if radar gets bombed, it just takes half a dozen people to stop furballing for 20 minutes to resupply it and it's usually right back up. .
well thats not the way it is in the current setup. If HQ is bombed down to 90% you dont have dar and you cannot resupply it for (2 hours)?
BS.... make it so u can resupply the damned thing.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Again, I've only been back a short while, but the sense I get is that the quest for perk points has become a little too dominant a theme. And whenever individual scores overshadow team accomplishments, you will see people optimize their style of play towards this. Only natural. Which is why you see vultches going on with apparently no attempt being made to take the field. It's all about racking up multi-kill sorties to get more perks. At least that's how I interpret it. Which also is nothing new to the genre.
I don't think perk points play such a large role. More likely players like to capture the arena to crush the opposition into the dirt. I think you can identify with that. =o)
These problems have always been a part of our game. But I think it's amplified in AH. Notice how most players attack a base by avoiding opposition to suicide jabbo a tool shed (rinse and repeat). It indemic to the way the game is set up. The large horde attack is the most efficient way to capture real estate, and dogfighting only slows it down.
All the incentive needed is a single base to fight over (the keyword here is fight). There can be some bases to capture, so these guys can do it without messing up the whole game. Players can meet between a couple bases for the never ending furball, if they choose. Buffs can try to hit strat targets and interceptors try to stop them. That's the way it was, and IMHO the way it should be. Something for everyone without wrecking the fun of others.
But I know most players will insist on the option of arena capture, it's legit and who am I to speak against it. That's why I proposed basing the compromise of basing the arena capture (and reset) on a threshold of destruction to the enemy country. It still requires attacking bases and factories, provides a solid role for the buff drivers, encourages team work, rewards the winner (including their perks), and pisses off the loser. But does not destroy the arena for the game play of others up until the reset.
The capture the flag players get their reset. And those who don't wish to participate have their bases to fly from without having a swarm of grabbers pass through laying waste to everything in their wake like locusts. How can that not be a good thing?
-
Originally posted by DipStick
So you took one for the team eh? Hehehe I would've fought. Might not have won, probably not but still would have gave it a go. You never know Beet. I have killed alot of spits and niks in my jug. The more you fight at a disadvantage the more you learn.
PS... Mossies are real fast on a downhill run. ;)
According to your stats (http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/careerstats.php?player=dipstick) on Innominate's website, you have 5 kills/8 deaths in the P47D30, 37 kills/18 deaths in the P47D11, and don't appear to have flown the P47D25 at all. Such a short career span in the P47 type would certainly explain why you thought that engaging a Spit & N1K simultaneously would have been a good idea in a P47. I have flown the P47 type rather more than you have, and knew that such an engagement would see those guys running rings around me if I were to have attempted a turn fight. You need to remember that not every plane can be flown like a SpitV.
Besides which, I like the teamwork (what little of it there is) in AH. I like flying a small mission (but never a missun) with a handful of guys. So when I led those guys away from A23, my actions were focussed on the team objective rather than my own personal aggrandisement. Duels are for the DA, capture missions are for the MA. Don't worry, you're not the only one who's still not figured that out! ;)
As for the guys that chased me, and the MOSS that killed me, they made a tactical blunder. They threw away their alt when inspection of the map would have shown incoming Rooks. So they deserved to suffer the penalty of not being able to get back into the fight when the Rooks arrived. On a small map, they could have just upped from the field next door in LA7s and been back there in 2 minutes. That is wrong. Having been finessed into making a complete hash of their position, it's only right that they should suffer the consequences, and that the other side should profit from their error. Of course, maps with close fields do not reward tactical play. :rolleyes:
Phookat said There is *always* conveyor belting, regardless of base spacing.
I don't agree with that. Your statement presupposes a large attendance in the MA, which suggests that you never play outside the hours of US prime time. Furthermore, if conveyor belting WAS always taking place, there would be long green or red bardars present on the map at all times, identifying the active locations, and we wouldn't have so many people whining that they can't find a fight on the pizza map.
As for FesterMA, you may have a valid point. I did play on that after the outer fields had been spaced out. I enjoyed OZK even more because it had more CVs, therefore more places from which to fly an F4U. I stayed away from that central furball area.
-
As for the guys that chased me, and the MOSS that killed me, they made a tactical blunder. They threw away their alt when inspection of the map would have shown incoming Rooks.
No they didn't!!! He got you! WTG Mossie driver! :D
-
Mossies are uber.:)
-
Uberly Ghey :D
-
I didn't say, "it would be a good idea". In that situation however I and all of us who are here for the fight, would fight. I wouldn't drop my eggs and run like a schoolgirl. That's something I would never do and you will never understand. My present handle is not the only one I've ever had either but that's beside the point.
I have flown the 25 plenty but once again I don't fly anything like you. I am 4/1 in the 11 this month and that is fighting from a disadvantage of alt and numbers and plane type. You and others always run to scores when you feel threatened about your ego or something I don't know what.
You were milkrunning and ran into some opposition. The plane(s) really don't matter, it's fight or run. I would fight, you would run and never the twain shall meet.
-
Just because it's sexy, doesn't make it gay! :) You're just jealous because of that ugly p38 you force yourself to fly.
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
I don't think perk points play such a large role. More likely players like to capture the arena to crush the opposition into the dirt. I think you can identify with that. =o)
...
But I know most players will insist on the option of arena capture, it's legit and who am I to speak against it. That's why I proposed basing the compromise of basing the arena capture (and reset) on a threshold of destruction to the enemy country. It still requires attacking bases and factories, provides a solid role for the buff drivers, encourages team work, rewards the winner (including their perks), and pisses off the loser. But does not destroy the arena for the game play of others up until the reset.
...
I know for a fact from the radio that on many occasions FH's are intentionally left up during many base attacks simply to allow fighters to launch to be vultched. The only tangible gain from this is perk points.
I would have to agree that having to knock a country back to one or two remaining fields is not ideal for the overall environment.
-
Ahhh.. no force is involved. :D
We have a deep love for eachother, that can never be replaced. ;)
especially by an ugly mossie :D
-
Actually read more of your post Beet. What you want is for a few guys to be able to take a base with little opposition (a few easy kills). I just don't see the fun in that.
I have no doubt you guys are not liking AH2. It takes more to take a base than a few guys milkrunning. I'd like to see the whole base capture thing change personally but that's another thread.
You say, "maps with close fields do not reward tactical play" but that's not right. They require MORE tactical play.
I'm sure it will be a non-issue if TOD ever gets here. I just have a hard time figuring out why people would play a combat game and not want to fight.
-
Lazer, we both know the real story. A member of the TED's put a gun to your pet sheep's (we both know she's not just your pet;)) head, forcing you to fly p38's.:)
Wtg on keeping up the act though, the mossie hating looks really authentic.:aok
-
Yup... you had to go reveal our little secret ;)
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I know for a fact from the radio that on many occasions FH's are intentionally left up during many base attacks simply to allow fighters to launch to be vultched. The only tangible gain from this is perk points.
I would have to agree that having to knock a country back to one or two remaining fields is not ideal for the overall environment.
No doubt some are vulchin' for the perks, but I would tend to lean towards the notion that they want to see their name in lights with a large number of kills and look for all the "WTFG" messages ... that is the real impetous IMO.
Remember, the side that has the most numbers will get doodily-squat for perks due to the perk multiplier being adjusted accordingly, and its the numbers side that usually creates the horde that does the vulching.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
No doubt some are vulchin' for the perks, but I would tend to lean towards the notion that they want to see their name in lights with a large number of kills and look for all the "WTFG" messages ... that is the real impetous IMO.
Good point ... I guess I underestimated the ambient lameness.
-
Ruh-roh, I've hit a raw nerve with dipstick!
I didn't say, "it would be a good idea". In that situation however I and all of us who are here for the fight, would fight.
.
.
.
My present handle is not the only one I've ever had either but that's beside the point.
No, you would not have fought. Because dead men cannot fight. BTW why the alternative handle(s)? Are you afraid of people checking your stats? :lol I wouldn't drop my eggs and run like a schoolgirl. That's something I would never do and you will never understand.
I understand perfectly: The D11 that you fly does not carry eggs. I have flown the 25 plenty but once again I don't fly anything like you. I am 4/1 in the 11 this month and that is fighting from a disadvantage of alt and numbers and plane type.
Great! I look forward to viewing the films! You were filming, weren't you? :rolleyes: BTW my career k/d in the P47D25 is better than 4/1, so I think I must be doing something right. As for running, the P47 is very good in a dive - which is just as well because it sure as hell doesn't climb well or turn well. I see nothing wrong with using a plane's strengths. The jug loves alt, and is good at diving from it, and recovering.You and others always run to scores when you feel threatened about your ego
You and others always get bent out of shape when confronted with the facts. I am 4/1 in the 11 this month
Ahem - what was it you just said about running to scores? :lol I have no doubt you guys are not liking AH2.
AH2 is fine - the FM and gunnery is a HUGE step forward. But the gameplay sucks right now. Perhaps things will improve when (if) we get larger maps and when the kidz are back in school. Right now it's not even worth logging on, IMO. Actually read more of your post Beet. What you want is for a few guys to be able to take a base with little opposition (a few easy kills). I just don't see the fun in that.
What I want is an evenly matched contest. At the time I got my first kill in the sortie before the one in which the MOSS got me, at one point I was one of only 2 rooks at the enemy base, and there were 4 Bish. The opposition did dry up, even though their VH was up. But I ask you - is it my fault if the opposition turns it into a milkrun for us by not defending? Is it my fault if they're crying because they can't have an LA7 from a field 2 mins away? When I began my bomb run, I had a bish zeke about 1K higher than me, and he was a real menace. I later killed him, assisted by the fact that he threw away his alt/E to chase something lower. I managed mine carefully, which is how I came to have an alt advantage. Let me know if you can find anything wrong with that in the AH rule book. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
AH2 is fine - it's not even worth logging on.
Ahhh the beet1e spin, gotta love it. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Duels are for the DA, capture missions are for the MA. Don't worry, you're not the only one who's still not figured that out! ;)
Everything is for the MA, not just capture missions.
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't agree with that. Your statement presupposes a large attendance in the MA, which suggests that you never play outside the hours of US prime time.
My statements apply to large arena attendance. Your statements indicate that you do not fly when large numbers are online.
I also occasionally fly when arena attendance is low. And I have no trouble finding small fights on small-spaced maps at those times.
Originally posted by beet1e
Furthermore, if conveyor belting WAS always taking place, there would be long green or red bardars present on the map at all times, identifying the active locations, and we wouldn't have so many people whining that they can't find a fight on the pizza map.
This theory doesn't account for the facts. Since you don't actually fly during the crowded hours, I submit that you are not actually aware of what the facts are. To repeat, the facts are these: on large-spaced maps you have hordes and very little else. On small-spaced maps, you have numerous large and small fights.
You can keep talking about what we should and shouldn't do, but it doesn't change what actually happens as a result of large- or small-spacing.
But stepping back from this again, it is clear that some people like large-spaced maps for whatever reason, and some like small-spaced maps for whatever reason. So the solution is...
Originally posted by beet1e
As for FesterMA, you may have a valid point. I did play on that after the outer fields had been spaced out. I enjoyed OZK even more because it had more CVs, therefore more places from which to fly an F4U. I stayed away from that central furball area.
This.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I know for a fact from the radio that on many occasions FH's are intentionally left up during many base attacks simply to allow fighters to launch to be vultched. The only tangible gain from this is perk points.
Were the Blood Pig and the Death Star created to win perk points? Was there no vulching before perk points were invented? You've never grinned when you heard your victim cry like a little girlie man? You've never clubbed a seal for the shear pleasure of it? You are the DoKtor of Hate... you of all people know the happiness that evil brings. I maintain that the perks only sweeten the pot.
-
Originally posted by phookat
This theory doesn't account for the facts. Since you don't actually fly during the crowded hours, I submit that you are not actually aware of what the facts are.
What does that mean? That USPT events are somehow more factual than non-USPT events? I don't agree. USPT is what - from about 7pm Western/10pm Eastern and for the next 2 hours? That's 3am till 5am here. You're right, I'm very rarely on at those times. Do you stay up playing AH till 5am where you live? To repeat, the facts are these: on large-spaced maps you have hordes and very little else.
In that case, why are there so many whine threads about "not being able to find a fight on pizza"? (not that I agree with people who say that)
I do agree that maps like the ones Fester has done are a good thing. But do we want the same map the whole time?
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
Were the Blood Pig and the Death Star created to win perk points? Was there no vulching before perk points were invented? You've never grinned when you heard your victim cry like a little girlie man? You've never clubbed a seal for the shear pleasure of it? You are the DoKtor of Hate... you of all people know the happiness that evil brings. I maintain that the perks only sweeten the pot.
Yeah either Doks gone soft or hes fullachit
I say the latter ;->
-
Originally posted by beet1e
According to your stats (http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/careerstats.php?player=dipstick) on Innominate's website, you have 5 kills/8 deaths in the P47D30, 37 kills/18 deaths in the P47D11, and don't appear to have flown the P47D25 at all. Such a short career span in the P47 type would certainly explain why you thought that engaging a Spit & N1K simultaneously would have been a good idea in a P47. I have flown the P47 type rather more than you have, and knew that such an engagement would see those guys running rings around me if I were to have attempted a turn fight. You need to remember that not every plane can be flown like a SpitV.
uhhh d11 is quite capable at tnb with spits and nikis... i can tell by your limited experience with tnb why you might not think it was such a good idea.
:D
-
Let me know if you can find anything wrong with that in the AH rule book.
AH Rule Book
Pg 45 ... section 2 ... sub-section 28 ... item 12 ... point 22 says :
You must stop whining about La-7s ... it's getting real fargin old and stale ... you must now use either the 109 or 190 in your posts from now on !!!
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
Were the Blood Pig and the Death Star created to win perk points? Was there no vulching before perk points were invented? You've never grinned when you heard your victim cry like a little girlie man? You've never clubbed a seal for the shear pleasure of it? You are the DoKtor of Hate... you of all people know the happiness that evil brings. I maintain that the perks only sweeten the pot.
Indeed.
But you miss the elegant savagery of the Blood Pig. And that was that it only took a couple of really skilled people to induce massive amounts of Hate. When the Dragon went after a field, it usually acted more or less alone. No Horde was needed. We flew those big birds for all they were worth.
When it's just one anonymous Jabo-ing drooler after another starfing your base, it all blurs together. It happens constantly, every night.
And when The Horde descends it's obviously time to take off elsewhere. But when it's only a couple of attack bombers lazily orbitting overhead - and you think you can lauch and get some easy kills on 'em - and those bombers then swoop down and treat you like Ned Beaty on a river-rafting weekend getaway ... well THAT is Hate. And when you get 3 or 4 of your buddies all trying to launch to "get even" it's even better.
As someone else posted: "Horde = Bored."
-
Originally posted by Shane
uhhh d11 is quite capable at tnb with spits and nikis... i can tell by your limited experience with tnb why you might not think it was such a good idea.
:D
I wasn't in a D11. I was in a D25. :D:D
Slapshot! - LOL!! I love ya, dude. ;):cool:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What does that mean? That USPT events are somehow more factual than non-USPT events? I don't agree. USPT is what - from about 7pm Western/10pm Eastern and for the next 2 hours? That's 3am till 5am here. You're right, I'm very rarely on at those times. Do you stay up playing AH till 5am where you live?
I do not recall playing a large-spaced map when the numbers are low. I will take your word for it that you can find small fights on those maps at that time. However, I do occasionally play on small-spaced maps when numbers are low, and I can find small fights there too.
Originally posted by beet1e
In that case, why are there so many whine threads about "not being able to find a fight on pizza"? (not that I agree with people who say that)
Because, when the attendance is large, there aren't any fights. There are only hordes, that is to say "large monocolor blobs". This is a steady-state phenomenon on large-spaced maps. I do not see how you are in a position to agree or disagree with this, since you don't play when attendance is large.
Honestly...if we could find any reasonable fights on a large-spaced map during USPT on at least a semi-regular basis, I highly doubt anyone would be complaining. I'm not just making this up--this is definitely how it is. I've also given you a reasonable explanation for it.
Originally posted by beet1e
I do agree that maps like the ones Fester has done are a good thing. But do we want the same map the whole time?
Not nececssarily, but all the maps should have both large- and small-spacing to accomodate both tastes.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You need to remember that not every plane can be flown like a SpitV.
A P-38 can be...in the right hands of course. :)
ack-ack
-
And there it is folks. Note the subtlety that sweetens the hate to give it a sharp edge to cut deep. The sublime evil. This is your heritage. =o)
Nice having you back sir
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Indeed.
But you miss the elegant savagery of the Blood Pig. And that was that it only took a couple of really skilled people to induce massive amounts of Hate. When the Dragon went after a field, it usually acted more or less alone. No Horde was needed. We flew those big birds for all they were worth.
When it's just one anonymous Jabo-ing drooler after another starfing your base, it all blurs together. It happens constantly, every night.
And when The Horde descends it's obviously time to take off elsewhere. But when it's only a couple of attack bombers lazily orbitting overhead - and you think you can lauch and get some easy kills on 'em - and those bombers then swoop down and treat you like Ned Beaty on a river-rafting weekend getaway ... well THAT is Hate. And when you get 3 or 4 of your buddies all trying to launch to "get even" it's even better.
As someone else posted: "Horde = Bored."
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
And there it is folks. Note the subtlety that sweetens the hate to give it a sharp edge to cut deep. The sublime evil. This is your heritage. =o)
Nice having you back sir
Thanks.
I actually posted something about how we used the Blood Dragon on my site recently. This was in my archives for a long while and I finally got around to publishing it: An Ackstar Is Born (http://www.gonzoville.com/page.php?id=6)
-
Phookat -
I will take your word for it that you can find small fights on those maps at that time. However, I do occasionally play on small-spaced maps when numbers are low, and I can find small fights there too.
- Originally posted by beet1e. In that case, why are there so many whine threads about "not being able to find a fight on pizza"? (not that I agree with people who say that)
Because, when the attendance is large, there aren't any fights. There are only hordes, that is to say "large monocolor blobs". This is a steady-state phenomenon on large-spaced maps. I do not see how you are in a position to agree or disagree with this, since you don't play when attendance is large.
Honestly...if we could find any reasonable fights on a large-spaced map during USPT on at least a semi-regular basis, I highly doubt anyone would be complaining. I'm not just making this up--this is definitely how it is. I've also given you a reasonable explanation for it.[/b]
Well, you've taken me at my word for on larger maps like pizza during periods of low attendance, so I feel I must accept what you say about the situation during high attendance. Hordes but no fights? What do these hordes do then? Just fly around, or do they milkrun bases? The front line is spread out, so if folks fly hordes, it follows that each team has large numbers of its men in one place, leaving many other bases alongs its front to be milkrun by the other team. Is that the way it is? I would be interested to see films and/or mapshots showing this - if ever we get a large map back into rotation for longer than 5 minutes.
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
And there it is folks. Note the subtlety that sweetens the hate to give it a sharp edge to cut deep. The sublime evil. This is your heritage. =o)
Nice having you back sir
What the Grizz said....
Thought it was you from some previous posts I'd read but wasnt sure....
This removed any doubt :)
But you miss the elegant savagery of the Blood Pig. And that was that it only took a couple of really skilled people to induce massive amounts of Hate
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Phookat - Well, you've taken me at my word for on larger maps like pizza during periods of low attendance, so I feel I must accept what you say about the situation during high attendance. Hordes but no fights? What do these hordes do then? Just fly around, or do they milkrun bases? The front line is spread out, so if folks fly hordes, it follows that each team has large numbers of its men in one place, leaving many other bases alongs its front to be milkrun by the other team. Is that the way it is? I would be interested to see films and/or mapshots showing this - if ever we get a large map back into rotation for longer than 5 minutes.
Yep, this is what happens. Large hordes milkrunning bases. If we get a large-spaced map online, I can definitely show you this. But I'd rather skip it and go straight to FesterMA or something like it, even if it means I can't prove this to you. ;)