Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Guppy35 on November 14, 2006, 10:37:25 AM
-
Has this become the total focus of the AH world? The reason I'm asking. The last few times i've flown, regardless of arena, that's all I see now.
Each time I log on in the evening, when I go into an arena, there are overwhelming numbers on one team and at least one other team so low in numbers, it's inevitable that the reset is coming.
It's kind of become the joke for me and the guys in the 80th. We hop to the low number side for another hopeless, against all odds defense. The problem is, no matter how hard you put up a fight, you don't have the bodies to spread out enough to stop the steam roll.
Last night I started in Midwar and a squadie and I were up in the 38s with DTs looking for the fight. In literally a 30 second time frame, 6 base capture messages scrolled across the bottom of the screen. The only kills landed were tank drivers. Those of us in the air couldn't get to the fight as they'd be gone by the time you got to where the dar bar was when you took off. I don't ever burn off all my DT fuel and we did last night and we never encountered another plane in the air.
So we hop to Latewar Orange. It's 30 Rooks, 90 Bish, 90 Knights. Ahh the hopless defense. Good fun while it lasted, but there was no way to defend enough places to stop the reset. Boom. Reset.
So we come back in and it starts again. 6-7 of us defend 49 from the crowd. Again the fight was fun while it lasted and in the end, at least by the time I logged off, we still held it. But it was the only green base in the area by that time as every other undefended base had been taken around us. Had we each spread out and tried to defend all of the bases we'd have lost 49 so it was a no win situation.
Granted it was funny to see them finally stop coming to 49 knowing they weren't going to get it, but clearly the emphasis is not on fighting other players but taking bases as fast as possible against as little opposition as possible.
So do we accept that this is now just the nature of AH, or is there a way to put the players back together in combat and change the emphasis off winning the reset as fast as possible.
Yeah I know it's an old question, but it seems to be getting worse lately and I see very few folks having any desire to change it.
You do begin to recognize the 'few' who jump to the low numbers to try and help fight off the inevitable, but sadly it's just a 'few' as clearly it's much more desirable apparently to belong to the 'winning' side.
If that's what the AH world wants, then so be it. In the end I won't lose any sleep over it, but I can't believe we come to an online world with the opportunity to fly against 'real live' opponents only to instead avoid them in the quest to get reset perks.
-
As I said in another thread, it appears that some people want something team related in game. The only thing there presently, is base capture. Combine that with those who think that's the way to go and you have the "Rush to Reset" that we are indeed seeing.
The new arena setup has exasperated the horde problem as well. I have seen more "arena" hordes since the split of arena's than before. But it's a function of people and their preferences of aircraft.
-
I blame Pac-Man.... the video game that started it all.....
-
perhaps if they weren't rewarded with perks when the map resets. of course the whines would be crazy.
sometimes i feel sorry for HT, it's tough to get the balance right
-
I have to wonder if things would be more interesting if "perk points" just went the way of the Do Do Bird, and a different system was installed.
Fight for a reset, fine, but no perk points. Just have a system where each player has a set # of ENY 5 a/c per Tour and thats that. Say 50. Any 50 you want, once they are used up, thats it. Same for GVs. Everybody starts each Tour on a level playing field, if you want to roll LA-7s and F4U-1Cs, fine, but after you "blow them", thats it.
50 is just an arbitary #, maybe more, Im just giving an example....maybe 100...
It would make everybody appreciate the better rides, everybody has the same # per Tour to spend, and resets are still fought for and won, but for the sake of winning, not for some "monetary reward". Those that want to get a high "rank" can still do that if thats what is fun for them, that doesnt change.
Just a thought. Whatever . ;)
-
Thats right, you do get perks for "winning" a reset don't you?
Been on the losing side so long I forgot about that... :D
I know I personally have a lot more fun defending than I do attacking (though I HATE getting vulched...), but even I grabbed an LVT and captured a base last night. I feel dirty, and that "Order of the Serpentine" crap don't wash off that kinda funk. I'm thinking of going to confession...
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Has this become the total focus of the AH world? The reason I'm asking. The last few times i've flown, regardless of arena, that's all I see now.
In a word....YES.
It is especially prevalent in the low number arenas.
Had a guy last night drove an M3 to a GV field. He must have driven for over an hour (no spawn). He then started demanding that someone come kill the ack for him. The nearest uncapped field was 75+ miles away. After 10 or 15 minutes of whining, he switched countries to do the same to his previous country. I then killed his C47 6 times in the next 20 minutes as he tried to capture another GV field (he did finally get it).
The upshot was that his squadmates logged in and wanted to know why he changed countries. In listening to them talk, I discovered that they were bragging about having taught this guy everything he knows. Like shooting ack and driving M3's to undefended fields required training?????
I was stunned by this attitude. When I ask folks like this about why they do this, their response is always "because winning the war is what the game is about". When I point out that the game is supposed to be about combat, they tell me that I must be new. :lol
I did recently talk to HT about this problem. I do know that he is not satisfied with the turn the game has taken and is looking for possible solutions to bring combat back to the forefront. Hopefully, he will be successful. This game is too good to just be turned into another "capture the flag" game.
-
Defending 49 was fun... notice it is very unusual for anyone to capture a base the 80th defends. They attack in a hord and keep coming back for a short time and then go off to an undefended base, I find that just toooo funny. It's getting to the point that if they see 38s on the deck they just stay high and bomb :rofl
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
I blame Pac-Man.... the video game that started it all.....
Actually, I think Space Invaders was developed before Pac-man. But the original video game that started it all was PONG. :D
-
Lot's of manned 88s at the feilds and more manned quad 37s or 40mms!
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Lot's of manned 88s at the feilds and more manned quad 37s or 40mms!
:D
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Lot's of manned 88s at the feilds and more manned quad 37s or 40mms!
Throw in multiple and hidden VHs at airbases too. Seperate fighter strips nearby....:)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Has this become the total focus of the AH world? The reason I'm asking. The last few times i've flown, regardless of arena, that's all I see now.
Each time I log on in the evening, when I go into an arena, there are overwhelming numbers on one team and at least one other team so low in numbers, it's inevitable that the reset is coming.
You do begin to recognize the 'few' who jump to the low numbers to try and help fight off the inevitable, but sadly it's just a 'few' as clearly it's much more desirable apparently to belong to the 'winning' side.
If that's what the AH world wants, then so be it. In the end I won't lose any sleep over it, but I can't believe we come to an online world with the opportunity to fly against 'real live' opponents only to instead avoid them in the quest to get reset perks.
Shhhhh Guppy, I've pointed this out for over three weeks now. Let the "good sticks" get their free perks. They NEED them more than I do. I recall being called a "whiner" over 200 pointing out the "precedent" being set back then.
-
Originally posted by NCLawman
Actually, I think Space Invaders was developed before Pac-man. But the original video game that started it all was PONG. :D
but Pac-man was about gobbling up all you can gobble....
lol!
-
C'mon people it's fun!
Let's reset those bishes to stone age!
Woo Woo:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Has this become the total focus of the AH world? The reason I'm asking. The last few times i've flown, regardless of arena, that's all I see now.
Each time I log on in the evening, when I go into an arena, there are overwhelming numbers on one team and at least one other team so low in numbers, it's inevitable that the reset is coming.
It's kind of become the joke for me and the guys in the 80th. We hop to the low number side for another hopeless, against all odds defense. The problem is, no matter how hard you put up a fight, you don't have the bodies to spread out enough to stop the steam roll.
Last night I started in Midwar and a squadie and I were up in the 38s with DTs looking for the fight. In literally a 30 second time frame, 6 base capture messages scrolled across the bottom of the screen. The only kills landed were tank drivers. Those of us in the air couldn't get to the fight as they'd be gone by the time you got to where the dar bar was when you took off. I don't ever burn off all my DT fuel and we did last night and we never encountered another plane in the air.
So we hop to Latewar Orange. It's 30 Rooks, 90 Bish, 90 Knights. Ahh the hopless defense. Good fun while it lasted, but there was no way to defend enough places to stop the reset. Boom. Reset.
So we come back in and it starts again. 6-7 of us defend 49 from the crowd. Again the fight was fun while it lasted and in the end, at least by the time I logged off, we still held it. But it was the only green base in the area by that time as every other undefended base had been taken around us. Had we each spread out and tried to defend all of the bases we'd have lost 49 so it was a no win situation.
Granted it was funny to see them finally stop coming to 49 knowing they weren't going to get it, but clearly the emphasis is not on fighting other players but taking bases as fast as possible against as little opposition as possible.
So do we accept that this is now just the nature of AH, or is there a way to put the players back together in combat and change the emphasis off winning the reset as fast as possible.
Yeah I know it's an old question, but it seems to be getting worse lately and I see very few folks having any desire to change it.
You do begin to recognize the 'few' who jump to the low numbers to try and help fight off the inevitable, but sadly it's just a 'few' as clearly it's much more desirable apparently to belong to the 'winning' side.
If that's what the AH world wants, then so be it. In the end I won't lose any sleep over it, but I can't believe we come to an online world with the opportunity to fly against 'real live' opponents only to instead avoid them in the quest to get reset perks.
Has been for a long time, even way before the changes, only difference was the resets happened less frequently because the numbers were more even.
Now because of the multiple arenas it has made resets easier to achieve.
HT has dug himself into a hole here-
He has already said numerous times that things aren't going back to what they were, so he has to continue to try and tweak a current setup that has obvious flaws in it.
No amount of tweaking will negate some of the flaws.
Anyone who didn't see some of this coming must have been blind -
Country jumpers before a reset in the old MA
Now are both that, AND arena jumpers if their country is doing badly in one of them.
Leading to low numbers in one arena, overwhelming in another.
But going back to the original "reset the map" once again, I re-iterate -
YES, it has been like that for a long time, even way before (years) the changes, only difference now is it is easier to do.
-
So basically Kev, you are saying that with the one MA it was easier to camoflage the flaw and now it's right out there in the open for everyone to see?
That suggests a complete redesign of the maps and the focus which to me, as stated before, becomes removing the reset as an option.
Leave limited base capture but not resets. Introduce strat targets with meaning for the buffers. Confine base capture to easily seen and defined areas that make base capture take actual effort and funnel the combatants to that area, etc etc.
Basically HT gave us the option to change it as a community with the different arena types, but the 'sheep' can only continue to eat the grass unless forced to learn something different?
Kind of a sad comment on the AH community isn't it.........:(
-
"baaaa--"
-
notice it is very unusual for anyone to capture a base the 80th defends.
keep coming back for a short time and then go off to an undefended base,
It really has nothing to do with what squad defends from the bish.No matter if it's strangers or 1 squad bish always move on to another undfended field.When i was flying on the bishop side i flew in countless missions and when they figured the defenders wouldn't let them have the field they moved on and left the guys that were coming back in on thier second run hanging.Since flying with the knights the only country that is truly fun to take a base from is the rooks.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
"baaaa--"
Well we knew that was a given Waffle :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
So basically Kev, you are saying that with the one MA it was easier to camoflage the flaw and now it's right out there in the open for everyone to see?
That suggests a complete redesign of the maps and the focus which to me, as stated before, becomes removing the reset as an option.
Leave limited base capture but not resets. Introduce strat targets with meaning for the buffers. Confine base capture to easily seen and defined areas that make base capture take actual effort and funnel the combatants to that area, etc etc.
Basically HT gave us the option to change it as a community with the different arena types, but the 'sheep' can only continue to eat the grass unless forced to learn something different?
Kind of a sad comment on the AH community isn't it.........:(
No, the flaw wasn't camouflaged.
It was very unusual for any country to get numbers advantage in the old MA the way they can now under the new setup.
Even when the Rooks used to have their RJO's their numbers advantage as a percentage of the overall arena numbers was lower than what is possible now.
Remove the reset - Oh yeah can just imagine what this would cause.
Captures at defined areas - Would penalise the country that is in the hole, and make it a lot harder for them to get out of it.
Not a sad comment on the AH community at all when you realise people all play for different reasons -
furball
toolshed
pork
base capture
Like I said to not expect or forsee this happening shows either
a) naivity
b) a total lack of understanding of human nature
c) an imcomplete forecast of what might happen
d) a lack of understanding of the majority of the player base
-
When there are 90 bish 90 rook and they both race to reset the 30 knits I can get their point (though I hate it). BUT when there are 90 bish 30 rook and 30 knits, and still the rooks attack the knits I don't get it.
What is the tactical point of capturing the bases of the weakest country if you are not going to be the winner? The point of 3 countries, that's a tip for you armchair generals, is that the two weaker countries attack the strongest one. Ganging the weakest country only helps the third one win - read, you loose.
I like guppies idea of other rewards that do not require reset. For example, here are a few things I've been thinking about:
* reducing a countries type of factory / city to 0% awards perks. Destroying their HQ award more perks to everyone in the country (like in reset).
* Make only front bases capture-able, so their capture supports the strategic campaign, but does not prevent the other country from defending their cities and factories.
* Give incentive to the middle country to attack the strongest and not the weakest. What I'd really like is that if one country gets a reward, BOTH the other two loose something, but that will not be taken kindly I'm afraid. Instead make the reward earned for achieving goals relative to the numbers - meaning use the perk multiplier on rewards. So if the middle country attacks the weakest they get little reward. For the strongest it pays of to attack the strategic targets of the middle one.
This is way to drastic a change then what HTC will do now that they are working on TOD. But who knows?
ps.
I still don't get the perk greediness as I still have no use for them and I can make in one sortie more than what I get from reset.
-
Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing.
Regards,
hap
:aok
-
There are solutions Kev. Problem is there are a lot of players that just do not want the kind of solutions that would help these issues because they DO NOT want to have to fight for that they "earn".
A lot of these are going to take time so those of us that want them are going to have to be patent. Things that have been said before here many times.
Increase ack at fields with more manable ack.
Increase the number of troops required to capture a field.
Make it so you have to put troops in the field AND the town for a capture.
Harden troops and ord at fields.
Satellite airfields and camo'd hangers.
Make the point system reward for capturing strategic fields that will be defended and no reward for capturing undefended fields at the far ends of the map.
Get rid of the easy mode bombers with the easy mode bomb site and laser guns. Institute random bomb drift during fall or put wind above 10K. No dive bombing heavy buffs.
Come up with some form of penalty for the pork and auger tactics. Reward buff drivers for bringing them home safely. i.e. {gameID} completed mission objective with 0 losses of {squad name}
Many others have been suggested here. The problem is how many of the potatod mongers would agree with any of these? Why should they? They have it easy now. Run around the map 2 sides ganging up on the 3rd avoiding each other and when one side resets the map they can all exchange their WTGs.
-
When one side reaches a perk mod of 4.00....
enable NOOKS on the lowest number side!
-
Originally posted by Hap
Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing.
Regards,
hap
;)
;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Hap
Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing.
Regards,
hap
With that said, would you support changes that would make you actually fight for the bases you take? Increase the difficulty, etc..
I think I know the answer but I'd like to be proven wrong.
-
Dont think most guys who go for resets do it for the perks anyway. The ones I've heard crowing are excited over "the victory...we are teh best" feeling. (I've actaully heard some guys saying that stuff..."we are the best country!" Sheesh.)
Rather than major structural changes, wouldnt it make sense to put in the dynamic, per arena country cap the Slap talked about a couple weeks ago? The balance issue would resolve, and easy hording would be decreased.
More ack, and more mannable positions, and so forth would also help defenders...but would they also make it MORE necessary to horde to get capture?
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
There are solutions Kev. Problem is there are a lot of players that just do not want the kind of solutions that would help these issues because they DO NOT want to have to fight for that they "earn".
A lot of these are going to take time so those of us that want them are going to have to be patent. Things that have been said before here many times.
Increase ack at fields with more manable ack.
Increase the number of troops required to capture a field.
Make it so you have to put troops in the field AND the town for a capture.
Harden troops and ord at fields.
Satellite airfields and camo'd hangers.
Make the point system reward for capturing strategic fields that will be defended and no reward for capturing undefended fields at the far ends of the map.
Get rid of the easy mode bombers with the easy mode bomb site and laser guns. Institute random bomb drift during fall or put wind above 10K. No dive bombing heavy buffs.
Come up with some form of penalty for the pork and auger tactics. Reward buff drivers for bringing them home safely. i.e. {gameID} completed mission objective with 0 losses of {squad name}
Many others have been suggested here. The problem is how many of the potatod mongers would agree with any of these? Why should they? They have it easy now. Run around the map 2 sides ganging up on the 3rd avoiding each other and when one side resets the map they can all exchange their WTGs.
I suppose that could be an acurate assesment of one type of the game play that can be found in the arena's. But there are others, like myself that operate in small groups,(squads) usually outnumbered, and enjoy the challange of a tough fought victory,...or defeat. To me..."Winning" is the objective, but to do so by avoiding combat makes no sense at all. So...for the others like myself, making it harder to "Win" ie: defeat enemy defences and capture enemy ground...only makes the game MORE FUN. Not veryone plays to capture bases, not everyone plays to furball.
Have at it, there's plenty for all.
-
Whirlblewinds and manned 88s! I'm not bending on this!...:rofl
-
Fly the DA!
I think it is already set up to minimize all the complaints I've read here.
All that's necessary is numbers.
Think of it like Fighter Town.
[edit] Maybe a large squad could commit numbers to a DA night which would entice others to join the fun. Not a squad vs squad or squad vs everybody else, just using a large squad to gaurentee numbers.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Dont think most guys who go for resets do it for the perks anyway. The ones I've heard crowing are excited over "the victory...we are teh best" feeling. (I've actaully heard some guys saying that stuff..."we are the best country!" Sheesh.)
Rather than major structural changes, wouldnt it make sense to put in the dynamic, per arena country cap the Slap talked about a couple weeks ago? The balance issue would resolve, and easy hording would be decreased.
More ack, and more mannable positions, and so forth would also help defenders...but would they also make it MORE necessary to horde to get capture?
The part I can't get around is the argument 'well why don't you just defend better?" And when people say as hap did
"Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing."
It's a poor attempt at making it sound noble somehow. No war is won, a redo is done. The war never ends. Why isn't it about the fight? I go low numbers hoping that at least I can up into the horde to fight. But even that doesn't last if you defend at all decently.
49 was the perfect example for me last night. We defended it with the guys we had. So the other guys took everything around us. There was no way for us, with our numbers to defend all the bases. So there is no way to stop the mob from capturing undefended fields. 49 was undefended until we defended it. And they couldn't take it. But they could take everything else. had we moved our few numbers to another field, we'd have given up 49.
Now it was fun while they kept coming, and there were a few that kept coming back so we couldn't just move as we didn't know if the mob was otw. At one point we had dar bars showing in every sector around us. We hoped they were coming to 49. We weren't in a position to really take it to them, although we did venture out a couple at a time to try and disrupt the incoming.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Fly the DA!
I think it is already set up to minimize all the complaints I've read here.
All that's necessary is numbers.
Think of it like Fighter Town.
And that's another of the overused answers.
This isn't about furballing for me. This is about the fight. We kinda like defending bases. I enjoy a good 1 v 1 but I don't mind taking on the mob. Heck, Raptor lives in the mob. He's not happy if he isn't taking on 3-4 or more.
The point here is do we accept the emphasis of the game has evolved into racing to reset in the easiest possible way, or do we find a way to get the game back to people actually having to compete against other people.
It's a game not war. I'm remined of my first copy of Madden football back on my old Apple II+. You could design plays and set it up that you couldn't be stopped.
It was fun for about 5 minutes, but then it became pointless. If the outcome is predetermined by the set up, then what's the point?
I think part of the problem is that 70-80% of the AH population prefers to have the outcomed predetermined and find satisfaction in that.
-
Originally posted by Fencer51
As I said in another thread, it appears that some people want something team related in game. The only thing there presently, is base capture.
I believe this to be an incorrect statement/belief although a widely held one. The idea that fighting other players is an individual/non-team related activity. Even "mindless" furballing is at it's best when I have a couple squaddies on my wing and we're working together trying to keep our tails clear (preferrably against insurmountable odds with little or no chance of survival). Just about any activity in the game can be team oriented and have a goal if you want it to be. I see the issue in that people in general try or want it to be as easy as possible, when a challenge can often be more rewarding and fun.
-
actually - you don't need to look farther than the historical progress to get the answers.
Dude A is flying recon in early WW1.....Dude A sees another recon plane nearby. Dude A shoots other plane with shotgun.
Dude B whos been shot goes home wounded and cursing. Dude B duct tapes shot guns to the top of his plane. Dude B goes back to fight. Dude B wins.
Dude A goes back and get machine guns and mounts them on swivels and above his top wing. He even gets a rear gunner to help defend, as well as toss some crude 12lb explosive on the ground from his plane. Dude A wins.
Dude B now comes up with a way to mount machine guns on nose and fire through the prop. In addition, he also gets a rear gunner and a bomb tosser.
Dude B wins.
Dude A finds Dude B's technology for mounting the machine gun on the nose.
Dude A and Dude B are now equals.
Now Dudes A and B's airplanes are getting faster and more heavily armed.
They now have technology to make their explosive bomb tossing more accurate.
Dude A starts attacking the ground. Dude B build lots of guns to shoot at Dude A from the ground. Dude B wins.
Dude A develops larger airplanes to carry more explosives. He drops them on Dude B's ground guns. Dude A wins.
Dude B develops better aircraft to get Dude A's big planes before they bomb his ground. Dude B wins
Dude A develops faster higher aircraft to protect his big planes from Dude B's small planes.
The fight is on.
-
I'm all for the fight being on.
It just doesn't appear to be the main goal of many in AH :)
-
defending a base on my own against 5 people in the EW arena the other day, with me the only one online for knits and down to a few fields... shortly after landing another load of kills against the landgrabbers and suffering more cheat accusations one of them come out with a brilliant line...
"Knits will lose the war, that is all that matters" while another pointed out my high rank.
:cry :cry :cry :cry
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Fly the DA!
I think it is already set up to minimize all the complaints I've read here.
All that's necessary is numbers.
Think of it like Fighter Town.
[edit] Maybe a large squad could commit numbers to a DA night which would entice others to join the fun. Not a squad vs squad or squad vs everybody else, just using a large squad to gaurentee numbers.
A classic example of someone completely missing the point! This discussion isn't about furballing vs toolsheading it about those who AVOID contact with the enemy in their glorious quest for the reset.
I cant count the number of time I have upped to defend, with the same people 90% of the time it seems, just to see the same result. The base capture heroes get frustrated and leave for an undefended field.
To me I just do not see the fun in capturing a base where no resistance is offered at all.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Had a guy last night drove an M3 to a GV field. He must have driven for over an hour (no spawn). He then started demanding that someone come kill the ack for him. The nearest uncapped field was 75+ miles away. After 10 or 15 minutes of whining, he switched countries to do the same to his previous country. I then killed his C47 6 times in the next 20 minutes as he tried to capture another GV field (he did finally get it).
NB I think I ran into this guy last night, he tried to capture V70, just a lone C47, no fighter escort. :lol
Last night a bunch of knits were trying to "Capture" the bish HQ :lol that was funny too, "Troops OTW for HQ" "Capture HQ and win the reset"
After I explained to them that you bomb the HQ there must have been 5 or 6 trying to bomb that place.
I'm thinking though that the 'Capture the HQ' might help with some of these issues. I think a combination of Slap's idea, more ack and 88's at fields, add VHs to towns and strats, vehicle spawn points to strats, reset the map by either taking bases or capturing strats and HQ. Or put a time limit on the map and winner is the side that shoots down the most planes and captures the most bases in that time limit.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
NB I think I ran into this guy last night, he tried to capture V70, just a lone C47, no fighter escort. :lol
Last night a bunch of knits were trying to "Capture" the bish HQ :lol that was funny too, "Troops OTW for HQ" "Capture HQ and win the reset"
After I explained to them that you bomb the HQ there must have been 5 or 6 trying to bomb that place.
I'm thinking though that the 'Capture the HQ' might help with some of these issues. I think a combination of Slap's idea, more ack and 88's at fields, add VHs to towns and strats, vehicle spawn points to strats, reset the map by either taking bases or capturing strats and HQ. Or put a time limit on the map and winner is the side that shoots down the most planes and captures the most bases in that time limit.
\
I said something similar a few months back. You must capture and hold a line of bases leading to the enemies HQ and then capture and hold the HQ for a set period of time to win the reset.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
I said something similar a few months back. You must capture and hold a line of bases leading to the enemies HQ and then capture and hold the HQ for a set period of time to win the reset.
that combined with Hitech's (and someone else mentioned it too) idea about only the front line bases are captureable. Make the bases and the strats capturable. The push would be towards the HQ, with a final pitched battle to save HQ. It may take a horde but then all the fighters would be along the same front. There would still be strategy for those that want it with flanking attacks. Upping the fuel burn a notch or too might help, (remember when a lot of people cried with fuel burn went from 1.5 to 2?) make it 2.5
-
Change town ack from puffy back to AutoAck and you will see some changes.
That one change has made it almost stupid easy to capture airfields.
PLEASE change the town ack back to the way it was.
-
I love the game as it is, but it would be a wonderful improvement if we could just get a system of meaningful strategic elements.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
And that's another of the overused answers.
This isn't about furballing for me. This is about the fight. We kinda like defending bases. I enjoy a good 1 v 1 but I don't mind taking on the mob. Heck, Raptor lives in the mob. He's not happy if he isn't taking on 3-4 or more.
The point here is do we accept the emphasis of the game has evolved into racing to reset in the easiest possible way, or do we find a way to get the game back to people actually having to compete against other people.
It's a game not war. I'm remined of my first copy of Madden football back on my old Apple II+. You could design plays and set it up that you couldn't be stopped.
It was fun for about 5 minutes, but then it became pointless. If the outcome is predetermined by the set up, then what's the point?
I think part of the problem is that 70-80% of the AH population prefers to have the outcomed predetermined and find satisfaction in that.
Could also point out -
That current situation is a DIRECT result of the arena changes, not some bi-product of them.
Which can only lead me to the feeling that HT either seriously underestimated what would happen, or didn't realise what would happen.
-
I shy from solutions because, in the end.. what we suggest is unimportant.. been around HT and co lontg enough to know that they are gonna do what they think is best and... usually.. it is.
As far as the whorde hitting undefended bases... HT is maybe a victim of his own sucess here... All these new players and most of em are dead meat if the run into a red plane no matter what advantage in e and plane choice they have...
They all know this so they join a squad with an open door policy and 2 or three wings of these lemmings... and... strict rules that guarentee success by whorde tactics and hitting undefended fields.
I don't see any alternative cause.... these guys get some kills this way but would get nothing if they had to compete.
To focus on air combat is to focus like a lazer beam on the problem... the guys doing the hamster wheel of field capture... simply can't do anything else.... take that away from em and they will have to leave.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Another great post ,
Try few more, you may get one month free,
Who cares what you find fun in game ?! Did somebody ask you to stop furbaling and resup bases in C47 ?? Why are you teaching others what to do for their money ?! Some guys love blondes, some brunettes, some enjoy GVs others bombing, The game ofers fun for all tastes, and as long as you don't pay my 15$, i do whatever i want,
Long live toolsheders !:aok
-
Oh geez for once I partly agree with Lazs, OMG, best check sky isn't falling.
He is right, HT is a victim of his own success.
Problem (not so much a problem but a requirement) is the steep learning curve, always has been, always will be.
Heres the bigger problem -
Changes that drive away Vets in favor of just getting more and more people into the game will always result in what we have now.
You are now relying on two week freebies to sign up take the time to learn the game and become the 'new' vets.
Most won't.
[edit] Starting to wonder if part of the solution may be to do away with scores and the 'rank' system. After all the score/rank system is meaningless anyway.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
So we hop to Latewar Orange. It's 30 Rooks, 90 Bish, 90 Knights. Ahh the hopless defense. Good fun while it lasted, but there was no way to defend enough places to stop the reset. Boom. Reset.
So we come back in and it starts again. 6-7 of us defend 49 from the crowd. Again the fight was fun while it lasted and in the end, at least by the time I logged off, we still held it.
Sounds like you had fun. Also, if you stop limiting your self to the 38 and decide to get your hands dirty an try a lala, you can have fun taking down 10 of the horders before you die. I know, lala is not cool but . . .
Anyway, if you had fun as you say, what is the complain?
-
Explanations
The community has grown larger, and not all of its members hail from the "prestigious line" of old aerial sim veterans who joined the great venture into the world of aerial combat simulations at the dawn of personal computers and electronic gaming. This "line", has experienced almost all of the changes in the field from text-based simulations to the latest games up to date. It met it's highest peak during the days of Air Warrior, War Birds, and subsequently first Aces High. This line of vets were the original "geeks", when playing computer games was not considered as something a respectable grown man should do. They formed the first WW2 combat sim community that overlapped each different games upto a certain poinr - when you met some guy in AW, you'd see the same guy playing WB, then you'd see him playing AH or IL-2 nowadays.
However, the advancement of technology in the field of computers have brought up games as a significant medium of entertainment. The market expands. Children nowadays consider games as the most favored form of play - "gaming" is now synonimous with "playing" for this new generation. We had young people playing baseball or basketball or soccer in the late 80's and early 90's. Nowadays they play computer games. This expansion in the gaming industry and market has brought into the world of WW2 simulation a significant "alien factor" which is unfamiliar to the "old line of vets" and their small community.
This new element in the sim community still does have a common factor as the "vets" do - curiosity towards the history of the second World War, passion towards flight, the urge to experience aerial combat which so frequently depicted in variety of sources such as books or movies. However, despite the similarities, the motives and expectations they have for combat sims is totally different from the "vets" all together.
The vets have more or less become accustomed to accepting the technical limitations in simulating aerial combat. Since there was no way to put up a big warring environment on-line at the beginning stages of on-line gaming, generally the thrill of aerial combat itself was all that mattered. The thrill of individual (or limited multiple) engagements was all they had and all that mattered. They loved enjoying the small aspect of it all- a handful few people, all good friends, locked in aerial combat flying historical planes. A very small, limited scale of depicting WW2 combat, but it was good enough for them.
Because there was nothing else, people competed to become a good pilot. An EXCELLENT pilot, as a matter of fact. There was no such thing as a 'war' going on which they could influence. Therefore, the spirit of competition and gaming fun was expressed through the only thing they could achieve while playing the archaic flight sims, packaged sims with limited multiplater capability, and the earliest on-line flight sims.
However, the "aliens" - the younger, newer generation of gamers which now coexist with the "vets" in the sim community, come from a very different background; they are accustomed to computer gaming, the internet age opens when they are teens, computer games become more sophisticated and complex, and new horizons opened for all types of games to be able to depict and recreate things which they could not do so before.
These "aliens" have totally different motives and aspirations when they see games like Aces High. They don't play it just for the fun of aerial combat itself - they play it because it is a total gaming experience, which at least loosely depicts the aspect of "war". Not only are they able to enhoy individual combat, they are also able top play a role in a larger scale which takes combined effort for many people to accomlish its final object.
Simply put, it is indeed a "race to reset". They view it as nothing else. It is the ultimate goal and the ultimate fun factor. Their emphasis in competition is not set upon the individual pilot, but how each one's "country" does in the virtual environment. Frankly, not only is there nothing wrong with it, but also there is no way to stop it. It is an inevitable change as long as AH community grows.
Predictions
The "vets" are entering extinction. The "aliens" are breeding like rats. Sooner or later, the line of the old vets will be lost, and the aliens will replace the flight combat sim world. Unless AH goes retro about 10 years and kicks out everyone who doesn't agree with the "vets", this tendency will go on and on until; 1) AH finally restructures its entire strat system to better accomodate such changes while balancing out/refining the weaker points of its gameplay, or 2) a better game comes out which depicts WW2 strat in a much more fun way.
There have been attempts at 2) - such as IL-2 series or WW2OL. However, problems in both of those games have prevented it from becoming the predominant game which would outclass AH. But it is only a matter of time until someone finally "gets it". While IL-2's limited MP capabilites is the single most limiting factor, its developers have recently announced aspirations to bring it up to the MMOG world. Whether this is only talk, or they are really planning on it is unknown. However, if there is any bit of amount of truth on it, then it'll become the largest threat to the survival of AH, ever.
Suggestions
The "vets" must understand this tide of "aliens" is something that cannot be stopped. It is an irreversible process. Therefore, if they cannot stop it, then they should learn to enjoy it.
Ofcourse, this implies that during the course of next five years or so, the MA format of Aces High must be changed. Many of the problems which persist in the MA that the "vets" view as unfavorable, is not necessarily associated with the "alien invasion".
In other words, the reason the MA is not fun for many "vets", is not because there are too many "aliens" around. It is because the game failed to accomodate the "alien factor", which in turn corrupted the MA into an abnormal display of brute power, rather than becoming a more structured representation of a "generic, WW2-ish, war" which should in theory, still contain many of the fun factors which the "vets" hold on to so dearly.
It is a failure of the outdated strat system which was never intended to accomodate the alienfolk that is accelerating discontent. As I have argued many times the AH strat system was by all intentions and means nothing much more than a simple "stage" which the "old vets" were meant to act on. They were nothing more than facades of a war which is comprised of a very simple component of territorial struggle - you barge in with deadly force, capture the field, advance in territory, repeat ad nauseam, and you win.
Consider the MA as a game of poker. The current MA is like people playing poker with an unlimited amount of money (or toy money, if you will). Because of this, the basics of playing a poker game is totally lost. People just raise and call stuff like hell. Bluffing doesn't work because the amount of money on the table is unlimited. People call wild shots, change cards in an illogical sequence, even counting the cards don't help. They don't think anything through. Who cares if they lose some money? The supply is unlimited.
However, if the MA can be restructured so it can better depict a generic version of war based on the image of WW2, (albeit without limitations by nationality in planes or by era of their introduction) then the problems will stop. Internal logic of the strat mechanics, and strategical aspects will become the "leash" which does not exist in the current MA. Each players of all three countries will be bound and govered by (simulated) realities war that will ultimately prevent them from relying on pure brute force to win the war. Each of the battles competing for air superiority will become more important, player movement and mobilization will become limited, logistics will intervene, and therefore, every plane or pilot lost in the air will gain some sort of meaning.
This means introducing real money in that game of chaotic poker. A new type of strat will ensure that. People can't just waste planes or flock to single places, go here and there at whim. There are now multiple factors to consider. And as soon as real money is put on the table, people start playing straight. All the subtle individual skills such as sharking or bluffing, card counting and stuff now works. The game becomes much more centered in winning with individual hands dealt.
Fuel and ammo supplies. Logistics and road systems. Economic facilities and attrition. Limited number of planes (or pilots) for field. Structured organization. Concept of different 'airforces', each taking charge of one of the two battle fronts a single country has. Introduction of ground forces. Changing the point of capture from individual fields to important economic/logistic points. Disallowing direct capture of ground targets by air forces alone. New radar systems.
No, "vets".
This does not make turn the game more "toolshed bustin' ".
It turns the game into "bustin' toolsheds more carefully and critically, which requires gaining local airsuperiority with limited numbers of planes, pilots, and resources... which in turn, will emphasize on small~medium scaled localized air combat of roughly comparable number of opponents on both sides... which will bring back some of the thrill of individual air combat which the current MA has lost."
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Also, if you stop limiting your self to the 38 and decide to get your hands dirty an try a lala, you can have fun taking down 10 of the horders before you die. I know, lala is not cool but . . .
Its more fun to take down 5 or 6 in a plane that everyone underestimates that to take 10 in the same ride as everyone else.
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Sounds like you had fun. Also, if you stop limiting your self to the 38 and decide to get your hands dirty an try a lala, you can have fun taking down 10 of the horders before you die. I know, lala is not cool but . . .
Anyway, if you had fun as you say, what is the complain?
Not a complaint so much as an observation. I just hadn't seen the race to reset become such an obsession until the last week or so. Bases falling like dominos at rapid fire rate and the resets happening what seems like all the time I fly. (Probably my fault :) )
I sure don't mind dying, since I'm not really dead, and yes i had fun while it lasted. It just seems strange that no one seems to want that fun to last in their effort to 'win the war."
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
If the outcome is predetermined by the set up, then what's the point?
I think part of the problem is that 70-80% of the AH population prefers to have the outcomed predetermined and find satisfaction in that.
As a generality, it is accurate to say.... people will always take the path of least resistance in any endeavor. I guess it really isn't that surprising that things would go this way when you stop and think about it. The question, I guess, is can the game be salvaged or is it going to remain simply "capture the flag" with airplanes?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Not a complaint so much as an observation. I just hadn't seen the race to reset become such an obsession until the last week or so. Bases falling like dominos at rapid fire rate and the resets happening what seems like all the time I fly. (Probably my fault :) )
I sure don't mind dying, since I'm not really dead, and yes i had fun while it lasted. It just seems strange that no one seems to want that fun to last in their effort to 'win the war."
Bah, just bad luck man. It has always been like that, in my opinion.
-
Deleted
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Its more fun to take down 5 or 6 in a plane that everyone underestimates that to take 10 in the same ride as everyone else.
In reality it is not. You just feel that you are better because you are in inferior plane. When was the last time you took down all 5 or 6 in 6 vs 1 in any ride?
-
MAKE PERKS FOR KILLZ ONLY.
New map reset once a week OR winning war.
PERK THE LA7 & THE SPIXTEEN- they can have the spit 8 & 9, the Nik, and the cane2 for free.
\
Perk formations, solo buffs free.
That wouldnt take much to change- & it would definately put a damper on those who fly EZmode hordes. It wouldnt hurt any AH ole timers.
-
as soon as the CT is running the furballers can have the MA sandbox all to themselves.
-
You also have to remember alot of these new guys have just found something awesome. No more playing offline games..remember that feeling?
They are perfectly content. Give em a couple years and they will be in the same boat. Then they will be complaining about the next batch of new guys.
I wish they would either go back the way it was, or atleast put side balance in the game that was enforced by the game and not relied on the players to do it with eny. I would never have suggested that before, because Im a squad guy. But lately I rarely see any of my squad. So a balanced arena of lone wolves would be more to my liking than the way it is now.
As far as the gameplay...blowing up stuff and capturing bases is the way the game is. The fighters in the arena are pretty much an "also ran" as far as the gameplay is concerned.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
When one side reaches a perk mod of 4.00....
enable NOOKS on the lowest number side!
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/b1leeb0b/nookie.gif)
Had to post it! :D
-
Deleted, I'm not going there.
-
Another thing that would help gameplay would be to make it so strafing bldgs is eliminated. If you want to kill a bldg you must bomb it. Barracks,ord and radar included. That and make flying the best planes practically scoreless and making the older planes really high in return for perks. So if a guy killed 500 in a Spit16 or LA7, when matched in score against a guy in a 109F with 100 kills, the 109 should have a MUCH higher score.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
And that's another of the overused answers.
This isn't about furballing for me. This is about the fight. We kinda like defending bases. I enjoy a good 1 v 1 but I don't mind taking on the mob. Heck, Raptor lives in the mob. He's not happy if he isn't taking on 3-4 or more.
You have a very good point. I was not dileneating between finding a fight and the actual fight. I enjoy a good furball but not all the time either. I also enjoy defending, especially when a cv is next to a base :)
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
A classic example of someone completely missing the point! This discussion isn't about furballing vs toolsheading it about those who AVOID contact with the enemy in their glorious quest for the reset.
I didn't know I was classic! Tre cool!
Seriously, I understand about avoiding contact. I was vectoring into a con dropping on a country city. I was completely amazed when he rode the plane into the dirt rather than engage. Hell, I was still over 6K out! At least take the chance of winning a fight, come on.
-
Because something is newer, does not mean it is an improvement.
-
Originally posted by john9001
as soon as the CT is running the furballers can have the MA sandbox all to themselves.
Hmmm..having trouble coping..or just a bad day?
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Change town ack from puffy back to AutoAck and you will see some changes.
That one change has made it almost stupid easy to capture airfields.
PLEASE change the town ack back to the way it was.
:D
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
but Pac-man was about gobbling up all you can gobble....
lol!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I think bugs is trying to say why fly a plane that takes more skill when you can fly an LA.
-
Ok lets see if I can do this in a nice diplomatic way so I don't get a bunch of flames back :)
First off I have to say perks smerks bahh I never in my years of playing went for the reset perks, I hardly use em other than a tiger here and there.
I play for the reset and I personally try not to run over the country with the lowest #'s but some times end up in that position just so the other big country dosn't win.. Example a few nights ago in 1 of the LW arenas all 3 countries were almost perfecty even. Good fights for bases, we were at a stand still. Then we bish actually got organised and strarted pushing in on the rooks/Nits don't remeber what side. We took several bases and they were hard won bases but once the rooks realised they were geting pounded about half of them loged off and then it was one of those races for reset you were talking about..
On the question of why do the base capture type players stop coming to a defended field and go to another for the capture, I would think this obvious....
Side A attempts to capture field 1 but side B is ready and on the spot defefends and stops the capture.. Now this really becomes just a furball and most of the time it isn't worth trying to get an unarmed C47 to town because there are just to many red guys that would love to kill that goon. For guys that are playing the war game the furball is not productive. So rather than have 10 goons get blown out of the air side A attempts to surprise side B on a different part of the map in hopes that they can take another base befor side B reacts in time to save it.. Hit the NME where they arn't ready for it. Thats war.
The problem arises from the side imbalances. It's not really the meathod that people wage the war but when there are no NME to fight back some people will take advantage of this and other times it is almost impossible to not be on the out #ing side as described in my first example. Untill this problem is some how soved this arguement will go on and on.
About the question of "Why go for the reset when the war just continues?"
I would say with that line of thought, why do we try winning games of any kind?? Baseball, Football, or chess you name it and when the game is won the players reset the pieces and go at it again.. It would be like me saying to the guys that like to furball. Whats the point? You up, fly over, shoot someone down or get shot down and then your RESET back in the tower or you land and your back in the tower free to up a new plane to start all over again. It's just that we are playing for 2 different goals in the same game.
I still would like to see an idea like I posted a while ago that was similar to HT's about having 2 bases on each front captureable but mine took it a step further and added more of a strtigic aspect to that idea while still bringing the fight togeather.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190612
But even if this is a good Idea and many people liked it I think it we would be waiting for some time for a change like this.
Any way this is my take on things.
-
Originally posted by john9001
as soon as the CT is running the furballers can have the MA sandbox all to themselves.
I don't see this hapening.... I don't think CT will have much in the way of base capturing so those oof us that like the WAR aspect of the game will still be in original AH While those that want a more historic feel will be in CT.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
About the question of "Why go for the reset when the war just continues?"
I would say with that line of thought, why do we try winning games of any kind?? Baseball, Football, or chess you name it and when the game is won the players reset the pieces and go at it again.. It would be like me saying to the guys that like to furball. Whats the point? You up, fly over, shoot someone down or get shot down and then your RESET back in the tower or you land and your back in the tower free to up a new plane to start all over again. It's just that we are playing for 2 different goals in the same game.
The difference I see is that you aren't winning things if you have to have the odds so stacked in your favor it's no contest.
When I was a kid, my best friend and I would get the kids in the neighborhood and set up football, basketball or baseball games. At first it was he and I on a side and we'd win everytime. We just were better at it.
We then went each to one team, and we'd bicker and fight as our competitive nature came out. His team would win some and my team would win some but the issue was always in doubt. It was more fun that way despite the bickering and competitiveness. Was it easier when we were on the same team? Sure. One of us was less apt to go home with a bloody nose :) But we didn't feel like we won anything if we knew the outcome was stacked in our favor.
That's the difference here. Too many folks want to stay with their friends regardless of the outcome of the game. If the outcome is never in doubt, you've never won anything.
I don't want this to be furballer v toolshedder. That's not my point. We had fun defending the base. It was competitive. I'll happily fly into a horde as long as they stick around and fight.
We're rewarding not fighting now though and that working around the fight but seeing the reset as the 'win', defeats the purpose of flying against other people in my mind. Might as well get an offline boxed game and conquer the world.
-
Just read and re-read Kweassa post a few times, and you know what, he is spot on.
It's really a good well though post, would suggest reading it a few times. (it's a few posts back)
It's not a furballer v anyone else thing its a vets v 'aliens' (as he puts it) thing.
The AH customer base has changed drastically in the last few years and the underlying game mechanics have not adapted to it.
Strat and strategic targets are still as basic as they ever were.
Dar hasn't changed in the way it works in the 4 years I have been here. (OK they upped HQ hardness, doesn't camouflage the deficiencies in the whole dar concept).
Yes we have had new planes, new eye candy etc, the basic game itself is unchanged.
I would assume that changing the underlying game mechanics is a lot more than re-writing a few lines of code, maybe they can think about it once CT is released.
-
I agree.. I was not trying to say that one side or other should have a massive #'s advantage to win.... I was mearly answering the general question of "Why go for the reset?"
But some times the imbalance is unavoidable and caused by one teams lack of comitment or what ever and not just 1 side intentionally out #ing the other side, as stated in my first example.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
Side A attempts to capture field 1 but side B is ready and on the spot defefends and stops the capture.. Now this really becomes just a furball and most of the time it isn't worth trying to get an unarmed C47 to town because there are just to many red guys that would love to kill that goon. For guys that are playing the war game the furball is not productive. So rather than have 10 goons get blown out of the air side A attempts to surprise side B on a different part of the map in hopes that they can take another base befor side B reacts in time to save it.. Hit the NME where they arn't ready for it. Thats war.
Thank you for finally admitting the obvious. The win the war types always claim they like to fight but there just isn't any defense. This is just not true. Every time the toolshed horde is met with resistance, doesn't push the fight, it gives up just to go attack another base that is undefended and easier to take.
How many times has this been argued here over the years? Way to many, but I think this is the first time a win the war type has actually admitted to it. for doing so. I understand why you guys do it. Getting slaughtered and not taking the base, which is your goal, isn't fun. I get that. But I wish the rest would open their eyes and see how they actually play.
It's frustrating for guys who like to fight because we are constantly chasing you all over the map not sure what place you will try to sneak next. Then when you do show up it's in a horde of cannon armed whatever vs few defenders. Gets old real quick. But we still fight.
Anyway, again, thanks for admitting the truth.
-
Kev thanks for pointing Kweassas post out.. I think that is the single most logical well though out post I have read in a loooooong time
Kweassa.
After reading that I think nothing else needs be said.
-
Has anybody suggested ack hardness and lethality increases and number of base decreases?
Hell, the whole base could increase and the total number of bases decrease.
[edit] the ratio of hardness to number of bases left could even be logrithmic so that the initial change in hardness wouldn't be noticed.
-
Uh oh..Ghi got banned...
Top notch guy..hope he gets his bbs account bak.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
Kev thanks for pointing Kweassas post out.. I think that is the single most logical well though out post I have read in a loooooong time Kweassa.
After reading that I think nothing else needs be said.
The only problem i see with that, is those were the words describing us 10 years ago when AW got bigger and it was no longer by the hour paying for it.
We were the 'aliens'. How come we figured it out?
You could argue that for those of us with the AW background (can't speak for WB's) that this started when they chose to make base capture that much bigger of a part in the game.
I don't believe that we have no choice but to leave it as is and play 'win the reset' without a fight.
There have to be ways to make actual conflict a part of this virtual game/war. I'm not at the point where I'm willing to just accept it as the way it is. Clearly HTC isn't as well if they are trying to change the direction.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I don't believe that we have no choice but to leave it as is and play 'win the reset' without a fight.
A trans-country ninja squad could be formed to hunt down the milkrunners.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The only problem i see with that, is those were the words describing us 10 years ago when AW got bigger and it was no longer by the hour paying for it.
We were the 'aliens'. How come we figured it out?
You could argue that for those of us with the AW background (can't speak for WB's) that this started when they chose to make base capture that much bigger of a part in the game.
I don't believe that we have no choice but to leave it as is and play 'win the reset' without a fight.
There have to be ways to make actual conflict a part of this virtual game/war. I'm not at the point where I'm willing to just accept it as the way it is. Clearly HTC isn't as well if they are trying to change the direction.
Rather than trying (isn't working) to get the majority to play the game in a specific way, you'd think it would be more profitable to adapt/re-structure the game to suit the majority, while including all other styles also.
As was pointed out despite all the extra planes and eye candy the game itself hasn't fundamentaly changed in over 4 years, yet the playerbase has.
Maybe we are at a crossroads.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The only problem i see with that, is those were the words describing us 10 years ago when AW got bigger and it was no longer by the hour paying for it.
We were the 'aliens'. How come we figured it out?
You, or the guys that taught you, were trained in an official class. There were still a large enough percentage of vets around to run a decent AWTA...even then we lost to the alien numbers eventually, when I left FR AW3 the game was already about the reset even without perks OR a new map.
Making it meaningful again is as simple as coding a rule that you can't use the same field again for two flights if you die. I suggested this 3 years ago, still applies. Back then, there was no interest in curbing horde activity by HTC but it's been a prevalent problem since I joined the game.
Adding more ack or making the field tougher will only encourage larger hordes.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Change town ack from puffy back to AutoAck and you will see some changes.
That one change has made it almost stupid easy to capture airfields.
PLEASE change the town ack back to the way it was.
Didn't HiTech say at the Con it was never supposed to be changed to puffy in the first place? I wonder why he never followed through on changing it back?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Explanations
The "vets" are entering extinction. The "aliens" are breeding like rats. Sooner or later, the line of the old vets will be lost, and the aliens will replace the flight combat sim world.
An excellent and well thought out post, Kweassa. I disagree with this conclusion (although obviously the original vets will die some day). There is still an influx of new people who want to learn how to fly these virtual planes competently against other like-minded people, and who are not now, and probably never will be, interested in some abstraction of an overall "war." I've seen them in the AvA, probably everyone else has seen them in the other arenas. I believe that there will always be such people. The question is whether HTC will aim his game at them, or go for the high numbers of people who are satisfied with a low skill plateau so long as they can enjoy a Budweiser team effort to achieve some perceived game goal. I suspect that's where we are now, on the eve of CT.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
"Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing."
It's a poor attempt at making it sound noble somehow. No war is won, a redo is done. The war never ends. Why isn't it about the fight?
Is football about blocking and tackling, or is it about scoring?
To some, the only "touchdown" in AH is the reset. The rest is blocking and tackling.
Some don't take it quite that far and look at each base capture as a touchdown. But the end of the game still doesn't occur unless the buzzer sounds -- again, that's the reset in AH.
Still others don't care if their team scores a touchdown or not, or wins or not, so long as they get to knock someone else on their behind in the process.
In imperfect analogy to be sure, but it will do.
-
Yup, a terrible analogy.
;)
-
Originally posted by Stang
Yup, a terrible analogy.
;)
For you (last 14 seconds best) . . .
What the Bengals know of Blocking and Tackling (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739973088326539592&q=bengals+chargers&hl=en)
:aok
-
Whoring is all about the $$$, not the love.
Thats a better analogy. ;)
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
A trans-country ninja squad could be formed to hunt down the milkrunners.
NB <---- Lactose intolerant...I would join. :D
-
Originally posted by E25280
Didn't HiTech say at the Con it was never supposed to be changed to puffy in the first place? I wonder why he never followed through on changing it back?
Actually, I pointed it out to him in a phone conversation about a month ago. He didn't realize it and said it would be changed.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Lot's of manned 88s at the feilds and more manned quad 37s or 40mms!
How long have I been saying this?????:rolleyes:
Oh and some of these
(http://membres.lycos.fr/fass3d/rnl/Wirbelwind.jpg)
(http://pic.rhuseth.com/London/Belfast24.jpg)
(http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/guns/40mmbofors02.jpg)
Have a nice Day!
-
I always wanted a .50 cal mounted in the roof of the tower surrounded by sandbags.
And a bayonet.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Explanations
The community has grown larger, and not all of its members hail from the "prestigious line" of old aerial sim veterans who joined the great venture into the world of aerial combat simulations at the dawn of personal computers and electronic gaming. This "line", has experienced almost all of the changes in the field from text-based simulations to the latest games up to date. It met it's highest peak during the days of Air Warrior, War Birds, and subsequently first Aces High. This line of vets were the original "geeks", when playing computer games was not considered as something a respectable grown man should do. They formed the first WW2 combat sim community that overlapped each different games upto a certain poinr - when you met some guy in AW, you'd see the same guy playing WB, then you'd see him playing AH or IL-2 nowadays.
However, the advancement of technology in the field of computers have brought up games as a significant medium of entertainment. The market expands. Children nowadays consider games as the most favored form of play - "gaming" is now synonimous with "playing" for this new generation. We had young people playing baseball or basketball or soccer in the late 80's and early 90's. Nowadays they play computer games. This expansion in the gaming industry and market has brought into the world of WW2 simulation a significant "alien factor" which is unfamiliar to the "old line of vets" and their small community.
This new element in the sim community still does have a common factor as the "vets" do - curiosity towards the history of the second World War, passion towards flight, the urge to experience aerial combat which so frequently depicted in variety of sources such as books or movies. However, despite the similarities, the motives and expectations they have for combat sims is totally different from the "vets" all together.
The vets have more or less become accustomed to accepting the technical limitations in simulating aerial combat. Since there was no way to put up a big warring environment on-line at the beginning stages of on-line gaming, generally the thrill of aerial combat itself was all that mattered. The thrill of individual (or limited multiple) engagements was all they had and all that mattered. They loved enjoying the small aspect of it all- a handful few people, all good friends, locked in aerial combat flying historical planes. A very small, limited scale of depicting WW2 combat, but it was good enough for them.
Because there was nothing else, people competed to become a good pilot. An EXCELLENT pilot, as a matter of fact. There was no such thing as a 'war' going on which they could influence. Therefore, the spirit of competition and gaming fun was expressed through the only thing they could achieve while playing the archaic flight sims, packaged sims with limited multiplater capability, and the earliest on-line flight sims.
However, the "aliens" - the younger, newer generation of gamers which now coexist with the "vets" in the sim community, come from a very different background; they are accustomed to computer gaming, the internet age opens when they are teens, computer games become more sophisticated and complex, and new horizons opened for all types of games to be able to depict and recreate things which they could not do so before.
These "aliens" have totally different motives and aspirations when they see games like Aces High. They don't play it just for the fun of aerial combat itself - they play it because it is a total gaming experience, which at least loosely depicts the aspect of "war". Not only are they able to enhoy individual combat, they are also able top play a role in a larger scale which takes combined effort for many people to accomlish its final object.
Simply put, it is indeed a "race to reset". They view it as nothing else. It is the ultimate goal and the ultimate fun factor. Their emphasis in competition is not set upon the individual pilot, but how each one's "country" does in the virtual environment. Frankly, not only is there nothing wrong with it, but also there is no way to stop it. It is an inevitable change as long as AH community grows.
Predictions
The "vets" are entering extinction. The "aliens" are breeding like rats. Sooner or later, the line of the old vets will be lost, and the aliens will replace the flight combat sim world. Unless AH goes retro about 10 years and kicks out everyone who doesn't agree with the "vets", this tendency will go on and on until; 1) AH finally restructures its entire strat system to better accomodate such changes while balancing out/refining the weaker points of its gameplay, or 2) a better game comes out which depicts WW2 strat in a much more fun way.
There have been attempts at 2) - such as IL-2 series or WW2OL. However, problems in both of those games have prevented it from becoming the predominant game which would outclass AH. But it is only a matter of time until someone finally "gets it". While IL-2's limited MP capabilites is the single most limiting factor, its developers have recently announced aspirations to bring it up to the MMOG world. Whether this is only talk, or they are really planning on it is unknown. However, if there is any bit of amount of truth on it, then it'll become the largest threat to the survival of AH, ever.
Suggestions
The "vets" must understand this tide of "aliens" is something that cannot be stopped. It is an irreversible process. Therefore, if they cannot stop it, then they should learn to enjoy it.
Ofcourse, this implies that during the course of next five years or so, the MA format of Aces High must be changed. Many of the problems which persist in the MA that the "vets" view as unfavorable, is not necessarily associated with the "alien invasion".
In other words, the reason the MA is not fun for many "vets", is not because there are too many "aliens" around. It is because the game failed to accomodate the "alien factor", which in turn corrupted the MA into an abnormal display of brute power, rather than becoming a more structured representation of a "generic, WW2-ish, war" which should in theory, still contain many of the fun factors which the "vets" hold on to so dearly.
It is a failure of the outdated strat system which was never intended to accomodate the alienfolk that is accelerating discontent. As I have argued many times the AH strat system was by all intentions and means nothing much more than a simple "stage" which the "old vets" were meant to act on. They were nothing more than facades of a war which is comprised of a very simple component of territorial struggle - you barge in with deadly force, capture the field, advance in territory, repeat ad nauseam, and you win.
Consider the MA as a game of poker. The current MA is like people playing poker with an unlimited amount of money (or toy money, if you will). Because of this, the basics of playing a poker game is totally lost. People just raise and call stuff like hell. Bluffing doesn't work because the amount of money on the table is unlimited. People call wild shots, change cards in an illogical sequence, even counting the cards don't help. They don't think anything through. Who cares if they lose some money? The supply is unlimited.
However, if the MA can be restructured so it can better depict a generic version of war based on the image of WW2, (albeit without limitations by nationality in planes or by era of their introduction) then the problems will stop. Internal logic of the strat mechanics, and strategical aspects will become the "leash" which does not exist in the current MA. Each players of all three countries will be bound and govered by (simulated) realities war that will ultimately prevent them from relying on pure brute force to win the war. Each of the battles competing for air superiority will become more important, player movement and mobilization will become limited, logistics will intervene, and therefore, every plane or pilot lost in the air will gain some sort of meaning.
This means introducing real money in that game of chaotic poker. A new type of strat will ensure that. People can't just waste planes or flock to single places, go here and there at whim. There are now multiple factors to consider. And as soon as real money is put on the table, people start playing straight. All the subtle individual skills such as sharking or bluffing, card counting and stuff now works. The game becomes much more centered in winning with individual hands dealt.
Fuel and ammo supplies. Logistics and road systems. Economic facilities and attrition. Limited number of planes (or pilots) for field. Structured organization. Concept of different 'airforces', each taking charge of one of the two battle fronts a single country has. Introduction of ground forces. Changing the point of capture from individual fields to important economic/logistic points. Disallowing direct capture of ground targets by air forces alone. New radar systems.
No, "vets".
This does not make turn the game more "toolshed bustin' ".
It turns the game into "bustin' toolsheds more carefully and critically, which requires gaining local airsuperiority with limited numbers of planes, pilots, and resources... which in turn, will emphasize on small~medium scaled localized air combat of roughly comparable number of opponents on both sides... which will bring back some of the thrill of individual air combat which the current MA has lost."
Pay attn folks;)
-
You could implement all the changes you want, but as long as people have a certain agenda in the game, the outcome will always be the same.
Its not the game, changes etc, its how we play it.
people who want to capture undefended bases will, no matter what is implemented, people will pork undefended bases regardless
people will join the side with the most numbers if thats the way they like to play.
when it comes down to it, its not the game, changes etc its how we choose to play the game.
Just my thought..... "Flame suit now on":)
-
Originally posted by E25280
Is football about blocking and tackling, or is it about scoring?
To some, the only "touchdown" in AH is the reset. The rest is blocking and tackling.
Some don't take it quite that far and look at each base capture as a touchdown. But the end of the game still doesn't occur unless the buzzer sounds -- again, that's the reset in AH.
Still others don't care if their team scores a touchdown or not, or wins or not, so long as they get to knock someone else on their behind in the process.
In imperfect analogy to be sure, but it will do.
Sounds like a perfect comparason to me... I only care for the touch down the rest while fun is just a bump in the road.
EDIT: The base captures are like the yard lines... reset is touchdown.
-
Flayed,
How is your kill to death ratio btw?
Just a question.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Resetting map, winning the war, my objective. I've not switched countries for several years. Good or bad, winning or losing, I fly the same side and try to help my country win and avoid losing.
I would believe it if people were trying to win the war. Most obviously don't and I'll explain.
Lets assume 3 countries:
A - strongest
B- medium
C - weakest
It makes sense for country A to attack country C if they want to "win the war".
BUT, why on earth do "win the war" guys in country B also attack the weakest C? they will bring a reset but they do not win. They just help A win.
Serious arena imbalance is when one country out weight the other two combined. This is a rare situation. However, in practice, since the B country "tool shedders" are not really playing to win the war, but just to mindlessly capture undefended bases - undefended not because of a great diversion plan, but just because there aren't enough defenders to go around. This is how they get their feeling of "achievement", not from winning the war, playing strategy or anything sophisticated.
This is why the smallest country is getting gangbanged.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
On the question of why do the base capture type players stop coming to a defended field and go to another for the capture, I would think this obvious....
Side A attempts to capture field 1 but side B is ready and on the spot defefends and stops the capture.. Now this really becomes just a furball and most of the time it isn't worth trying to get an unarmed C47 to town because there are just to many red guys that would love to kill that goon. For guys that are playing the war game the furball is not productive. So rather than have 10 goons get blown out of the air side A attempts to surprise side B on a different part of the map in hopes that they can take another base befor side B reacts in time to save it.. Hit the NME where they arn't ready for it. Thats war.
THE BEST captures, the most satisfying anyway, comes from taking a field that is defended.
I guess this is where you and I differ. I WANT there to be people defending it. I WANT them to up. Heck, I like it when the fight's roughly even on numbers. When I am otw to attack a field and I hear that defenders are upping, typically my reply is "woot! this'll be fun!"
What ROCKS is when you BEAT them into subbmission. THAT is the point that laz, and others have made about flying only in a hoard, and not learning how to actually fight. If you fly with a hoard of 20 players, and 6 can't fight what so ever, 11 always die to the head on because that is all they know, and only 3 can fight, you don't stand a chance taking that field if say 7 or 8 defenders keep upping. How sad is that? I have seen it happen more times that I care to think about. Huge group comes in, 1/2 or less their numbers decimate the hoard, hoard move on to undefended field.
My squid will attack a field that has MORE defenders than attackers, beat them into submission, THEN capture it.
Granted, my way is harder, requires training, and much more effort and strategy.
BUT it's sooooooo much more satisflying when you finally take that sucker.
Takin' undefended field=boring.
Takin' defended field=fun.
Train your noobs. Teach them how to actually FIGHT and KILL the nme instead of dying over and over and you too might someday be able to take a field w/o a huge number advantage. I hope you get there.
It's not about strategy (i.e. win the war faster). Quit kidding yourself. It is about ability, or lack there of.
(gosh, am I being too harsh here?)
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Flayed,
How is your kill to death ratio btw?
Just a question.
The question is do I really care?? :rolleyes: I fail to see how this has any thing to do with this thread.
And if it isn't all that good it just shows I'm not hanging over some base vulching.
EDIT: You did make me curious as I have not looked at my score for so long.... Ummm better than yours. :D
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Flayed,
How is your kill to death ratio btw?
Just a question.
Sounds like a question my smartprettythang 11-year-old "know-it-all" (in need of a Drill Instructor) nephew would ask.
-
After reading kwessas post I would say that it reads well but is entirely based on one false premis...
the premis being that kids today aren't as good as kids were in "our" generation.
That is bull. kwe makes the point that because they were brought up with online games with a goal of winning more complicated... what? complicated whatever... that they are incapable of enjoying the thrill of combat for combats sake. this is a basic flaw in his reasoning...
The first person shooters and such may be more "win the goal" oriented but I am sure that many who play still see the games for their individual effort.
And why are the toolshedders here in AH? the strat? the win? LOL... tic tac toe is more complex.... and... if you have to use a pen... probly takes more dexterity than flying in a whorde...
Nope... I would say that we simply attracted a large number of people who have no interest in flight sims... they aren't here for "Aces High" they are here for capture the flag. They like it here because they can pick the winning side.
We have whole squads that drive vehicles or have wings of 3 or more with 90 players... ones that like to link up to milkrun...
What also perpetuates it is the reward for such behavior... and... I have actualy heard/read that these squads think they are "respected" as a whorde or gv squad! The real emotion is sadness or disgust from those who like combat flight sims.
We can go two ways... we can make the strat more complex or more layered (to where you can participate or not) big cities... airfields not a target etc... This would allow people who like big overall goals to have fun and get rid of the griefers and lazy kids if the stat and tools were difficult enough..
or.. we could make it even more oriented to the begginer... easy mode flight and even easier chances for guys with no talent at all to "have an effect"
The problem with the former is that if you made it tougher for a bomber say... or if GV's were more realistic... you would up the learning curve to the level of the fighters and most of the begginers would leave...not being able to 'accomplish" anything... or, face it... to be noticed. If it were done well... the dedicated win the war types would master the learning curve and the fighter guys would be left to the fighter sweeps and such.
The latter would probly attract more players at first (like now) but... there would be even worse animosity when everyone was a potential griefer in every area every time they got on.... there would be no "vets" past about a year...
Every time you make it harder to grief or to milkrun you will lose the new players and the griefers and tic tac toe set....
Every time you make it easier for the griefers and new people to "have an effect" on the game you will lose the flight sim people.
I don't think this generation is worse than any other.... I just think that we got an influx of the worst it has to offer... the ones no one else wanted or allowed to have their own way.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Soooo are you saying that you would like to see the game modified so that it was more complex so it would be more difficult for bomber guys???
If so we finally agree on something.
-
"Nope... I would say that we simply attracted a large number of people who have no interest in flight sims... they aren't here for "Aces High" they are here for capture the flag."
I think there is some truth in that, and although thats not true with all the players, is is true for too many. :(
-
well... glad you both can see my point to a certain extent..
flayed... your agreeing with me doesn't help tho.. if you make the strat more interesting and more layered and more complex you up the learning curve and after a two week trial of nobody noticeing them... the squeaky voices and griefers will walk away looking for some other online game to get noticed in.
They aren't interested in what kind of game it is... they just want one where the rules are lax enough that they can game the game... sadly... some of the older more experianced guys are looking for this too.. they want to be the hero of a whole group of squeaky voices by gaming squad limits and such...
Lopsided sides with no side balancing... a griefers dream in a combat game... The ability to choose the best tools in the game while others are dumb enough to not? griefer paradise... HO's and spits and lalas and milkrunning and gangbanging... why not?
Make it harder and they leave. make it easier and they are even more obnoxious and numerous.
It's a tough call but to fix it you would have to have more rules like other games... side balancing... no matter if your father flew for the dildo shaped icon or not.... the roster of em is full.... you don't get to wear the dildo hat in that arena.... sorry....
More evenly matched planesets.... not even by year maybe but by performance..... Sorry... you don't get to have a plane 40 mph faster than the slowest fighter in that arena....
That sort of thing... the things that would make a lot of people leave too...
I am sure glad that I don't have to figure out how to keep and get new customers and still make for a game that holds the interest of old customers.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Forcing guys to fly other countries than there usaul isnt fair, agree or not. the whole countries system would become boring and stagnant channel 200 keeps this game alive atm. you might aswell fly all vs. all. would become piontless, and so would sqauds, as there would be no guarentee of them being on same country, let alone being on same arena.
forcing ppl to join countries aint the answer, its just a quik bodge.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
The question is do I really care?? :rolleyes: I fail to see how this has any thing to do with this thread.
And if it isn't all that good it just shows I'm not hanging over some base vulching.
EDIT: You did make me curious as I have not looked at my score for so long.... Ummm better than yours. :D
LOL, it wasn't my intent to infer you were vulching (which I do not disagree with) or that one of use was better than the other.
I think your kill to death ratio might have possible act as a qualifier to your statements. If were to have no kills, a few deaths, but a lot of crashes then I would expect you to be a member of the Undefended Base Acquisitions group.
Just wanted to try to understand where you were coming from. :aok
-
Flight??? I thought this was a racing sim :p
-
I don't think Kweassa is saying they aren't as good, but rather because they have grown up with on-line games they are more oriented towards a "team goal".
Most of the big online games have both the option of individual or team "rooms", the team rooms are more usually the most utilised.
Seen Bish noobs fly goons over 75 miles for a chance of capturing the field "for the team", you'd be lucky to find a Bish to fly a goon 1 sector 4+ years ago.
The playerbase has significantly changed, problem is the game hasn't. Despite the new planes, new eye candy, new FMs etc it is still the same as it was 4+ years ago.
The underlying game mechanics need a complete overhaul, perhaps then all styles of play can co-exist.
Without it the conflict between the different styles of play will continue.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
I don't think Kweassa is saying they aren't as good, but rather because they have grown up with on-line games they are more oriented towards a "team goal".
Most of the big online games have both the option of individual or team "rooms", the team rooms are more usually the most utilised.
Seen Bish noobs fly goons over 75 miles for a chance of capturing the field "for the team", you'd be lucky to find a Bish to fly a goon 1 sector 4+ years ago.
The playerbase has significantly changed, problem is the game hasn't. Despite the new planes, new eye candy, new FMs etc it is still the same as it was 4+ years ago.
The underlying game mechanics need a complete overhaul, perhaps then all styles of play can co-exist.
Without it the conflict between the different styles of play will continue.
Looks like we're in for some changes.
Acks "harder" ...to gun..... but I use Rockets 95 % of the time.:D
More manned acks to pop up every 15 min. Hope town has um.
Perky the bombs.....hehe low level bombers perked out inside 1 week
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Has been for a long time, even way before the changes, only difference was the resets happened less frequently because the numbers were more even.
Now because of the multiple arenas it has made resets easier to achieve.
HT has dug himself into a hole here-
He has already said numerous times that things aren't going back to what they were, so he has to continue to try and tweak a current setup that has obvious flaws in it.
No amount of tweaking will negate some of the flaws.
Anyone who didn't see some of this coming must have been blind -
Country jumpers before a reset in the old MA
Now are both that, AND arena jumpers if their country is doing badly in one of them.
Leading to low numbers in one arena, overwhelming in another.
But going back to the original "reset the map" once again, I re-iterate -
YES, it has been like that for a long time, even way before (years) the changes, only difference now is it is easier to do.
nicely put
Originally posted by Kev367th
No, the flaw wasn't camouflaged.
It was very unusual for any country to get numbers advantage in the old MA the way they can now under the new setup.
Even when the Rooks used to have their RJO's their numbers advantage as a percentage of the overall arena numbers was lower than what is possible now.
Remove the reset - Oh yeah can just imagine what this would cause.
Captures at defined areas - Would penalise the country that is in the hole, and make it a lot harder for them to get out of it.
Not a sad comment on the AH community at all when you realise people all play for different reasons -
furball
toolshed
pork
base capture
Like I said to not expect or forsee this happening shows either
a) naivity
b) a total lack of understanding of human nature
c) an imcomplete forecast of what might happen
d) a lack of understanding of the majority of the player base
something ive been trying to say to Hitech over PM's but he just wont have it....
-
kev... those of us who grew up before computers were in every home played games (real life games) that were very "team oriented" you may not believe this but as kids we played games like baseball and basketball and all that...
Some liked boxing and tennis and one on one basketball tho... some liked "team sports" where they were in constant action and really didn't care who won... they knew if they won.
The ones attracted to individual sports and WWII aviation and maybe computers and fighting against something more challenging than a box game gravitated to the flight sims... mostly at great cost to them.
Griefing was expensive and.. well.. ignored till they went away. or...just put up with because they weren't too many.
Now... you have cheap everything and a bunch of kids who have never even played sports with others and... unless they get attention on a computer will never be noticed in life... they don't care what the game is they are only looking for the one with the most potential to be noticed... the most lax rules.
If the game was 2 or more dollars an hour we would see an instant improvement in gameplay with little in the way of rule changes... but.. a huge drop in player base. It would also throw out the "good" (those with little money but a love of flight sims) with the "bad" (the griefers and kiddies).
If you have a game of touch football... you don't need any rules about teams if everyone is on the same page and wants a fair and fun game... it they all switch sides to make for a good game... If everyone stands around and won't switch... you either call off the game or make a "rule".
Here... you could just have a limit for each country... if you insist on wearing the dildo hat icon and that arena is allready full of dildo heads.... you either switch sides or go to an arena where they lack enough dildo heads.
Some of the new changes were made because griefers forced it. People who are also selfish and need to game advantages forced it.
If we keep playing like spoiled children and griefers... we will get more rules.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
so because you only fly 2 hours a week, you want it a per hour service? :noid
-
^ ^^ ^^ ^
| | | | | |
Here... you could just have a limit for each country... if you insist on wearing the dildo hat icon and that arena is allready full of dildo heads.... you either switch sides or go to an arena where they lack enough dildo heads.
LOLHROTFFL:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
kev... those of us who grew up before computers were in every home played games (real life games) that were very "team oriented"
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
:O I always thought Lazs just played with himself :) but now he's talking about team oriented games and keeps talking about dildos....:huh :D
Sorry Lazs you kinda left that open. Just giving you a hard time nothin meant by it. Just a lil joke I hope your light hearted enough to get a laugh out of it :)
-
overlag... not at all. I did not say that.. I only said that if it were a couple bucks an hour you would get rid of a lot of the griefers... at my 15-30 hours a month it would cost me $30-$60 or more... I have paid that and more in the past and don't wish to go back to it... I never offered it as a solution.
My entire point is that if you are not going to charge enough that it keeps out the griefers and kids.... if you have a game that is cheap enough that anyone can realisticaly afford it... then not having rules that make for good gameplay.... gameplay by the honor system, like we have here so far as evening up sides... well..
My point is.. the more griefers and people who want every advantage you have.... the more the game developer will have to smack them down with rules because an honor system won't work.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by Stang
Thank you for finally admitting the obvious. The win the war types always claim they like to fight but there just isn't any defense. This is just not true. Every time the toolshed horde is met with resistance, doesn't push the fight, it gives up just to go attack another base that is undefended and easier to take.
Hey Stang,
I too will admit that 'winning the war' which is of course done by capturing and defending territory is my primary goal. And when a base is defended one must weigh how much resources and time it will take to overcome it.
As the 'LTAR alert' goes out and more and more defenders up to repel us there comes a point where it is no longer strategicaly sound to continue to tie up our resources there when we can take much more territory elsewhere. The answer to this strategy is, of course, to move your defensive allies to whichever base we then attack. The tension that ensues as each side thus tries to outhink and manouever each other can be quite satisfying to a strategic planner such as myself.
That said I do find it more satisfying when some defense is raised and we actually have to work for the capture. :aok
As for those who don't care about the reset and just want combat...why are they whining? Combat can be easily found in the arenas so what those 'pushing for reset' are doing should be immaterial to them. I submit that they complain because they really do care about the base captures/war but aren't willing to put in the time (and potential score loss) into defending bases undergoing a well organized attack.
As for those complaining about uneven #s, I agree this problem comes about because of the multi arenas. Perhaps we need a radio channel to allow us to send an SOS to our countrymen in other arenas when there is a need? If that were to occur and countrymen refuse to answer a call for help, it says more about ones countrymen then it does about the game!
my .02
LTARcnuk
-
Originally posted by mutant
Hey Stang,
I too will admit that 'winning the war' which is of course done by capturing and defending territory is my primary goal. And when a base is defended one must weigh how much resources and time it will take to overcome it.
As the 'LTAR alert' goes out and more and more defenders up to repel us there comes a point where it is no longer strategicaly sound to continue to tie up our resources there when we can take much more territory elsewhere. The answer to this strategy is, of course, to move your defensive allies to whichever base we then attack. The tension that ensues as each side thus tries to outhink and manouever each other can be quite satisfying to a strategic planner such as myself.
That said I do find it more satisfying when some defense is raised and we actually have to work for the capture. :aok
As for those who don't care about the reset and just want combat...why are they whining? Combat can be easily found in the arenas so what those 'pushing for reset' are doing should be immaterial to them. I submit that they complain because they really do care about the base captures/war but aren't willing to put in the time (and potential score loss) into defending bases undergoing a well organized attack.
As for those complaining about uneven #s, I agree this problem comes about because of the multi arenas. Perhaps we need a radio channel to allow us to send an SOS to our countrymen in other arenas when there is a need? If that were to occur and countrymen refuse to answer a call for help, it says more about ones countrymen then it does about the game!
my .02
LTARcnuk
well said.... and i hate it (love it) err when you guys show up at a base we attacking..... dam u in those osties :D
-
so mutant... you admit that good "strat" in the game is not defending bases but...
A daisy chain of all the countries circling around and milkrunning each others undefended fields.
you don't defend because you can't. If the furballers can't kill all the suicide fluffers then you toolshedders certainly don't have the skill required. so... you give up.
You could fly high cap over fields in the fastest most powerfull planes.
If you don't do that then realistic strat is not your goal.
What you want is to hit an enemy field and pulverize it when there are only one or two players "defending"... You want "defenders" to trickle up or out in such small quantities that you can gangbang em 6 to 1 from a position of advantage and you hope against hope that yours will be the magic bullet in the bullet storm to get the kill message.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the furballers can't kill all the suicide fluffers then you toolshedders certainly don't have the skill required. so... you give up.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
I and many of the squad defend bases and I have hardly seen any suicide guys after this last update (Good job HT) actually most of the BOPs love the new ACK.
Although with this new ack I am up in my bombers at 20K so much now that I'm not around to kill off the attackers I just keep them from coming back after a couple runs. :D Although I was chasing down a few flights of 17's with my KI-67's yesterday :).
-
good for you. Since so many claim to think like you tho... we should expect to see many of the "strat" metrosexuals flying high cap to defend bases and HQ right?
I allways hear "take and defend bases" from the strat types but see precious little "defend". No high cap ever.
We should feel safe in our furball knowing that the "strat" types are way up there defending the base.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
I blame Pac-Man.... the video game that started it all.....
Hey i didnt do this i swear:rofl
-
I'd like to see perks for reset abolished.
Acquire fighter perks by getting killz, & acquire bomber perks by hitting targets. I guess there could be GV- perks too- for those players scared of heights :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so mutant... you admit that good "strat" in the game is not defending bases but...
lazs2,
perhaps you should reread my post again, specifically this :"I too will admit that 'winning the war' which is of course done by capturing and defending territory is my primary goal.
I have highlighted the appropriate area for you!
and this "you don't defend because you can't." :lol :rofl
try telling that to the waves of rooks trying to take V51 from the LTAR's last night :rofl :p
Perhaps you're just miffed because NOBODY takes and defends territory as well as the LTAR's do.
LTARcnuk
-
Perhaps you're just miffed because NOBODY takes and defends territory as well as the LTAR's do.
While flying with the 71st RAF, and JG/44 Nighthawks we have taken many bases from the LTAR's, really don't see what the big deal is all about you just bomb the VH and force the LTAR's to try and fly........
It looks as though HTC has ended the base capture reset marathon by placing UBER amounts of ACK all over the town and field, man that's a lot of ACK!!!!
-
Kweassa has it IMO...........
I cant think of a single post (on this subject) I agree more with than Kweassa's observations................. ......
plus he has not fallen into the trap of suggesting the detailia of any "next step"
Actually its quite biblical. I cant see any points raised above that Kweassa does not answer either directly or by inference...........
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so mutant... you admit that good "strat" in the game is not defending bases but...
A daisy chain of all the countries circling around and milkrunning each others undefended fields.
you don't defend because you can't. If the furballers can't kill all the suicide fluffers then you toolshedders certainly don't have the skill required. so... you give up.
You could fly high cap over fields in the fastest most powerfull planes.
If you don't do that then realistic strat is not your goal.
What you want is to hit an enemy field and pulverize it when there are only one or two players "defending"... You want "defenders" to trickle up or out in such small quantities that you can gangbang em 6 to 1 from a position of advantage and you hope against hope that yours will be the magic bullet in the bullet storm to get the kill message.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
That's exactly what they want Lazs. If people meaningfully defend, the land-grab "generals" determine it is time-inefficient to continue to attack there, evaporate and appear elsewhere to milkrun that instead...Then preach if the combat only types just want to fight then defend against them...duh. If we do that the milkers just leave...
That's what always sucked hard about the HUGE maps. The milkers had limitless options when it came to milkrunning, there was always somewhere undefended to go. It's not nearly as bad on the small maps but it's still there, especially when arena population is low.
Zazen
-
Been following this thread off and on for awhile and thought I'd chime in quickly. The issue @ the heart of this I think is in a sense, a tactical vs. strategic one. The guys who typically fly fighters, furball, or otherwise look @ the more local opbjective (I usually consider myself part of this group) Look as far as the (and somtimes no farther than) the enemy icon on the screen. There is our point of playing, We/I are/am flying against THAT person. It's an immediate situation that's our purpose for flying online rather than a boxed sim against AI. To outthink and outfly the other player.
For someone looking @ the whole map I don't think we can immediately discount that they are not playing against other people. I am prone to taking this way of thought myself. But I've read a couple of the posts in this thread and I've been trying to think of things from their (strat guys) point of view. So I'm going to speculate here based on what I've read and if anyone thinks I have it wrong I'm happy to listen to thoughtful arguments to the contrary. In the strat world of the game the object is bigger than the immediate situation on screen. They are looking @ a whole country and map. And rather than playing against a single person they are playing against 20, 30, or 100. If the point/objective of their game is to reset the map and the other team is ahead. Of course they are going to try and grab the most fields in the shortest time. They wouldn't be competing in that realm if they slugged it out over one field while the other team rolled along attacking undefended fields. They are still competing against other people just not in the same space nessesarily.
I think it's time that the map or fundamental structure of the game is looked at. Corky here has started a couple threads on the subject and I think he may be on to somthing. Lazs also hit upon the idea that the attitude of the player base has changed.... this I think also may be true. I think both those ideas go hand in hand. The player base seems to have changed... maybe we need to look @ changing the environment. There has to be some way to bring the players together again.
I wrote that long winded ramble over the course of several ours here @ the office... I hope it makes sense. :)
-
It can be fustrating especially when the arena numbers are low. Many times I have logged on to the EWA and theres 8 Bish, 10 Knights and 23 Rooks.
a squaddy and I were defending one base that a couple of rooks where trying to take when one of the ports started flashing. While we saved one base they took another. Boozebag said there went another base to the rooks, I said "well we cant be everywhere"
I find myself now uping at a base thats flashing, deal with the one or two planes, shoot them down, then bail and jump to next base thats flashing and do it again. After awhile it gets aggravating so I log out and go to the MWA and theres the same map, same lopsided numbers just slightly increased population wise, same milk running. On top of that I had to listen to some guy whine about getting HOd where no HO existed.
with some of the maps used for the EWA, the bases seem to far apart to try and defend a vehicle base or a port. HTC added ack to the airfields but it didnt seem like any ack was added to vehicle bases or ports. Ports are rediculously easy to take if the CV is not in port. a few of us defended a port the other night (Saturday?) the CV was there so we were able to up and defend it. I think the port should have a bomber hanger and a fighter hanger at least and allow naval planes to up. Add vehicle hangers need to be spread out at Vehicle base so they cant be taken down in one pass, and please add a VH to the towns
Add one other thing while I'm here, EWA should be changed to Hurris High or Hurricane arena
-
Soulyss: Yes you do make sense. And you are doing a good job of reading between the lines of what people say. In my view the point of the change isn't to get rid of either style of play. But as you say, a game play change that
removes the end run as a method of strategic play.
This then creates conflicts that both types of players enjoy.
I.E. You can't just hit them where they ain't.
HiTech
-
So do any of the ideas in this thread hold any merit? http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192275
The basic premise is adding factors before "current play" instead of after it to tailor it. (stuff like the ENY, side balances, and now ack, have been add-ons after the fact, it seems to mold the gameplay)
Sorta like if you have a leaking dam, you can keep patching it, and placing temporary dams downstream, to slow the flow, -but what really needs to be built is another damn or distribution system upstream.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
.
I think it's time that the map or fundamental structure of the game is looked at. Corky here has started a couple threads on the subject and I think he may be on to somthing. Lazs also hit upon the idea that the attitude of the player base has changed.... this I think also may be true. I think both those ideas go hand in hand. The player base seems to have changed... maybe we need to look @ changing the environment. There has to be some way to bring the players together again.
Hi Soulyss,
Thanks for that well thought out piece. However, I disagree that 'there has to be some way to bring the players together'....
If the furballers/duelists/gvers/langrabbers...are all having fun doing their thing there is no need to force any of them to change their behaviours or bring them together. The beauty of the current structure of AH is just this: everyone can find a style of play that suits their purpose/enjoyment prefernces.... for your 14.95 you get to play the game however you want (and crow about whichever accopmlishments you happen to prefer! ;) )
LTARcnuk
-
Originally posted by hitech
I.E. You can't just hit them where they ain't.
Hi HT,
Assuming that there are reasonable #s for each country logged on, I submit u can't 'hit them where they aint' because defenders can immediatley up at any base which shows an alarm.
An organzied surprise raid on an unprepared field can certainly cause some scrambling as there is little time for a defence to get organized, but the very tension this situation creates raises the enjoyment of the game for many players.
My point being 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. From what I have seen the 'milk running' that some complain about takes place only in arenas where there are few people on and/or lopsided #s. This seems to have been aggravated by the multi-arenas (as previously happened mostly in the wee hours). In those arenas where the #s are greater and more even a defence can almost always be counted on to scramble for a base. (and if it is not who's fault is that? The attackers or the country who fails to respond to alarm?)
Now if one side concentrates its #s in a hoard to roll bases, and another side takes advantage by attacking lightly defened bases while offering slow down resistance, this is only good tactics! Are those 'end run' attacks sticking in someone's craw? Then come up with a plan, organize and execute a defensive counter that will eliminate the threat! When this occurs will other tactics and strategies come into play? Of course! the whole battlefield is thus dynamic with many possibilities and moves to consider. Much like a chessboard, thinking ahead of ones opponent(s) is crucial to success...
Please don't take away some of the 'moves' which add complexity and surprise into the campaign. Don't take an exciting fast moving battle of wits and skill (and yes luck!) and turn it into trench warfare!
LTARcnuk
p.s. love the new ack and barracks!
:aok
-
It's not that I think people should be forced into doing something they don't want to do. Rather that the various channels of gameplay would be funneled together so to speak. If you want to drive a tank, drive a tank, if you want to win the map fine do that, if you want to furball, great.... what I would hope is that these are not mutually exclusive elements. If you're in the same space you just have converging goals. The fighter types will be drawn to the mission/territory war because that's where the things to shoot @ will be. (both in air and on the ground) get a couple fighters together and they are bound to attract more, that's how furballs start. At the same time it will make the strat oriented people organize more, and as long as the other side can't get too much of a lead in base #'s shouldn't have a problem with battling for contested fields. I don't even think that the furballers would mind losing the field they are fighting out of if it immediately set up another battle in it's wake.
It's not about making people play the game the same way it's about bringing the purpose or goals of those players into closer alignment.
-
Originally posted by Sweet2th
While flying with the 71st RAF, and JG/44 Nighthawks we have taken many bases from the LTAR's, really don't see what the big deal is all about you just bomb the VH and force the LTAR's to try and fly........
It looks as though HTC has ended the base capture reset marathon by placing UBER amounts of ACK all over the town and field, man that's a lot of ACK!!!!
That's good, but it goes both ways. That's why sometime we'll hit a base, leave the VH up and drop the hangers. Then watch most (not all) try and GV...........
2nd, the ack is slowly becoming more realistc, I like it. FACT: more WW2 A/C were lost to AA fire than another A/C or malfunction.
Have a nice day
-
Ive seen more furballs around bases with the recent changes than ever before in the late war arenas.. Makes for nice fights to try and take the base...You have to work for it... more combat.. lots of killing and lots of being killed.
I personally like the game no matter how others play it and I dont see the big deal...
If the 'furballers" want to furball its there at lots of bases its not 2 vs 2 or whatever number you find suitable but the furball is there for sure... So what if its a horde of La7's or whatever plane... get in a plane and kill them all.. so what if your cartoon plane gets blown up by some "noob" blasting in at 4000 MPH from 85,000 feet...what gets hurt your feelings or your ego???
If someone wants to run undefended bases let them... What is the big deal if the map gets reset?? The terrain changes and you start flying again.. I dont know why thats such a big deal.. If you like to "furball only" why care about the map resetting or some side "winning the war"..
I could personally care less how anyone else wants to play the game...
They want to spend the time for 2 hours driving a GV to "steal a field" who cares!!!! If driving that GV for 2 hours is fun for them great!!! if they get satisfaction from stealing the field Good!!!
There is enough to do with the multiple arenas that if you do not wish to be gang-banged by 400 La-7's fly in an arena that does not have them..
Everybody has fun in their own way...
You may not like the way others play or see the point to it but the fact is you dont have to!!! only they do..
I enjoy the game and I HAVE FUN... thats why I pay my money every month...
I enjoy all facets of the Game from GV'ing to Furballing to sneaking into alightly or undefended base to flying into a giant Dar-Bar... I am having a Blast!!!!
This game offers alot for many different types of people with differing ideas of fun.. All in one nice neat little package.
Just my .02
<<>>
-
I would presume concept of "you cant hit em where they aint" is one of HT's constant challenges.........
Map design would ideally channel the "invasion routes" to focus conflict in key areas or at least provide key "flash points" that were critical to the next stage in the invasion or defence of a territory.
However we see that when capture attempts against fields presently heavily defended are doomed that attackers (quite sensibly given their goal) switch the attack to less defended fields.
Gameplay therefore is placed on a moving battle field......... this is OK as long as both attack, defence and counter attack etc can move and the defenders are not removed from gameplay.
If defenders cannot respond to this move in time then they are removed from gameplay...........very demotivating
We may like to consider a method of enabling defenders to respond a little quicker to a changing point of attack. To do this they will need more notice........... this may be as simple as extending radar ranges and or even conveying more data from radar than that presently obtained.
Motivation to defend is important.......... it should be fun, it should be rewarding and it should be possible.
Mass attacks geared to runway suppression via vulching are no fun for the defender and extremely de motivating............ I believe the recent increase in AA has reduced this trend.
NOE surprise low level formation carpet bombing made defence improbable due to lateness of defensive responce.........the defending field often porked/ killed before a defence could properly respond......again I believe the recent increase in AA has reduced this trend as low level formations are getting shredded.
High level bombing attacks equally can accurately kill fields by ingressing above the normal combat altitudes without the defenders being aware of the attackers altitude until it is too late.............. presently the defenders are denied a responce to this form of attack unless they wait speculatively at altitude. This is boring. Fortunately it is equally boring for bombers to climb to 18/20K but one high altitude B24 formation can still take out all the FH's and the Vh of a small field and so a small minority of players (ie one)can remove local gameplay from a significant majority.
This is still the case.
Counter attack must be possible. Porking troops/ordinance permitted a side to ignore anothers counter attacks to a degree where once the heavily populated enemy front line was porked and made safe then they could simply switch the mass attack elsewhere to a less heavily (some might say deserted) defended area.
Now with greater numbers of Barracks the counter attack is viable and sides ignore heavily populated enemy front lines at their peril. Defenders can switch to attack if their opponents go elsewhere.............We may still wish to increase barracks/ordinance numbers further.
-
"Now with greater numbers of Barracks the counter attack is viable and sides ignore heavily populated enemy front lines at their peril. Defenders can switch to attack if their opponents go elsewhere.............We may still wish to increase barracks/ordinance numbers further."
I think they have em about right... Last night we did an attack raid about 6 strong (I think this is an average # with the population being decreased per arena) to pork a small field.. We porked it all right but we all died doing it. I can only imagine what it would be like trying to do a larger field with the same amount of guys.
Might get half, maybe 3/4 of the strat down.
Wile some might say, so you died and can now up another plane faster to get to the next base. I attempt to bring every plane I up back. maybe not in one piece but back :)
Also about the only time I see bases porked now is if you can get some guys togeather to do a strat raid/mission. So most of the time you can look along the fronts and everything every where is up.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
"Now with greater numbers of Barracks the counter attack is viable and sides ignore heavily populated enemy front lines at their peril. Defenders can switch to attack if their opponents go elsewhere.............We may still wish to increase barracks/ordinance numbers further."
I think they have em about right... Last night we did an attack raid about 6 strong (I think this is an average # with the population being decreased per arena) to pork a small field.. We porked it all right but we all died doing it. I can only imagine what it would be like trying to do a larger field with the same amount of guys.
Might get half, maybe 3/4 of the strat down.
If by attack you mean fighters with ord then My wish would be that it would require all 6 of you to die many times before you could wipe out all the infantry for an area supported by a field.
My point being that porkage (particularly of troops and ordinance) should be very difficult and require mass bombing from many formations.
Forcing you to meet your opponent and fight him (and kill his troop carriers)in the field rather than try to adopt a tactic that denies his troops access to the field such that his attack would be a waste of time.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
My point being that porkage (particularly of troops and ordinance) should be very difficult and require mass bombing from many formations.
No problem. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I would presume concept of "you cant hit em where they aint" is one of HT's constant challenges.........
Map design would ideally channel the "invasion routes" to focus conflict in key areas or at least provide key "flash points" that were critical to the next stage in the invasion or defence of a territory.
New map design to add areas critical to the war effort would produce a whole new complexity to the game and certainly welcomed by those who enjoy the strategic aspect of the game
However we see that when capture attempts against fields presently heavily defended are doomed that attackers (quite sensibly given their goal) switch the attack to less defended fields.
Gameplay therefore is placed on a moving battle field......... this is OK as long as both attack, defence and counter attack etc can move and the defenders are not removed from gameplay.
If defenders cannot respond to this move in time then they are removed from gameplay...........very demotivating
and why can they not respond in time? IS it because the attackers are more organized? Then organize your countries defences better. The fact that defenders can immediatly re-up upon being killed is a huge advantage that must be overcome by either #'s (brute force) or well organized and well timed raids (tactics and strategy). To eliminate well coordinated raids that capture poorly defended fields from the game would effectively put an end to the philisophy 'timing is everything' and replace it with '#'s is everything' .
We may like to consider a method of enabling defenders to respond a little quicker to a changing point of attack. To do this they will need more notice........... this may be as simple as extending radar ranges and or even conveying more data from radar than that presently obtained.
Motivation to defend is important.......... it should be fun, it should be rewarding and it should be possible.
There is ample notice currently to mount a defence of just about any field. Yes it may cost you some K/D ratio as you start to pick away at attackers #'s
Mass attacks geared to runway suppression via vulching are no fun for the defender and extremely de motivating............ I believe the recent increase in AA has reduced this trend.
unfortunatly if future patches effectively eliminate the NOE mission this will become the primary means of base capture! Mass attack to clear the skies and cap the field. In concert with high level bmbing to take out hangers. And perhaps a GV line on the ground....And if defense is sufficiently organized you will effectively have trenchwarfare in the WW1 style...lots of killing and destruction for little or now effective change in the lines of battle...with the occasional large foray of 1 side going 'over the top' only to be mangled by the defenses rinse cycle and repeat....
NOE surprise low level formation carpet bombing made defence improbable due to lateness of defensive responce.........the defending field often porked/ killed before a defence could properly respond......again I believe the recent increase in AA has reduced this trend as low level formations are getting shredded.
I disagree...if more people were willing to up in the face of these attacks (isntead of worrying about their K/D ratio, they are likely to repel the attack...mainly because when they die they can immediatly reup while any attacker they kill is effectively removed from the battle. It may cost a few rides but eventually the attackers #'s are depleted while the defenders grow! LTAR does this often and it shows in our lower K/D ratios...one reason we care little about that stat. And as always organizatioin is key....having trouble with bases being undefended? Organize a BDF that speciallizis in going to fields under attack and as a unit repelling them! Your K/D ratio would prob be low but take satisfaction in all the saves you make!
Now with greater numbers of Barracks the counter attack is viable and sides ignore heavily populated enemy front lines at their peril. Defenders can switch to attack if their opponents go elsewhere.............We may still wish to increase barracks/ordinance numbers further. [/B]
This is the very kind of counterattack that those wishing to stop the 'end runs' will eliminate! Indeed if you are having trouble stopping the opponent from rolling bases, a counter-attack into his poorly defended flank is a good strategy! You can't eat your cake and have it too!
LTARcnuk
p.s. sgt203, well said...that was the very point I made earlier, and I fail to understand why some would seek to change it because they don't like how 'other guys' play the game! DO what you enjoy! And leave others to do the same.
-
Since I have been playing that has been the point of the MA, or at least my impression of it. Why else would you want to fly in there?
So are any of you going to switch back to or try the AVA? Where furballs and one on one dog fights, and a few base captures were the norm? Granted the plane sets bite but, most populate MA arena has been the early war which seem to be the norm plane set in the ava.
-
Originally posted by mutant
and why can they not respond in time? IS it because the attackers are more organized? Then organize your countries defences better. The fact that defenders can immediatly re-up upon being killed is a huge advantage that must be overcome by either #'s (brute force) or well organized and well timed raids (tactics and strategy). To eliminate well coordinated raids that capture poorly defended fields from the game would effectively put an end to the philisophy 'timing is everything' and replace it with '#'s is everything' .
There is ample notice currently to mount a defence of just about any field. Yes it may cost you some K/D ratio as you start to pick away at attackers #'s
I disagree...if more people were willing to up in the face of these attacks (isntead of worrying about their K/D ratio, they are likely to repel the attack...mainly because when they die they can immediatly reup while any attacker they kill is effectively removed from the battle. It may cost a few rides but eventually the attackers #'s are depleted while the defenders grow! LTAR does this often and it shows in our lower K/D ratios...one reason we care little about that stat. And as always organizatioin is key....having trouble with bases being undefended? Organize a BDF that speciallizis in going to fields under attack and as a unit repelling them! Your K/D ratio would prob be low but take satisfaction in all the saves you make!
This is the very kind of counterattack that those wishing to stop the 'end runs' will eliminate! Indeed if you are having trouble stopping the opponent from rolling bases, a counter-attack into his poorly defended flank is a good strategy! You can't eat your cake and have it too!
LTARcnuk
p.s. sgt203, well said...that was the very point I made earlier, and I fail to understand why some would seek to change it because they don't like how 'other guys' play the game! DO what you enjoy! And leave others to do the same.
Finally getting to the crux of poorly defended fields.
People worried about scores and K/D ratios.
Seen GHI and a few of use stop a mass attack just by re-upping (sometimes only in IL2's as FHs dead), eventually the attackers get depleted you can just keep on re-upping.
Penalty - The almighty quest for the 'score/rank' gets flushed, no biggie we all know it means diddly squat anyway.
-
Fears for K/D ratio or not these are player motivators and game play must take them into account......................
Equally if for some mystical reason defences are more poorly organised than attacks then game play must take this into account...................
If "facing up" to attacks is as fun and rewarding as attacks them selves then........????????
re counter attack we agree......................
and all the cake I eat is mine and some time some one elses too
-
People worried about scores and K/D ratios.
I believe sores have very little to do with it.
I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.
The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend, rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.
Now do not view me this as pointing fingers saying people should play different.
I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.
HiTech
-
IMO if you want more combat do this >
Leave the radar up all the time , not let it be killable like it is now , or better yet , make it cover ALL the map not just the circles . Reason , you can't kill what you can't find .
Shut down the score page . Reason , people play alot differant with it on .
You do these two things , you'll see a HUGE differance in game play .
Don't matter to me either way . But if you really want more interaction between people online this will work .
Edit > I just seen HT's answer for score . I will say more now . I played on the zone servers my first online flight game CFS one . Thunderbirds on the zone was were you were scored and I forget the other one were no scores were counted . TB had maybe 30 people most times and they were soooo scared about losing rank that most of the time they just sat outside the room and chatted . The none scored rooms had 200 or more most nights . When I finally got my friends to play in the none scored rooms we had so much more fights .
I really think your wrong on the score issue , not everyone looks but I would from my exp playing online that alot more do than don't . Food for thought for you , I hope .
-
Originally posted by hitech
I believe sores have very little to do with it.
I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.
The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend, rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.
Now do not view me this as pointing fingers saying people should play different.
I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.
HiTech
Amen :)
And I think we need to get away from the red v blue state....er....Liberal v Conservative....um.......Repu blican v Democrat......grrrr......Tool shedder v furballer stereotypes.
This isn't about finding the perfect 1 v 1 or finding the totally undefended base. It's about getting the players to go into combat against each other. There is no point to playing an online game against real folks if your only goal is to avoid them
-
Originally posted by airspro
Leave the radar up all the time , not let it be killable like it is now , or better yet , make it cover ALL the map not just the circles . Reason , you can't kill what you can't find .
Shut down the score page . Reason , people play alot differant with it on .
I dont think the score page has that much to do with it.
People worried about scores and K/D ratios.
Seen GHI and a few of use stop a mass attack just by re-upping (sometimes only in IL2's as FHs dead), eventually the attackers get depleted you can just keep on re-upping.
some may worry about k/d ratios and scores but for myself I just dont see the fun in continously uping a plane just to get shot down again time and time again in the hopes that eventually I'll get them all and prevent the capture. Better for me to go look for a fight where the odds are more even and I have a chance to get my wheels up ;)
Now the Radar thing might be something worth trying, get rid of the 200/500ft limit on the radar and show everything from the ground up, including GVs.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I believe sores have very little to do with it.
I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.
The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend, rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.
exactly. most peoples comments when asking on ch2 about defence would be "offence is the best defence".... its sorta true, but a bit annoying when the offence is pointless lol
Originally posted by hitech
I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.
HiTech
SFMA.... every base has GV spawn, high bases in corners allow buffs to get high relatively easy, and the bases are quiet close (bar the outside edge ones)... not only that but the CV battles are good too. that map has virtually everything in one place.
that way, the fighters fight. the bombers kill towns, and gvs take bases... much better to have a alround balanced attack, than 10x110s coming in with no bombers or troops lol.
-
the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.
You mean like the new map in the TA?It has very many area's of conflict, why don't you just throw that map up?
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Fears for K/D ratio or not these are player motivators and game play must take them into account......................
Equally if for some mystical reason defences are more poorly organised than attacks then game play must take this into account...................
If "facing up" to attacks is as fun and rewarding as attacks them selves then........????????
re counter attack we agree......................
and all the cake I eat is mine and some time some one elses too
BUt the game DOES take them into account...
the scoring/ranking system rewards those who playfor score and the base capture/ war victory rewards those who are willing to pay the price to take and defend territory.
And yes some of us do find 'facing up' to attacks just as rewarding when we manage to send a horde packing!:aok Those who don't enjoy it are of course free to do whatever they like, but to NOT defend bases and then whine about how 'undefended' bases are to easily taken is just silly!
and organizition is also taken into account in the game as all are free to form squads, communicate on radio and otherwise coordinate their attack/defense startegy. Further if one is dissatified by their countries tactics/organization and feeling like it is costing them ''the war' they are free to change countries.
Changing the game so those who don't want to defend bases no longer have to worry about bases being captured is ridiculous in my opinion and will seriously reduce the enjoyment of the game.
LTARcnuk
p.s. keep your hands off my BASE! (er CAKE!):lol
-
Originally posted by hitech
I believe sores have very little to do with it.
I believe it much more to do with simple nature. For most people it is more fun to mount an attack than it is to look around what to defend.
The people who tend to like the furball will not generally play the capture game by looking around where a strike might happen and then defend, rather they want to go where a fight is already happening.
Now do not view me this as pointing fingers saying people should play different.
I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.
HiTech
With all due respect sir,
You already have such a system. The opportunity for conflict is there for all types. And people are of course free to attack/defend however they see fit.
However a change in the system that limits strategies and tactics for base capture to brute force/ hoard attacks will be a serious blow to gameplay.
And to make base capture more difficullt to satisfy those who are unwilling to 'look around and defend' at the expense of those who are willing to 'look around' and attack is a poorly thought out idea.
It is these very attacks that often turn into the 'fight that is already happening' that furballers may go to. If you remove the incentive to begin these attacks (ie base capture) the arena will become stale indeed.
LTARcnuk
-
Originally posted by hitech
I'm with tilt on this one, the key is to design a system or terrain where all types are put in conflict.
HiTech
I would add -- without going overboard so that it becomes complete gridlock.
I know you posted an idea about making only one base capturable at a time. The more I have thought about that (or similar options), the more I think that would just create a whole new problem. Yes, it would channel the fights around a few fields -- but unless one side by quirk of timing has an overwhelming majority in an arena, you end up with nothing but a "stagnant" furball. The same base is fought over for hours, with neither side being able to get the upper hand and actually take it.
That may sound like heaven to the pure furballers out there. But, if there is no sense of "forward movement" within a reasonable amount of time, it will be very frustrating to the base capture crowd.
So, there have to be outlets of some type. IMO, this is what the "end runs" are about. If a side feels they are getting nowhere after a time, they have to start a new front somewhere where "forward movement" is perceived to be possible.
I think upping the field ack and increasing the strats was a great idea. Any"end-runs" now must be done by larger groups of people organizing and working together rather than just two looking at a quiet area of a map. It also gives more time for defense against poorly timed / executed attacks. Porking becomes mission oriented rather than lone wolf territory.
But remove the possiblity of an "outlet" entirely, i.e. funnel too tightly, and I think the game will lose something of what makes it fun for many.
-
The implementation of this may be difficult, but....
What if instead of perks for a reset, you awarded perks for each base captured... BUT... the number of perks was based on the amount of defense you had to fight through?
No defenders = no perks. Lots of defenders = bigger perks.
You'd have perkers/horde looking for the payoff (requiring defenders and thus creating a bigger fight). Furballers would have plenty of fights, more defenders = better strat planning, etc etc.
The hardest problem would probably be to keep track of who had a part in what, and keeping up with the arena dynamics.
I dunno... just a beer-induced thought while perusing this thread :-)
-
If you change the game to include only a few fields that are able to be attacked you will have everyone, from every side at these fields...
This will lead to overly massive furballs with the overwelming advantage going to the defenders... They will not have to fly to get to the fight but will have to up from the field and get right back into the battle..
This would require all fighter hangers to be dropped prior to taking the field and you would be right back to having no one there to fight with as there are no planes upping..The smart play for a base capture would be to send in small amounts of fighters to deal with any CAP and then carpet bomb all the hangers with a few flights of bombers..
This would be a large stalemate at each and everybase along the way..
To take the "End Run" out of gameplay takes away from the actual tactical thinking required to defeat any enemy... The allies did not invade France during D-Day where the enemy forces thought they would did they??... They hit them in a spot that was 1. Not expected 2. less heavily defended.
The NOE missions I have either been invloved in, defending against, or happended to stumble upon are a loy of fun to be involved with.. On either side.. taking them out of the game though not a major blow to gameplay would be one less tactic any side could use to try and attack or divert an enemy force..
Lets not forget if you organize you can up from an adajcent field and conduct a fighter sweep to break the cap on a field to save the base..I have been involved with this numerous times and it is also alot of fun.. I have also been at a base where we have called for the Ltars who came in their ostis to help defend a base<>... It was fun for me to watch and Im sure fun for them having their sqaud called to assist..
I think the amount of ACK placed at the fields and towns has done wonders for slowing down the base rolling... I actually like it as it allows you to be able to defend by not being constantly vulched at will, it adds some element of risk to the player going for the vulch and gives you time to effectively defend a base... and it makes you have to fight for the base much more than before..
Porking rear bases, though not something Ive done to any real extent, is a part of battle... The additional ACK and addded barracks has made this much more difficult to do and most certainly extrememly difficult for one player to completely pork a field.. You do cut into an enemys supply thereby limiting his ability to fight...
I think the current changes are going to allow all "types" of players to play together more than before and are what is just about right to keep all players, who enjoy all different types af play to co-exist and enjoy the game together more than before..
Guppy<<>> I agree with you completely the toolshedder/furballer stereotypes should go away.. I dont consider any person any type of player I do say this or that person perfers to furball but they are not a furballer, they are a player period.. But just a small point... You see no point in playing an online game if the only intent is to avoid real folks, and frankly nor do I, but for someone out there who does lets not speak for them If they wnat to get in their plane and attack a field where no one is to them I say <> have your fun bud its your dime...
LTARcnuk and E25280 very good points<<>>
-
But as you say, a game play change that removes the end run as a method of strategic play.
This then creates conflicts that both types of players enjoy.
Hate BS threads like this one - but right there is a classic illustration of the harm that gets done when you just let this crap flow without comment.
One of the best ways to break up a horde attack when you are literally tens or even hundreds of players short of what is needed to mount a defence, is to grab a small group and "end run" round the horde. Getting a vital base deep in their back can turn it around. It worked well in real life at Inchon.
Now the loud have convinced the powerful that preventing these actions will "create conflicts that both types of players enjoy". What drivel.
I guess if you get a small bunch of people saying something often enough and loud enough it becomes lore. Propaganda is just as powerful as ever.
-
Going back to my original post I would draw attention to the point that the recent modifications have improved the situation greatly IMO.
Defense is more fun now and so the moving feast of conflict is occurring...............
The two areas where defence does not occur or may not occur.......are
If defenders cannot respond to this move in time then they are removed from gameplay...........very demotivating
We may like to consider a method of enabling defenders to respond a little quicker to a changing point of attack. .
and
High level bombing attacks equally can accurately kill fields by ingressing above the normal combat altitudes without the defenders being aware of the attackers altitude until it is too late.............. presently the defenders are denied a responce to this form of attack unless they wait speculatively at altitude. This is boring. Fortunately it is equally boring for bombers to climb to 18/20K but one high altitude B24 formation can still take out all the FH's and the Vh of a small field and so a small minority of players (ie one)can remove local gameplay from a significant majority.
This is still the case
I would add that making the defence too easy would make it equally demotivating and boring for attackers.
A balance must be struck where both defender and attacker can tip the tide of conflict through skill and/or an appropriate excess of force.
Attackers should have to suffer some element of interception and fight their way to target. Presently they (attackers)can make first strike unopposed in the majority of cases following a switch from one point of attack to another.
Slightly earlier warning would give some initial conflict or at least allow defenders some responce in the early stages which would generate the airborn conflict we all desire.
Of course go too far and make the warning too much or inappropriately biased and the opposite is achieved.
At this point I would draw breath......the latest changes have changed stuff and I note that there is less rolling up of the map and defenders are responding more.......certainly during the Euro time frame I play in on the LW arenas.
This still leaves the innappropriate effectiveness of the lone high alt heavy formation............... It would seem reasonable to me that some warning is given re formations and their altitude (or just high alt incursions) such that defenders can climb to intercept knowing that they will have some combat/fight when they get there and that it is before the bombs are released and not afterwards
re "end run"
I admit I do not understand the term as used above........... Dantoo describes a point attack that concentrates a point attack against a spread defence.............if defenders allow it then great..... eventually it fails of course there is no "red flag" to capture and win the war.
We play a war of attrition on a WWI model (ie moving fronts).......we do not play blitzkrieg or encirclement rules here.
End run discussion is a red herring as I see it.
-
Originally posted by Dantoo
Now the loud have convinced the powerful that preventing these actions will "create conflicts that both types of players enjoy". What drivel.
I guess if you get a small bunch of people saying something often enough and loud enough it becomes lore. Propaganda is just as powerful as ever.
LOL:rofl Thats some funny stuff.
I've been having much more fun in the game lately, even with what lil time I have to play these days. I like the changes, I hope to see more.
-
Last nite I flew in both arenas, I dont recall the colors, but in one arena the Rooks had more players than Knits or Bish, but there wasn't much action on the knit/bish front, so the fights were pretty good. I landed alot of killz & had a great time.
In the other LWA, there were much less Rooks, and still not much action on the Knit/Bish front. Classic race to reset. I had a good time there as well, I lifted a cane2, & in 3 sorties landed 6 killz & died once. The fights were much more action packed, but the outcome was inevitable and the arena was reset. I had fun, but it wasn't as rewarding.
-
OK for all those who advocated ack is now more 'realistic'.
Here's realistic dar -
Radar typically didn't even go down as far as the 500ft we have in the arenas.
Our dot radar 'sees' through hills, no blind spots.
It was notoriously inaccurate regarding numbers and altitude.
Our current dar is way beyond what was available in WW2, how many planes (apart from nightfighters) had onboard radar at all.
Our radar is more akin to a GPS system, available to all planes.
Wish people would stop the crap about 'realistic'.
You want realistic, fine by me, but lets make ALL aspects realistic, not just a few select areas.
As soon as I see a post that contains 'realistic' in, it usually means "realistic" for what I want.
-
Realism - the Holy Grail of wargaming.
Is the 'dar' realistic? I agree, no. Would reducing the capability improve the playability of the game? I would argue, no.
This is the art portion of developing a functional and fun wargame - balancing the science of the period with human interaction.
This game will never be totally realistic for example:
You get more than one life.
You suffer no injuries when you crash land a plane.
Pilot wounds are immediately healed.
Repairs take no time.
Vehicles are perfectly maintained.
Repair parts are always available.
Buildings and structures repair themselves in 45 minutes (or less!)
It would be easy to structure this game so that it is 'realistic' in every possible way, but then 99% of the population wouldn't make it through the 2 week period before they were dead or out of the game, forever, do to pilot injury. The argument is how much realism you can incorporate and still have a game that is playable and interesting and people are willing to pay to play in sufficent numbers to keep money in the bank. That is the balancing act.
Regards,
-
Submitted for your review. map setup that might help. this is just for illustration, bases might need to be closer or further apart. The strats are capturable and control the zone bases. When the strats are captured the related zone bases change hands. (reverse of zone strat system) (zones are white line, spawn points are red line)
Spawn points for vehicle hangers close to each of the strats and a couple of spawn points to a neighboring strat grid. vehicle fights in the strat area like a mini tank town.
Adjust the down times to an hour or so for strat objects. Strat has to be reduced to maybe 25% before it can be captured. Bombers attack the strat targets. Zone bases are damagable but cannot be captured.
Fighters can escort bombers and fighters can intercpet bomb flights
fighters can range ahead of bombers to intecept defenders before they reach bomb groups.
anyway just an idea I had related to some things i posted earlier and some other people have brought up.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1164223049_baseidea2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
OK for all those who advocated ack is now more 'realistic'.
Realistic or not I find it much more fun to defend against the would be vultchers now that one guy can't take out the acks and then Low level Lancs sweep in and take out the hangers.
I spend less time in the tower wondering how long before it comes back up and more time on the trigger.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Slightly earlier warning would give some initial conflict or at least allow defenders some responce in the early stages which would generate the airborn conflict we all desire . . .
This still leaves the innappropriate effectiveness of the lone high alt heavy formation............... It would seem reasonable to me that some warning is given re formations and their altitude (or just high alt incursions) such that defenders can climb to intercept knowing that they will have some combat/fight when they get there and that it is before the bombs are released and not afterwards
2 possible solutions for this --
1. A larger, "outer ring" to the radar circle where flying under the radar is set at 10,000 feet instead of 500.
2. Increase the existing radar range with an increasing "below radar" altitude as distance from the field increases.
Both would give increased warning time that there are incoming boggies at altitude, without increasing warning time for lower flying aircraft. The farther out you see the dot, the higher you know he is. With my limited (read - non) knowledge of programming, I would think #1 would be easier to implement.
(This assumes, of course, that no one just wants the existing radar range extended, but that would be fine by me as well).
-
i like that idea very much E25280. maybe copy it to wishlist forum or pm hitech with it....
2 radar circles per base... one 25miles that goes to 500agl
and one 40-50miles that only goes down to 10k agl.....fantastic. that way you KNOW if its high cons ib....yet it doesnt mess with the total radar range.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Submitted for your review. map setup that might help. this is just for illustration, bases might need to be closer or further apart. The strats are capturable and control the zone bases. When the strats are captured the related zone bases change hands. (reverse of zone strat system) (zones are white line, spawn points are red line)
Spawn points for vehicle hangers close to each of the strats and a couple of spawn points to a neighboring strat grid. vehicle fights in the strat area like a mini tank town.
Adjust the down times to an hour or so for strat objects. Strat has to be reduced to maybe 25% before it can be captured. Bombers attack the strat targets. Zone bases are damagable but cannot be captured.
Fighters can escort bombers and fighters can intercpet bomb flights
fighters can range ahead of bombers to intecept defenders before they reach bomb groups.
anyway just an idea I had related to some things i posted earlier and some other people have brought up.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1164223049_baseidea2.jpg)
looks good, only issue would be the Vbase in the center of each zone..... you have put spawn points to the strat which would allow instant resupply of strat....hmmmm
-
1. A larger, "outer ring" to the radar circle where flying under the radar is set at 10,000 feet instead of 500.
Brilliant! :aok
Regards,
-
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing radar set to 200' for the minimum. Make the dam sneak monkeys work for their 'nanas. :D
-
hell let's go 50 feet for dot dar :)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
looks good, only issue would be the Vbase in the center of each zone..... you have put spawn points to the strat which would allow instant resupply of strat....hmmmm
Not necessarily, current strat targets cant be resupplied, I dont think you would want to change that.
What could be done is create a New (or bring back the old strat target of the train stations) and have a couple of large train marshalling yards. The trains automatically resupply the strat objects. Bomb the marshalling yards and it slows down or stops the resupply for 30mins or so.
The truck convoys still run but they run in the zone area to the zone bases.
-
Like the idea of increased range on radar for High Alt planes...
10,000 ft. is pretty good number allows bomber formations to stay under 10k for the purpose of hitting fields with less warning time but when seeking a deep strike for say strat targets allows defenders time to defend the bases...
Also interesting idea with the map........ I do like the idea of strat targets being capturable to deny enemy the use of said items...
maybe allow them only be captured for set period of time and Not be able to re-supplied, thus a penalty for not defending or losing said strat.
Then they revert back to the home country (unless the zone base is captured) and need to be either captured again or targeted to reduce strat again...
Some interesting points....