Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: pluck on July 25, 2008, 09:48:14 PM
-
I'm really curious, as a former (4 years+ago strater), to a current furballer....
I just don't get it anymore. Maybe I'm just getting old. But I remember clearly back in preverbal day, when I was a tool shedder, people making missions to attack bases that were causing "issues." I also remeber, counter attacks being launched against bases in which the enemy had been beaten back.
Maybe it was just me, but during a shocking incident today, where I somehow found myself bringing troops into a town, I realized how different things seem to be...
First of all, it seemed odd, that with such little actually going on in the arena, that 2, that right, 2 tanks, were somehow making capturing the base difficult. Don't get me wrong, we still captured the base, but really, only because, 2 tanks failed to see troops running right in front of them, into the base.
For some odd reason, I seem to remember that after one base was attacked, and that attacked squashed....the squasher, attempted to take the squashee's base. I mean, it seems like the logical thing to do right.. They attack you, you beat the pulp outta them, then take their base for their insolence. I've seen this many times to date, but tongiht just seemed (for the reason above) to emphasize the issue. flying on a island, not completely controlled, entered battle with many friendly's defending a base against many foes. foes utterly defeated, rest of team lands, packs up, and just goes mia. A few of us, push the attack to the attackers base, kill their ack, all planes down, and where are the base takers?.....making a mission to some unrelated field, in a completely different area, with no planes anywhere in sight.
Now, I'm far from a strat guy, but it our fates our similar; strat guys need targes, and so do furballers:) Lately this is the norm...
1) if there is no vulching, there is no support to take base
2) if base is attacked, there is no counter attack. (most bothersome to me), in that, I would think that taking another person's field in retaliation for attempting to take your field, is the right thing to do.
3) missions are made to go to fields were there is no activity, what so ever.
4) if your are beaten, go someplace where the enemy is not.
In many ways, I just feel like this game is losing it's character. Instead of trading the timeless "we beat you" "you beat us" idea....we are moving to, "you had no chance" "you didn't see us coming" mentality. It seems it is just like "fine take this base, while you are busy, we'll take this other base." It's not just bases, it seems this idea is more frequently seen during combat as well. What makes squad compete? Maybe just nostalgia, but I remember squads like MAW and the AK's (just 2 of many). I remember seeing them show up, and yes, many toolsheds would go down, but there would be a fight...and if you didn't defeat them and strike back, your bases (not the plural) would go bye bye...
I'm not posting this to try to discourage any type of gameplay, as I realize people enjoy different styles. I am wondering, if it is just me, if the community is changing, and why groups spend so much time trying to avoid each other. I somehow feel competion is dying in this game. just my pov, interested in others
-
1) if there is no vulching, there is no support to take base
2) if base is attacked, there is no counter attack. (most bothersome to me), in that, I would think that taking another person's field in retaliation for attempting to take your field, is the right thing to do.
3) missions are made to go to fields were there is no activity, what so ever.
4) if your are beaten, go someplace where the enemy is not.
In many ways, I just feel like this game is losing it's character. Instead of trading the timeless "we beat you" "you beat us" idea....we are moving to, "you had no chance" "you didn't see us coming" mentality. It seems it is just like "fine take this base, while you are busy, we'll take this other base." It's not just bases, it seems this idea is more frequently seen during combat as well. What makes squad compete? Maybe just nostalgia, but I remember squads like MAW and the AK's (just 2 of many). I remember seeing them show up, and yes, many toolsheds would go down, but there would be a fight...and if you didn't defeat them and strike back, your bases (not the plural) would go bye bye...
It's not you, its people adapting to the HUGE maps and the subsequent fallout from that in terms of gameplay. The most efficient way to "win the war" is to exploit the myriad "paths of least resistance" offered by the 200+ fields of HUGE maps. Players who have been playing less than 3 years really have no idea what they are missing and what has been lost so just fall in line, goosestepping with the trend toward "non-fighting". They understandably assume the "non-fighting" methodology behind milk-hording is the only way to play, they are ambivilous to the any other approach for the most part.
With the exception of Pizza Map (AKDesert), HUGE maps are relatively new to AH. They went from being a singularly rare oddity to being the norm. It just took people a while to adapt to an environment with a 1:1 player to field ratio from an environment with a 5:1 player to field ratio..I covered this assertion pretty thoroughly in this post here...
Until the advent of HUGE maps and subsequently split LW arenas it was imperative to defend every base to the last or you would quickly find yourself circling the wagons at your HQ field. This is no longer true, especially on the HUGE maps. More often than not there are more fields than there are players in the arena, which I personally find completely ridiculous.
It boils down to a simple matter of mathematics and population density...Your average HUGE map has 200+ fields, your average small map has 40. If you populate both maps equally with 200 people, which tends to be about the average in the most populous of the two arenas over a 24 hour period, you get vastly different ratios of players to fields. Do not underestimate the impact this has on gameplay. There is a gigantic difference between a 1 to 1 ratio of players to fields and a 5 to 1 ratio.
The big reason horde-milking has become the staple of geographic domination is a direct result of these key ratios. Each base on a map with 40 fields is 5 times as important as a base on a map with 200 fields, therefore it logically deserves 5 times the attention and care from its owner and rightfully so. Conversely, because bases on large maps are individually almost insignificant a team bent on geographic domination must take a large number of them in rapid succession in order to have any real strategic impact on the enemy's position in terms of a reset. This is the basic recipe and reason for the predominance of milk-hording today.
On small maps the reverse is true from the perspective of defense. Losing just 5 fields on a small map could effectively cripple a country's position in terms of reset conditions and potentially put it's HQ at risk. So, it is critical to defend and hold each and every field with the utmost ferocity. Likewise, on a small map, the aggressors do not have "paths of least resistance" to fall back on if an attack on one field fails, therefore they must continue to press the attack with equal tenacity.
In my personal opinion, HUGE maps, followed by split LW arenas, in lowering population density, are largely to blame for the game's recession from its focus on actual air combat in the last few years.
-
aye, you did zazen, forgive me if I didn't read completely the first time:)
-
aye, you did zazen, forgive me if I didn't read completely the first time:)
No problem, you brought up some good anecdotal evidence of the truth of it.
-
I agree with Zazen. HiTech's choice for the extremely large maps have been changing the gameplay quite a bit. Back in AH1, bases meant more than just a territory. They meant planes, fuel, ordnance, supplies, troops, territory, landing zones, takeoff zones, friendly fly zones etc etc. With all of these new large maps, a base is now only a number and has no other meaning. Why? Because there is another friendly base right next to it, practically the same distance away with everything at 100%. Remember when we could take out fuel down to 25%? Being able to limit those gas guzzling la7s and 109s? That's not the case anymore either. The game has turned from a strategic chess match to a furball frenzy with 100 bases to each country. There is no more point in taking bases, because the only hindrance for the enemy is a lesser percentage of bases they have until they get knocked out.
-
I agree with Zazen. HiTech's choice for the extremely large maps have been changing the gameplay quite a bit. Back in AH1, bases meant more than just a territory. They meant planes, fuel, ordnance, supplies, troops, territory, landing zones, takeoff zones, friendly fly zones etc etc. With all of these new large maps, a base is now only a number and has no other meaning. Why? Because there is another friendly base right next to it, practically the same distance away with everything at 100%. Remember when we could take out fuel down to 25%? Being able to limit those gas guzzling la7s and 109s? That's not the case anymore either. The game has turned from a strategic chess match to a furball frenzy with 100 bases to each country. There is no more point in taking bases, because the only hindrance for the enemy is a lesser percentage of bases they have until they get knocked out.
Interesting perspective. You brought up some good reasons why players bent on "winning the war" must resort to overwhelming application of force exclusively upon undefended fields to maximize their captures per unit time. If they attempted to "win the war" while actually fighting for bases that already had an established Alt/E laden defense, we'd all be worm dirt before they got halfway there on a HUGE map with 200+ fields.
-
i really want to get aces high can someone tell me how much it costs my email is nwatkins3@yahoo.com. thanks
-
:furious 15 dollars man come on
-
You guys are absolutely right. I've been wondering why I can't find as many exciting battles as I used to, and why I haven't been having as much fun with the game as I did a couple years ago. This "path of least resistance" idea seems to be the cause, and, as stated, the inevitable result of the large maps and decreased population density.
I don't see any point of sitting at the computer for an hour straight, not flying, while desperately scanning the map for a fight. I don't enjoy attacking undefended fields. I am bored with the game. It would be silly for me to continue torturing myself. As I am typing this, I am deleting my account.
Thank you zazen and pluck.
-
You know, this has the potential to be an interesting thread.
I'm actually starting to see how the ultra large maps are detrimental to both the "base capture" and the "furballer" player sets.
Very intersting.
This merits further exploration, in my opinion.
-
Well everyone complained about the small maps and this is the result. Now you have to fight a horde for 15 or 20 minutes and then run clear across the map to stop 2 guys in a wirbel and M3 from taking a Vbase in the back woods. I used to enjoy taking bases, but I don't see the point now. I haven't seen anyone win a map in 6 months at least.
I've seen guys hover over their own field for hours never leaving the dar ring, and all the while bombers and GVs roll in for the attack. They don't even attempt to take out the enemys ord, troops or even the VH. And worse yet they don't even resupply their own bases. They just move to another field thats all up.
The big maps are bug ridden, disco causing, cluster pucks with no objective except to kill and be killed. So I'll just pretty much furball and hope things change for the better. :salute
-
Well everyone complained about the small maps and this is the result. Now you have to fight a horde for 15 or 20 minutes and then run clear across the map to stop 2 guys in a wirbel and M3 from taking a Vbase in the back woods. I used to enjoy taking bases, but I don't see the point now. I haven't seen anyone win a map in 6 months at least.
I've seen guys hover over their own field for hours never leaving the dar ring, and all the while bombers and GVs roll in for the attack. They don't even attempt to take out the enemys ord, troops or even the VH. And worse yet they don't even resupply their own bases. They just move to another field thats all up.
The big maps are bug ridden, disco causing, cluster pucks with no objective except to kill and be killed. So I'll just pretty much furball and hope things change for the better. :salute
I don't know if I have heard many people complaining about small maps back in AH1 and the beginning of AH2? Sometimes the same small maps got old yes, and Pizza was a nice change. But to have a map with 200+ bases every single reset is ridiculous.
-
This merits further exploration, in my opinion.
Ok, allow me to paint this picture with a different brush. On a small map with 40'ish fields it is possible, especially during prime-time, to both defend all of your fields reasonably well and mount significant attacks against similarly defended enemy fields. The end result is, from the perspective of "winning the war", that the country that fights best defensively and offensively tends to be rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. There is almost never the opportunity to mount an attack of overwhelming force against an undefended field and be rewarded with real estate without having to actually fight for it in any significant way. Attackers must always face an established and significant defense. It is possible to be able to mount a persistant defence at 100% of your front-line bases simultaneously as there are only going to be 10 or less of them for each team.
On a HUGE map, even during prime-time, it is totally impossible to defend even a small fraction of your bases simultaneously. The end result of this, from the perspective of "winning the war", is that the country that goes out of their way to NOT fight, that goes after all those indefensible fields is rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. HUGE maps actually punish teams that seek to perpetuate a static engagement even if the end result is the ultimate capture of the enemy's field, it simply takes too long to fight for fields in this fashion to achieve any kind of long-term strategic geographical impact. In terms of defense on a HUGE map it is only possible to adequately defend perhaps 5-10% of your front-line fields simultaneously as there are 30-50 of them total. This makes mounting reactionary defense against an enemy determined to bring overwhelming force to previously vacant fields and not press the attack if repelled intially virtually pointless. Defense becomes an exercise of chasing the milk-hordes all over the map in wack-a-mole fashion.
So, what this really boils down to is this...
Small maps reward those that win protracted fights for fields.
HUGE maps reward those who do everything possible to avoid protracted fighting for fields.
-
I don't know if I have heard many people complaining about small maps back in AH1 and the beginning of AH2? Sometimes the same small maps got old yes, and Pizza was a nice change. But to have a map with 200+ bases every single reset is ridiculous.
I don't remember hearing anyone complain about the original small maps because they had fewer bases. Some weren't people's favorites due to various personal preferences, but it certainly wasn't because they had a manageable number of fields.
-
Ok, allow me to paint this picture with a different brush. On a small map with 40'ish fields it is possible, especially during prime-time, to both defend all of your fields reasonably well and mount significant attacks against similarly defended enemy fields. The end result is, from the perspective of "winning the war", that the country that fights best defensively and offensively tends to be rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. There is almost never the opportunity to mount an attack of overwhelming force against an undefended field and be rewarded with real estate without having to actually fight for it in any significant way. Attackers must always face an established and significant defense. It is possible to be able to mount a persistant defence at 100% of your front-line bases simultaneously as there are only going to be 10 or less of them for each team.
On a HUGE map, even during prime-time, it is totally impossible to defend even a small fraction of your bases simultaneously. The end result of this, from the perspective of "winning the war", is that the country that goes out of their way to NOT fight, that goes after all those indefensible fields is rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. HUGE maps actually punish teams that seek to perpetuate a static engagement even if the end result is the ultimate capture of the enemy's field, it simply takes too long to fight for fields in this fashion to achieve any kind of long-term strategic geographical impact. In terms of defense on a HUGE map it is only possible to adequately defend perhaps 5-10% of your front-line fields simultaneously as there are 30-50 of them total. This makes mounting reactionary defense against an enemy determined to bring overwhelming force to previously vacant fields and not press the attack if repelled intially virtually pointless. Defense becomes an exercise of chasing the milk-hordes all over the map in wack-a-mole fashion.
So, what this really boils down to is this...
Small maps reward those that win protracted fights for fields.
HUGE maps reward those who do everything possible to avoid protracted fighting for fields.
I really believe that this deserves serious consideration by HTC. Sure, I'm pretty new around here, but what Zazen is saying both makes sense and is readily visible during regular play.
Actually, I like joining base capture missions in the hopes that a furball will result. I really enjoy taking a base after a prolonged fight.
-
Maybe this will refresh your memories:
1.HTC-Bring Back Big Maps-7/10/04
2.HiTech...New Maps!!!-7/29/04
3.Map Rotation Whine- 8/9/05 This thread was started by you Zazen, because you were upset about the maps being reset so often.
I'm sure I complained about the small maps also and I now regret having done so. It just goes to show that the grass ain't always greener on the other side of the fence.
Fact is we all get tried of the same ole things. I'd like to see a huge map in one arena that's there for a extended period of time. And the small "good ole days" maps that reset quickly in the other arena. And even this probably wouldn't make everyone happy.
-
Maybe this will refresh your memories:
1.HTC-Bring Back Big Maps-7/10/04
2.HiTech...New Maps!!!-7/29/04
3.Map Rotation Whine- 8/9/05 This thread was started by you Zazen, because you were upset about the maps being reset so often.
I'm sure I complained about the small maps also and I now regret having done so. It just goes to show that the grass ain't always greener on the other side of the fence.
Fact is we all get tried of the same ole things. I'd like to see a huge map in one arena that's there for a extended period of time. And the small "good ole days" maps that reset quickly in the other arena. And even this probably wouldn't make everyone happy.
I wasn't around during the timeframes you referenced, but I can say that if the small maps were reset too often, perhaps the criteria for reset should be changed. That said, I think Zazen's comments previously mentioned in this thread hold a great deal of merit and should be considered.
-
One arena should always be large map, second arena small map. End of problem.
Also if some recall, small maps prior to AW break up were just fine as you would average around 200 US peek times. After that when numbers doubled,tripled from AW break up is when the problems started and discussion/whines for the introduction of larger maps.
<S>...-Gixer
-
I got into the game about the time AW ended and then we had 1 big crazy arena.Then we went to split arenas with a bunch of tiny maps.Now we have 4 arenas with huge maps.(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/Pulling_hair.gif)
-
Well everyone complained about the small maps and this is the result. Now you have to fight a horde for 15 or 20 minutes and then run clear across the map to stop 2 guys in a wirbel and M3 from taking a Vbase in the back woods. I used to enjoy taking bases, but I don't see the point now. I haven't seen anyone win a map in 6 months at least.
I've seen guys hover over their own field for hours never leaving the dar ring, and all the while bombers and GVs roll in for the attack. They don't even attempt to take out the enemys ord, troops or even the VH. And worse yet they don't even resupply their own bases. They just move to another field thats all up.
The big maps are bug ridden, disco causing, cluster pucks with no objective except to kill and be killed. So I'll just pretty much furball and hope things change for the better. :salute
It's mostly point less in most cases on large maps to pork anything. With the exception of troops at a near by vbase or "maybe" ords at an air base. However in most cases especially on the large maps there is 5 other fields with in a sector or two that they can up from with 100%. Considering troops and ords only stay down 2 hours and less if they resupply, killing ords or troops at abases rarely has any effect unless that abase is isolated.
-
Small maps reward those that win protracted fights for fields.
HUGE maps reward those who do everything possible to avoid protracted fighting for fields.
Yea I think I have to agree with you on this point.. I never really thought of it, and I'm only flying on my second year, so I came into the picture just after the arena's were split. It wasn't until Titanic Tuesday's that I ever got to play in one large arena, but even then when I first started it seemed like you had to fight more for bases. I followed the typical tool sheder path when I first started and did some base taking back then, while we did have NOE missions there were also lots of just straight out fighting for bases.
Heck I can remember when even the medium sized maps like baltic and nislies (sp?) would take a week or two to reset simply because you had to fight for every single base. You might get 1 or two NOE captures but that would be it, because the other team would soon be on the ball.
The thing was even back then you had to fight for bases and there wasn't so much of this run from every fight additude that we see today. I really wonder if a lot of that could be the fact the maps are so big and the arena's are split. Even in blue with the smaller maps, you now see many NOE stealing of undefended bases simply because the numbers aren't there on off peak times.
Players have been taught it's easier to not fight if they want to win the war, so now it's nothing but hoardes, NOE raids and the 1 guy with a flack trying to steal a base while no one is looking. Granted I'm not a big fan of flying in the hoarde but I'd really like to see if we could get the fight back by getting rid of the big maps for a while or at least rotating some of the smaller ones back in.
I've been doing a lot of the whack a mole lately defending bases that are being attacked by a handful of players. Seems it's becoming the norm that soon as they get some sort of resistance, they stop fighting for the base. Then they just wait for you to land so they can just sneak it when you arent looking.
-
Maybe this will refresh your memories:
1.HTC-Bring Back Big Maps-7/10/04
2.HiTech...New Maps!!!-7/29/04
3.Map Rotation Whine- 8/9/05 This thread was started by you Zazen, because you were upset about the maps being reset so often.
I'm sure I complained about the small maps also and I now regret having done so. It just goes to show that the grass ain't always greener on the other side of the fence.
Fact is we all get tried of the same ole things. I'd like to see a huge map in one arena that's there for a extended period of time. And the small "good ole days" maps that reset quickly in the other arena. And even this probably wouldn't make everyone happy.
I think most people including myself wanted something diffrent. We had been playing the same small maps over and over for quite some time. The bigger maps were something diffrent at the time.
-
I really believe that this deserves serious consideration by HTC. Sure, I'm pretty new around here, but what Zazen is saying both makes sense and is readily visible during regular play.
Actually, I like joining base capture missions in the hopes that a furball will result. I really enjoy taking a base after a prolonged fight.
So, would most people. But, those who have joined AH in the last 3 years to recently increasingly don't even know what the satisfaction of taking fields after a protracted and lengthy pitched battle is like as the HUGE maps dominate gameplay more and more. Obviously, what I am expressing was the culmination of years of careful observation. The scary part is all trends point to it getting worse over time not better unless something is done...
-
3.Map Rotation Whine- 8/9/05 This thread was started by you Zazen, because you were upset about the maps being reset so often.
I'm sure I complained about the small maps also and I now regret having done so. It just goes to show that the grass ain't always greener on the other side of the fence.
Fact is we all get tried of the same ole things. I'd like to see a huge map in one arena that's there for a extended period of time. And the small "good ole days" maps that reset quickly in the other arena. And even this probably wouldn't make everyone happy.
You are referencing my thread from 2005, but left out some of the important substance of the post in your summary, allow me to further refresh your memory. You will notice I am advocating more stringent reset conditions, which have now been implimented and lamenting the return to a HUGE map that was both boring and annoying to reset even with a concerted, deliberate effort and more liberal reset requirements. So, far from a small map whine, that thread was actually in the same vein as my comments here but specifically applicable to an obsolete problem of the past. I was actually expressing my sadness that we were denied more game-time on the small maps and were back on a HUGE map less than 24 hrs later. Incidentally, Skuzzy did subsequently impliment a superior map rotation script, but that was prior to split arenas...
Ok, I just devoted my entire Sunday to the tune of 17 straight hours to resetting Trinity map because I hate it due to it being a generally boring milkrunning vulch fest. It gets reset, Uterus comes up, Bishops reset it in the wee hours of the AM when noone else is on. NDiles comes back up, Bishops in reset corner, obviously the map doesn't last 12 hours. Now guess what map comes up!??! Freaking Trinity map! again! 19 hours after we reset it! WHY?!?! We have at least 8 maps in the rotation, why do we have to have this map again so soon?
I realize the map rotation is an automatic script, perhaps it is messed up, please look at it, Skuzzy, for the love of God.
Zazen
-
I've been wondering why I can't find as many exciting battles as I used to, and why I haven't been having as much fun with the game as I did a couple years ago.
A fact that many players often ignore is the burnout problem. You can easily have the feeling you described without any actual change in gameplay...
Every game that was once exciting and new can get stale and boring if you just play it long enough. The longer someone is here, the easier he's geeting the feeling "been there, done that". In my first weeks, almost every combat was exciting, everytime I lined up behind an enemy con I got sweaty palms. These times are long gone, but it's not the game's fault.
There's a point in every player's AH career, where the game can't offer him something fundamentally new, apart from the occasional new map or new plane. At that point I see quite often the blame put on other players (the "n00bs" in particular) or HTC "they have ruined the game"
-
The scary part is all trends point to it getting worse over time not better unless something is done...
Introducing cash rewards for the top score potato was another turning point for the worse.
<S>...-Gixer
-
The thing was even back then you had to fight for bases and there wasn't so much of this run from every fight additude that we see today. I really wonder if a lot of that could be the fact the maps are so big and the arena's are split. Even in blue with the smaller maps, you now see many NOE stealing of undefended bases simply because the numbers aren't there on off peak times.
Players have been taught it's easier to not fight if they want to win the war, so now it's nothing but hoardes, NOE raids and the 1 guy with a flack trying to steal a base while no one is looking. Granted I'm not a big fan of flying in the hoarde but I'd really like to see if we could get the fight back by getting rid of the big maps for a while or at least rotating some of the smaller ones back in.
I've been doing a lot of the whack a mole lately defending bases that are being attacked by a handful of players. Seems it's becoming the norm that soon as they get some sort of resistance, they stop fighting for the base. Then they just wait for you to land so they can just sneak it when you arent looking.
Very nicely put, you are spot on. :salute
-
A fact that many players often ignore is the burnout problem. You can easily have the feeling you described without any actual change in gameplay...
Every game that was once exciting and new can get stale and boring if you just play it long enough. The longer someone is here, the easier he's geeting the feeling "been there, done that". In my first weeks, almost every combat was exciting, everytime I lined up behind an enemy con I got sweaty palms. These times are long gone, but it's not the game's fault.
There's a point in every player's AH career, where the game can't offer him something fundamentally new, apart from the occasional new map or new plane. At that point I see quite often the blame put on other players (the "n00bs" in particular) or HTC "they have ruined the game"
I agree
-
A fact that many players often ignore is the burnout problem. You can easily have the feeling you described without any actual change in gameplay...
Every game that was once exciting and new can get stale and boring if you just play it long enough. The longer someone is here, the easier he's geeting the feeling "been there, done that". In my first weeks, almost every combat was exciting, everytime I lined up behind an enemy con I got sweaty palms. These times are long gone, but it's not the game's fault.
There's a point in every player's AH career, where the game can't offer him something fundamentally new, apart from the occasional new map or new plane. At that point I see quite often the blame put on other players (the "n00bs" in particular) or HTC "they have ruined the game"
To an extent that can be an issue.. I've had several times that I was getting really irritated with this game do to burn out. However it wasn't really the game that caused the burn out for me. It was the exact things we are talking about in this topic. What really burns me out is the lack of good fights and the consitant hoards of players that can't fight a 1 on 1 fight with out their 5 budies jumping in.
Hell I'd love to up a Spit 1, a P40E or a ki61 and go find some good fights, but you never can with out 5 tards jumping you because they see some "easy kill". That's what I really enjoy, is going out finding a good 1 on 1 or ever 2 on 1 just as long as it's a good fight. That is what really burns me out, is the total lack of fights and the constant hoards.
I really hate the typical MA 1 or 2 pass kills or running from one con to the next, because you can't dare lose your speed or the hoard will kill you. There is just nothing left anymore for the guys that are looking for real fights. It's either NOE base captures or fill up your dar bar to be the biggest hoard so you can go vulch. There is no real fight anymore and damn sure don't say the DA, because unless you set up a 1 on 1 with someone good it's a worse joke in there than the MA.
In short something needs to be done to bring the fight back and I've been saying this for quite some time.. I'm a noob of only 2 years but even I can see the degrade in skill sets and people actually willing to fight.
-
A fact that many players often ignore is the burnout problem. You can easily have the feeling you described without any actual change in gameplay...
Every game that was once exciting and new can get stale and boring if you just play it long enough. The longer someone is here, the easier he's geeting the feeling "been there, done that". In my first weeks, almost every combat was exciting, everytime I lined up behind an enemy con I got sweaty palms. These times are long gone, but it's not the game's fault.
There's a point in every player's AH career, where the game can't offer him something fundamentally new, apart from the occasional new map or new plane. At that point I see quite often the blame put on other players (the "n00bs" in particular) or HTC "they have ruined the game"
I would accept that as an explanation if it weren't for the fact that I did occasionally still get as excited as when I first started. This was on one of the rare instances that I found an exciting furball or battle. I really feel that they are much harder to find now that everyone is spread so thin over these expansive fronts.
-
I would accept that as an explanation if it weren't for the fact that I did occasionally still get as excited as when I first started. This was on one of the rare instances that I found an exciting furball or battle. I really feel that they are much harder to find now that everyone is spread so thin over these expansive fronts.
Yup, set and setting is 95% of it. It's damn near impossible to get as jacked about a game when the thing you used to love to do a lot you almost never get to do anymore, whatever that may be. Back in the day before HUGE maps and milk-hording, it was a drag when some high alt buffs decided to kill a furball by dropping fighter hangers. But it wasn't the end of the world because there was probably another furball you could jump into or help foment. But, now when the same thing happens you may not see another really good fight for the rest of the day/night on a HUGE map, so it's really kind of depressing.
-
Someone said something about dessert? We have a lot of dessert camo skins and no dessert!
-
I've been on and off again since 2001, and was an AW geek before 1998. I have to agree that the large maps have forced players to be rewarded for the hoard mentality. If your playing wack-a-mole trying to defend the huge number of bases on your front then your side can't form a hoard of its own, and therefore have lost the initiative and can not win. The conditions for victory, are such, that the path of least resistance leads to the most territory conquered in the least amount of unit time. We have authored our own decent into mediocrity by asking, and begging, for new larger maps. We must suffer the consequences of our own wishes being granted.
Strat players are rare as hens teeth now because of the density of fields on the large maps. Why shut down a particular field, when there are five others within a sectors flying distance that are fully up, and why go after the Strat targets to keep them down when there are numerous fields fully up, close to the one you want to shut down? Conversely why resupply a field when there are others nearby fully functional?
The players have found the most efficient system for resetting maps. Just because we find the tactics used and style of play abhorrent, does not invalidate it. The conditions for victory are such, that the path of least resistance leads to the most territory conquered in the least amount of time. That is the plane and simple truth of why the hoard, and its tactics exists on any map, especially the large ones.
-
I've been on and off again since 2001, and was an AW geek before 1998. I have to agree that the large maps have forced players to be rewarded for the hoard mentality. If your playing wack-a-mole trying to defend the huge number of bases on your front then your side can't form a hoard of its own, and therefore have lost the initiative and can not win. The conditions for victory, are such, that the path of least resistance leads to the most territory conquered in the least amount of unit time. We have authored our own decent into mediocrity by asking, and begging, for new larger maps. We must suffer the consequences of our own wishes being granted.
Strat players are rare as hens teeth now because of the density of fields on the large maps. Why shut down a particular field, when there are five others within a sectors flying distance that are fully up, and why go after the Strat targets to keep them down when there are numerous fields fully up, close to the one you want to shut down? Conversely why resupply a field when there are others nearby fully functional?
The players have found the most efficient system for resetting maps. Just because we find the tactics used and style of play abhorrent, does not invalidate it. The conditions for victory are such, that the path of least resistance leads to the most territory conquered in the least amount of time. That is the plane and simple truth of why the hoard, and its tactics exists on any map, especially the large ones.
Precisely...individual fields are all but meaningless on a HUGE map. If the "win the war" types want to have a strategic impact on the map within the 3-5 hour period of a typical play session they must milk-horde for the greatest number of captures per unit time as possible. Any kind of fighting beyond some periodic gang-vulching is catastrophic to this overall goal.
-
I would accept that as an explanation if it weren't for the fact that I did occasionally still get as excited as when I first started. This was on one of the rare instances that I found an exciting furball or battle. I really feel that they are much harder to find now that everyone is spread so thin over these expansive fronts.
Oh, one still can get excited.. it's just way more difficult to get into that state. Also what one might have called a "good fight" when he was new, would now be hardly noticed at all ;)
-
Oh, one still can get excited.. it's just way more difficult to get into that state. Also what one might have called a "good fight" when he was new, would now be hardly noticed at all ;)
Granted you can still get excited if you challenge your self in various aircraft. The problem still remains the same, that there is far too few good fights these days and if you do find one it wont last long before it turns to a vulch or a land grab.
Take late last night for example in Orange.. There was a great furball going with Bish and Nits. Bish had a CV off the coast of a Nit base and it was a great little furball of mostly low alt fighting (under 10k). Bish were not trying to capture the base and the CV was in a patrol pattern keeping it far from shore.
I guess the land grabbers couldn't stand the sight of a furball, because a bunch of tards came in with P47's and sunk the CV then about 5 mins later some NOE goons captures the corresponding port. I said something about it on 200 and they tried to use the excuse that Bish were hiding in ack and that's why they killed the CV, which was total BS. If it was just about ack they wouldn't have also captured the port.
The land grabbers appartlly couldn't leave a good furball alone, they just had to go kill the CV and steal a undefended port. Shortly before that the land grabbers had come in and killed all the FH's at the closest Abase for the Bish. I mean they have a map with 200 bases on it and they have to be killjoys and kill a great furball, just to capture a base that means nothing.
Right after this, there was a Nit Cv off of Bish 209.. there were about 4 guys trying to sneak it, by shelling the town with the CV then hoping to sneak in a LVT. I up with a fighter and kill a few of them then a few more bish up and start killing them. So what did the attacking Nits do? They stopped upping, likely hoping we would just go away.
Soon as there was any form of resistance they went into hiding, until later I saw there was a big full dar bar that upped at the same time long after the defenders had landed. I dunno if they managed to capture it because that's about the time I logged off. Just seems this kind of thing is becoming far to common these days.
Granted it's not a Nit, Bish or Rook thing that's just an example I used from last night. It's a MA thing that I hope changes..
-
Interesting perspective. You brought up some good reasons why players bent on "winning the war" must resort to overwhelming application of force exclusively upon undefended fields to maximize their captures per unit time. If they attempted to "win the war" while actually fighting for bases that already had an established Alt/E laden defense, we'd all be worm dirt before they got halfway there on a HUGE map with 200+ fields.
B4 the arena split and for a time after a group of us got into the habit of defending, jumping from one attack to the other, it was alot of fun at the time, we were most always outnumberd. some you win some you don't. if we happened on an LTAR attack you could settle in for a long time, they just never stop coming always a great fight and alot of fun.
I don't defend to much at all anymore, seems if you offer any real defence the fight dies off quickly and moves to the other end of the map. Base taking has become just that, it's not about stirring up a fight, it's just about a capture.
-
I don't defend to much at all anymore, seems if you offer any real defence the fight dies off quickly and moves to the other end of the map. Base taking has become just that, it's not about stirring up a fight, it's just about a capture.
Exactly...playing wack-a-mole with paper heroes that evaporate at the first inkling of a smackdown just to appear 15 sectors away at another vacant base is about as much fun as skinny dipping down a razor blade into a swimming pool full of Iodine.
-
B4 the arena split and for a time after a group of us got into the habit of defending, jumping from one attack to the other, it was alot of fun at the time, we were most always outnumberd. some you win some you don't. if we happened on an LTAR attack you could settle in for a long time, they just never stop coming always a great fight and alot of fun.
(snip)
I have a love/hate relationship with the LTARs. I love them because they are pretty much the only squad that will put up a decent fight for a base, despite the odds. I hate them because, they are so damn good in their GVs. It's like they are from Fort Knox, or something. Seriously they are damn fine GV'ers, like they live online in them or something.
-
I have a love/hate relationship with the LTARs. I love them because they are pretty much the only squad that will put up a decent fight for a base, despite the odds. I hate them because, they are so damn good in their GVs. It's like they are from Fort Knox, or something. Seriously they are damn fine GV'ers, like they live online in them or something.
LTAR's are one of those living phenomena born out of necessity. Back in AHI field ack was far less substantial than what we have now. It was great to have the LTAR's there to make people think twice about low alt pendulum vulch passes on the takeoff spots. Even if they happened to not be at a particular base, people always had it in the back of their mind that any and every Ostwind they saw may be the LTAR's so curbed their tight CAP vulching. This had the net effect of enhancing and extenuating fights a lot.
-
It must be where you go looking for the fight. In all my time flying, 12 years in flight sims, the fight went from base to base. It jumped. No fights ever stayed at the same base for long. I use to think Well what base will they be hitting next, what base would I hit next? Basically I just anticipated. The other day we attacked the same base for over 2 hours before we captured it. Like Pluck a gv was asleep at the wheel and the troops slipped by. That caused some ire. You could see that by the way they were trying to get the base back.
Frankly, I'm not sure what you folks call furballing, yeah I know there's a thread on it. To me furballing is when you get right there swapping paint with the enemy. Many times I will see 2 full dar bars of enemy by a base and hardly any cons coming into the base.
Like I have said, and falcon and dredger and Rox, if you aren't protecting your base that is your fault. Why would you send just two people in to capture a base. You always want numbers ever country does not matter if it is just furballing, old fashion fighter sweeps, or taking bases.
As far as two tanks in town 2 eggs would take care of that nicely. I almost always fly with eggs. I love to shoot those rockets too. I can kill a gv 3k out with those at times, 6k if I'm in a TBM and I can see them(and if they are standing still).
I guess I just don't understand the rants about this subject. I find a way to have fun every time I play. I guess I just don't get disjointed because people won't play the way I want. Instead maybe I just adapt.
-
Frankly, I'm not sure what you folks call furballing, yeah I know there's a thread on it. To me furballing is when you get right there swapping paint with the enemy.
My description below is really what a "furball" or "dogfight" is in the classical sense. What you are describing is a "stall-fight" or "turn-fight". Furballs/Dogfights almost always include some "stall-fighting" and "turn-fighting", especially at the lower strata, but it is also a lot more varied and complex than just that...
You are misunderstanding the modern definition of "furball". A Furball is a large, chaotic engagement, with many planes operating in loose coordination over a relatively finite space. Furballs are three-dimensional, they tend to look like a tornado that starts out wider at the top with a skinny rope, as it matures the rope thickens and the top shrinks. There's a definite periphery on the horizontal plane at low alt. There's planes that have exhausted their E at the bottom stallfighting, there's people fighting more vertically in the middle alts and there's those in the next higher strata who have not yet spent their E and are waiting to strike. Furballs have ebbs and flows at the various strata as killing expends E. Planes once occupying the top strata halfway through a mission with 5 kills may find himself down in the weeds trying to fight his way through the periphery to return to base. A furball is a complex organism, it is not 2 or more Spits playing stall horn grab-ass on the deck...
-
Personally, I still like the big maps. I'm not a huge land-grabber (other than to get a few captures for the stat thing) and almost never fly NOE as I'm a lone wolf player. For me the big maps simply offer a much larger variety of game play options.
The problem I saw when the arenas were split and only small maps were allowed was not only the limitations of the maps themselves relative to game play options, but the population densities. There was nothing BUT furballs on every front. That's great if you like to furball but not so great if you like more limited engagements.
I like to furball every once in a while but, again, as a lone wolf I like to find those areas that can offer me one-on-one to one-on-three engagements without constantly being ganged. I also very much enjoy buff hunting milk-runners or being a lone (or one of very few) defender(s) against those NOE or GV "sneak" missions and have had a lot of success at it. What I sacrifice in return for this is my kill per hour stats but I don't care as long as it ends up giving me quality engagements.
There are a few small maps that offer the advantages of the large ones but, again, they are largely unpopular with the "we don't like large maps" set. SmPizza is one along with a few others I forget the names of.
I would like to see HT go to one arena with large maps, one with small maps and caps set permanently at like 450 in the large map arena and 250 in the small map arena, then, let the players choose for themselves.
-
/signed.
I recently re-subbed but with the way the areas are split and my combined hatred for gigantic maps have caused me to consider why i subscribed again.