Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: bozon on January 14, 2009, 11:12:16 AM
-
This is a vision for HTC to consider. Just food for thought.
I will try to make this short and to the point:
- Combat tour is on long hold.
- Arena game is chaos and lacks drive.
- People like scores
- Current score are meaningless and encourage poor gaming.
- Many people do like the free gameplay of the arena
What I suggest is a player planned mission system, that will incorporate some of the gameplay concepts at the core of CT and will be reflected in a much better scoring system, while all this happens inside the "free for all" arena - in harmony :D
Perhaps a little ambitious, but I believe requires relatively little programing and take the best of all worlds. Here we go:
Player driven mission system:
At the core, there will be a new mission editor for the players.
- A mission leader can create a template mission: Strategic bombing, Jabo, fighter sweep etc.
- The mission will have a defined goal (bomb city X, attack base Y, sweep to point Z...).
- A mission created, immediately creates a defensive mission on the other side (according to the target).
- Both missions launch on a timer
- The defensive mission will have some limited intel on the incomming mission (the target, number of patricipant, plane categories - bombers, fighters). The intel may be inexact ("4-6" participants, instead of an exact number) and may only be available upon launch.
- A mission requires minimum number of participants. Counter missions do not. This is to prevent individuals making mission just for themselves. The minimum should be kept low to allow easy launching of missions without waiting too long for recruits.
- Sever limitation on the number of participants to prevent big hordes. It is better if several missions are created instead.
- A mission is built of "flights" of identical planes with identical loadout/skins. For example, 2 flights of 4 bombers each and 2 flights of 4 fighter-escorts for a maximum of 16 participants.
- Opposing sides need a way to recognize each other over the free players in the arena (color of icon?)
- players may choose to be notified when a mission of the type they want is posted (tick boxes on the mission list page for example). This is to prevent endless text spamming announcing the mission to un-interested people.
- It is impossible to join a launched mission.
Scoring as a gameplay driver:
Of course anyone in the arena can follow/intercept the mission without joining it. However, they will gain no score (perks?) from that.
- To get scores you have to be in a mission.
- hitting targets / shooting planes outside the mission while participating in one gives score, but much less then hitting opposing mission objects/planes.
- A LARGE fraction of the pilot's final score is the mission score. This is calculated from the total score of the mission, so if the mission is successful all participants get more score (shared score pool?). This is to encourage team work.
- Mission leaders get "leader" score which is a different category and is based entirely on the final results of the mission, regardless of his own action (may stay on the ground for that matter).
- At the end of each AH tour, a list of the top pilots and top leaders will be published for bragging rights.
- The scores are heavily based on ENY and OBJ values. This is to encourage the use of high ENY planes. For example, the defensive mission can launch Spit16s for defense, but get little score if the attacking force comes in SBDs. For this reason, giving the average ENY value of the opposing mission is a good intel to give before mission launch. It is also a good parameter for the mission score, since not getting shot down by defending high-ENY planes is worth something.
- Score should be affected by time to prevent the attacking force from stalling and boring the defenders. Exactly time to what is a good question... could be a factor like time from launch, so a structure destroyed 4 minutes from launch give more score than if destroyed 8 minutes from launch.
- Trading scores - some points that go to one side comes off from the other. If one of your mission was shot down, it lowers the mission score (and your share of it). A destroyed object (by opposing mission, not by a free player) lowers the defenders mission score.
Players who are interested in scores will be encouraged to do so by making missions and employ low ENY planes. Players who just want some fighter action can join defensive mission and be guarantied to run into the incoming force - and also fight any random enemy that comes. Bombing cities and strategic targets may become worthwhile. Milkruns to undefended bases give no score. To be a score potato, you need the mission to succeed, not to cherrypick some helpless targets. People that was freeplay without scores can follow missions and intercept missions or do exactly what they do now. This should not interfere with furballs. Actually, a furball can be created by making "fighter sweep" type missions that invites the other side to join the intercepting mission.
Just a thought.
-
It sounds reasonable yet would take some time to setup considering all the events that take place to determine your final score and perk prize. Plus implementing a system that notifies the opposing side(s) of an incoming mission-type with a random low estimate of planes would take a little while to create.
I think it's a good idea requiring some tweaking on the edges.
-
Just a thought.
one hell of a thought !
I think they should at least take a look at this!
:salute
-
Sounds reasonable to me!
It'd be kind of cool to have an "unranked" score for outside of missions as I use that to track how I'm doing compared to last tour, and so if I'm just wanting to dogfight aimlessly, I don't lose track of what I've done! :)
-
Might be a stupid question. What would keep people honest? Would the enemy be able to track your different icons outside radar range? My point being. Setup a mission to attack a base 2 sectors away to north, then take the players and attack a base 1 sector to east.
P.S. My first post. WOOT! :)
-
Might be a stupid question. What would keep people honest? Would the enemy be able to track your different icons outside radar range? My point being. Setup a mission to attack a base 2 sectors away to north, then take the players and attack a base 1 sector to east.
P.S. My first post. WOOT! :)
People tend to cheat the score system by shooting "shades," or other accounts that they up in addition to their own to get kills. It's called stat padding or score padding as well. This system would keep that from happening because you don't get points unless your in a mission, and a mission must have more than 1 or 2 people in it.
-
I mean you say the mission is going to hit one thing, then launch it and divert and hit something different so the counter-mission isn't nearby. Will the points only count if the target listed is hit? Could someone who doesn't care about points, and just wants the have 20 enemies chasing ghosts start a mission and divert just to take an undefended field?
-
I mean you say the mission is going to hit one thing, then launch it and divert and hit something different so the counter-mission isn't nearby. Will the points only count if the target listed is hit? Could someone who doesn't care about points, and just wants the have 20 enemies chasing ghosts start a mission and divert just to take an undefended field?
Don't think you'd be able to cap a base unless it was the selected one for the mission.
It would sadly be the end for stealthy missions, however.
-
It'd be kind of cool to have an "unranked" score for outside of missions as I use that to track how I'm doing compared to last tour, and so if I'm just wanting to dogfight aimlessly, I don't lose track of what I've done!
This replaces the current nearly meaningless and highly exploited acoring system - not the statistics page.
Might be a stupid question. What would keep people honest? Would the enemy be able to track your different icons outside radar range? My point being. Setup a mission to attack a base 2 sectors away to north, then take the players and attack a base 1 sector to east.
You can do it, but first you have to recruit 2-3 more people for your ploy. Then You will get nearly no score for this since you are not hitting mission objectives. It can be made that while you get a few points for shooting down non-mission enemies, you get zero point for destroying non-mission objects.
If someone wants to destroy objects without alerted opposition, he can do so without a mission as he does now. The only people who may try such a thing are "land grabbers" that really want to take a base but want to keep 3-4 people from the defending country away from their operation. It does not prevent the other 90 people from the attacked chess piece to just take off and intercept them without a mission. The 3-4 people from the defensive mission can still fight any other enemy they find and get some scores. Interceptor mission should perhaps get better scores for non-mission kills, but this is getting into the tweaking. I'm only discussing the basic idea.
People tend to cheat the score system by shooting "shades," or other accounts that they up in addition to their own to get kills. It's called stat padding or score padding as well. This system would keep that from happening because you don't get points unless your in a mission, and a mission must have more than 1 or 2 people in it.
Exactly one of the things I was planning against. You need to collaborate with friends (or shades) to get the 3-4 required participants, then use your shades to join the defense mission. This required coordination or many shade accounts. The real killer is that anyone can join the interception mission... so one random guy walking in on this "setup" will ruin the whole thing :)
Don't think you'd be able to cap a base unless it was the selected one for the mission.
It would sadly be the end for stealthy missions, however.
You can CAP anything you like, why would you be prevented from doing so? Perhaps one of the mission templates can be "CAP" which is just a defensive mission without a counter. This can be a fast launching mission to organize a quick small defense force - to be used against free-play tool-shedders, or if the defenders were shot down and want to go up again. Since there is no counter mission, the targets are all non-mission and scoring should be tweaked accordingly.
Stealthy missions can still exist in two forms:
- Free flight, as it is now without a mission = no score, but you can capture a base you really want.
- With a mission: It is a stealth mission, not a milkrun. The defenders don't know exactly WHAT you are flying. Intel given to them may be only "4 bombers, 2 fighters". They would expect an escorted 20k bombing run and climb 25k to intercept them, but instead the bombers turn out to be A20s coming NOE undetected from the flank. By the time the interceptors figure it out and spot them from 25k up, the target is already hit and all they can do is to try to prevent them from RTB for a perfect mission score.
-
- It is impossible to join a launched mission.
edit: Perhaps allow late joining to intercept missions?
Also it is vital that the mission editor is extremely simple and a default mission can be set up in 20 seconds after choosing the template - choose origin, target, plane type for each flight that comes armed according to the template and submit. The advanced planner can tweak the loadouts, skins, specific runway to use, draw a flight path on the map, write a briefing... bla bla bla.
Private missions may also be a desirable feature, so squadrons can do their own mission (the counter mission is open for all of course). This can be done by "squadron only" flag, password, or player invites from the planner.
-
I thought it was said CT was put on hold for good?
I like the score idea. I think keeping K/D, Hit % and all those stats, but just get rid of the actual ranking number
-
+1
-
...Private missions may also be a desirable feature, so squadrons can do their own mission (the counter mission is open for all of course). This can be done by "squadron only" flag, password, or player invites from the planner.
Wouldn't that contradict the following?
...Exactly one of the things I was planning against. You need to collaborate with friends (or shades) to get the 3-4 required participants, then use your shades to join the defense mission. This required coordination or many shade accounts. The real killer is that anyone can join the interception mission... so one random guy walking in on this "setup" will ruin the whole thing :)...
-
Wouldn't that contradict the following?
No.
Only the attacking side is private and still requires minimum number of participants to get it running. The defenders (interception) mission is public and anyone can join it.
Anyway, these are the fine details. I don't intend to write a detailed spec for this. I bet HTC will do it better than I can... if they choose to.
-
I certainly hope they do. Parts of this are well thought out and well worth implementing.
-
I certainly hope they do. Parts of this are well thought out and well worth implementing.
Thanks, I hope they do too.
I was thinking about HTC's statement about halting the work on CT. They said something about implementing elements from CT into the arenas and I wondered what they meant by that. I don't even know what they had working, I was not in the alpha test.
If the AI system is in good condition this can be incorporated into the above suggested system. If not "enough" missions are generated by the players, the server can generate AI missions. The right type for those would be more of strategic nature than tactical. For example: escorted bombing runs on cities and factories, Resupply missions (cargo transport to damaged bases), etc. If not "enough" defenders join the counter-mission as defense, they can be supplemented by AI defenders CAPing the target. Heck, have regular patrols of AI planes over front bases, HQ, constant minimal CAP over the CV etc.
-
I really love this idea. I was 1 who was really looking forward to CT for more structured and disciplined style gameplay and realistic stats and scoring. This is, in my opinion, a brilliant way to bring this to the MA.
-
:aok I like it also. DarkCrow, you were 1 of many. :O I sure hope they are listening, willing and able to give something like this a shot. I hadn't given it much thought before, but launching a mission where you can also choose the skin would be awesome. :O
-
My only complaint is the automatic counter-mission. Perhaps, rather than giving the enemy the target base, there will be a mission generated within a target 4-sectors.
-
hmm the counter mission would only appear after the attack mission was airborne and would just use the dar bars as it is now. That way the defenders don't know what base is being attacked and have to do CAPS (Combat Air PATROLS) that cover say 3 to 4 sectors as they had to IRL. How does that sound?
-
My only complaint is the automatic counter-mission. Perhaps, rather than giving the enemy the target base, there will be a mission generated within a target 4-sectors.
This is just a skeleton idea. Some details I put in just for illustration - exactly what intel do the sides get is a matter for fine turning and will highly depend on the entire design. Sending the defenders out in the dark to find a few incoming planes out of ~100 planes from the specific chess piece that fly about is not good.
The arena background chaos and other missions flying at the same time will create enough fog-of-war so the defenders will not easily pinpoint the attackers in this haystack. Milkruns are not good game-play. For a good game, you WANT the missions to collide - much like the design in the special events. The challenge for the defenders is to manage it before the attack is made. The challenge for the attackers is to delay this till after the attack run and survive it. We know this very well from the special events: A mission without contact at all = boring for both sides.
-
A bump by another suggestion:
The formulas for mission based scoring system should be kept hidden from the players. A hidden and elaborate score calculation prevents min-max players from creating "cookie cutter" missions. They only need to know what they are awarded (or loose) points for in a non-numeric manner.
A bit of fog over the score calculation leaves some room for diversity.