Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 96Delta on February 10, 2009, 02:22:58 PM
-
Respawn Delay
Here's a suggestion to elevate the game play of
Aces High by simultaneously reducing the arcade
game style of play we are seeing an increase in
and increase the "excitement" quotient considerably.
Here's the idea:
Create a 5 minute spawn delay after you die
or lose your aircraft. This would include
those who ditch their damaged aircraft and
those who parachute out of a damaged plane.
You could even vary the cost depending on the outcome
of the engagement. For example, a 10 minute delay
for death and a 5 minute delay for successfully
parachuting or ditching your plane.
We have all decried and lamented the "bomb****s",
"suicide porkers" and others of their ilk. They
have turned the game into an arcade game and
I am firmly convinced, forced many players out
of the game because of the senseless arcade
game it has become.
Moreover, practices like these have collectively
cheapened the gaming experience for hundreds, so
much so that game changes have been required as a
direct result of their actions (ie: more barracks
on fields, more AAA, inability to pork fuel to zero,
and so on).
Many players, hundreds actually, enjoy the FSO
and Scenario games partly because they impose a
one-life, one-plane paradigm. This adds a degree of
immersion and adrenaline flow that really
ramps up game enjoyment for, as the evidence
states, hundreds of players.
This suggestion, if implemented, would create a
new mindset in a pilot similar to what they
experience in the FSO/Scenarios; one that adds to
the realism of air combat by infusing in the
pilots mind the need to preserve his life and
plane. Surely, this will elevate the game to a
higher level as well as encourage players to i
improve their skills.
Furthermore, it would force better gameplay,
encourage the development of true air combat tactics
and cooperative gameplay (like using wingmen), and
would discourage wasting lives and planes through
suicide tactics.
Some people may think that this is overly restrictive.
I disagree. For those that think these minor limitations
will "ruin the game" I hasten to remind you that arena
caps and ENY are also restrictive yet we manage to live
with those limitations.
My vote is to put some risk back into the game
and liven it up by imposing some kind of penalty
for dying!! Ya'know, like in real life? ;)
Why not try it for 30 days in one of the arenas
or both and then evaluate the change again?
Anyway, thats my argument for this proposal.
Thank you for reading!
Now, the final point I have to make is to address those
who can't energize their brains enough to post a cogent
and well-reasoned response to this post. I'm talking to
the one line mouthpieces that have trouble forming
and communicating an intelligent or convincing thought,
yet somehow feel the need to post their offensive
and caustic comments. Please don't. They will be ignored.
Lets keep this an intellectual discourse folks.
Like your mother said, if you don't have anything worthwhile
to say, keep your "keyboards" silent.
This post and the comments I am eliciting are for the benefit
of mature players who enjoy the game and who desire to
share their thoughts about the idea. To those who do so,
I thank you for contributing to the discourse. :salute
-
Seems decent, only a few flaws. I'd have to say only do this to accounts over 2 weeks. This way the new guys can up however much they want, but after their 2 weeks, you think they've learned the game, and they have to wait 5 minutes.
-
Your suggestion has merit and I would only modify it by allowing the player to up from a different field while the time limit was in effect for the field he had upped from. With the maps we now have it would allow continuous play for even the least skilled player. :)
-
If you are saying the MA should be more like FSO, then why have FSO? I am not an FSO guy per se, but I do enjoy those challenges however MA is far from arcade. An arcade game gives you instant action, wheras, AHII you actually have to travel to said target (exception of spawn campers) before you see action.
Arcade games are forgiving in many sense that the computer you fight agaist gives you intellegent leway to succeed up to a certain extent. AHII is unforgiving: superior pilots, planes, unknown gameid's till settled. It is also unfair: HOtard, dweebs, rammers, gangtards, ect... But you die and you have to have another agonizing trip often beyond 5 minutes to get to the same target.
We do not need more rules; just freedom as it is allowed now. I hope that's intellectual enough for you. :D
-
Hello 96Delta,
I understand your thinking and actually agree with your sentiment, but respectfully disagree with this idea for other reasons. My time online is becoming more short as it is due to real life concerns, and to be sitting instead of flying would be a real drag Sir. Wish I did not die so much, but like a moth to the flame I cannot seem to stay away from those big red dar bars.
<Salute>
-
I disagree that this is a good odea for the MA. As others mentioned, we have FSO for this. Also, you will find the people who are irritated by "bomb****s" and "suicide porkers" are very vocal, but also a very small minority of the MA population. Basically, you are talking about dramatically changing the MA to please a very few people.
-
I have to agree with The Pig on this one. :salute
Hello 96Delta,
I understand your thinking and actually agree with your sentiment, but respectfully disagree with this idea for other reasons. My time online is becoming more short as it is due to real life concerns, and to be sitting instead of flying would be a real drag Sir. Wish I did not die so much, but like a moth to the flame I cannot seem to stay away from those big red dar bars.
<Salute>
Many good points but the down time between sorties could pull people away.
-
While I'll really dislike suicide dweebs, bomb'n'bail etc...I don't think I could stand waiting 5-10 minutes before flying again. If you get killed 6 times in a night you would spend 1 hour in the tower waiting at a 10 minute death penalty. Heck sometimes I only log on for 30 minutes, I don't think I'd want to see 1/2 of those minutes from the tower. I think bases would become much less defended, especially when facing a horde. Horde size would probably increase, more safety. I'm sure the average player would become even more timid, making good fights much harder to come by.
While events have their place, I really don't think trying to morph the MA into something closer to special events solving the problem. (though I've enjoyed events in the past). IMO, risk has never been a part of AH, so not really sure that we would be bringing anything back. In an early era, it seemed (to me, at least) more about fighting each other, risk or no risk. Risk seems a newer idea, where you get lots of people attacking undefended bases/and people not defending bases because there is less risk of failure/getting killed. It also explains why I hear, "ok everybody fly together, don't seperate." Indicating, they are fearfull that they will increase their risk of getting shot.
As I've said earlier, I like the special events. They can be fun and more immersive than the MA. That said, I'm not sure I would want to spend all of my time in AH worried about whether or not I should defend a base because of the risk of not being able to fly again for 10 minutes. Personally, I think a much better way to deal with these issues is to move fights away from fields and towards large cities. Giving plenty of targets to bomb, possibly less vulch fests. In this way, suicide dweebs can keep suiciding as much as they want, but it has very little affect. With little affect, I would imagine there would be less incentive. On the other hand, I believe this idea was test briefly on smaller scale and obviously ran into some issues.
AH just wasn't built to be a war sim. It's a sandbox game that allows people to play in many different ways....some very dweeby ways as well. We have a special events arena that fills a void the MA can't provide...though maybe not as often as some may like. Changing the MA in such a drastic way, is really changing AH completely and moving away from, what I would consider to be the spirit of AH.
-
I could possibly see a 1 to 1:30 minute delay -- 5 is excessive, in my mind. This would be enough for people to want to stay alive, but at the same time would not be so long to annoy those of us with limited play time. I feel this could take away the "oooo you just shot me down in a low fight so now I'll re-up an LA7 and get to you in 25 seconds" or the "ooo you bombed my tank! instant wirble death for you!" crowds. Lengthy crowd names, I know.
I would also say just do this in one arena -- leave the other at normal respawn rate. Also to those who compare to FSO's....1 or 1:30 respawn =/= 1 life.
-
I would think a 30 second per sortie from the last field you upped from.
For instance- you're at A1, it's getting vulched to pieces, or there's a HUGE furball very nearby.
Death 1- delay launch by 30 seconds
Death 2- delay launch by 1 minute
Death 3- delay lunch by 1:30
And so on. Prevents mindless whack-a-mole mentality that can accompany an otherwise decent field cap battle.
-
And we complain about people not wanting to engage, and the hordes.
Granted the idea has merit, but I see people just running from each other and only flying with 10 other guys.
I can hear country channel now.."you engage him". reply "I'm not gonna engage him, you engage him"
reply "lets get the numbers guy to engage him and will pick him off" reply "brilliant!"
-
Yes... lets give spawn campers more time between spawns. :rolleyes:
-
Bad idea. Sitting staring at a screen is not fun. Those of us with less than stellar kill/death ratios will get tired of just sitting around and leave for games where we get to play.....
-
The ability is there, it's been used before in Special Events from what I remember.
-
Thanks to those of you who posted a complete
thought. :salute
Based on the majority of posts,
it seems like the biggest concern is the duration
of the delay. I agree that 5 minutes is a bit
long. It will take some careful consideration to
arrive at the best time that discourages arcade-style
abuse while at the same time not discouraging players
who die from "natural causes".
I like the 1 to 1.5 minute idea and the prohibition
from launching from the same base during the
delay period. Great ideas!
-
While I'd like to see something to bring a little more realism and stop the suicide poker types.
This would hamper people trying to defend a base under attack.
-
And we complain about people not wanting to engage, and the hordes.
Granted the idea has merit, but I see people just running from each other and only flying with 10 other guys.
I can hear country channel now.."you engage him". reply "I'm not gonna engage him, you engage him"
reply "lets get the numbers guy to engage him and will pick him off" reply "brilliant!"
Stick is right We cant have a huge pickfest cuz no one wants to die its tht way anyway why make it worse
-
And we complain about people not wanting to engage, and the hordes.
Granted the idea has merit, but I see people just running from each other and only flying with 10 other guys.
I can hear country channel now.."you engage him". reply "I'm not gonna engage him, you engage him"
reply "lets get the numbers guy to engage him and will pick him off" reply "brilliant!"
I disagree stick.
We all know tha fighter pilots are naturally aggressive
types. It stands to reason that those drawn to
the game are of a similar mindset.
I don't think there would be any reticence to
engage an adversary. But I am quite certain that
those engagements would be more carefully
carried out and, whenever possible, with help
(like a wingman) to enhance their survival.
And the HO tards would be more likely to run away. ;)
And this isn't trying to make the MA like the
FSO. Just suggest adding a dash of what makes the FSO so
popular to the MA. In the FSO when you die
you are dead. With this proposal, when you die
you are only sleeping until the determined delay
has expired..then you are resurrected.
Thats a big dfference!
-
Are you going to pay my $14.95 a month (actually $29.90 since my wife plays as well) also?
Sorry, put a delay on game play ability and 2/3rds of paying customers (including myself) are out the door. However maybe a viable option would be to start a "character" based arena where you start as a single character (ala Dungeons Dragons-WoW-etc) to where once you are dead you are dead????
Perks, etc, are all based on how the "character" advances.
-
I like it because I think there would be less HOing and such. Only think i don't like is people might fly even more timid knowing they can't re-up right away.
-
Maybe an option would be if you get shot down or ditched you could not re up from the same base in succession. That would simulate the loss of aircraft at a field.
Again this could be worked around as you go to another airfield, spawn, tower out then spawn at your previous base.
-
On the upside of Delta's idea it gives Dr Deathx some extra down time to tune to your vox and tell you bout his superior skills.
:aok
-
I like the idea actually, but what it may require is a whole seperate arena. That probably will not work, but boy I would like to see it tested.
Not sure it would make my skills any better, but sure as --ll can't hurt. An arena where people actually want a dogfight, I'm all for it!
-
Here's the idea:
Create a 5 minute spawn delay after you die
or lose your aircraft.
<snip>
Furthermore, it would force better gameplay...
While I understand the motivation for your idea, I expect, if implemented, that it would force more running, not better gameplay.
And, of course, Lord knows we have enough runners.
-
no sir I don't like it
-
I don't like it either, we should be promoting aggressiveness and not giving people reasons to do the 'one pass, haul a**'.
Besides, any delay would make base taking even easier, but I have a feeling that is your real motivation in making this suggestion.
-
Putting too much of a penalty on death only causes even less of an incentive to fight or take risks.
-
Sorry. I only read the first paragraph. I pay to play, not wait to play. Plus if you think people fly timid now just wait till this goes into effect.
-
Putting too much of a penalty on death only causes even less of an incentive to fight or take risks.
Another good point.
-
AH already has a nasty death penalty compared to first person shooters. It takes 5-10 minutes just to get back to the enemy base. Adding more on top of that will only encourage people to stop playing and paying for it.
In addition, death penalties create timidity. You may think that is how it was in the real deal, but it isn't really true. Those guys had something they had to get done whereas there is nothing in AH that forces anybody to be anything other than timid.
-
Yes... lets give spawn campers more time between spawns. :rolleyes:
Great Idea :aok
Fred
-
will enable hordes to roll fields without no opposition whatsoever. the only chance of defending is to bust the vulch and brave/stupid people will get punished for trying to save a field and the horde will capture easier.
Will let people camp hangars without a care in the world.
and 5 minutes in the tower is like an hour watching american football.
a big NO from me.
-
I'm lucky if I can get 30 minutes in a month to play. In that 30 minutes I can easily get shot down 6 times (I'm a lousy stick). So that means my entire time online would be spent in a tower.
No thanks.
-
New ideas are always welcome, but a 5 min delay would just make me log off alot and do something else. 5 minutes is a VERY long time when you sit and wait while the action takes place outside the tower window.
-
Putting too much of a penalty on death only causes even less of an incentive to fight or take risks.
It must be nothing short of a miracle that we ever won the
airwar over Europe & the Pacific; what with all the poor incentive and
refusal to take risks...and a "death" penalty that lasted forever!
I am wondering if some of the objections are from players who
value scores and ranking above game play and are more concerned
that they will not be able to find an easy fight.
That might be true as players will have to rely upon one another for
protection and will necessarily employ effective aerial combat tactics to
increase their survivability. Translation: air combat would be more realistic.
And this is bad because???
The only legitimate issue I have seen raised is that of
base capture. Delirium, sorry if that is all you see because
that is not my aim. As you know, we do just fine capturing almost any
base we wish to now. :)
My sole objective is to create a more realistic feel to the
aerial combat nature of the game by introducing the
now absent element of RISK. Not as much risk as in the
FSO or Scenario games but at least some risk!
Right now, the only risk incurred by a "pilot" is:
1) the loss of an aircraft and need to re-up.
2) the loss of perks when a perked plane is flown and lost.
These devices have not been adequate to prevent
the kind of behavior that I have already outlined
above.
A 2-Minute death delay would.
Seriously, this question is about what kind of game Aces High
is. It's marketed as a historic combat simulation. To quote from
the website: "Aces High II is a massive multi-player online
combat simulation centered around the World War II air-war."
I would argue with the reference to the WWII air war but
there it is. My concern is that it is becoming an MMP
arcade game.
Anyway, I apologize to any player who relies on wack-a-mole
vulch fests to pad their scores. My intent is not to weaken your
ranking but only to increase the historic feel of the game by
introducing some level of risk to discourage suiciding and other
behaviors that no sane pilot would engage in in real life.
Yes, that would mean that the vulch-fests,
as you know them, would likely be a thing of the past.
And this is bad because??
In a single sentence, my objective is to make the game more
realistic and less arcady.
-
Thanks to those of you who posted a complete
thought. :salute
I like the 1 to 1.5 minute idea and the prohibition
from launching from the same base during the
delay period. Great ideas!
I could support this. I would also like to see a 15 minute prohibition from returning to a country after having changed countries.
DAGO
-
Anyway, I apologize to any player who relies on wack-a-mole
vulch fests to pad their scores. My intent is not to weaken your
ranking but only to increase the historic feel of the game by
introducing some level of risk to discourage suiciding and other
behaviors that no sane pilot would engage in in real life.
Yes, that would mean that the vulch-fests,
as you know them, would likely be a thing of the past.
And this is bad because??
In a single sentence, my objective is to make the game more
realistic and less arcady.
Your way off base here making that comment and trying to lump all who don't like your idea into that group.
I too, like others, don't pay to sit in the tower ... I pay to fly.
I am not a score monger, nor do I consistently look for a vulchfest or look for them at all. What I do look for is a fight and when I find one and if by chance I lose ... I sure as hell don't want to sit in the tower because you think that myself and others need a more realistic experience. If I die, I want to get back into the air ASAP to do it all over again and hopefully come out on the winning end in my next fight.
In the grand scheme of things, what does 1.5 minutes really mean to a score monger or those who look for the vulchfest ... absolutely nothing, it would have to be something more drastic than 1.5 minutes to rain on their parade, but in the grand scheme of things, it WILL PROMOTE timidity and thank you very much, but we have plenty of that already going around right now.
-
Your suggestion has merit and I would only modify it by allowing the player to up from a different field while the time limit was in effect for the field he had upped from. With the maps we now have it would allow continuous play for even the least skilled player. :)
I like this thought alot.
I'm all for it i have often said upping 1 spixteen after another is not a challenge, in addition it would even the odds so to speak in that each attacking pilot now has to up from a further field and the defender has one chance at the target base and then he would have to up form a further back base i like it i like it alot. :rock
-
Seems decent, only a few flaws. I'd have to say only do this to accounts over 2 weeks. This way the new guys can up however much they want, but after their 2 weeks, you think they've learned the game, and they have to wait 5 minutes.
what about those of us that die on a regular basis in furballs?
-
In the grand scheme of things, what does 1.5 minutes really mean to a score monger or those who look for the vulchfest ... absolutely nothing, it would have to be something more drastic than 1.5 minutes to rain on their parade, but in the grand scheme of things, it WILL PROMOTE timidity and thank you very much, but we have plenty of that already going around right now.
AMEN!! I as well don't like the idea. As others have said, I pay to fly the way I want to. If you pay me $14.95 a month, then you can tell me how to fly. Look at my scores. I am anything from a score potato.
-
This is not a very good idea IMO. This discourages furballing, and a lot of other fun activities. There are lots of us who play the game for the ACM and pitting our skills against other people. Thats the way the game was originally designed. Now its turned into a land grab war which is fine, but dont punish people who actually want to fight each other. The best way to alienate people and get them to cancel their account is to put a timer on respawns. "Wasting lives" as you say is fun to a lot of us. If you actually implement a consequence for death, you will have a gigantic influx of timid alt monkeys and people who wont engage. You think the hordes are bad now? Wait till something like this happens. Luckily HiTech has some business sense and knows what makes a good game, so he would never do this. Thanks for sharing and thinking outside the box to encourage better gameplay, but It just will not work. :salute
-
Hmm, just make limits "per functional hangar" As in, for each operative fighter hangar 15 planes can up from it, same with GV hangars. At any given time NO-MORE than the alloted amount of planes or GVs could up from bases, maybe double the amount for spawning in defence of your base, away spawns would have a strict limit based on operational hangars. If your hangar is up and you are unable to spawn, this would mean the limit has been reached and you'll have to wait till someone dies or spawn from another location!
-
Lets see, score ho vultches with minimum risk. This mean there is minimum risk of being shot down. Thus making the wait after death useless.
However the evil furballers who fly and die get penalized? :huh
-
OXI!!!!!
-
Where is the fun in upping at a capped field and HOing people in Il2's?
-
• IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
- Lets not! :aok
I understand the intentions of this idea but not only would it ruin double spawn battles and make braking up camps nearly impossible but it would make people fly even more timid.
-
I understand the though Delta. You cant change mentality the players tho. they are just going to fight that much harder to play the way they are playing. I dont think you can penalize they guy that dies and have no penalty for they guy that lives there is no yen and yang so to speak... It would just further lopside what already is going on.
<S>
-
I am wondering if some of the objections are from players who
value scores and ranking above game play and are more concerned
that they will not be able to find an easy fight.
How would forcing people to sit in a tower improve game play? How can you fathon that people would enjoy sitting in the tower for 2 to 5 minutes? You are more interested in winning an argument than you are in improving game play, it seems. If, you mean by reality, to have a bunch of people flying planes around at 30k in an effort to avoid death, then maybe that's what you would achieve. I fail to see how that improves game play.
-
96delta..i applaud your idea but agree with that it should not be implemented...
There is already in essence a delay..its called going back to the nearest airbase and flying over to the fight...
It would in fact FAVOR hordes, noes and pickers....if LCA is NOE a base and the usual 4-5 bish up to try to stop you...after killing each of us once we would be stuck in the tower...also guys already in flight couldn't bail to help out. If a squaddies called for supplies you would have to land and then try to help them....
I guess it would hurt the handful who suicide bomb and it would make folks think twice about hoing but if you are a member of an NOE you would more likely TRY to ho as you couldnt make it back intime anyway and he would be stuck in the tower...
Again it is goodd to think up new ideas....but this one would punish those who actually defend and fly into bad odds situations... :salute
-
I like the idea. With a few modifications that were mentioned here. Put a delay on taking off from the base that you previously took off from. So if you up and die, it would be a delay at that field only, but you could take off at any other base right away. Only do it for the paying accounts, and use ENY to determine the length. So if your really outnumbered the delay would only be 2 minutes or something like that. Over all I think it should be something that HTC looks at. :aok
-
Hey, here's another idea I just thought of.
Thanks to your posts I've discovered a flaw with the
idea that I had not envisioned...and its based on what
players in the current unlimited-planeset would do in
response to such a change.
I neglected to account for the relative strengths of the
aircraft in any engagement.
To work, the delay would have to be varied by type of
plane flown and adjusted for the type of plane engaged.
For example, you fly a Spit 16 (or another
uber aircraft) and you die against another Spit 16, your delay
would be shorter than if you die in a P-40B, for example.
However, if you fly a P-51D and get killed by a P-39D, you're delay
could be much longer as you have been bested by an inferior plane
flown by a superior pilot.
Still, the more I think about it within the game's context the more
I can see that this idea, within the current AHII format,
would not be workable. The only way that it might be
adoptable, would be if the planes were limited based on
year of introduction or some other way of leveling the
playing field...which isn't likely to happen.
As I consider the insights I have gained from reading
some of these posts, I can readily see that this idea would
just encourage all players to fly the best planes that compensate
a pilot for their limited skills while simultaneously discouraging the
use of "inferior" planes by pilots who thrive on the challenge
of besting their opponents in earliy war aircraft.
Not something I would like to see.
And on that basis, I withdrawal my idea from consideration
and further discussion.
I'd like to thank those of you who took the time to post
your thoughts about this proposal and who labored to
post an argument for or against the idea. My intention was
to solicit ideas and promote a dialogue about the idea and aside from
a couple of exceptions, you have not let me down.
Thank you for allowing me to discuss this idea with you. <S> :salute
-
It must be nothing short of a miracle that we ever won the
airwar over Europe & the Pacific; what with all the poor incentive and
refusal to take risks...and a "death" penalty that lasted forever!
There is no parallel between that and the MA scenario we have in AH. I can proably pull 2 or 3 quotes of HiTech relating exactly the same point that I raised.
Karnak:
DING DING DING, Give the man a cigar, Those are the resones we don't give much a death penalty.
Basicly it comes down to, if the primary goal is living, why fight when you have a choice.
Ive experainced playing settups where death was to much a penality. On the extream is was a one life to live per night arena. In the not so extream it was AW's EOL system.
Players tended to always run if there was a small chance they might die by fighting.
HiTech
HiTech
We do not try to simulate WWII. Simulation of WWII is one of CT's goal's. Then things like ho's start to be used much more like they were in the war. Once there is a substatial penalty on death. And you can win with out shooting down the other guy. Then the choice of to HO or not becomes a very diffferent equation.
But if you try taylor things in the main to be a recreation of WWII tatics, you start to run into major fun limiting restrictions.
HiTech
You dont want to look at fact's like the historical arena in WB's if the general players wanted more along these lines the historical arena would have a lot more players in it then the main, care to comment on why this is? Or is it the players who enjoy the main just dont get it and we should ignor them?
As for alway using Quake as an example I for one would have loved to develope Quake. It's player type is not the people who like flight sims but none the less just because they enjoy it and you don't dosnt make it any less of a popular and great game.
And btw I have experenced excitement like you are talking,there called senerios. I also know that senerios dont work on a full time bases, but then you dont wish to have your mind cluttered with facts. Like the simple way you structued your test is incorect. Runing the test once a week totaly invalidated all your data. In normal game play people don't come in at a set time for a 2 hour session. There moods very every night they come in. Some nights they wish to just have fun furballing. Other night's they want to see how long they can go on a kill without death streak. Some times they will take a troop transport just because the team needs it. Try getting that done with someone on a long streak under your plan. Other nights people just want to log on and have fun with there buddies. They arn't concerened about their life long carrer they just want fun with friends. Online gaming is lot more than just simply playing the realism game like a box could be. You have to allow for ideal times for people to chat and have fun ,all white knucle type flying would have a big deturent on players talking with each other. Can you imagin dieing to a typeing death in your setup? You wouldn't take the risk. I could go on and on about game play issues, they are somthing I've thought about daily for that past 5 years but i've been rambling a tad here so time to end it.
HiTech
And killjoy I have flown a game where at one time living was the primary goal of the score system, just as you sugest. What you are not seeing is that not just you would adjust your tactics, everyone does, and hence most of the people will not engage unless they have an advantage. This leads to everyone running, because if you do not have the adanatage you would run untill you did, then the other person runs untill he has the advantage.
As to energizing the comunity, what you sugest realy would be the death of the comunity.
Our score system is the way it is, because we have tried many different ones in the past.
HiTech
My assumtion is you belive the game should be a WWII simulator. I do not belive that Aces High should be a WWII simulator,and it shows up in our description of what aces high is on our home page. Aces High primary purpose is an ACM simulator that uses WWII aircraft. At times AH will be used as a WWII simulator but this will be in senario base functions and other events.
DEATH:
Death is only a piece of the scoring mechinism of the game. Based on my statement above that we are not trying to recreate WWII
,death should view from a gameplay only perspective and how does one wish the game play to evolve.
There is one key element that is quite simple but a lot of people seem to forget. For a kill to be scored someone must die.
When you slant the game on the wanting to live side you will automaticly reduce the number of kills the average player gets. This is a simple game mechanism that can not be avoided.
From a game play view Kills are offense Deaths are defense. When you put to much wieght on deaths you end up making a totaly defensive game. Games MUST be balanced between offense and defense or you end up not having a game. Ive seen the consiquences of making death to much of a penaltity and what happens is players spend hours trying to find one fight. Death as it stands now does have consiquences and more will be added in the future. But care must always be taken to balance Kills v Deaths.
HiTech
Airbumba's post about simmer / gamer gave me this idea. Maybe it's been talked about before...
Let's ad a new arena that is the same basic setup as the MA, only with a few changes incorporated from several other player's ideas and prevoius posts.
1. Life limiter - A player gets only X lives per hour.
--snip--
Midnight 1 thing to consider. You basicly have just put a cap on number of kills per hour also, Because for every kill there is a death. You have just basicly set a max of 4 kills an hour in your setup.
bagrat: The biggest problem with your idea is how it changes how every flys. It would put far to heavy of penaltiy on death. Hence people would wrather live than fight. Now this sounds good until you relize it meens everone is running from fights unless they have a huge advantage.
HiTech
rabbidrabbit: It is all a question of balance.
The extream case I have seen tried by AW was a one life to live Arena. You got 1 life per day. "Sounds like a neet idea right" closer to real life, put the pucker factor into the fight. Well here is what realy happend.
Everyone discovered the same thing, because living out wieged the risk of fighting, no one would engange unless they have a big advantage. Hence the hole time was spent just chasing people and never fighting. No fights everone got board, next thing no one is even trying the arena.
So to make a game fun, you realy have to have the need to engage out wiegh the risk of dieing in the majority of cases.
This is acctualy more realisitic if you view it from a slightly different perspective. In real war the need to accomplish the mission outwieghed the need to live. We do not have anything that realy promotes the need to accomplish a mission, hence we lower the penalty for death, there by making the engagement more important then the death.
HiTech
Heck, I only went through 3/4 of the first page of search returns. But I think you get the point...Don't be dismissive of my replies...errr, no wait...it was..
Putting too much of a penalty on death only causes even less of an incentive to fight or take risks.
-
I like it because I think there would be less HOing and such. Only think i don't like is people might fly even more timid knowing they can't re-up right away.
It wouldn't decrease "HO" attacks at all but it will promote even more timid game play than we see now. People will be more likely to run from a fight to avoid being killed and having to wait a certain amount of time before being able to re-up.
ack-ack
-
the whole "it wuould make people fly even more timid" idea.. is hilarous..
what do we have that you would describe as "timid"?? lets see..
the pickers..
people that run when engauged and begin losing the upper hand..
Ok,
what do we have that is alrealy overly and unrealisticly aggressive due to no penalty for death??
HOing
ramming
suiciding to kill dar
suiciding to kill ord
suiciding to kill troops
suiciding to kill a CV
suiciding into ack to kill someone who is landing
suiciding into ack to kill someone who is taking off
the actions in the game that are too timid have nothing to do with anything except either score, or lack of ability.. some people fly very timid to keep a high K/D others do nothing but pick and run because they dont know how to do anything else..
putting in a respawn delay would not make this activity any wores, no bearing.
I would like to see:
A: if you DIE (are killed) or are captured, you cannot up in an aircraft from the same base for 3 min, but you can take off anywhere else.. you can stil roll GVs from that base of course
B: if you ditch you cannot up an aicraft from the same base for 1.5 min.
C: no respawn delay on GVs... just not feasabe.
"then the hordes can roll bases even easier"
the only opposition you see to bases getting rolled anymore is in the che 200 text buffer anyway... no effect.
besides if you do bother to up from a base that is getting capped.. and die immediatly... take aGV to town to defend it, thats what usualy breaks a NOE base grab anyway. Or for base defence.., get in a field gun... roll out a wirble you dont absolutly have to be able to re-up your LA7 5 times per miniute to be effective. if the VH is aready down and everything is deacked, relax, by then your screwed anyway :)
-
ramming
How is someone taking damage from flying into another AC unrealistic?
-
Its a good thing some of you guys dont run the game, or you would run it into the ground. A spawn delay is the absolute last thing HTC should ever implement. HiTech will never let it happen, which is a damn good thing.
-
Maybe this has been addressed as I didnt read every post, but how about instead of no flight for 5-10 mins, how about no flight from the baseyou just upped and died from for 5-10, but you could up at the next base in line.
Ive always thought this game needs some mild form of attrition, Id say take one of the LW arenas and experiment.
-
kinda mixed feelings-yes but 5 min too long maybe run people from game causing loss of revenue-good as it would make fighting using your head more.could ruin the furballs as in horde comes in noe knocks all down and everyone is in tower watching it go down-like the idea of upping a vehicle to defend till time is up as you need to be able to defend.I cant count the times I have been defending and get killed but come back on the ground from another base and able to save it.would have to take alot of thought on parameters and experiment in an arena before implementing
-
the whole "it wuould make people fly even more timid" idea.. is hilarous..
Why is it hilarious? You cannot deny the fact that if this stupid system was ever put in place it would encourage people to run instead of fight.
Let me put it to you this way...if you were to run across someone like me that can easily shoot you down a turn off merge, with this system in place, would you engage or run? I'm willing to bet that you'd run because you wouldn't want to get shot down and have to wait XX minutes to take off again. That is why a system like this promotes and encourages timid flying.
In case you didn't read Murdr's reply a couple above yours in which he quoted HiTech would show that even the developer of this game agrees.
Karnak:
DING DING DING, Give the man a cigar, Those are the resones we don't give much a death penalty.
Basicly it comes down to, if the primary goal is living, why fight when you have a choice.
Ive experainced playing settups where death was to much a penality. On the extream is was a one life to live per night arena. In the not so extream it was AW's EOL system.
Players tended to always run if there was a small chance they might die by fighting.
HiTech
HiTech
ack-ack
-
I see where your coming from Delta but you are assuming people want the game to be historically realistic. Remember the homepage of htc says the Premier WW2 Combat Experience, not WW2 Simulation and Murdr just posted a boatload of HiTech quotes relating to that.
Reasons why it would be bad:
1. Defenders would lose all incentive to defend. Getting gang banged at a base under attack is even less fun if you get penalized for trying to save the base.
2. Easier to steamroll bases. See Reason 1.
3. More timidness, less dogfights. It's hard to imagine this even being possible but it would be.
4. Lots more wasted time. As if flying to the fight isn't boring enough.
5. Ta152 would become the most popular, uber plane in the MA as everyone would be flying 30k.
Increase realism, decrease fun. WW2 wasn't a fun time, so I don't see how realism and fun are correlated.
-
Hey, here's another idea I just thought of.
Thanks to your posts I've discovered a flaw with the
idea that I had not envisioned...and its based on what
players in the current unlimited-planeset would do in
response to such a change.
I neglected to account for the relative strengths of the
aircraft in any engagement.
To work, the delay would have to be varied by type of
plane flown and adjusted for the type of plane engaged.
For example, you fly a Spit 16 (or another
uber aircraft) and you die against another Spit 16, your delay
would be shorter than if you die in a P-40B, for example.
However, if you fly a P-51D and get killed by a P-39D, you're delay
could be much longer as you have been bested by an inferior plane
flown by a superior pilot.
Still, the more I think about it within the game's context the more
I can see that this idea, within the current AHII format,
would not be workable. The only way that it might be
adoptable, would be if the planes were limited based on
year of introduction or some other way of leveling the
playing field...which isn't likely to happen.
As I consider the insights I have gained from reading
some of these posts, I can readily see that this idea would
just encourage all players to fly the best planes that compensate
a pilot for their limited skills while simultaneously discouraging the
use of "inferior" planes by pilots who thrive on the challenge
of besting their opponents in earliy war aircraft.
Not something I would like to see.
And on that basis, I withdrawal my idea from consideration
and further discussion.
I'd like to thank those of you who took the time to post
your thoughts about this proposal and who labored to
post an argument for or against the idea. My intention was
to solicit ideas and promote a dialogue about the idea and aside from
a couple of exceptions, you have not let me down.
Thank you for allowing me to discuss this idea with you. <S> :salute
if i were forced to wait in the tower, after loosing a fihgt, i would immediatly cancel my subscription. i hightly doubt i'd be the only one.
this is an absolutely horrible idea.
-
I don't think you should be forced to wait in the tower at all i think u should not be allowed to up from the same base imediately a different base is is ok and i also think 1 fighter 1 bomber 1 gv theoretically thats 3 ups same base.
If you get killed all three times then u must up from further back base no sitting in the tower at all.
-
Quoting HiTech is moot because we
don't know what kind of death "penalty"
he was talking about when citing his examples.
Was it 10 minutes, was it 5 minutes, was it
a score deduction, a ranking reduction, ??
That little piece of information is vital to having an
understanding of what he experienced and cited.
My bet is that the "penalty" he spoke of is more
significant than the 1-2 minute delay we are speaking
of here. The delay being spoken of here is hardly a
delay at all, especially if you can launch immediately from
another base.
While I already posted that I don't think this
is workable because of the disparate planesets,
a 1-2 minute delay from launching from the same
base you launched your "death" sortie from will:
1) not force people to wait in the tower because they can still
launch from another base.
2) not make players more timid because a 2 minute,
same-base-launch penalty is miniscule.
3) promote the advancement of gameplay out of the
arcade mindset into something
more challenging.
It would also:
1) ruin the vulchfests and those that depend on them for,
well, for whatever reason. The 'wack-a-mole" would be essentially shelved.
2) perhaps make base capture more difficult if the VH is left up because
vehicles would be exempt from the "death" penalty. And while in some
situations base capture would be easier, the same would apply to all teams,
thereby leveling the playing field. It would apply to all. Tactics might have
to change but the same level of difficulty for base capture would be universal.
3) force players to fight smarter and in a more realistic way; a stark contrast to
the reckless arcade style of gameplay we see now.
4) make "cherry picking" more difficult because the cherries will be flying
together for mutual protection.
5) promote a tighter sense of community among players who will need to
depend on and look after each other for survival and victories.
-
Well its not like it would ever happen anyways. Im sure HTC wants to pack in as many people as it can, and if it aint broke dont fix it. Well, it may not be broke, warped a bit, but not so much as they'd risk losing people. But it would be fun to try.
WW2OL had attrition. However they went at it wrong. They attritted the airfileds rather than the player. You'd come on and your bonehead countrymen had depleted the forward bases and it would take a 1/2 hour to get to the front.
If you attritted the player in here, many of us would enjoy because as it is now, we kill a bunch and as we are killing off the 4th guy, the first guy we killed is back for vengence. With attrition we could kill off that 4th guy and the guy who wanted vengence would have to up the next base back giving you time.
That said, theres alot of "those guys" and Im sure they would tire of the flying further because they dont fight as well as others do, and may leave the game out of frustration.
Thats why I dont think it would ever be used. But Ive often asked about using another arena as a test map to try different settings and stuff, and it would be fun just to see how this would be received.
Mainly Id like to see a Plane Factory that produces the mostused planes, P51D,Spit16, and a few others, that if bombed, those planes arent available for a certain amount of time. This would require a large mission sized bombload to destroy.
-
the actions in the game that are too timid have nothing to do with anything except either score, or lack of ability.. some people fly very timid to keep a high K/D others do nothing but pick and run because they dont know how to do anything else..
putting in a respawn delay would not make this activity any wores, no bearing.
Sorry, but your logic is incorrect.
Yes, it is true that under the current circumstances people who fly timidly do so for the reasons you give. It is also true that those people wouldn't become more timid with a respawn delay. But that isn't the point - the point is that people who don't fly timidly now, because those reasons don't motivate them, would be confronted with new circumstances giving them a new incentive, separate from the above, to fly timidly. People who are reasonably skilled and don't care solely about score will still not enjoy sitting in the tower for 5 minutes or having to re-up at a more distant field.
And I'm not sure HOing would diminish much. The simple fact is, if your k/d ratio is less than 1:1, HOing makes sense if you care more about score or k/d than anything else. If your flying skills are poor or mediocre, you're going to die anyway, probably fairly quickly, so you might as well take someone with you. That won't change with a respawn delay; below average pilots will still die quickly whether they HO or not, so they have little to lose. And the reasons not to HO even if it gives you better odds than you'd have in a fight - learning to fly better, having more interesting fights even if you lose, and good sportsmanship - are the same with or without a respawn delay.
-
Quoting HiTech is moot because we
don't know what kind of death "penalty"
he was talking about when citing his examples.
It's only a moot point to you because you choose to ignore what HiTech said because it doesn't jive with what you want. He was referring to any type of death penalty and why he doesn't like having a death penalty in the game.
ack-ack
-
It's only a moot point to you because you choose to ignore what HiTech said because it doesn't jive with what you want. He was referring to any type of death penalty and why he doesn't like having a death penalty in the game.
ack-ack
Of course the quotes are moot because they are too vague to
pose an argument against the current topic under discussion.
The only example he cited was to be dead for the whole day.
I'm not proposing anything close to that.
-
Quoting HiTech is moot because we
don't know what kind of death "penalty"
he was talking about when citing his examples.
What? Is your browser broke? It takes one click to follow a quote back to it's source post. "we don't know" Geesh. Yea, it's a big freaking secret.
-
This is getting very technical.
-
How is someone taking damage from flying into another AC unrealistic?
Heh Bronk, the only bad thing about the collision model is when someone rams you or you ram someone but only the guy who got rammed *sees* it. For example, yesterday I was pulling up hard on a spit climbing and I was just too fast and I zoomed underneath him by like 50 yds but he got the collision and was in pieces.
-
Heh Bronk, the only bad thing about the collision model is when someone rams you or you ram someone but only the guy who got rammed *sees* it. For example, yesterday I was pulling up hard on a spit climbing and I was just too fast and I zoomed underneath him by like 50 yds but he got the collision and was in pieces.
On your end.. On his, he let you fly up his back side. Works fine. :aok
-
Most of the objections I have read have to do with wasting valuable flying time. I think Slate has a reasonable addendum that addresses this concern.
Your suggestion has merit and I would only modify it by allowing the player to up from a different field while the time limit was in effect for the field he had upped from. With the maps we now have it would allow continuous play for even the least skilled player. :)
Overall, I like the idea. It would make vulching less profitable, and those times you get caught low and slow by an enemy base may be survivable if you can take on all comers once instead of over and over. Not to mention the suicide tactics mentioned earlier.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Same here. A small time limit just for the field you took off from sounds acceptable to me.
And there is even another big plus to this idea: It seriously hampers perk & rank boosting by killing shade accounts over and over again. ;)
-
Most of the objections I have read have to do with wasting valuable flying time. I think Slate has a reasonable addendum that addresses this concern.
Overall, I like the idea. It would make vulching less profitable, and those times you get caught low and slow by an enemy base may be survivable if you can take on all comers once instead of over and over. Not to mention the suicide tactics mentioned earlier.
Regards,
Hammer
I like slate's insight as well. I think it strikes a
balance between all the views expressed on this thread.
-
I've been lurking in this thread. :noid
It's funny how ideas like this are perennial. I remember the same idea being suggested in back in Warbirds 2.0, and it was probably suggested in AW before Warbirds existed.
Anyway, the probability of an idea like this being implemented by HTC is about .001.
-
force players to fight smarter and in a more realistic way; a stark contrast to
the reckless arcade style of gameplay we see now.
Finally you've admitted it. You want to FORCE people to play the game a way you deem more appropriate than the way they choose to spend their $15.00. That you think this is reasonable speaks volumes.
-
Thanks to those of you who posted a complete
thought. :salute
Based on the majority of posts,
it seems like the biggest concern is the duration
of the delay. I agree that 5 minutes is a bit
long. It will take some careful consideration to
arrive at the best time that discourages arcade-style
abuse while at the same time not discouraging players
who die from "natural causes".
I like the 1 to 1.5 minute idea and the prohibition
from launching from the same base during the
delay period. Great ideas!
Why are you in here typing when you should be forming up missions? Geesh Delta - you disappoint me. 2 nights in a row you chose your family over 'us'. lol :)
-
Okay, here's a different idea to make "life-and-death" a little more meaningful, and perhaps a bit entertaining, but without grounding a player for a repelling five minutes:
Every AH II subscriber would automatically get paid 20 perk points a month. That's right, a perk for each working day whether you rate it or not.
Every subscriber would also have three levels of Character Life (CL1, CL2 and CL3). The most desirable is CL1 and the least desirable is CL3. None ground you. All three affect your rank and perks. I would suggest that all three be controlled by configurable arena parameters.
CL1
You start an AH II session in CL1 - when you first take off you are flying as CL1. This is intended to be your primary character life level. CL1 earns perk points that are not available for use by the other two CL's. In addition CL1 also provides the lion's share scoring basis for determining rank. So it is desirable to stay at the CL1 level. In game there is no change in icon appearance - you only see your CL state in the hangar.
CL2
Upon your CL1's death only CL2 is available for 5 minutes. When you takeoff in CL2 then you remain in CL2, even past the 5 minutes, until you land, bail or are killed. If you go the required 5 minutes in CL2 without dying (even if you subsequently die in flight after the 5 minutes) then the next time you take off you automatically revert to CL1. While in CL2 you earn perk points at 70 percent the rate of CL1. These perks are not available for other CLs. Moreover CL2 scoring success calculation in relation to CL1 provides only 40 percent of the total rank calculation while score losses are counted equally with CL1.
CL3
If, while in CL2, you die again before the 5 minutes are up you proceed to CL3 for 5 minutes. While in CL3 you don't earn perks and no perk rides are available. In addition CL3 scoring success provides only 10 percent of total rank calculation, but score losses are counted equally with CL1 and CL2. You stay in CL3 for 5 minutes, and then, a la "Get Out of Jail Free" you revert to CL1 with all its wondrous rank and privilege.
SGLI
For those who refuse to be stuck five minutes at CL3 without perk rides another feature should be added, called SGLI (Serviceman's Group Life Insurance). If you suddenly find yourself in CL3 you can cash in your SGLI policy in the hangar and immediately revert to CL1. The policy must be bought previously when you are at a CL1 level and is only available for use later at the CL3 level. You sign up for an SGLI policy in the hanger for say 5 perks.
[X] Yes Dale, sign me up today for some of that SGLI action !! :D
Any subscriber can use the 20 perks provided monthly to buy SGLI policies. You can also use CL1 perk points for SGLI if you have any.
Now, here's the big payoff. SGLI policies mature in two weeks. So if you sign up for an SGLI policy and do not cash it for two weeks, then you get back double the perks you put into it, i.e. 10 whopping perks. Woo Hoo!
This would provide a modest "life-and-death" sensation without grounding anyone.
-
Now I need an insurance salesman :lol
-
Seems like that would discourage the desire to engage in a fight. You'd see hesitation on the part of folks who aren't confident they can achieve victory moving on to buildings or ack, to prevent the 5-minute tower trips that they know are sure to follow an engagement.
Isn't the fight supposed to be the fun part?
I'm not certain that what needs to be changed is any portion of the gaming mechanisms in order to create a better gaming atmosphere. It's the mindset, but nobody really has control over that except each individual over their own.
*edit*
But it's wonderful that you want to see an improvement in "the fight," keep thinking & posting other ideas :)
-
I cant wait to get a T-34 to a base and make all you guys sit in the tower as i spawn camp the runway.... :rolleyes:
-
Die in MA and respawn in closed 2-player DA room - winner of duel can return to MA - loser duels again :rock
:D
-
I'd go for a 2 minute delay upping from the SAME field, but a zero delay when upping from a different field. The only issue is to code it so the gamers cant up then land/bail from a different field in a matter of 10 seconds and then re-up from the original field bypassing the 2 minute delay.
I like the idea of the delay.
-
horrendous idea
-
Would a limited supply might be more appropriate than a respawn delay? Being able to endless lift from a base under attack is odd. Of course so is being able to lift any plane from wwii and I like that.
INFIDELZ>
-
Id rather go for like a 30 second wait, simular to Halo. 3, 2, 1, Beep. idn dont mind me though.
-
My interest in posting the idea was simple.
It was to see if there was any support at all
for the idea to make the game more like realistic air-to-air
combat through the introduction of some sore of penalty for
dying. (as there is now none with the exception of losing a
perk plane).
I shared this idea to see if I was alone in my view
and to determine to what extend other players agreed with
me. And, along with comments from those who agreed, I also
wanted to hear cogent arguments from players who thought
this was a bad idea and why.
Based on those comments, it appears that the majority of you
agreed, at least in principal, with the idea. But this
wasn't a vote. It was merely a discussion of the idea.
Whatever value it has is for HiTech to decide, not any of us.
It is a record of thought. Nothing more.
In the meantime, I will still try and improve the
game for like-minded players who desire more
realism by adjusting as much as possible to
what I perceive to be the arcade nature of the
experience. I'll do this by continuing to run missions
using country-specific planes and by setting up
pseuedo-historic battles through my [MoM]
"Missions of the Month". These are just 2 ways
I'll try to keep the game interesting for myself,
and for the scores of players who join me in these
operations.
But I am hopeful that in the future, the leadership
at HiTech creations will see the merit in adding a
death delay and the value of increasing the realism
and immersion of a player into a world war two areial
combat experience.
-
Based on those comments, it appears that the majority of you
agreed, at least in principal, with the idea.
The majority agreed with you? Not really. You had a few people that thought it might be a good idea to have a 1-2 minute delay tops at the front line base. Even with this watered down version of your original idea, I think would still be a bad idea.
Defenders are already at a significant disadvantage, why would you want to a) Give them more of a disadvantage by making them sit in the tower and allowing the fight to become more lopsided and b) Negative incentives for wanting to fight the tough fight by defending a base? I can't emphasize enough how awful and destructive of an idea this is to game play. But it would be more realistic I guess. :rolleyes:
-
The idea of spawn delay from same field not only tips the balance towards the attacker, but it is also a furball killer, it will raise average altitudes, and will alienate the working/family joe who has limited time for games and just wants to log on and find a couple fights.