Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Rider on April 14, 2009, 08:30:05 AM
-
I would like to see (or not see) nme bases on new maps. The bases, strats, etc should not be marked until they have been reconned. For a base to be identified on the map a plane must fly over it, click a snapshot, and land the pictures. This would add a new type of flight, fighter/attack/bomber/recon.
Specific aircraft/vehicle strat targets. I know it would be unrealistic to ask for factories for every aircraft/vehicle type but a few of the types scattered throughout a country. If a factory is destroyed then that aircraft/vehicle would cost you perk points to fly until it comes up again.
This is a big one and probably not feasable but here it is anyway. The ability to build bases. They would be built in stages. Starting off as simply a small dirt strip/rearm point and progressing to fully supported and defended fields.
And a few quickies: rivers with bridges that must be defended to maintain supply routes, weather, submarines.
I know these have been brought up before but I just wanted to add my 2 cents. That's the purpose of the wishlist right? The more an idea is brought up the more likely it will come to be.
Rider
-
My friend.....
Invest in a flame retardant suit. :noid
-
I would like to see (or not see) nme bases on new maps. The bases, strats, etc should not be marked until they have been reconned. For a base to be identified on the map a plane must fly over it, click a snapshot, and land the pictures. This would add a new type of flight, fighter/attack/bomber/recon.
Unfortunately bases do not move.
So it's easy just to load a map in offline mode to see where all the bases are. Worse than that, all new players will have no idea where the enemy bases are, while vet pilots will have the locations memorized pretty quick.
-
Of all the ideas you requested, I like the idea of bridges that cause chokepoints(fight!) and need to be taken or defended(more fight!).
-
Unfortunately bases do not move.
So it's easy just to load a map in offline mode to see where all the bases are. Worse than that, all new players will have no idea where the enemy bases are, while vet pilots will have the locations memorized pretty quick.
I understand that people will have maps. The point is to add a new aspect to the arena. Even if they have printouts it would still be more tedious. You could also add other elements such as nme dar bar doesn't appear in that sector until it has been reconned.
As far as new players, fields on the front lines will be identified quickly and the longer the war goes on more fields will be reconned. By the end of the month (probably much sooner) virtually all the fields will be identified.
A flame retardant suit? Let them flame away, that's pretty pointless imo. As I stated the purpose of a wishlist is for people to list thier wishes. If someone doesn't agree with what I wish so be it, they are also free to express thier wishes. Constructive criticism is great and needed but comments like "that's just dumb" don't bother me. Unseen people in forums have no bearing on my life and are pretty meaningless to me unless they want to discuss matters intelligently and rationally. Agree or disagree with me, and please point out why it would or wouldn't work. But to flame? Hey, if that's your thing, go for it, that just shows me who's opinions I should respect and who's I will ignore. Flamers tend to be about 14 and generally 14 year olds don't have the knowledge or wisdom to know any better and shouldn't be taken seriously. I have 2 teenage daughters and to them I'm the dumbest person in the world just as my parents used to be. And if someone a little older feels the need to flame, well maybe it's time they grow up.
Rider
-
Of all the ideas you requested, I like the idea of bridges that cause chokepoints(fight!) and need to be taken or defended(more fight!).
I must admit, I thought that one was kinda cool.
-
Even if they have printouts it would still be more tedious.
Yep, my primary goal in game design is to make it more tedious. :D
Hitech
-
I do suppose that that is that then.... :rofl
-
I think destroyable bridges would be a good ad on. It would give the GVs an objective other than spawn camping.
-
Yep, my primary goal in game design is to make it more tedious. :D
Hitech
I didn't ask anybody to make the game more tedious, I asked to add a new element of realism to the game. Realism is what this game strives for, or so I thought. Sure, there are elements of realism that consequently make the game tedious such as flying for 10 minutes or longer to get to the fight. If it's your goal to make the game less tedious then maybe you should just allow every body to warp to the fight or warp to the bombing target. Forget realism, lets just go for convenience.
Oh, and thanks for taking my post seriously. I expect to get flamed by other folks but I kinda thought staff would be a little more professional. If you don't like my idea then tell me why or ignore it, no need for the smart reply.
Rider
-
You'll get use to HiTech's smart--- remarks sometime. We can't have an uptight jerk Game Creator, now can we? :D
I would love to see bridges though. The rest seems a little much, good ideas, just a bit much.
-
I would like to see (or not see) nme bases on new maps. The bases, strats, etc should not be marked until they have been reconned. For a base to be identified on the map a plane must fly over it, click a snapshot, and land the pictures. This would add a new type of flight, fighter/attack/bomber/recon.
The problem with this is that after the first time the map is used in rotation, everybody would know where the bases are. As others said, the only people who wouldn't would be newbies... which is obviously bad. And you can't have new maps / base dispersions every rotation.
Specific aircraft/vehicle strat targets. I know it would be unrealistic to ask for factories for every aircraft/vehicle type but a few of the types scattered throughout a country. If a factory is destroyed then that aircraft/vehicle would cost you perk points to fly until it comes up again
IIRC Air Warrior or Warbirds had this. Considering that HiTech played and created those games respectively, I would say that the lack of these in Aces High would signal that they are bad for gameplay.
And a few quickies: rivers with bridges that must be defended to maintain supply routes, weather, submarines.
Supply routes/bridges: I hope that something like this may be included in the terrain overhaul that HTC is working on.
Preview (watch in high quality!). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UR9MvyoBig)
The maps, as far as I've been able to figure out, are able to have weather, it's just not turned on in the Mains, just kept to Special Events.
We don't have 'deep' water for the time being. So submarines are impossible, from what I understand.
Realism is what this game strives for, or so I thought.
Not the MA... note dot dar, unlimited lives, etc...
-
The problem with this is that after the first time the map is used in rotation, everybody would know where the bases are. As others said, the only people who wouldn't would be newbies... which is obviously bad. And you can't have new maps / base dispersions every rotation.
Obviously, the solution is randomly generated maps... or at least randomly placed bases. :)
Actually, randomly generated maps would be nice with or without the OP's recon idea.
-
didn't ask anybody to make the game more tedious, I asked to add a new element of realism to the game. Realism is what this game strives for, or so I thought. Sure, there are elements of realism that consequently make the game tedious such as flying for 10 minutes or longer to get to the fight. If it's your goal to make the game less tedious then maybe you should just allow every body to warp to the fight or warp to the bombing target. Forget realism, lets just go for convenience.
Oh, and thanks for taking my post seriously. I expect to get flamed by other folks but I kinda thought staff would be a little more professional. If you don't like my idea then tell me why or ignore it, no need for the smart reply.
Rider you are correct you did not directly ask to make the game more tedious with the map change, but you directly said it would make the game more tedious and I agree with you. Now consider all the people who play this game, consider a new person who has never been in an arena before trying to find out where to go. They have a difficult time now , with out a basic map of where things are in the game they would be just flying around with no idea where to go. As other people have pointed out, it would not be long before other people would make maps that could be downloaded. So all you have really done is forced people to take an extra step of having to download maps to be able to enjoy the game.
You now seem to think that the games goal is to be more realistic. This is not 100% true. It is the games goal to provide entertainment. More realisim can many times provide more fun/entertainment, at other times it can do nothing but provide tedious effort that does not add anything to peoples enjoyment of the game.
And when the word tedious comes up about some issue of game play, we try to do our best to remove that tedium.
HiTech
-
And a few quickies: rivers with bridges that must be defended to maintain supply routes, weather, submarines.
I like this one. Some bridges would be fun to target.
-
Rider, I like your ideas!
-
Rider you are correct you did not directly ask to make the game more tedious with the map change, but you directly said it would make the game more tedious and I agree with you. Now consider all the people who play this game, consider a new person who has never been in an arena before trying to find out where to go. They have a difficult time now , with out a basic map of where things are in the game they would be just flying around with no idea where to go. As other people have pointed out, it would not be long before other people would make maps that could be downloaded. So all you have really done is forced people to take an extra step of having to download maps to be able to enjoy the game.
The intent of the idea of hiding bases was to add a new sortie type to the game, recon. Yes, for some, this would just be more tedious. But for others it may be a new element that they might enjoy. My point was that forces did not know where fields were until they were discovered. You are also correct that people would simply download maps and there would really be no secret. That could be fixed by varying the positions of fields, changing the field types and so on. My point was that there are already aspects of the game that some people find tedious but others enjoy. Some people think that long range bombing missions are boring and tedious but others enjoy them.
I don't believe you would have much of a problem with new folks not knowing where to go. Even when the new terrains pop the frontline bases would be reconned pretty much immediately. Or you could make them known to begin with, they are frontline afterall. This might actually add an element to the game that a noob could accomplish fairly easily. I don't believe recon missions would be very complicated missions. As I said in the post, you would fly around, discover a field, take a snapshot, then return to your base with this new information. This would be easier for a noob to accomplish than diving into a furball or attempting bombing runs. It would allow them to legitimately accomplish something while getting used to flying, learning the controls, and the game interface.
You now seem to think that the games goal is to be more realistic. This is not 100% true. It is the games goal to provide entertainment. More realisim can many times provide more fun/entertainment, at other times it can do nothing but provide tedious effort that does not add anything to peoples enjoyment of the game.
I wouldn't play if the game's sole goal was to be realistic. Realism is an important aspect of the game though. You have a tough job trying to balance between realism and entertainment. I don't believe that recon would add so much realism that people would quit. Recon could be done in any number of ways. You could up in a fighter, go look for a fight and at the same time "discover" a field. Now you have a little more incentive to live and land your sortie. Or you could up a full bomber looking for new fields, find one, dump on it and rtb.
The biggest problem I see with my idea is that it might be pretty mute as most if not all the fields would probably be reconned within the first few hours of a terrain being posted. Which is where my idea of being able to build new bases or somehow move or change existing fields comes in. That may not be feasable from a programming point of view given the game's current model.
I understand this idea will not come to be as it doesn't seem to be a popular one. That's ok, as much as I would love it to, the world (or even Aces High) doesn't revolve around me. :) The bridge idea seems be be a popular one though, I hope you're taking note.
Lastly, I want to apologize for slamming you in my last post. I'm a smart arnold by nature myself and generally don't get upset by smart arnold comments. I happened to read your comment right after I got off the phone with my medical insurance company so I was already ticked. Normally I recognize comments like yours for what they are and don't take them personally as I'm sure it wasn't intended for me to take personally so I'm sorry for questioning your professionalism. If you want to poke fun at me please do, I will try to recognize it as such in the future and poke back rathter than take it personally.
Thanks for the reply,
Rider
-
Of all the ideas you requested, I like the idea of bridges that cause chokepoints(fight!) and need to be taken or defended(more fight!).
I agree, I definitely think this has a very good chance of enhancing game-play on the ground and in the air.
-
Of all the ideas you requested, I like the idea of bridges that cause chokepoints(fight!) and need to be taken or defended(more fight!).
+1 on this idea but may i add some trains to the mix ( train bridge next to road bridge )
-
I have always liked the idea of choke points. But issues that must be considered.
1. It is not very easy to make choke points for airplanes.
2. If done simply with a bridge , then planes have far to much advantage if they can destroy the bridge.
3. In general when people say (Then they MUST defend it) and go on to say how much fun they would have destroying it, the idea is very bad for game play, because defense mostly requires sitting around waiting and doing nothing, hence not fun.
But choke points for the ground war can create a very enjoyable fight.
HiTech
-
If you make the bridge very hard to destroy it would slow the air attack on it and make it more of a GV element. Also you could have it as repairable to bring in "field supplies" to rebuild it, again bringing in more of a GV element.
-
I knew planes would obviously have the advantage. However I have to agree with field supplies. Let the supplies rebuild the structure more quickly than anything else thus discouraging bombing attacks to some extent. Along with the quick repair time, harden the structure as mentioned previously. This will further discourage the destruction of the bridge while promoting the goal of taking the bridge instead.
-
Maybe even put 2 or 3 auto ack guns at the bridge.
-
Maybe even put 2 or 3 auto ack guns at the bridge.
There you go, even make all bridges have the ability to be captured as well (give jeeps and their 3 troops a good use). When not occupied they will shoot at anything. It would be fun to see small rivers between v-bases and a-bases so bridges have a somewhat strategical value to them.
.2 Cents thrown into the mix.