Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Swatch on April 17, 2009, 04:34:53 PM

Title: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Swatch on April 17, 2009, 04:34:53 PM
Let me begin by saying I'm not pushing this idea, nor am I thinking it would be a good idea or bad idea..... its just something that came to mind.

The populations in the mid-war and early-war arena's are anemic at best.  What is everybody's thoughts on changing the format a bit.  Each month, we restart a Tour of Duty.  What if, in order to encourage a varied use of planes the course of a month was planned similar to the course of a war?

We have four weeks in a month...

Week 1:  Early War plane set
Week 2:  Mid-War plane set
Weeks 3 and 4:  Late War plane set

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Additionally, each arena could have a single persistent map throughout that month (War-winning resets not included, but they're somewhat rare anymore).  Also, you'll note I only included 3 arenas.... because lets face it, there's never enough people to warrant 4 arenas.

Arena 1:  Larger map, follows above planeset rules
Arena 2:  Smaller map, follows above planeset rules
Arena 3:  Smaller map, does early-war plane set week 1 and 2, mid-war on weeks 3 and 4

(alternatively, the larger map could do mid-war 2 weeks and late-war 2 weeks)

Anyway, that's just a solution I came up with to the hanger queens, and also to encourage a more varied experience.  Unless somebody is really that anal about flying their late-war planes, something tells me they'd still log in and fly during the first two weeks of the month.  And if they want to rank highly for that month, then they'll fly early and mid-war.

Flame away at my idea, but keep in mind, it's only meant as a thought experiment.  I'm not even sure if its possible with the way they have arena's set up.  I just know if I went to all the trouble to develop a game with this varied a plane-set, I would enjoy seeing it get some use, as well as this might encourage HTC to add some of the early/mid war planes that people always ask for on here since they'll get used at least part of a month.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 17, 2009, 04:57:29 PM
Rolling plane sets suck.  Any measure that forces a player to fly something they don't wish to fly is doomed to failure.

Here's another small clue.  Warbirds had a rolling plane set, the developer of AH also developed WB.  Yet, you won't find a rolling plane set in AH, care to wonder why?


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: daddog on April 17, 2009, 05:49:26 PM
I enjoyed the rolling plane set back in WB.

Quote
Any measure that forces a player to fly something they don't wish to fly is doomed to failure.

I don't agree with that statement. In FSO every week squads are assigned planes they don't wish to fly, yet it has over 500 active players.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 17, 2009, 07:24:12 PM

I don't agree with that statement. In FSO every week squads are assigned planes they don't wish to fly, yet it has over 500 active players.

Bad example since FSO is an optional thing and not forced on anyone that doesn't want to participate in the FSO.  The same can't be said in an MA enviroment where a rolling plane set will force players to fly planes they do not wish to fly.  How long do you think a player will stick around if they can't fly the planes they want to?


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: LLogann on April 17, 2009, 11:44:33 PM
I have to agree with ack-ack.......(whoa) FSO, squad based... Sure it's once in a while you get a good ride, but it's your whole squad doing it together... Which is a fundamental aspect of the growth and development of this game!!!
...optional thing and not forced on anyone...
ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Swatch on April 18, 2009, 01:59:13 AM
Ok, then my questions to you Ack-Ack is the following...


Why do people NOT want to fly early/mid war plane sets?
My Answer:  Because they are outclassed by late war fighters and can't be competitive.  (not an issue when everyone is in same planeset)

What do those people do when ENY goes over 8.0 (or even over 10.0 gasp) and they can't fly the planes they want?
My Answer:  They fly a different plane or they log off.  If they log off, those are the same people that would either start flying when they could fly their planes, or even then, they might learn a new plane.

Love to know what your answers to those questions are.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: 1pLUs44 on April 18, 2009, 02:11:18 AM
A lot of people who are new need (well, not necessarily, but they really like to) fly the easier planes. In EW or MW planesets, they would hate it for the most part.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 18, 2009, 04:26:55 AM
Ok, then my questions to you Ack-Ack is the following...


Why do people NOT want to fly early/mid war plane sets?
My Answer:  Because they are outclassed by late war fighters and can't be competitive.  (not an issue when everyone is in same planeset)

It's the Late War Arena, of course the majority will be in late war rides and early and mid war planes will not be as competitive.  If you want to fly an early or mid-war plane, there are two arenas that allow that and you'll be free of the 'scurge of the late war plane'.  No one is stopping you from flying those types of planes.  When I flew, I flew a mid-war plane and was very successful in it in the Late War arena and I would hardly consider the plane not being competitive against any late war ride.  But then, pilot skill goes a long way in that regard so YMMV.

Quote
What do those people do when ENY goes over 8.0 (or even over 10.0 gasp) and they can't fly the planes they want?
My Answer:  They fly a different plane or they log off.  If they log off, those are the same people that would either start flying when they could fly their planes, or even then, they might learn a new plane.

Love to know what your answers to those questions are.

So basically if my ride of choice was a late war plane and under your plan that plane would only be avaible in the 3rd to 4th week of the tour, that means I would have to wait that long to play.  Why would I want to keep my account if I could only play 2 weeks out of the tour?  Why should I be forced to fly a plane that I have no interest in flying?  You remove the option of being able to choose from the player and that player will soon walk and take his business elsewhere.

Now answer my question.  If the developer of Warbirds had a rolling plane set in that game, why didn't he add the same system in this game?  If it was such a win-win thing, you would have thought it would have been a core feature in this game but it's not.  Curious, isn't it? 


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: 1pLUs44 on April 18, 2009, 06:11:20 AM
So basically if my ride of choice was a late war plane and under your plan that plane would only be avaible in the 3rd to 4th week of the tour, that means I would have to wait that long to play.  Why would I want to keep my account if I could only play 2 weeks out of the tour?  Why should I be forced to fly a plane that I have no interest in flying?  You remove the option of being able to choose from the player and that player will soon walk and take his business elsewhere.

Now answer my question.  If the developer of Warbirds had a rolling plane set in that game, why didn't he add the same system in this game?  If it was such a win-win thing, you would have thought it would have been a core feature in this game but it's not.  Curious, isn't it? 


ack-ack

I don't think that the rolling planeset is in WB anymore.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: cobia38 on April 18, 2009, 07:03:46 AM


 if it aint broke dont fix it



.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: hitech on April 18, 2009, 07:04:22 AM
Quote
I don't think that the rolling planeset is in WB anymore.

It is very difficult to have a rolling plane set, when you do not have any players to roll them with.  :devil

Hitech
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ghosth on April 18, 2009, 07:45:45 AM
RPS suck, they are whine generators. If I want to fly a mid war plane, I can log into midwar, and go find a fight.
I don't have to wait till next week, or 3 weeks. Not to mention that they all devolve into purse fights over what plane was released when, saw active service by what group, etc. 

Lots of things that would be fun to try as far as Arena setup goes. But a RPS is not one of them.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: morfiend on April 18, 2009, 06:09:13 PM
It is very difficult to have a rolling plane set, when you do not have any players to roll them with.  :devil

Hitech




 I like rolling while checking out the plane set!! :devil
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: hyster on April 19, 2009, 05:13:22 AM
Why do people NOT want to fly early/mid war plane sets?

my experience of this is that if u fly an older plane (p-40 / spit 1) then u become a magnet for every enemy fighter around you.

2 examples of this.
yesterday I'm flying a mossie with 3 friendly fighters at least 5k above me. enemy comes in straight through the above fighters and targets me for an easier kill
flying a spit1 a few months back i get ganged by 6 enemy fighters.

why would anyone fly early/mid way fighters when they no there going to get ganged all the time????
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: slimmer on April 19, 2009, 05:53:55 AM
 :noid no
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: AWwrgwy on April 19, 2009, 06:28:57 AM


why would anyone fly early/mid way fighters when they no there going to get ganged all the time????

Just because you're "going to get ganged" doesn't mean you're going to die.

 :devil

wrongway
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: BlauK on April 19, 2009, 08:43:40 AM
I'd love to fly early planes against other early planes as well, but there are not enough player there. First and most I want to find enemies, thus I am "forced" to fly at late war arenas. Those two unpopulated arenas (EW MW) are not an option to me.

With a rolling plane set or a rolling perk set (=one can fly his favorite late war monster all the time, but sometime pays more perks), I would at least once in a while have a chance to fight against several EW/MW enemies.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ratpack1 on April 19, 2009, 11:33:34 AM
I wouldn't call MW anemic. It's the smallness and closeness of the individuals that appeals to those in it. Leave it alone
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Swatch on April 19, 2009, 12:08:23 PM
It is very difficult to have a rolling plane set, when you do not have any players to roll them with.  :devil

Hitech

aka.  AH2 > WB

Haha, I chuckled.

Anywho... like I said... just a thought experiment.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 19, 2009, 04:46:52 PM
I'd love to fly early planes against other early planes as well, but there are not enough player there. First and most I want to find enemies, thus I am "forced" to fly at late war arenas. Those two unpopulated arenas (EW MW) are not an option to me.

With a rolling plane set or a rolling perk set (=one can fly his favorite late war monster all the time, but sometime pays more perks), I would at least once in a while have a chance to fight against several EW/MW enemies.


The problem with the lack of numbers in the EW arena and to a certain extent in the MW arena is it is mostly caused by the lack of planes in the particular time line era.  For example, the EW arena.  Most of those planes are anything but early war and the EW plane set has some very large holes in it.  Add more EW planes to the plane set and you'll see the EW arena population increase.  Same with the MW arena.

Forcing players into something by removing their options is not a way to go, giving players more options (in this case, more EW/MW planes) is the way to go. 


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: 10thmd on April 20, 2009, 12:19:39 AM
+1 to AckAck's  words of wisdom
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ghosth on April 20, 2009, 07:13:58 AM
Snippage  .............."Forcing players into something by removing their options is not a way to go, giving players more options (in this case, more EW/MW planes) is the way to go. "..................


Now THAT I agree with. Amen brother Ack-Ack.

Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: phatzo on April 21, 2009, 05:44:48 AM
It is very difficult to have a rolling plane set, when you do not have any players to roll them with.  :devil

Hitech
hehe!

seriously, the trouble with a rolling plane set is for it to be worthwhile it would have to be an ava type thing where the advantage swings or you would see the same planes all the time. :uhoh
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: BlauK on April 21, 2009, 01:36:11 PM
EWA + MWA = E&MWA ... more planes available, more players.... (yup, I know I am a broken record)  :t
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: waystin2 on April 21, 2009, 01:42:53 PM
EWA + MWA = E&MWA ... more planes available, more players.... (yup, I know I am a broken record)  :t

I would not call it a broken record Sir.  It is a good idea.  I do not frequent either arena, but still keep up on the discussions concerning both.

(http://sohos.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/broken-record.jpg)
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 21, 2009, 02:50:45 PM
I don't think it's a good idea to merge the EW and MW together.  It would be just like the LW arena with everyone gravitating towards the mid war rides.  The best solution would be to add new early war and mid war planes.  Fill up the glaring gaps in the early war plane set.  It's a virtual crime that the planes from 1939-1940 aren't better represented in the game and to a certain extent the mid war era as well.  It's a shame we don't have the planes that took part in the Battle for Poland, France and the Low Countries as well as the planes that fought in China and the East Indies.


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: BigPlay on April 21, 2009, 02:55:24 PM
MW is fine, there's enough planes to please most and the lack of nikki's, spit16's and La7's is refreshing. The problem with EW is that all the goons that play there regularly all end up flying the Hurricanes and always seek the HO first and formost, so decent dogfights are few .
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: trap78 on April 21, 2009, 04:36:15 PM
Warbirds downward spiral had nothing to do with the use of a rolling plane set and everything to do with lack of game development, poor customer service and weak management.

We all know the history, Warbirds and AH were created by the same people. But the games eventually went in two different directions. Warbirds chose to focus on the historical aspect while AH became geared towards the “alternate universe” fly your favorite plane experience.

Beyond that, an RPS works best when the plane set is complete. An RPS will work in a fantasy main environment, but is better suited to historical terrains with an Axis / Allied split. In this type of set up the player can experience the technological swings as one side introduces a new aircraft that tilts the balance while the other side has to get by until they counter with their next generation ride.

An alternative to the RPS is the “generations” approach. Instead of releasing aircraft by service date (RPS), mini plane sets are released by generational match ups. For example; the Spit V and the 109F-4 are released together, the 190 and the Spit 9 and so on. This adds some balance while keeping the time line historical.

What we have now is three different main arenas that offer essentially the same style of game play with a slightly different cast of characters. I don’t see anyone saying the main arenas should be closed. Some players are just asking for another gaming experience to compliment what we have now and a greater emphasis placed on filling out the early to midwar plane set.

The fact that HTC committed the resources it did to Combat Tour indicates an awareness and willingness to provide an experience emphasizing historical WWII air combat. With Combat Tour shelved indefinitely, the creation of an arena like we’re talking about to fill this niche could be done relatively easily and inexpensively with what we already have.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Dan216TH on April 21, 2009, 04:39:54 PM
YOU FAIL
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 21, 2009, 05:53:19 PM
MW is fine, there's enough planes to please most and the lack of nikki's, spit16's and La7's is refreshing. The problem with EW is that all the goons that play there regularly all end up flying the Hurricanes and always seek the HO first and formost, so decent dogfights are few .

While the planeset in MW is a little more fleshed out than the EW set, it still has some big holes in it and plugging those holes up will go a long way in not only improving the MW arena but also increase its popularity

The current problem in the EW is just a symptom and not the main cause of the lack of popularity.  The reason why EW is a virtual ghost town is because of what has been said many times in the past.  It's the lack of planes.  Of those planes currently in the EW set, only a few were actually early war planes.  Most fall in the early part of the Mid-War plane set.  Add planes to both plane sets and you'll see more people start flying in both arenas.  


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 21, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
Warbirds downward spiral had nothing to do with the use of a rolling plane set and everything to do with lack of game development, poor customer service and weak management.

We all know the history, Warbirds and AH were created by the same people. But the games eventually went in two different directions. Warbirds chose to focus on the historical aspect while AH became geared towards the “alternate universe” fly your favorite plane experience.

Beyond that, an RPS works best when the plane set is complete. An RPS will work in a fantasy main environment, but is better suited to historical terrains with an Axis / Allied split. In this type of set up the player can experience the technological swings as one side introduces a new aircraft that tilts the balance while the other side has to get by until they counter with their next generation ride.

An alternative to the RPS is the “generations” approach. Instead of releasing aircraft by service date (RPS), mini plane sets are released by generational match ups. For example; the Spit V and the 109F-4 are released together, the 190 and the Spit 9 and so on. This adds some balance while keeping the time line historical.

What we have now is three different main arenas that offer essentially the same style of game play with a slightly different cast of characters. I don’t see anyone saying the main arenas should be closed. Some players are just asking for another gaming experience to compliment what we have now and a greater emphasis placed on filling out the early to midwar plane set.

The fact that HTC committed the resources it did to Combat Tour indicates an awareness and willingness to provide an experience emphasizing historical WWII air combat. With Combat Tour shelved indefinitely, the creation of an arena like we’re talking about to fill this niche could be done relatively easily and inexpensively with what we already have.


Sure, you can't place the blame on WB's decline squarely on the shoulders of the RPS or on any one factor.  However,  you're just kidding  yourself if you think that the RPS system didn't have a hand in the decline of WB.

Again, if it was such a popular feature in WB (which it really wasn't), then why didn't HiTech choose to add it in AH?  No one has been able to answer that question so far.

The AvA arena caters to players that want a more 'historical' match up without having to force an unpopular system like RPS on the rest of us.


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: trap78 on April 22, 2009, 12:06:06 PM
Quote
However,  you're just kidding  yourself if you think that the RPS system didn't have a hand in the decline of WB.
What do you base this statement on? I flew WB's when the WWII arena was at its' peak and continued flying through the decline. I witnessed the entire event and it had nothing to do with the RPS.


Quote
Again, if it was such a popular feature in WB (which it really wasn't), then why didn't HiTech choose to add it in AH?  No one has been able to answer that question so far.
I believe HiTech is more qualified to answer that question than I am.


Quote
The AvA arena caters to players that want a more 'historical' match up without having to force an unpopular system like RPS on the rest of us.
While the AvA does run the occasional organised mission or battle/war scenario it's roots remained firmly based in the dueling arena concept which isn't intended to recreate historical WWII air combat. Besides that, the AvA isn't officially supported by HTC like Combat Tour was. HTC has simply provided some server space to a group of players and tolerates what goes on there. It's an arena kept at arms distance from the rest of the game. Also, how does the existence of a separate arena force an RPS on anyone? The decision to fly there is the players' choice, no different than any of the other arenas.
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 22, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
What do you base this statement on? I flew WB's when the WWII arena was at its' peak and continued flying through the decline. I witnessed the entire event and it had nothing to do with the RPS.

What do I base my statement on?  From playing the game myself and yes, RPS was a contributing factor to the decline as it was not a popular feature with the majority of the player base.

I believe HiTech is more qualified to answer that question than I am.

HiTech has already answered by virtue of not adding a RPS feature and he's also answered in replies to other threads on this subject.  But it was't his answer I was looking for. 

While the AvA does run the occasional organised mission or battle/war scenario it's roots remained firmly based in the dueling arena concept which isn't intended to recreate historical WWII air combat. Besides that, the AvA isn't officially supported by HTC like Combat Tour was. HTC has simply provided some server space to a group of players and tolerates what goes on there. It's an arena kept at arms distance from the rest of the game. Also, how does the existence of a separate arena force an RPS on anyone? The decision to fly there is the players' choice, no different than any of the other arenas.

While having a seperate arena for only RPS wouldn't force the issue on anyone, it would not be a very populated arena.  I'd be willing to bet that it would have a population level lower than that of the EW arena.  It is not a popular feature with the majority of the players.  It would also be rather redundant since we do have three other arenas that cater to specific time lines (EW, MW and LW arenas) and an arena that offers historical setups (as much as the current plane set allows).  Furthermore, the lack of key planes in the planeset is another issue.


ack-ack
Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Chilli on April 22, 2009, 03:58:46 PM
{SNIP}
While the AvA does run the occasional organised mission or battle/war scenario it's roots remained firmly based in the dueling arena concept which isn't intended to recreate historical WWII air combat. Besides that, the AvA isn't officially supported by HTC like Combat Tour was. HTC has simply provided some server space to a group of players and tolerates what goes on there. It's an arena kept at arms distance from the rest of the game. Also, how does the existence of a separate arena force an RPS on anyone? The decision to fly there is the players' choice, no different than any of the other arenas.

 :( Straight through my heart........  I guess I will just go there right now..... hope that I will be.....  :frown: tolerated some more..... 

 :salute AvA staff members and players, I  :pray that the server space provided is enough........ I know that it will never be large enough to compensate the size of your hearts.

Title: Re: A 'Tour of Duty', why not an all-out war?
Post by: Nemisis on April 22, 2009, 05:53:51 PM
I think it might work if it is optional and doesn't replace any arenas, otherwise some people will be PO'd. I personally would like to see arenas that will allow more players like mabey 400, something like that, to keep the teams pretty even, if you have 12 people, then even one player joining could tilt the tide of the war as it will allow their team to cover more ground, while if you have 50 people, the teams can't be even anyway but the numbers make it so it is not that big of an advantage, and 5 people join it is still not that big of an advantage, they might shoot down a couple more transports or kill a few more tanks, but still not that big a deal, same principle