Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: sparow on November 16, 2009, 04:24:42 PM
-
<Salute> Gentlemen,
Firstly, I did search. But after reading some posts - quite old - I tought that this concept was a bit different and deserved some "brainstorming".
We all recognise that, in some way, overall gameplay in AH main arenas tends to be a bit caothic. Nothing wrong about that. Also, AH is a very difficult MMOG to master, with a steep learning curve - several steep learning curves, actually - what may be quite frustrating to our newer members. Also, due to this mixed bag of experiences, many aspects of Aces High end up not beeing enjoyed both by experienced and inexperienced players.
What I suggest is well known and, IMHO, could have very positive effects in the community, in terms of organization, behaviour, evolution and - also important - early abbandonement by sheer frustration. My proposal is the creation of a Player Carreer and his evolution by way of Rank.
Before turning the flamethrowers on, please think with me: this would be something that would give some players some command and organization powers but would not force anyone to use them or abide to them; this would reward merit and seniority instead of pure performance; this would allow the gathering of the youngest around the most experienced, improving evolution and quality of gameplay. And I could go on and on.
Basically, we could define a formula, completely public, for carreer advancement and promotion through ranks, based on different factors like: number of years in AH of the handle, numbers of hours logged in the game, number of total sorties vs sorties landed.
To make it better, you could choose a Carreer in any of the armed forces currently represented in game, in each branch, with it's appropriate ranks. Rank would give progressive control over determined aspects of the game: one would allow you to create missions within your branch; other would allow you to control fleets; other would give you access to a sector or country board (order of battle) applet that would allow you to visualize all side players by branch, rank, squadron/squad and organize it.
At any point would any player be obliged to direct or be directed by means of ranking. Players abandoning a handle would lose his rank and carreer. Players not playing for a long time but with an active account and handle would not lose any rank, only keep the one they have.
What do you think about this?
Cheers,
-
The only benefit I can see from this would be to keep shades out... but 'command and organization powers'... I vote no. We have enough of that already. The downside is more people would experience the ego-crushing affects of teaching someone only to have 'grasshopper' join the dark side... again... no.
-
this would be better accomplished at the squad level. U want a career, have your squad assign ranks, just like most squads did in AW. Our squad went from 2nd Lt. to colonel or something like that and you would advance in ranks as u accomplished several tasks and your skill got better. some people were section leaders, CO, XO, you get my point. each was assigned a task, which was pretty cool. U want something like this, talk about it with your squad. Or form a squad and follow your own rules. the game currently allows for the squads to organize themselves as they see fit.
but I dont think it would be a good idea to follow your suggestions at the country level, I mean what if people switched, would your career follow you as you joined the enemy ranks? In my opinion you would get shot, or at least made fun of in effigy :lol.
good idea but not at this time and at the level you suggested :)
semp
-
This could have its uses - maybe an enhancement to the perks system. Only senior officers can take control of CVs. Lowest ranks can't create missions, etc.
-
I understand your idea Sparow. I must give it a no from me though sir.
-
I think the idea for organization of the countries could have a possitive effect to game play. Able to split forces in a joint cordination, of land sea, and air would be a good addition to the game.
-
I think the idea for organization of the countries could have a possitive effect to game play.
And the positive effect would be what?
-
If the rank structure limits, in any way, the type and/or availability of any aircraft, vehicle, ship, field availability, or mission building capability, then my answer is a resounding, definitive, NO WAY.
WW2OL had something like that in place and I found it to be the most aggravating gaming experience in my entire life. A perfect example of how NOT to do something.
-
So, if I joined the digital USMC, I would be limited to flying only Marine aircraft, thus removing my ability to fly the P-40, P-39, Ki-61, Boston III, and Yak-9? I don't think I would like being limited to flying only F4Us, F6Fs, and F4Fs when I decide that I want to up from a base with an incoming NOE mission. Besides, think about the fellows who joined the Finnish Air Force; limited to Brewsters, Hurricanes, 109 G-2/6s, I-16s, and Ju-88s. Pretty limited in terms of choices.
-
I like being able to fly what I want...
-
I like being able to fly what I want...
he never mentioned limiting the planes.
semp
-
<S> Gentlemen,
Thank you for your input. Let me defend my idea a little better.
In fact, rank would not limit you in nothing. Perks will, not rank. Rank would be something that only would give you some - rare - capabilities. Control a CV if your rank is high enough and you're doing a Navy carreer. Or creating missions if you were following an Air Forces or Army carreer. At a higher level you would be able to access a higher level of country oversight, beeing able to communicate with lower ranking players in order to create organized actions. That's all. This Carreer would not stop you from changing branches at will, they just not add advancement in that specific carreer. Also, you would carry your rank from a chess piece to another.
Rank would not give nothing more than the ability of putting your experience to good use without beeing imposed to you or other players.
What this would avoid would be bad fleet manouevers, bad planned and executed missions, un-coordinated defenses and attacks. If used. What would never, ever, could be seen as mandatory. Like the ability to jump from aircraft to ship or vehicle. That would never should be limited. For perked aircrafts or vehicles, perk system would be as it is, with his good and not so good limitations.
What I would like to see was more coordination, better planning, good execution. More quality and less gamey features. Experience over points.
I also found the rank system in WW2Online really annoying. But found other things worse.
The fear of teaching some tricks to a newby and watch him go away should not stop us from passing our experience to them.
I understand that the benefits may seem marginal, another burocratic non-sense. But maybe it worked in the long run. Maybe.
Thank you chaps.
Cheers,
-
I hate to say it but I will anyway.
I have all that now with the squelch command and 'bounce noobs off the cv' command. :old:
-
How would this work in say, the MidWar or Early War arenas? Would someone be able to control a CV even though they don't have a high enough rank, but there is no one online in that arena with a high enough rank either? Would the ability be defaulted to the next highest rank? Or would pilots in the Navy career be forced to attempt to capture a base without bringing the CV fleet within 8" range?
-
Wonder if it would take as long to make USAAF Captain as it did in Warbirds?
Good idea, Sparow, but I prefer the simple 'Noob'/'Non-Noob' ranking that's the present AH way.
:aok
-
Wonder if it would take as long to make USAAF Captain as it did in Warbirds?
Good idea, Sparow, but I prefer the simple 'Noob'/'Non-Noob' ranking that's the present AH way.
:aok
dont forget that we also have the supreme-know-it-all-you-wasting-my-time-learn-to-fight-first-pilots along with the noob/non-noobs. :D
semp
-
I sense the mega horde coming .. headed by an armchair general who has acquired enough rank to post missions.
Me thinks this has been touched in one of snaphooks posts. About each country having a king whose castle would be in the countries HQ.
I miss the laughs from those posts, too bad he got kicked from the bbs. :confused:
-
More quality and less gamey features.
this is the gamey-est feature that i have ever heard of.
besides, there is already a rank structure. it is in the union of your country and the aces high community as a whole. we play together and coordinate naturally, and the task group system and mission systems work just fine.
this idea seems like a lot of work for the player and less fun.
I also found the rank system in WW2Online really annoying.
okay, so we've concluded that rank system is annoying.
-
sparow: The problem I see with your idea is it does not leave room for just having fun.
The type of thing you describe is very much alive and well in scenario play and weekly events.
But the main arena is meant to do what you feel like. Some nights you feel like going on a mission, some nights you feel like just going round and round with the same people.
Some nights you feel like just having fun with your squad. What you are describing removes all those choices from a player.
2nd while you believe your idea would help people learn more quickly, in reality it would slow there learning down.
The fastest way to improve dog fighting skills is get with some one who teaches you the concepts, But then go furbal and die a zillion times until you start to get the feel and begin to teach yourself to shoot.
With what you describe being all mission based, you end up with something much more similar to the real war, lots of flight time, very little fight time. (Hmm that is almost catchy).
3rd Some of you concepts about carrier and missions and rank is what Combat Tour concept was all about. We just did not have enough staff to produce all the out ling systems that are needed to add to the immersive of a carer.
HiTech
-
Gameplay in a lot of MMO flight-sim games has always seemed to suffer.
I think it's a case of people losing sight of the forest for the trees and resorting to the "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" school of game design.
Right now, I can't really say that AH is really a "game" (a past-time which rewards good decision making and punishes bad decision making) in the true sense of the word, at least at the "macro" level.
Basically:
1) At the "micro" level (air-to-air combat, GV's, bombing), I'd say AH is "above average"...basically, air-to-air combat is good, GV's I don't know much about but bombing seems to be pretty porked in that the skills that separated good bomber pilots/crews from bad ones (there's that decision making again) aren't rewarded in the game; with that being said, I'd still rate AH "above average" at the micro level since most people mainly seem to be interested in air-to-air combat so at least HTC is keeping the majority of its client base happy.
2) At the "macro" level (the level above the air-to-air fighting, i.e. the strat), things are kinda porked. There's no real "game" there, at least not in a real sense of the word. It's basically just thrown there as an afterthought but it's not surprising since most people don't seem to be bothered by the fact it's porked.
The real challenge is going to be finding a way to implement a real "game" at the macro level without porking the game at the micro level; to put it this way, at the macro level, each player is essentially a chess piece in a game of chess; and people might have fun being a pawn initially but after they realize that they can only move one space forward and that's it, they'll all pretty much gravitate to being queens because that's more fun. However, if you try to play chess with all queens, it turns into a pointless exercise; there's no more game there.
Now, the question is should HTC even devote time to improving the game beyond just the furballing?
The way I see it:
a) The majority of the players seem to ONLY be interested in furballing. So why not just change game play where you have several side vs. side death matches which start periodically (that way, if you get shot down, you just find another side vs. side death match on the server) and then have at it?
b) However, after a while, that may get boring and people may want a more complex "world" to interact with.
c) So we add a strat layer. However, any meaningful strat layer (at least one that I can think of off the top of my head), is going to involve punishing a side for making poor decisions and when that "punishment" trickles down to the players on the losing side at the micro level, suddenly, it's not so much fun.
-
I don't see anything wrong with the game. There are a number of tools to use to accomplish all kinds of game play. The problem arises when that game play interferes with other types of game play.
Hordes as an example, while for me they are a waste of time, and boring as all h@ll are the best way to have fun for some players. HTC is not going to do away with hordes until it becomes a problem with his subscription base. Why, because people are having fun.... this is a game after all. By adding restrictions you will force some people out of their "fun".
When I started in AH I was a win the war type. I needed that protection around me, I needed the organized missions to have fun. But now as I've been here longer I know wining the war isn't the be all and end all of the game. I do a bit of everything and have fun with it all.
Having careers, and ranks that mean something will push people into doing just one thing, while I'd rather see them do it all. I hate hordes, not so much because I can't fight them, because I can. I can get in a pony and bounce a half dozen hordlings and RTB, but it's not a lot of fun. If the hordlings got out of the horde and experienced some of the other aspects of the game they would become more rounded players, better players, more skilled opponents. More fun to play against.
-
Hello Gentlemen,
I've been very busy lately and failed to follow the posting. For that, my apologies. Thank you all for your feedback. Although my idea was to have a "life/carreer" without obligations, fully automated and only with a few perks, nothing mandatory, only a way of rewarding our players by a mix of seniority and "sortie" success ratio, I must accept that it may carry within some hidden dangers...
Some people would continue to care nothing about it, some would switch from point hunting to carreer improvement... The most dangerous thing would be to work exactly the opposite way I intended... And, like HiTech said "while you believe your idea would help people learn more quickly, in reality it would slow there learning down. The fastest way to improve dog fighting skills is get with some one who teaches you the concepts, But then go furbal and die a zillion times until you start to get the feel and begin to teach yourself to shoot. .
You're all probably right. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. AH is a winning team, let's keep it that way.
P.S.: Simba, rank in Warbirds? Really? Geez...
<Salute>
-
I like that game as it is. Givng rank and title away to players would be to much, "some think they are generals already".
The way I see the game is there is something for eveyone. If you want to create/join a squad and be a General then go ahead. If you want to play lone wolf then thats available too. Squad OPs with rank can be a lot of fun as long as everyone keeps their humor.
No disrespect but I just dont see what this would add to the game.