Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: grizz441 on June 27, 2010, 07:58:42 PM
-
Look at this game from a pure Win the War perspective for a minute. I know it is painful for some but bear with me. Lets assume that the object of the game is to Win the War. To do so you must win a certain percentage of bases. The objectives do not distinguish between between capturing a base that was defended or a base that was unoccupied. They do not distinguish between capturing a base with 200 players or with 3 players. The point is, from a strategic perspective, there is absolutely no incentive to attempt to capture bases that are guarded. Once a base becomes well guarded, you can help your 'country' out equally by moving to the other side of the map and capturing an undefended base noe. THIS, is the root of game play problems. Increasing the radar rings and lowering the radar floor just cut off a branch, not the root.
The actual solution lies in a complete revamp of the game's strategic dynamic. Making different bases carry different strategic importance, and with that, different size towns and capture requirements which will increase the difficulty. For example, capturing one base might affect all other bases of that side, making hangars stay down 3 minutes longer, etc. Make a certain 10 or so Uber Bases per country per map be required to capture, for there to be a reset. This would cause the Win the War guys to focus on certain bases, as they must be captured and also carry rewards for capturing. It would also be great for furballers, as it would create intense battles that are 'worth' something.
Discuss.
-
Look at this game from a pure Win the War perspective for a minute. I know it is painful for some but bear with me. Lets assume that the object of the game is to Win the War.
Why painful? My fav quote from the official AH Help Page: Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective in Aces High.
:D
Making different bases carry different strategic importance,
Not long ago we had those... they were called zone bases, and without them = drastically reduced auto supply to all other bases in that zone. Remember the yell "ALERT A24, ZONE BASE!" :old:
-
Why painful? My fav quote from the official AH Help Page: :D
Not long ago we had those... they were called zone bases, and without them = drastically reduced auto supply to all other bases in that zone. Remember the yell "ALERT A24, ZONE BASE!" :old:
...and few knew what it meant. Only those players who knew what happens when a zone base is taken actually knew of the importance of saving it.
There should be a real and felt consequence when a zone base is lost, or rather when "factories are moved to the rear" as they do now. Currently, so few actually know of the long term "strategic" game and the penalty for losing a zone base or having the factories moved to the rear, that there is very little worth in mentioning the subject, really.
Ask someone the next time they want to up bombers and go bomb enemy strategic targets way to the rear. Ask them "other than the fun and/or working on your bomber score, what good does it do to bomb those strategic targets?" I bet 4/5 will have no clue as to the benefit/penalty involved. Obviously, having fun is #1, but if there is a strategic element to the game then have it be worth the while of pursuing the destruction of those strategic targets and if the penalty is severe enough then more people just might take notice of the strategic element.
-
I agree with you grizz.
In another post I suggested to make a more smart head quarter function.
I also remarked that I understand others point of view.
If You make base capture too fast and in noe mode, then it seems that opponents
cannot develop they favorite not noe tactics that is not strong as fast noe capturing.
The reason is simple: they are loosing the war that they want to win (also if some of them say "I play for fun only" :D).
Not noe tactics require a lot's of time (and it is not so much fun if You are in a small squad.
On the contrary a small squad can have the opportunity to contribute taking a small base if old settings have on).
At the core the point is always the same.
We need new map where the ppl win the war not if they have more countries only.
An idea.
Half targets with old settings, randomly distributed and :x nobody knows which they are among the rest
until ppl discover they.
Also add a new parameter to win the war as number of destroyed HIDDEN factories (randomly distributed), etc .
:salute
-
Another thing for you Grizz.
Cryptic wrote.
wish-list ... discuss ! :rofl :aok
-
As long as you open the can of worms.
Do you then move heavy bomber bases to further back and limit the bases they can up from? I don't recall heavies operating from forward airfields. Fighter bombers, sure, 4 engine bombers, nah.
How do you incorporate the ground war? I don't recall too many instances where a small force of paratroopers took over territory and everyone moved right to the base and jumped off again. Are you going to make a country consolidate with ground forces before moving on?
Folks want to win the war in a few hours, not a few days, much less years.
Are you going to limit resources so that fighting a two front war is more then just getting 30-40 more people then the other side and hording? If you pour X-amount of resources into one attack, it means you don't have enough to force another one so you have to consolidate and hold the line elsewhere?
How do you set up the chain of command that decides which front is the priority? How do you decide what aircraft are produced? Can strategic bombing cripple aircraft, vehicle, fuel production etc?
Folks want to win the war, but are they willing to work for it becomes the larger question?
Not aimed at Grizz btw, just throwing it out there.
-
Half targets with old settings, randomly distributed and :x nobody knows which they are among the rest
until ppl discover they.
Hidden, randomly disturbed strategic targets, I like that idea. But I'm probably in the smallest minority of people would enjoy flying over enemy territory for an hour searching for a little factory. Since we're getting crazy here, you could have multiple cities throughout the map, some with and some without targets of strategic value. Of course that opens up all kinds of accusations of side switching to find the targets like CVs, oh well, &^$* em!
-
There needs to be incentives in place to want to fight in certain areas and capture certain bases. As I said in my OP, there is no difference between capturing an undefended and a heavily defended base. You can't avoid combat if you *need* to capture a certain base for the good of country. It would be good for everyone.
-
Hidden, randomly disturbed strategic targets, I like that idea. But I'm probably in the smallest minority of people would enjoy flying over enemy territory for an hour searching for a little factory. Since we're getting crazy here, you could have multiple cities throughout the map, some with and some without targets of strategic value. Of course that opens up all kinds of accusations of side switching to find the targets like CVs, oh well, &^$* em!
Probably not many of you out there. Seems like you gents in the 91st don't mind launching your 17s from a ways back, forming up and going deep. I'd imagine if a country had a field named Bassingbourne you guys would base out of it regardless just to fit the history :aok
But most would argue against limiting the bases of the heavies to further back as they were in the 'war' as it would slow things down.
-
I think the game could benefit heavily from having wars WON in a day or less and simply leading to a small break as the map resets much like how many games like counter strike and stuff do sure some of the matches one side or the other will get shamelessly trounced so what enter round two in the time it takes to rotate to next map. So in conclusion I think it would be nifty if we played on large maps but had bases simply obliterated and inoperational until so much is destroyed that they are in effect defeated the last team to be undefeated wins ofcoarse. Think about it each map depending on how cut throat the teams become would probably last 2-4 hours for the time it takes the sides to lose 40 percent of their bases and 1 be declared a winner. NOW I KNOW YOUR Thinking it will cause longer flights and a boring type of game but at the same time it will give each team a sense of pride and willingness to work together from forming squadrons of dedicated bomber hunters and dedicated bombers etc because lets face it sooner or later there will be large gaping desolate wastelands of dead bases that will need to be flown over possibly even REAL USE of droptanks in a manner as they were intended to extend flight time instead of current use being take 50 percent and dts so you can ditch the dts for the ability to turn and burn better then rtb after fight. {Incase teams just quit or dissappear you could set a timer and best dmg at end of round wins}
-
What about longer rebuild times for captured bases? Sure let the acks come back up so the country the field was taken from can't just take it back. But when your the low # side and both other countrys are smacking you. They get a steam roller effect going that makes it very hard to stop.
If the bases that were captured did not have fuel, ord, rearm for half an hour. That would give the defending country a better chance to muster a defense. And keep the attacking country from being able to endlessly leapfrog forward.
-
So what about this Grizz?...
Keep the % number of bases captured / owned in order to "win the war", but add in a "Key Base" for each side that needs to be captured as well.
Example, Team A would need to have X% of Team B's bases, X% of Team C's bases, and X% of its own bases (just as they do now)... AND they would have to hold team B and team C's Key Base in addition to holding their own.
To make it even more interesting, replace the central city strat in the middle of the huge town and factory area with the Key base... or just add it in. Giving the key base massive ack defense, and surrounded by uncapturable bases, with GV spawns into the urban zones.
This would also give the chance for some massive ground combat in the new urban zones, and make the key bases hard to take even if the defending country has low numbers. It would also make high level bomber strikes into the strat zones more necessary.
To make it more flexible, you either have to take the zone base and X% of regular bases, OR an increased percentage of regular bases.
Just a thought... :huh Still early... no coffee yet.
-
What about longer rebuild times for captured bases? Sure let the acks come back up so the country the field was taken from can't just take it back. But when your the low # side and both other countrys are smacking you. They get a steam roller effect going that makes it very hard to stop.
If the bases that were captured did not have fuel, ord, rearm for half an hour. That would give the defending country a better chance to muster a defense. And keep the attacking country from being able to endlessly leapfrog forward.
It would surely having an effect of slowing an attacking country down, but it would not have a strategic effect like the OP is looking for, it would not really make one field more important or viable for capture as others. I think it would result in quickly changing lines of attack. Take a Knight field here, a knight field at a compeltely different place, than a rook field there...
and few knew what it meant. Only those players who knew what happens when a zone base is taken actually knew of the importance of saving it.
or those that did care at all. If you are just going online for a few minutes of air combat, you are not necessarily looking for the fight with the biggest strategic importance. ;)
But that's ok, as the MA should be that giant sandbox that allows for many styles (*insert nagging about recent dar changes here*).
The tricky thing is to get the balance right. IMHO people should be able to do not care, you have to incorporate a design that makes more strategic thinking and fighting viable and desirable, without having a too big impact on gameplay (like plane factories or proposals like "tie eny to strats" would have). And preferably it should be able to be implemented on the current maps without too much trouble.
That's one reason why I'm all for a return of the zone bases, along with some additional strategic targets (railyards) in place of the old factories. And increase of importance and worth in terms of score for the main strat targets.
-
IIRC HiTech wanted to make adjustments to the strategic portion of the game after reading another thread. There are some really good ideas out there for this but which one is best?
-
IIRC HiTech wanted to make adjustments to the strategic portion of the game after reading another thread. There are some really good ideas out there for this but which one is best?
Mine, of course! :D :noid :bolt:
-
bring back zones :aok
-
In game, most of the activities, reconnaissance, supply, bombing, interdiction, are in tactical situations. Where are the inbound gvs? Can you bring some supplies? Can you bomb the vh?
It is a good tactical system because all of the activities are meaningful. The rewards are commensurate with the risks.
On the strategic side, the rewards seem to not justify the risks. Strategic recon is limited to task group location, and, maybe, town status.
Maybe a simple change like disabling an enemy’s field status could add some strategic importance to base recon.
For the rest, I like the idea of factories and supply networks. It could get complicated in coding and in game play. It would also have to be clever enough not to completely cripple a country. In a game, who wants to fly for Japan in July, 1945?
Plus, Hitech is on the record on considering the incorporation submarines. In game terms, they would need targets other than task groups. Convoys in some sort of supply network would fit nicely with submarines.
Bombing a field or town could cause an AI convoy or train to spawn, which could then be interdicted. The success or failure of the supply run could affect hangar/town down time.
The key is to keep the fun without adding gamey-ness or too much “not fun.”
PS. Good topic, Grizz. :salute I don’t often agree with you.
-
What about longer rebuild times for captured bases? Sure let the acks come back up so the country the field was taken from can't just take it back. But when your the low # side and both other countrys are smacking you. They get a steam roller effect going that makes it very hard to stop.
If the bases that were captured did not have fuel, ord, rearm for half an hour. That would give the defending country a better chance to muster a defense. And keep the attacking country from being able to endlessly leapfrog forward.
Or better yet , if bases is captured it does not auto re-supply, players must run m-3's or goon's for re-supply, make players work a bit??? Just a thought
-
Here's a list of strat changes from a CM Terrain builders perspective:
1. Reinstate the old zone system.
2. Each zone base has it's own City suppling the zone.
3. When arena setting, StratDisabled is off, the City will disappear if the zone base is captured, reducing Milkrunning in the MA and halting resupply of the zones bases. If StratDisabled is on, the City ownership transfers with base ownership and remains a target.
4. The HQ zone has the home City (factories in zone number 0, 1, or 2) and it does not disappear with zone base capture.
Note: City refers to the new city complex.
None of this is new, only an extension of the familar systems.
-
I think if the strats have more value to them, it might help with the strategic element. Easyscor has some good points.
-
Perhaps the strategy could be altered to require the factories to be captured as well.
-
Here's a list of strat changes from a CM Terrain builders perspective:
1. Reinstate the old zone system.
2. Each zone base has it's own City suppling the zone.
3. When arena setting, StratDisabled is off, the City will disappear if the zone base is captured, reducing Milkrunning in the MA and halting resupply of the zones bases. If StratDisabled is on, the City ownership transfers with base ownership and remains a target.
4. The HQ zone has the home City (factories in zone number 0, 1, or 2) and it does not disappear with zone base capture.
Why? That system seems outdated and strategically basic to me. Not much substance to it. I'm talking about revamping the entire thing and having Uber Bases that are all worth something significant in the war when captured, and having them graphically represented differently so players understand the significance of them. From what I've heard, the old zone system was the same game, except only the well informed players knew that these certain zone bases held some global signifance. That's not really adding anything to the immersion side of things.
-
Changes in strategic game play:
Limited aircraft types available at fields Large airfields have all aircraft types. Medium, no 4 engine bombers . Small, no 4 engine bombers, no jet aircraft.
Certain aircraft types associated with each hanger. When that hanger is down, the aircraft types are not available at that airfield.
Town ack can be resupplied by field supplies out of any airfield plus 10 troops.
Small airfields take 20 troops to capture
Medium airfields take 30 troops to capture
Large airfields take 40 troops to capture
Newly captured fields must be resupplied with field supplies and troops to get the field ack up and working until that happens, the capturing troops can only defend with 50 caliber machine guns around the map room. Three at the small field, five at the medium field and 8 at the large field
Bring back the puffy ack at bases, factory, depots
Add supply depots , The train or truck routes out of factory lead to Supply depots, the depots roads lead to bases. Depots can be damaged, destroyed, captured. 50 troops to capture. Depots have a supporting Vehicle base and associated small airfield.
Factory can be damaged , destroyed, captured. Engineers/troops can repair, rebuild, capture factory/ 100 troops to capture. Would be defended by one large airfield, Vehicle base and surrounded by rings of anti aircraft, lots of puffy ack.
A road network that actually means something. Engineers to build/destroy bridges/roadways, ability to capture bridges with assault troops. Troops at a bridge would defend with anti aircraft and machine gun pill boxes.
-
I would like to see some "defense lines" set up. Just possitions such as dirt walls, maybe a cement block house every few miles that you can pull a tank inside of (VERY limited field of fire, but you are also much harder to kill). Have defenses be focused on one side, but no the other. This would increase the importance of indirectly threatening a base by taking those that have spawns into a base's rear.
-
Why? That system seems outdated and strategically basic to me. Not much substance to it. I'm talking about revamping the entire thing and having Uber Bases that are all worth something significant in the war when captured, and having them graphically represented differently so players understand the significance of them. From what I've heard, the old zone system was the same game, except only the well informed players knew that these certain zone bases held some global signifance. That's not really adding anything to the immersion side of things.
Be careful with pushing significance & impact too far ;)
With the old zone system the old bases had a very significant impact, and I doubt I want to see anything with an even larger impact on the arena as a whole - even though I am a "strategic" player by heart.
And I disagree that only few players knew about the significance - everybody around for some time knew they were more important, even though many did not know the exact mechanism. Of course, many didn't care - but those would probably not care for anything more laborate either, unless it's impacting their ability to play & have fun in a negative way. And it would surely no problem to make zone bases stand more out graphically on a map if such a system ever comes back into life ;)
And just to say it again - I don't want to just go back to the old strat & zone system - I want to make the new strat complex more viable as a target (score! supplies!) and add a level of zone system on top of that.
Hmmmm..I'm just geting an idea to bring back the "capture order" and zone system at the same time... gimme 30mins to work it out :old:
-
Why? <snip>
It’s all about gameplay, with some immersion thrown in, but since the proposal isn’t self evident, I’ll explain.
Sorry about the wall of text, but you asked.
Those who know the old strat system, you can skip this part.
In the old system, factories were widely separated, but two guys in Lanc formations could make two passes on a factory and drop it from 100% down to 5%. Therefore posting a large mission to kill a single factory made no sense. The old zone system concentrated the factories somewhat better, but it adds extra work for the terrain builder in dispersing the factories, and missions still weren’t needed to kill a single factory. Also, since the City was key to the factory rebuilding, it would usually be back up in under two hours, and less if resupplied. Probably the most repugnant part of the old system was the milkrunning of enemy strat that ended up behind the lines. Even further back in game history, bombing the HQ was a percentage return. Knock certain parts down, and radar went down in 4 steps, friendly bar, friendly dot, enemy bar, and enemy dot. It was instant feed back. The HQ was THE strat target of choice, and some of us got so good at it that radar virtually disappeared for hours at a time during prime-time USA.
I suggested reinstating the old multiple zones because no one wants to play when down on territory, attacked from all sides, and then crippled because of the loss of a factory. The thing the old zone system had going for it, was that you could usually depend on at least a zone or two being operational, particularly the HQ zone. There have been suggestions that the strat must cripple the defenders, and enhance the attackers in order to make it valuable enough as a target. IMO, that’s not the way to go. Breaking a countries territory up into zones allows for real consequences to destroying the city complex while still being survivable for the defenders, as compared to a single zone with all it’s factories destroyed.
Under the proposed system, of reinstating the zones, all the factories for the zone would be concentrated in the City, making it a prime target for large missions. If taken down, the standard resupply system for the bases within the zone would kick in. Each base within the zone would depend on the game’s maximum resupply time, or player resupply to rebuild each base’s bunkers, ie ammo bunkers etc. Of course, the player resupply would still be an option at the factories as well.
For both the defender and the attackers, the destruction of these factories become much more apparent, making them the center piece for a more significant part of the action. When the zone base is captured, all the bases within the zone must be manually supplied by both sides.
Having the City complex disappear after the zone base is captured, gives a clear indication that the zone’s bases must be player supplied. It defeats milkrunning, and from an immersion standpoint, the attackers have exceeded their supply lines. It also mitigates the loss of territory for the defenders, but gives them the opportunity to recapture the zone base and have their City rebuild. I suppose all the factories would reappear at 100%, as some time must pass between the time the zone base is lost and recaptured, but perhaps the rebuild clock would still be running on some factory buildings. The point is, the defenders could recapture it and would have a self-suppling zone to advance their front.
Presumably, having more Cities, some would be closer to the front, and prime targets for large missions.
-
Complex systems generally fail under their own weight but are romantically addictive intellectually to the dreamer making up the fantasy.
Grizz is the first person in years who has started with K.I.S.S. as his principle for revamping the strategic portion of the game. As always the usual suspects rapidly turn the discussion into their personal fantasy version of the game and do not look at the reality of the average paying customer. The average paying customer who out numbers the geniuses in this thread will not stay long if you complicate playing the game. That's why in the Zone days only a small number of players new what a Zone base capture alert really meant to their game play happiness.
Most of you throw out exotic elegantly structured game flow constructs but, none of you ever create a nuts and bolts template of "average paying player motivation and reward" to hold your fantasy constructs up against. The average paying player outnumbers you and so pays the bills to keep the power on for the servers. Loose them due to boredom or over complicating the game and HiTech will have to simplify it in spite of your genius. Here is a starting point that most of you ignore because you don't rely on this game to pay your salary.
1. You have 2 hours max on average during peak time to hold the attention of 250-350 players who don't want to fly very far or high to play.
2. What motivates them to stay inside of on average a 4 square sector area and play for 2 hours?
3. Why is their focus so small with so many opportunities on such large maps?
4. Knowing the greif it will cause why do so few players take down the radar at the HQ?
5. Why do so many players not show up to defend or resupply the HQ?
6. Why are so many players not interested in long complex missions that emulate WW2?
7. Why was NOE large missions to isolated feilds so disruptive that HiTech changed how radar shows cons?
8. How can you make any strat contribute to game play by giving the short term rewards that even spending 4 hours trying to take a single base does for players?
9. The happiest players are the ones getting the most powerful short term reward feed back for their efforts.
10. The more complex the system the more prone to failure.....
Make taking a strat as important and rewarding as taking any feild in the game!
-
8. How can you make any strat contribute to game play by giving the short term rewards that even spending 4 hours trying to take a single base does for players?
9. The happiest players are the ones getting the most powerful short term reward feed back for their efforts.
10. The more complex the system the more prone to failure.....
I agree, but what harm would there be in throwing in a few Uber-Bases on the map? It would not be a requirement to invest time into fighting over them, but it would me an option and most likely a hot spot that could breed some epic battles for hours. If you wanted no part of it, you could go off do your own thing and capture an easy base, which would still be worth something just not as valuable. It's a simple premise, but I think it would be a lot more fun for everybody.
And I should note, that everyone is chalking up my OP to the old zone system. This isn't the same at all.
-
I think Mensa180 had a promising idea from another thread tie the strat in to winning the war. Once you have your desired captured bases you must get the strats down to a certain percentage to win the whole thing. Think of all the win the war mind sets forced in to one location to get it done.
-
I think Mensa180 had a promising idea from another thread tie the strat in to winning the war. Once you have your desired captured bases you must get the strats down to a certain percentage to win the whole thing. Think of all the win the war mind sets forced in to one location to get it done.
The thing I don't like about this is that fact that personally I only see a war won maybe once a month, if that. I don't have 100 hours a month to play this game so won wars are few and far between, I'm speculating that is the same for many players. Especially on these large maps I would only expect the strat to come into play a couple times a year.
-
I agree, but what harm would there be in throwing in a few Uber-Bases on the map? It would not be a requirement to invest time into fighting over them, but it would me an option and most likely a hot spot that could breed some epic battles for hours. If you wanted no part of it, you could go off do your own thing and capture an easy base, which would still be worth something just not as valuable. It's a simple premise, but I think it would be a lot more fun for everybody.
And I should note, that everyone is chalking up my OP to the old zone system. This isn't the same at all.
That 9-10k base in the middle of Festers map was one such "uber base". The only thing uber about it was it's alt, but fights for the base lasted hours.
I like Easyscor's idea about the strats. The fights and resupplies on the Mindanao maps HQ where all night affairs. The trick is making the missions rewarding without hindering the game play too much to stop those that don't want to have anything to do with the "win the war" game play.
I think the elements are still here in the game, I just think too many people forgot how to use them. Too many people look for that quick easy smash and grab as the only mission available because well lets face it, it's about the only mission they have even seen.
-
The thing I don't like about this is that fact that personally I only see a war won maybe once a month, if that. I don't have 100 hours a month to play this game so won wars are few and far between, I'm speculating that is the same for many players. Especially on these large maps I would only expect the strat to come into play a couple times a year.
From your perspective I can see what you are saying especially with large maps. Small maps on the other hand may get to hang around a little longer.
-
I think the elements are still here in the game, I just think too many people forgot how to use them. Too many people look for that quick easy smash and grab as the only mission available because well lets face it, it's about the only mission they have even seen.
As I said before, there is currently no strategic incentive to capture a defended base.
-
I think the elements are still here in the game, I just think too many people forgot how to use them.
I don't see them. All bases are more or less having same importance with no zone bases anymore... all that counts is now pure number of fields, with the rare exception of some high alt bases on certain maps that can give one side a very slight advantage.
Heck, it's not even a good thing to get a offensive rolling towards the Strats on large maps, as any RW commander would do... because once you get close to them, they are jumping out of reach, right into 163 territory, without and detriment effect such a relocation would have (I would like to see all Strats going to 0 when that happens)
-
Grizz....Grizz...Grizz :headscratch:
why oh why are you feeding "win-Z-var" crowd...... don't you know that they are our mortal enemies :furious
don't you dare ask me to get into a Bomber.... even though I am C.O. of said Bomber wing. :noid
-
why oh why are you feeding "win-Z-var" crowd...... don't you know that they are our mortal enemies :furious
He needs us to feed his 262 some kills :p
-
Make taking a strat as ......... rewarding as taking any feild in the game!
You just gave me a new design idea for a new system, has to peculate a bit.
HiTech
-
I don't see them. All bases are more or less having same importance with no zone bases anymore... all that counts is now pure number of fields, with the rare exception of some high alt bases on certain maps that can give one side a very slight advantage.
Heck, it's not even a good thing to get a offensive rolling towards the Strats on large maps, as any RW commander would do... because once you get close to them, they are jumping out of reach, right into 163 territory, without and detriment effect such a relocation would have (I would like to see all Strats going to 0 when that happens)
Capturing fields in a certain order has strategic importance. Take one base because it can be used to GV another base , so that base can't be used to defend the target base, and so on. Using 20 guys and some good tactics can get you plenty of base captures. Todays player only knows how to count up the total grabbed and thats it.
-
Capturing fields in a certain order has strategic importance. Take one base because it can be used to GV another base , so that base can't be used to defend the target base, and so on.
That's IMHO a relatively minor effect compared to the importance zone bases once had, and very much varying depending on the terrain.
-
Most of it used to be in-game -
a) Zone bases - important to hold onto
b) Hi-alt bases - important to hold onto
c) VBase that spawned to HQ - important to hold onto
d) Base next to HQ - important to hold onto
All created large fights, especially when the Vbase into HQ was snuck fully up, or a raid on the base next to HQ.
Most have gone in one form or another.
The very things that caused large scale fights, also seemed to cause the problems.
Fugitive - The chain of bases in a specific order was tested a long while back, didn't go down well at all.
From a purely strategic point of view it prevented any side from doing 'an end run' and opening up a new front, something that comes in really handy if you are penned back.
-
Most of it used to be in-game -
a) Zone bases - important to hold onto
b) Hi-alt bases - important to hold onto
c) VBase that spawned to HQ - important to hold onto
d) Base next to HQ - important to hold onto
All created large fights, especially when the Vbase into HQ was snuck fully up, or a raid on the base next to HQ.
Most have gone in one form or another.
The very things that caused large scale fights, also seemed to cause the problems.
Fugitive - The chain of bases in a specific order was tested a long while back, didn't go down well at all.
I seem to remember being at fights with you when 163 bases were able to be captured. These seem to have generated a lot of fights in my early days in the game.
-
Yup that was the HQ bases.
They were usually hi-alt surrounded by low alt bases, so it was even difficult to hold onto the low alt bases close to HQ bases.
Generated huge fights!
-
Guys,
All of you sound like you have very strong analytical abilities and excellent imaginations. So saying, before you can create a new framework to replace the old, you need to identify point for point what exactly works and the human motivation supporting it; and what is failing and the human motivation supporting that. You are dealing with human emotional dynamics in a carrot and stick reward system that the human is PAYING to be part of. It would not hurt to search all the way back to 2000 finding all of the positive dialogue about given maps and game strategies and the negative. Look at why the game succeeded versus failed from the human perspective in each dialogue. Then create a synopsis document.
Before doing this research all of you need to create the AH Emotional Motivation Foundation list of WHAT motivates a player in response to the current manner in which the game is being implemented and WHY. Then take all of the searched threads and measure the responces against your AH Emotional Motivation Foundation list. Since I have been playing this game ALL of these threads have been about what motivates specifically "YOU" not you bringing your powerful skillsets together to analyse what motivates the community and WHY. Then use this to help craft new winning game strategies based on real facts and information about what the customer base predictably may respond to or enable yourselves to make GOOD educated guesses.
It always devolves into each of trying to show the other how smart you are and what your secret wish would be if HiTech was willing to implement it. Throw away your soap boxes gentlemen and think outside of it's woody comfort for the WHOLE community.
-
t. Since I have been playing this game ALL of these threads have been about what motivates specifically "YOU" not you bringing your powerful skillsets together to analyse what motivates the community and WHY.
I may sound rude now... but only thing that comes to my mind when I read this is "nonsense". :rolleyes:
My posts would like very different if I was thinking only about me. A whole different approach on gameplay. I would not speak for a way to introduce more strat game, but without affecting the furballer's ability to just go out and have fun, for I am NOT a furballer, and if it were all about me, I would go "strategic" all the way.
And I have read lots & lots of threads, posts, and proposals by guys that always had the whole community in mind, not just their own playing style.
-
You just gave me a new design idea for a new system, has to peculate a bit.
HiTech
hehe, I can see it now, destroy a factory and all the dependent bunkers blow up. :x
-
ALL of these threads have been about what motivates specifically "YOU"
It always devolves into each of trying to show the other how smart you are and what your secret wish would be if HiTech was willing to implement it. Throw away your soap boxes gentlemen and think outside of it's woody comfort for the WHOLE community.
I do like your posts a lot of thought has gone in to them.
If it was about me & my skill set there would be nothing but manned soft guns all over the place as that is all I can consider my self truly proficient in. :D
How ever that aside you seem to have planted a seed in Hitech's mind lets see what fruit is generated from it. :aok
-
Snailman,
Grizz came to this thread by stepping away from his narrowly focused strength in Furballing\Deuling and seeing that outside of his short term WANTS the whole game needs something or even his slice of the enjoyment is in peril. He does not endlessly immerss himself in these threads on the infinite vaugeries and strategy nuances of every possible way to change how the game plays. Every other statement made in response by the usual cadre is from a ME box universe perspective. Your anger because I am not taking your syntactical and perenthetic sentence constructs as from the same vein as what motivated Grizz is a validation that you are too close to the issue to give it up and step away to look at it with different eyes. Instead you choose to be insulted and defend your self image as related to this organism called Aces High.
When you inject yourself for a long time into a process such that you beleive you are part of its nuts and bolts like many do on the Forum. You have become so much a part of the organism that you no longer see it from where you were motivated so many years ago when you were an outsider and had not ossified into a member of the organism. Now you have become a defence mechanism for the organism. You know this from the real work world as the reason why your manegment occasionaly brings in fresh blood to look at a problem you know you can solve eventualy but, it's just not responding to you at the current fiscal moment. Any of us who work IT for a living have been through this exact scenario. And you don't take it kindly.
-
When you inject yourself for a long time into a process such that you beleive you are part of its nuts and bolts like many do on the Forum. You have become so much a part of the organism that you no longer see it from where you were motivated so many years ago when you were an outsider and had not ossified into a member of the organism.
You are assuming way too much things about me.
-
Most of it used to be in-game -
a) Zone bases - important to hold onto
b) Hi-alt bases - important to hold onto
c) VBase that spawned to HQ - important to hold onto
d) Base next to HQ - important to hold onto
All created large fights, especially when the Vbase into HQ was snuck fully up, or a raid on the base next to HQ.
Most have gone in one form or another.
The very things that caused large scale fights, also seemed to cause the problems.
Fugitive - The chain of bases in a specific order was tested a long while back, didn't go down well at all.
From a purely strategic point of view it prevented any side from doing 'an end run' and opening up a new front, something that comes in really handy if you are penned back.
I know what you speak of, but it's not what I meant.
I was thinking of a group of players using strategy's and tactics by capturing territory or attacking bases in a certain order to make the enemy react in a certain way they by forcing the battles toward your strong points or their weak ones.
Missions use to involve timing, a number of wings taking off from different bases, faints to draw defenders away from the true target and so on. Most of that is lost on todays player because they just have never seen anything but the NOE missions. All of the targets are still there and those who truely want to play a strategic game surely could supply there own motivation to make the plays work.
-
As I said before, there is currently no strategic incentive to capture a defended base.
On the flip side, there also needs to be a strategic incentive to defend.
Missions use to involve timing, a number of wings taking off from different bases, faints to draw defenders away from the true target and so on.
This sounds appealing. I have not seen this outside of FSO. It seems that the required discipline/motivation is lacking in the MA.
-
i agree 1 thing ive noticed along the years is that more and more ppl arent joining missions lately but when they do join the mission goes well. and i also agree on the heavly gaurded bases when a base is heavly gaird and all you have is a string of foes and friendlys goin from that base to the other 1 that is the time to run a mission and take a base and surprise them
-
If as system, Universe is complex one, then it is a failure?
Otherwise it is truly simple?
:headscratch:
That's not the problem for me.
And: who really can belive that human mean life is about 70 years?
:salute
-
Map durations are also part of this discussion.
How much they must be long?
As actually?
Or could it be a downtime after that who have more points he wins the war?
:salute
-
I know what you speak of, but it's not what I meant.
I was thinking of a group of players using strategy's and tactics by capturing territory or attacking bases in a certain order to make the enemy react in a certain way they by forcing the battles toward your strong points or their weak ones.
Missions use to involve timing, a number of wings taking off from different bases, faints to draw defenders away from the true target and so on. Most of that is lost on todays player because they just have never seen anything but the NOE missions. All of the targets are still there and those who truely want to play a strategic game surely could supply there own motivation to make the plays work.
Got ya.
Unless things (maps) have changed drastically -
On small ones this alwys seemed to be the way it was done. There were key bases on each map that allowed a logical progression.
The large ones was were it all fell apart.
-
Map durations are also part of this discussion.
How much they must be long?
As actually?
Or could it be a downtime after that who have more points he wins the war?
:salute
You new guys are spoiled. In AW we fought over the same map for years. When we moved here there were only 3 maps I think.
The maps are just a place to play, it's HOW you play that makes it fun. It's up to you to plan your missions so they are fun and challenging.
-
"You new guys are spoiled. In AW we fought over the same map for years." <--- I :cry for you
What is better to be reach, honest and in good health or to be poor, honest and in good health? :lol
"The maps are just a place to play, it's HOW you play that makes it fun." <--- it's not the only
matter of fact (a necessary condition only. Who really could play inside a thrushcan? The beatles!)
What's is better? To play only in one map or to play in a variable map (or in a very extended
and mutable world)?
If maps are not important, then why we have so well designed trees and field and clouds etc.
Variety is a value.
P.S.
Fugitive, I did not lost the other meaning of your opinion. As to say let's do the better by what we have.
-
You just gave me a new design idea for a new system, has to peculate a bit.
HiTech
Grampa Bustr had a good idea! Also, peculate has something to do with embezzling Hitech. Not sure I get your drift... :lol
-
You just gave me a new design idea for a new system, has to peculate a bit.
HiTech
You're going to steal from your company? lol
-
Maybe we'll see some form of the old Depots brought back. :aok
-
Grampa Bustr had a good idea! Also, peculate has something to do with embezzling Hitech. Not sure I get your drift... :lol
Yes from Bustr. :)
HiTech
-
Maybe we'll see some form of the old Depots brought back. :aok
Please.......... depots were neat!
So much stuff could be done with them.
The problem at the time seemed to be one of actually implemeting them across the various maps everyone was accustomed to.