Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Agent360 on July 10, 2010, 05:22:50 AM
-
I think Hitech wants to create a situation where the game is centered around COMBAT.
I think Hitech defines "combat" as the attack of bases with an equal defense.
This is called a "doctrine".
In reality, every country in history has adopted a "war doctrine" since time immoral.
This game; this virtual reality we spend many hours in is no different. Within this construct of virtual reality there is a "doctrine" that guides the whole event.
In the most basic form the doctrine states that combat is the primary goal.
In the simplest terms...if your red your dead.
The problem arises when the doctrine is ignored. For whatever reason, the chess pieces shun combat in favor of other rewards such as score, social interaction or simple mindless game play without interuption.
But, if a well defined doctrine is set in place then victory can be defined within the Aces High construct. I believe this is the "holy grale" that HiTech is searching for. I am not sure that this is possible. However, I do believe HiTech is working extremely hard to succeed at this goal.
There have been many, many suggestions on how to improve the Aces High Doctrine. These suggestion have all centered around how to create combat in one form or another. But, these suggestions have only been minor, favoring one specific component of the doctrine of combat.
When any person chooses to pay and play this game I think it is reasonable to assume they expect to engage in combat. The simple doctrine of "combat" sounds simple but as everyone knows this seemingly simple concept becomes quite complicated.
If I am correct, the game is centered around a strategic goal of capturing enough bases to "win" the map. Thus we have a map reset. There is a concrete victory...something one can strive for...a reason to have COMBAT.
It is my opinion that as the game exists now the doctrine even in its simplest form can not be realized. The "soldiers" simply can not see any reward for their efforts.
In order for the simple doctrine of "combat" to happen the map must be set such that there is reward in a timely mannor..not weeks but days.
If it was possible to achieve victory over a shorter period of time this would put reward in perspective. As it is now there is no reward because it is impossible to achieve victory in any players time frame. There is just an endless, never ending scenario where no reward can be achieved. Only score is measured. No country can claim victory.
The scale of the war is just to big. There are not enough players to create enough critical mass for measurable victory in the minds of each individual player. It is just a mindless, never ending, black hole.
This, I believe is the result of the one thing that creates combat to begin with; Maps.
HiTech has created a most excellent game...it is perfect in almost every way. The only reason there is no holy grale is because the maps are not part of the doctrine.
-
A well thought out post, and in most cases I agree with you.
As for the assumption that every player expects combat, that where I differ a bit. First one would have to define "combat". I'm not talking about the dictionary meaning, but what is the meaning of combat to an individual player. Like general opinions, the personal definitions of player of what combat is will differ from player to player. For example, one player's idea of combat is going in mass and obtaining a few kills with little or no risk, where another will only define is as a head to head contest. This is where I believe it would be difficult for HiTech or anyone else to find the "Holy Grale" of combat, or implement a "War Doctrine" that will cover all individual's personal ideas of what combat is.
Good post. :aok
Fred
PS: "If I am correct, the game is centered around a strategic goal of capturing enough bases to "win" the map." I may be wrong, but I'm willing to bet this statement is going to open a can of worms. :D
-
In reality, every country in history has adopted a "war doctrine" since time immoral.
"immoral", really?
-
"immoral", really?
Yes thank you Mrs. English.
Sounds about right Agent360. I believe that HTC has said before that the game is in truth centered around Combat, the bases and supply fields are meant to create such combat. I'm not fully comprehending how the maps come into this though. (Could just be the fact I just woke up).
-
Yes thank you Mrs. English.
There ought be a comma after, "Yes", DOLT!
-
(Could just be the fact I just woke up).
Hint hint. Get it?
-
Hint hint. Get it?
Hint [comma] hint [semi-colon] get it?
-
:lol fail wildcat
-
Hint [comma] hint [semi-colon] get it?
You're taking up vital bandwidth and also hijacking the thread.
-
Fly far away, Mrs. English.
Fudgums do you have to have Phil Harris as your Avatar? I miss that guy! Best Skipper in the fleet!
Now I have to root for Sig and the Northwestern. :noid
Anyway, back to the original intent of the thread.
-
Fly far away, Mrs. English.
Fudgums do you have to have Phil Harris as your Avatar? I miss that guy! Best Skipper in the fleet!
Now I have to root for Sig and the Northwestern. :noid
Anyway, back to the original intent of the thread.
yep thats him :(
-
Don't mind TE, he's just killing time while his Dora is at 20k on autopilot running from cons 5k below him.
-
Very well spoken Agent and I would just like to add one other equation to this:
The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough. 25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures.
Now if this was changed to lets say 50 points per category per hour spent in the game on that country side I believe it'd be a different story.
Example: 10 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 500 points per category
Example: 50 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 2500 points per category
-
There ought be a comma after, "Yes", DOLT!
When quoting, the comma goes inside the quotes. I believe the first comma was also unnecessary as well as the capitalization, but those I'm not sure of.
As to the OP, I agree. To achieve a point where the "furballers" and the "land grabbers" can move toward the same goal (fight over a base until it is captured) would be perfect. Personally, I think we were closer to that back in Aces High I. Then again, we didn't have as many players back then.
-
Very well spoken Agent and I would just like to add one other equation to this:
The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough. 25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures.
Now if this was changed to lets say 50 points per category per hour spent in the game on that country side I believe it'd be a different story.
Example: 10 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 500 points per category
Example: 50 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 2500 points per category
that would promote not switching sides to even numbers or find a fight.
-
I think Hitech wants to create a situation where the game is centered around COMBAT.
I think Hitech defines "combat" as the attack of bases with an equal defense.
1. Yes.
2. Combat is when people are fighting each other in vehicles or planes. How and why people choose to fight is irrelevant.
HiTech
-
ADD, you lost me in the ramble. Anyone have a baby kitten to kill?
cc
1. find agent
2. kill agent
3. kill his friends! especially if thy name is kappa :D
-
that would promote not switching sides to even numbers or find a fight.
your right so maybe that's not the best idea for the situation but we still have this problem to fix and then again maybe it is because that is why we have "enemy value"
"The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough. 25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures"
-
your right so maybe that's not the best idea for the situation but we still have this problem to fix and then again maybe it is because that is why we have "enemy value"
"The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough. 25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures"
You're forgetting what it was like as a noob and accomplishing a goal! It's the guys on everday who do the same "winthe warz" that don't evolve and care not too. I'm drunk I could contradict myself, and say. Agent doesn't want to try evolving as a player also! heheh
But I love taking Agent, out of the sky so help me ! :D Que Samuel Jackson - Pulp fiction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujm9BLzaaBo
-
Good post Agent360. :salute :aok
-
Very well spoken Agent and I would just like to add one other equation to this:
The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough. 25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures.
Now if this was changed to lets say 50 points per category per hour spent in the game on that country side I believe it'd be a different story.
Example: 10 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 500 points per category
Example: 50 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 2500 points per category
What may be the fundemental flaw in it all is that anyone needs points. Seems to me the cartoon combat against other players would be enough of an incentive to play the game.
-
I agree with Agent in that the maps need work. I don't care "why" people play as long as there is a fight going on, and my guess is thats is HTC goal as well. I'm all for the "win the wars" guys as long as they fight to win it! That being said, I think the big maps are too big, and the small maps too small.
We out grew the small map, which is good for business. Small maps are 256 miles square, while the big maps are 512 miles. While that is double in miles it's 4 times in ground space. Our population hasn't grown to 4 times the numbers we had so the big maps are sparsely populated so much harder to "win the war". I think it was "Fester" that said we needed map with smaller numbers of bases, that the whole 512 miles didn't have to be filled.
My thought is that if the small maps Have 60 bases and the large have 180, maybe we need maps around 90-100 bases. They should be set on the 512 map size, but the set-up could be more centrally located. The small island map is reset in a few days at most, but the large island map isn't. We just don't have the population density to work these big maps ...yet :D So we need a set of "medium" size maps to get us through until we get more numbers.
Any map makers up to the task?
-
So we need a set of "medium" size maps to get us through until we get more numbers.
Any map makers up to the task?
So true.
-
that would promote not switching sides to even numbers or find a fight.
True, but it would also remove some of the incentive to switch sides when a map win is in the wind in order to sit AFK in the tower and collect the perks.
-
if only they had a thumbs down :joystick:
-
I think Hitech defines "combat" as the attack of bases with an equal defense.
This is called a "doctrine".
That's not a doctrine. A doctrine is something like "Always drop hangers at the outset of your attack" or "Never waste bombs on hangers while there's still town to kill".
I think of this game like a football (American) game. Combat is running, passing, blocking, and tackling. Those are the things that fans like to see and players like to do. A game that involved scoring touchdowns without decent running, passing, blocking, or tackling would be boring. Yet they don't exist in isolation either. 22 guys on a field just running around and playing catch with no purpose would be just as boring, no matter how much amazing athleticism the players displayed. What makes it interesting is the encompassing of all the running, passing, blocking, and tackling into strategies designed to acieve concrete goals - touchdowns - with the eventual purpose of winning the game. It's not just a contest of pure athleticism, it's a contest of wills and of strategies with athletic prowess being the means by which those wills and strategies are put into effect.
The team fans like to see isn't the team that has the guys who run the fastest 100 or even the team with the quarterback with the best arm - although those things are nice. The team fans want to see (and players want to be on) is the team that best uses those assets to score touchdowns, deny them to the opposition, and win games.
-
1.) Smaller maps would make the HQ's a more realistic gamble for lone wolves and missions to hit.
2.) Blinding a country for 10 minutes while its players scramble to resupply the HQ is it's own time honored traditional reward.
3.) With the current radar and a smaller size map you cannot avoid running into enemies.
4.) It becomes harder to remove CV's as combat generating elements as so many arm chair admirals try to do on the Giant maps.
5.) Our giant sized maps, even with the current radar, allow players to avoid each other.
6.) Sandbox environments rely on the imagination of the child, not the complexity of the sand.
7.) Elegantly complex systems are brain candy but often don't work in practice.
8.) Use K.I.S.S. in your suggestions and let HiTech complicate it if it inspires his COADing.
-
Here ya go Crash this is the proper definition of a doctrine.
From Websters;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine)
Main Entry: doc·trine
Pronunciation: \ˈdäk-trən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies
-
We get points in AH? :headscratch:
-
I agree with Agent in that the maps need work. I don't care "why" people play as long as there is a fight going on, and my guess is thats is HTC goal as well. I'm all for the "win the wars" guys as long as they fight to win it! That being said, I think the big maps are too big, and the small maps too small.
We out grew the small map, which is good for business. Small maps are 256 miles square, while the big maps are 512 miles. While that is double in miles it's 4 times in ground space. Our population hasn't grown to 4 times the numbers we had so the big maps are sparsely populated so much harder to "win the war". I think it was "Fester" that said we needed map with smaller numbers of bases, that the whole 512 miles didn't have to be filled.
My thought is that if the small maps Have 60 bases and the large have 180, maybe we need maps around 90-100 bases. They should be set on the 512 map size, but the set-up could be more centrally located. The small island map is reset in a few days at most, but the large island map isn't. We just don't have the population density to work these big maps ...yet :D So we need a set of "medium" size maps to get us through until we get more numbers.
Any map makers up to the task?
Could it be much simpler than that? Perhaps use the same 512x512 mile maps but take away some of the bases but leave those larger 20mile radar rings. That way it's easier to capture the needed bases and win Teh WArR! Perhaps the radar rings could be lengthened even more and make it similar to how it was with the 12 mile radius rings (so basically friendly and enemy radar rings brush up against each other but do not cover the enemie's airfield).
-
We get points in AH? :headscratch:
Points are for dweebz :neener:
-
I agree with TnDep that 25 perks per category to win the war is no incentive to anyone who's been around a while. Most of us have thousands of perks and couldn't burn them up if we tried.
The noobs to the game however, have great incentive to win the war and get their 25 perks. In general they don't have the skills to fly high ENY planes to farm perks. Hell, they're lucky to manage 0.3 K/D. So the hoard is born. They can smash bases and try to win the war to get their perks while everyone else goes their own way.
Maybe HT should get rid of the 25 perks per category and instead add 10% to the perk total of anyone on the winning country, and take away 10% of the perks from anyone on either of the losing countries with a 25 perk minimum for the winners and no losses below a 25 perk threshold for the losers.
That way, a guy with 20,000 perks would stand to lose 2,000 of them if the map was reset by another country or to gain 2,000 if his country won. Now that would make perks meaningful in context with the war on both the winning and losing sides.
Someone with a lot of perks to lose would gradually lose fewer and fewer with consective losses (20,000 to 18,000 to 16,200 to 14,580, etc.) while someone with few perks would gain more and more with consecutive wins (300 to 330 to 363 to 399, etc.).
-
I agree with TnDep that 25 perks per category to win the war is no incentive to anyone who's been around a while. Most of us have thousands of perks and couldn't burn them up if we tried.
The noobs to the game however, have great incentive to win the war and get their 25 perks. In general they don't have the skills to fly high ENY planes to farm perks. Hell, they're lucky to manage 0.3 K/D. So the hoard is born. They can smash bases and try to win the war to get their perks while everyone else goes their own way.
Maybe HT should get rid of the 25 perks per category and instead add 10% to the perk total of anyone on the winning country, and take away 10% of the perks from anyone on either of the losing countries with a 25 perk minimum for the winners and no losses below a 25 perk threshold for the losers.
That way, a guy with 20,000 perks would stand to lose 2,000 of them if the map was reset by another country or to gain 2,000 if his country won. Now that would make perks meaningful in context with the war on both the winning and losing sides.
Someone with a lot of perks to lose would gradually lose fewer and fewer with consective losses (20,000 to 18,000 to 16,200 to 14,580, etc.) while someone with few perks would gain more and more with consecutive wins (300 to 330 to 363 to 399, etc.).
Nope, then there would be a mass exodus from the other countries that are loosing. And thats my fav time to play. 1000 squeekers all ded set on winning the war when 2 sorties will get you twice as many perks
-
Long distances between bases causes bordom, unwillingness to stay involved and promotes things like the NOE Plauge because the gamey nature of it for hoard lemmings gives near instantanious risk free rewards. If anything move more of the bases closer to promote conflict. Idle hands ends up with HiTech personaly managing our happines.
-
I dont understand what the problem is with NOE's they promote conflict and when they fail they start a large furball or something of the sort
Long distances between bases causes bordom, unwillingness to stay involved and promotes things like the NOE Plauge because the gamey nature of it for hoard lemmings gives near instantanious risk free rewards. If anything move more of the bases closer to promote conflict. Idle hands ends up with HiTech personaly managing our happines.
-
That's not a doctrine.
Perhaps Falcnwng will drop in and clarify the meaning, its historical relevance, origins, and the misuse of the word in an epic wall of text that few men can read through without their brains exploding due to not being able to contain the wealth of genius being presented.
-
I agree with TnDep that 25 perks per category to win the war is no incentive to anyone who's been around a while. Most of us have thousands of perks and couldn't burn them up if we tried.
The noobs to the game however, have great incentive to win the war and get their 25 perks. In general they don't have the skills to fly high ENY planes to farm perks. Hell, they're lucky to manage 0.3 K/D. So the hoard is born. They can smash bases and try to win the war to get their perks while everyone else goes their own way.
Maybe HT should get rid of the 25 perks per category and instead add 10% to the perk total of anyone on the winning country, and take away 10% of the perks from anyone on either of the losing countries with a 25 perk minimum for the winners and no losses below a 25 perk threshold for the losers.
That way, a guy with 20,000 perks would stand to lose 2,000 of them if the map was reset by another country or to gain 2,000 if his country won. Now that would make perks meaningful in context with the war on both the winning and losing sides.
Someone with a lot of perks to lose would gradually lose fewer and fewer with consective losses (20,000 to 18,000 to 16,200 to 14,580, etc.) while someone with few perks would gain more and more with consecutive wins (300 to 330 to 363 to 399, etc.).
Something like thise could work but the first thing that comes to mind is that when the other countrys are getting close to winning the war people would start getting off the game because they don't want to loose perks.
I believe that reguardless what is done it needs to be done on the amount of time that is spent in game so people who gets the phone calls were about to win the war and they sign on for the first time that tour doesn't get anything out of it besides 1hr multiplied by whatever. If you do it by ingame time it helps the game (reward for time playing the game) and puts everyone on a level platform reguardless of skill or however many perks they got at that time.
-
"1. Yes.
2. Combat is when people are fighting each other in vehicles or planes. How and why people choose to fight is irrelevant.
HiTech"
Not agree.
If and only you fight then you satisfy some particular needs.
point 2 seems only if ... then ...
:salute
-
I dint understand what the problem is with NOE's they promote conflict and when they fail they start a large furball or something of the sort
Under the past radar configuration eventually the idle hands exploited the holes in dar as a form of invisibility cloaking and combat avoidance. It created the NOE Plague of 2010 that HiTech saw as an imbalance to promoting balanced offense and defence. Long sector distances to fights, or to finish a botched base take, NOE or otherwise, causes boredom which translates into a lack of intrest in maintaining an offensive. Under the current radar minimum of 65 feet, NOE will take awhile to re-evolve. In the mean time there will be more conflict.
Moving the bases farther apart will promote conflict avoidance and boredom. Sitting for a longer time during transit with the very real chance after investing so much time getting to a fight, then dieing to the first HO dweeb is untenable. I believe for most of the community who is not conflict averse this is true. Moving the bases closer together will promote conflict, get the fighters back into combat sooner, and bombers or "GO" strategy players can still fly long distances by upping a few sectors back of the action to avoid conflict.
To cut short a dweeby response right here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dweeb retorts :
So if they are worried about flying so long and dieing the moment they get there, don't you neanderthals just go bang on each other in the DA to get better at survival? Longer flight distances would promote realistic bomber flights at altitude before the fight. Cause defenders to have to THINK<---(love how words like this are code to infer warriors are IQ challenged neanderthals) about patrolling fronts to setup for the bombers and it gives the strategists a chance to get setup in their ideal position to out think you mindless combat lemmings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys wake up, the "GO" players in the game believe their combat avoidance strategies make them superior to all of you because they succeed in avoiding fighting you while stealing your toys. They want us to beleive that's the strategic intellegent way to win a fight in AH. Reminds me of the Movie Gladiator.............
Longer flights = boredom = unhappy community and no conflict. Join a Chess Club or fight. Musashi said there is no difference between personal combat or combat between ten thousand. Conflict avoidance and sneaking around is not a virtue if the point of the game you are playing is conflict. It probably means it hurts your ego more when you get caught and killed than those who seek the conflict as a source of pride with their comrads across the three countries.
-
.... Musashi said there is no difference between personal combat or combat between ten thousand. Conflict avoidance and sneaking around is not a virtue if the point of the game you are playing is conflict. It probably means it hurts your ego more when you get caught and killed than those who seek the conflict as a source of pride with their comrads across the three countries.
Did you just quote Miyamoto Musashi?????? great warrior probably the greatest of all time. :aok
you miss quoted him slightly,which incidentally I am about to do cuz im too lazy to look through my "Book of five rings"
"The spirit that defeats one man is the same that can defeat 1,000,000"
ether way I :salute you!!!
-
INK,
I was awarded a Menkyo from "Itto Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu" school of Kenjutsu. Traditional schools of kenjutsu were schools of battle feild martial arts.
There are at least 5 western translations of "Go Rin No Sho" today that everyone quotes from. Musashi's teaching that combat between two men is no different than combat between Ten Thousand means:
First the warrior masters single combat because it is the most simple way of teaching the art of "Mastering" and the Way of single Combat. With the mastery of single combat and its strategies, ten thousand warriors are but a single combat by one master against another master weilding thousands of warriors. If the one master weilds superior numbers, then the response is the same as the techniques mastered during single combat training for one killing many.
In a game based on combat, sneaking around (strategy) only teaches conflict avoidence. Mastering the games combat teaches the practitioner the game, it's nuances, and creates a well spring of experience to draw from to defeat your enemies. That is true strategy. Any one else using the word strategy is covering up their own inability to compete on an equal footing with the games top combat practitioners.
Those who lust for combat already have strategy as the tang of their sword.
-
correction
"1. Yes.
2. Combat is when people are fighting each other in vehicles or planes. How and why people choose to fight is irrelevant.
HiTech"
Not agree.
If and only if you fight then you satisfy some particular needs.
point 2 seems only: if ... then ...
-
Yes, I'm mad :joystick:
On the concept of combat, it seems that there is a sort of misunderstanding.
For all Italian ppl i suggest to listen this good work:
http://www.radio.rai.it/radio2/alleotto/fiorespada/#
And I hope that somebody who writes English better then me could say something about the content.
The work tells about the life of Miyamoto Musashi in
connection also with a note on an important work due
by who seems a 'very powerful warrior',
Ruth Benedict, titled The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (1946).
http://www.nndb.com/people/786/000097495/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword
This work was important in WWII because it gave a real hope to defeat the japan empire. The work was request to Mrs Benedict by USA government and it states that the Japan empire's hope winning the war was based on an idea opposite respect the USA one. So USA force knew that Japan empire have underestimated a real aspect of a war and USA have good chances to win. Which aspect?
Probably, I'm wrong, because i have a lack of information,
but if I'm a little lucky too the aspect is that
"The spirit that defeats one man is the same that can defeat 1,000,000"
is true if and only if you know the true meaning of the term
"spirit" but they unfortunately used of a wrong concept and gave to USA a very big chance to win the war.
If combat means fur-balling only with no other scope, i still think that any rule that brings to that is a bad rule.
In fact in a pure fur-balling game relies the same bad spirit of Japanese Empire.
:salute
-
Yes, I'm mad :joystick:
On the concept of combat, it seems that there is a sort of misunderstanding.
For all Italian ppl i suggest to listen this good work:
http://www.radio.rai.it/radio2/alleotto/fiorespada/#
And I hope that somebody who writes English better then me could say something about the content.
The work tells about the life of Miyamoto Musashi in
connection also with a note on an important work due
by who seems a 'very powerful warrior',
Ruth Benedict, titled The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (1946).
http://www.nndb.com/people/786/000097495/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword
This work was important in WWII because it gave a real hope to defeat the japan empire. The work was request to Mrs Benedict by USA government and it states that the Japan empire's hope winning the war was based on an idea opposite respect the USA one. So USA force knew that Japan empire have underestimated a real aspect of a war and USA have good chances to win. Which aspect?
Probably, I'm wrong, because i have a lack of information,
but if I'm a little lucky too the aspect is that
"The spirit that defeats one man is the same that can defeat 1,000,000"
is true if and only if you know the true meaning of the term
"spirit" but they unfortunately used of a wrong concept and gave to USA a very big chance to win the war.
If combat means fur-balling only with no other scope, i still think that any rule that brings to that is a bad rule.
In fact in a pure fur-balling game relies the same bad spirit of Japanese Empire.
:salute
I think from your numerous posts in several threads, we all get that you don't like the changes. Things are not going back to the way you want it no matter how many times you state your dislike. Once HTC makes a big change like this, they aren't going to reverse it. You can do one of two things, adapt or quit. I'm sure this may not set well with you and several others. There have been a lot of changes over the years and nobody likes every one. You just have to make the best of it.....or not.
-
INK,
I was awarded a Menkyo from "Itto Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu" school of Kenjutsu. Traditional schools of kenjutsu were schools of battle feild martial arts.
There are at least 5 western translations of "Go Rin No Sho" today that everyone quotes from. Musashi's teaching that combat between two men is no different than combat between Ten Thousand means:
First the warrior masters single combat because it is the most simple way of teaching the art of "Mastering" and the Way of single Combat. With the mastery of single combat and its strategies, ten thousand warriors are but a single combat by one master against another master weilding thousands of warriors. If the one master weilds superior numbers, then the response is the same as the techniques mastered during single combat training for one killing many.
In a game based on combat, sneaking around (strategy) only teaches conflict avoidence. Mastering the games combat teaches the practitioner the game, it's nuances, and creates a well spring of experience to draw from to defeat your enemies. That is true strategy. Any one else using the word strategy is covering up their own inability to compete on an equal footing with the games top combat practitioners.
Those who lust for combat already have strategy as the tang of their sword.
Awesome :aok
I think Musashi was speaking way deeper when he speaks about "The Spirit that defeats one man is the same spirit that defeats a million" when you reach "The way" and have full knowledge and use of "No strategy" as "strategy" you will be unconquerable, no matter the odds stacked against you.
-
Did you just quote Miyamoto Musashi?????? great warrior probably the greatest of all time. :aok
Won't try to give complete and detailed discertation. I'd just point out a couple of things that might (or might not) be important to consider on this topic. While not arguing that Musashi was a "great warrior", he was not, if memory serves, a soldier. Nor was a accomplished leader of men on the battle field. He was not a strategist nor tactician in the soldier and warfare sense. Further, I would be careful to adopt wholesale any Japanses philosophy of battle or combat. Their culture revels in the individual's "honor" above all else, to the point of committing Seppuku as the only way to redeem that honor 'when they believe they have failed'. This is contrary to the generally Western thought that insipe of defeat, and even having surrendered, the creedo is to stay alive, stay as anything can happen in the future.
Those who disparage of the concept of avoiding conflit or a fight to achieve a military goal fly in in the face of the truly great military leaders, who realized like Patton did, that the point is to make the other 'dumb bastich' die for his country. Mis-direction, subterfuge, camoflage are among the greatest weapons of a leader of soldiers. Truly, if I were to cite any Asian authority, it would of course, be Sun Tzu, who said essentially (among other things) do not attack where the enemy is stong, seek out where he is weakest. And by extrapolation, create his weakness by subterfuge and mis-direction when necessary.
Alexander spent spectacular efforts to successfully fool a stronger Indian opponent planted across a river from him that he wanted to cross. In Desert Storm, Schwartzkoff did everything possible, and correctly, to mis-direct the Iraqus and hold them tin heir positions, while he avoided their strength and swung around their exposed right flank.
Admittedly, this is a game about combat as individuals, but the structure of the envirment, the rules and general gameplay is about taking and keeping ground. Some people wanting to experience the 'war' as opposed to just forusing on dogfighting is natural and a perfectly reasonable way to enjoy the game.
On a different note, I hope this came out as I inteded, the text editor is really behave stupidly. I can't see what I've typed unless I am actually typing. Dam thing keeps scroll up whenever I stop keying and it seems to have the 'buffer slows'. This only occurs in this text editor and started a couple of major updates ago. Anyone have a solution?
-
"immoral", really?
You picked on 'immoral' and left 'grale' alone??
Won't try to give complete and detailed discertation. I'd just point out a couple of things that might (or might not) be important to consider on this topic. While not arguing that Musashi was a "great warrior", he was not, if memory serves, a soldier. Nor was a accomplished leader of men on the battle field. He was not a strategist nor tactician in the soldier and warfare sense. Further, I would be careful to adopt wholesale any Japanses philosophy of battle or combat. Their culture revels in the individual's "honor" above all else, to the point of committing Seppuku as the only way to redeem that honor 'when they believe they have failed'. This is contrary to the generally Western thought that insipe of defeat, and even having surrendered, the creedo is to stay alive, stay as anything can happen in the future.
Those who disparage of the concept of avoiding conflit or a fight to achieve a military goal fly in in the face of the truly great military leaders, who realized like Patton did, that the point is to make the other 'dumb bastich' die for his country. Mis-direction, subterfuge, camoflage are among the greatest weapons of a leader of soldiers. Truly, if I were to cite any Asian authority, it would of course, be Sun Tzu, who said essentially (among other things) do not attack where the enemy is stong, seek out where he is weakest. And by extrapolation, create his weakness by subterfuge and mis-direction when necessary.
Alexander spent spectacular efforts to successfully fool a stronger Indian opponent planted across a river from him that he wanted to cross. In Desert Storm, Schwartzkoff did everything possible, and correctly, to mis-direct the Iraqus and hold them tin heir positions, while he avoided their strength and swung around their exposed right flank.
Admittedly, this is a game about combat as individuals, but the structure of the envirment, the rules and general gameplay is about taking and keeping ground. Some people wanting to experience the 'war' as opposed to just forusing on dogfighting is natural and a perfectly reasonable way to enjoy the game.
On a different note, I hope this came out as I inteded, the text editor is really behave stupidly. I can't see what I've typed unless I am actually typing. Dam thing keeps scroll up whenever I stop keying and it seems to have the 'buffer slows'. This only occurs in this text editor and started a couple of major updates ago. Anyone have a solution?
at least you didn't say anything about a 'Pyrrhic victory' :x
-
removed after I thought better of it
-
Another problem as I see it, is the inability to hurt the enemy by destroying his ability to fight, which goes against what every player wants. We like the idea of it, but in reality no one wants to be on the receiving end.
Basically its a game where hordes win wars, and the meat of warfare never is addressed, because nobody is willing to put up with the cost.
-
On a different note, I hope this came out as I inteded, the text editor is really behave stupidly. I can't see what I've typed unless I am actually typing. Dam thing keeps scroll up whenever I stop keying and it seems to have the 'buffer slows'. This only occurs in this text editor and started a couple of major updates ago. Anyone have a solution?
I've noted this problem from time to time on one of the break room PC's at work but not every time and never on my home PC.
It's a mystery to me.
-
You picked on 'immoral' and left 'grale' alone??
at least you didn't say anything about a 'Pyrrhic victory' :x
:rofl
-
...
on that note I will say this ...Honor...is not a shallow thing and should be upheld above all and yes that includes LIFE
Honor includes the following
Integrity
loyalty
Respect
Righteousness
Dignity
Love
and above all is Truth
none of which, is held to high esteem in our "western" world.
-
"I think from your numerous posts in several threads, we all get that you don't like the changes. Things are not going back to the way you want it no matter how many times you state your dislike. Once HTC makes a big change like this, they aren't going to reverse it. You can do one of two things, adapt or quit. I'm sure this may not set well with you and several others. There have been a lot of changes over the years and nobody likes every one. You just have to make the best of it.....or not." Bear76
You think bad Bear76!
Until You will understand - in general we are talking about a doctrine - perhaps You should read more carefully and stay in silence!
But don't stay in silent so everybody can read what You are!
:salute
-
"I think from your numerous posts in several threads, we all get that you don't like the changes. Things are not going back to the way you want it no matter how many times you state your dislike. Once HTC makes a big change like this, they aren't going to reverse it. You can do one of two things, adapt or quit. I'm sure this may not set well with you and several others. There have been a lot of changes over the years and nobody likes every one. You just have to make the best of it.....or not." Bear76
You think bad Bear76!
Until You will understand - in general we are talking about a doctrine - perhaps You should read more carefully and stay in silence!
But don't stay in silent so everybody can read what You are!
:salute
What "are" I?
-
Bear76, The answer is written between the words of your post.
Every addiction would be something more or less!
And to be more clear,from a certain point of view I have no interest in what htc will implement.
If to do more money they will decide that radar is good at zero feet, then their business.
But if i remember well Hitech said that he will consider what we all ppl said.
As it would be probable.
So Your words are spent into the wind just to say something between nothing and nothing cooked with
nothing.
Piece and love!
Ink,
I think that the last who thought in that way is been a dead man! :rofl
About Musashi, from what i heard he had an integrity, etc as few men have.
:salute
-
Bear76, The answer is written between the words of your post.
Every addiction would be something more or less!
And to be more clear,from a certain point of view I have no interest in what htc will implement.
If to do more money they will decide that radar is good at zero feet, then their business.
But if i remember well Hitech said that he will consider what we all ppl said.
As it would be probable.
So Your words are spent into the wind just to say something between nothing and nothing cooked with
nothing.
Piece and love!
Ink,
I think that the last who thought in that way is been a dead man! :rofl
About Musashi, from what i heard he had an integrity, etc as few men have.
:salute
Trying to save you a lot of aggrevation. No helping some people.
-
Bear76
Reg: Nov 2002
Location: In a cave, duh!
True!
:rofl
-
Bear76
Reg: Nov 2002
Location: In a cave, duh!
True!
:rofl
I lived in Italy, I prefer the cave :lol
-
Perhaps Falcnwng will drop in and clarify the meaning, its historical relevance, origins, and the misuse of the word in an epic wall of text that few men can read through without their brains exploding due to not being able to contain the wealth of genius being presented.
That's funny considering the OP,
I need some Advil and a drink.
I'M sure my neighbors 12 year old could post something that makes more sense.
what's the point here, is this another one of those let me dictate how we should all spend our 15 bucks
one more time? really?
whatever
froger
-
INK,
I was awarded a Menkyo from "Itto Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu" school of Kenjutsu. Traditional schools of kenjutsu were schools of battle feild martial arts.
There are at least 5 western translations of "Go Rin No Sho" today that everyone quotes from. Musashi's teaching that combat between two men is no different than combat between Ten Thousand means:
First the warrior masters single combat because it is the most simple way of teaching the art of "Mastering" and the Way of single Combat. With the mastery of single combat and its strategies, ten thousand warriors are but a single combat by one master against another master weilding thousands of warriors. If the one master weilds superior numbers, then the response is the same as the techniques mastered during single combat training for one killing many.
In a game based on combat, sneaking around (strategy) only teaches conflict avoidence. Mastering the games combat teaches the practitioner the game, it's nuances, and creates a well spring of experience to draw from to defeat your enemies. That is true strategy. Any one else using the word strategy is covering up their own inability to compete on an equal footing with the games top combat practitioners.
Those who lust for combat already have strategy as the tang of their sword.
It just keeps gettin better n better in this troll o rama
-
Bear,
We all can noticed it!
Another proof of God existence !
:salute
-
Bear,
We all can noticed it!
Another proof of God existence !
:salute
:huh No idea what that means
-
Q. E. D.!
-
There ought be a comma after, "Yes", DOLT!
and a comma after Mrs.English.
-
on that note I will say this ...Honor...is not a shallow thing and should be upheld above all and yes that includes LIFE
Honor includes the following
Integrity
loyalty
Respect
Righteousness
Dignity
Love
and above all is Truth
none of which, is held to high esteem in our "western" world.
Don't be so hard on our Western world. It proved victorious, materially, morally, and spiritually, in the two defining ideological struggles of the 20th century, and is, I think, on its way to winning the first great one of the 21st. Meanwhile the line of thought and definition of "honor" of which Musashi was a part ended with prisoner-beheading contests, mothers jumping off cliffs with their infants, and bayonet practice on babies after gang-raping their mothers to death. Thanks, but I'll take our soft and decadent Western world and its admittably imperfect regard for the sanctity and dignity of human life over that any day of the week.
-
It seems to me that Musashi was more a victim than a part.
A war. every type of war, has no winners but only losers!
Who really think that somebody has won a war?
War is not something as a tennis game.
In Musashi coherence of actions could be the appreciable factor.
A factor that is a rare thing if you consider that many people
seem to live as to be or no to be are the same thing at the same time.
They are more dangerous than Musashi and generally they support
personality as Musashi one.
:salute
:salute
-
A war. every type of war, has no winners but only losers!
Who really think that somebody has won a war?
Well....I will draw my conclusions from photos of Berlin, Tokyo, and Washington, DC in 1945 :)
-
Sorry, but this opening of this thread seems to be another "there is only one way to play this game and I have it!" threads. Its really sort of religious in that people believe a certain way, and they want to make converts by force or argument. It's sort of like, "if only we can get everyone to believe this same thing, the world (game) will be a better place."
In reality, if this were true, it would just be a religious dictatorship and we've all seen how those work. . .
The reality is that the game is whatever YOU make it, just as the world is. You can believe the base taking game is IT and do that. The reality is that HTC didn't design a game that you "win", they designed a game where the battle is supposed to go on forever. The evidence is there if you want to see it. In a real war, one side or another works very hard to get the edge in:
1. Numbers
2. Equipment
to get territory. They build up armies to overwhelm the other side. In this game, you can side switch, essentially throwing the numbers off. If the point were to win the war, why would you do this? How would WWII have worked if the Soviet armies suddenly changed sides?
As to Equipment, ENY is made to make this basically net even. If you get numbers, you lose in equipment. Generally this is not how a war prosecuted to win works. When you want to win, you work for qualitative and quantitative superiority. ENY's effects work as if, in 1944 when the Allies started to get quantitative superiority, they decided to go back to their 1941 plane set, P40s, Buffalos, P39s, Spit 1s, etc. This is obviously NOT what someone does to win the war.
The fact of the matter is that the base taking "war" is designed to be endless, to NEVER be won. The fact that someone eventually wins the map is due to temporary conditions and shifts that get going with too much momentum to stop. However those are to a great degree a matter of chance and or gaming the system (like rolling bases late at night). If the goal is really to take bases and win the map, you should be lobbying to get rid of side switching and ENY. However, I can guarantee that these mechanisms or something like them, will be part of every iteration of AH :).
Now some folks look at this and see it as futile. What matters to them is the air combat or the tank combat or the ship combat and that is what they do. It is NOT wrong, its just approaching it from another level.
If you are looking for the Holy Grail of AH, it is designing things so that no one ultimately "wins" anything, but that combat AT ALL LEVELS should be endless. That makes a good game and a horrible life. This is why it is counter intuitive to lots of folks.
So enjoy the game and for goodness sake, stop trying to tell other people how to play it. They'll just ignore you any way :).
-
Japan and Germany were defeated by superior numbers, materiel, industry and speed of developing technologies.
A tidel wave of human production was dumped on them in a short three year period that they had no chance to keep up with. Japan and Germany were the two top militairy services on the planet until they gave the U.S. a reason to get pissed. In both cases, as soon as the U.S. joined the conflict, the reality clock kicked in that they both had limited resources in all catigories compared to the United States. Both were defeated in a TOTAL WAR by a HOARD of all catagories.
The closest type of wars to the three country MA would be Japan's Warring States Period. The american indian tribes warrior culture pre 1900's. Bronze age to mid Iron age Celts. Scottish Clans up to Culloden. Pre Temujin Mongol tribes. Anywhere in history that war was not used for empire building but, as the principel cultural pastime and vehicle of status for the males of the society. This is how you get characters like Grizz.
If HiTech wanted this game to be a "WAR", he would have only two countries, no ENY, all feilds capturable and/or totaly destroyable until map reset. Limited lives per player per day and a 100-500 perks for the survivors on the winning side at map reset. If he didn't limit side switching to long periods of time, everyone would mostly play for a single side as a Super Hoard. Radar would probably have smaller coverage rings with a 200ft NOE gap to promote sneak attacks while bases would be spaced up to two sectors apart to promote stageing and planning. With only two sides everyone would be expecting everyone else to do anything they can to game the game to survive. No more Grizz type of players. A war with two sides would not promote a willingness to engage in conflict but, a scramble to avoid meeting the enemy as much as possible untill as much territory or feilds as possible could be captured and/or destroyed. The last fight to reset the map would be a lopsided affair to be part of the winning HOARD and collect points.
The Great AvA War a few years back was a bit like this. They gave out medals and ribbons. We even had an Air Marshall for each side to give us our daily orders and strategies. One side would hoard, the other would sneak around hitting and running depending on the time of day. Very rarely were there any "Grand Air Battels". The strategists on both sides were busy coming up with sneaky plans to out sneak each other to achive each weeks objectives. Winning the war became more about sneaking around to avoid detection to achive objectives without having to fight for them. Players were getting so irritated by it all, at one point we almost lost ch200 privleges because of the seriously vile levels our conversations sank to out of frustration. We all did alot of HOing, picking and running away to live another day. Throw into this staggered plane set releases so one side would rule with technology for a week or so at a time. Ch200 got really, really vile. It's hard to appreciate the nuances of a war when a player may only have an hour to hop in and play and everyone else is sneaking around avoiding each other acheiving non-conflict related objectives.
Three countries promote on going fluctuating levels of conflict where reseting the map is ONLY one possiblity but never a guarantee. Having two other countries should make it harder to avoid contact with the enemy and the resulting combat, while acting as a limiter to a lopsided domination of game flow by any single group and/or an exploit of environmental blind spots. If this game was a "WAR" then yes, strategy not combat would be the only way to survive and get your points at the war's end. Or as with the late great AvA War achive the Sneeeky weekly objectives.
One night a week in the FSO with a single life in a two sided war is about the most frustration large groups of players can endure without getting channel 200 shut down. Channel 200 was starting to get salty before HiTEch shut down the NOE Plague by changing radar.
-
I've noted this problem from time to time on one of the break room PC's at work but not every time and never on my home PC.
It's a mystery to me.
I always use another editor and copy and paste back into here.
-
NOE combat can be fun
-
Channel 200 was starting to get salty before HiTEch shut down the NOE Plague by changing radar. QUOTE by bustr
channel 200 is,and always will be "salty"..I dont believe saltiness on 200 has anything to do with noe's only.shut down percieved Ho'ing by 2 fighters, that will get rid of alot more than noe's ever contributed.
-
Bear76 that's not a cave ..its moms closet :neener:
-
Bear76 that's not a cave ..its moms closet :neener:
Ya, but it's your mom's :D
-
Sorry, but this opening of this thread seems to be another "there is only one way to play this game and I have it!" threads. Its really sort of religious in that people believe a certain way, and they want to make converts by force or argument. It's sort of like, "if only we can get everyone to believe this same thing, the world (game) will be a better place."
In reality, if this were true, it would just be a religious dictatorship and we've all seen how those work. . .
The reality is that the game is whatever YOU make it, just as the world is. You can believe the base taking game is IT and do that. The reality is that HTC didn't design a game that you "win", they designed a game where the battle is supposed to go on forever. The evidence is there if you want to see it. In a real war, one side or another works very hard to get the edge in:
1. Numbers
2. Equipment
to get territory. They build up armies to overwhelm the other side. In this game, you can side switch, essentially throwing the numbers off. If the point were to win the war, why would you do this? How would WWII have worked if the Soviet armies suddenly changed sides?
As to Equipment, ENY is made to make this basically net even. If you get numbers, you lose in equipment. Generally this is not how a war prosecuted to win works. When you want to win, you work for qualitative and quantitative superiority. ENY's effects work as if, in 1944 when the Allies started to get quantitative superiority, they decided to go back to their 1941 plane set, P40s, Buffalos, P39s, Spit 1s, etc. This is obviously NOT what someone does to win the war.
The fact of the matter is that the base taking "war" is designed to be endless, to NEVER be won. The fact that someone eventually wins the map is due to temporary conditions and shifts that get going with too much momentum to stop. However those are to a great degree a matter of chance and or gaming the system (like rolling bases late at night). If the goal is really to take bases and win the map, you should be lobbying to get rid of side switching and ENY. However, I can guarantee that these mechanisms or something like them, will be part of every iteration of AH :).
Now some folks look at this and see it as futile. What matters to them is the air combat or the tank combat or the ship combat and that is what they do. It is NOT wrong, its just approaching it from another level.
If you are looking for the Holy Grail of AH, it is designing things so that no one ultimately "wins" anything, but that combat AT ALL LEVELS should be endless. That makes a good game and a horrible life. This is why it is counter intuitive to lots of folks.
So enjoy the game and for goodness sake, stop trying to tell other people how to play it. They'll just ignore you any way :).
I address the two bolded parts of the quote.
With all due respect...you haven't comprehended the meaning of my OP. I think, perhaps, the OP was a little over your head, so to speak.
But, you did mention "endless combat", and "no one ultimately "wins" anything" as what should be part of the doctrine. I would be interested to hear a more intelligent post on how this would benefit the game.
-
Agent,
There is a spectrum of human neurobiological oriented types. The extream of the types on each end are extream right brain dominant and extream left brain dominat. That would equate to Salvidor Dali and Geroge S. Patton.
A.) The ERB person is motivated by and rewarded by the pursuit of Novelty. A constant barage of new ideas and sensory experiences with no delay of gratification. Attendant to this is an extream ambiguousness to right or wrong and ambivolence to the concept of any being greater than itsself.
B.) The ELB person is motivated by and rewarded by the definition of goals and the resultant solutions to acheiving those goals. Attendant to this is an extream beleif in right and wrong. Delaying gratification to achive future rewards and a faith based certanty in a creator greator than themselves to live up to.
So you can use your imagination to fill in the spectrum between these two. Agent how are you going to reward everyone involved? The muppets recruit for a muppet standard personality to the game and so you are being a tad unfair. Step outside of your box and formulate a bigger picture. This is HiTech's greatest problem in presenting the game. The diverse personality types and what constitutes a reward for effort to them.
-
Not surprising how Rapiers entire post got missed.Typical forum fashion,a post that is 100% bang on get's missed.Slinging insults over substance.IN a lot of cases these insulters carry this off the forums into the game.They chose to be belligerent to ANYONE who refuses to play this game their STYLE.This game is what YOU make it,I will not belittle anyone for choosing to play it their way.However,there are grown MEN in this who have created quite the atmosphere and language,and they waste little time in game to let you KNOW you are: NO skillz horders,hotard,ace pilot,etc.These people know who they are and they don't give a ratz bellybutton what they say and to who
There are several playes(1 or 2 squads as well) who do NOTHING but horde together run to a base and endlessly chase fighters sometimes 7 or 8 of them chasing 1 enemy fighter,they do this DAY in DAY out,changing sides just to find a fight to score even more perk points.They contribute ZERO to the entire sides eventual goal to win a map.To them that is how THEY have adapted the game to their specific fun factor.So far they are BY far the most vocal in every forum,complaining about everything from other fighters not flying THEIR fight,to flying "dweeb planes".They are the furballers.THey sit, hour by hour, endlessly chasing and usually ganging up on weaker fighters.They have honed their fighter skills,yes they are decent sticks,however as individuals have shown very poorly in game. Yet time and again these are THE single most vocal complainers about the other styles.The base takers.
Yet this game is designed around capturing territory and eventually winning a map.
I choose to be the base taker,my skills are not that good in a fighter but I can hold my own at times. I enjoy the game very much,which is why I pay my 16 bucks a month.I do NOT enjoy being pm'd by someone I shot down,insulting me,I do NOT trash talk in a video game that I play for relaxation and squad fun,and I certainly do NOT get on vox and force a furballer to play the base taking game.Hence Rapiers POINT!!! I have seen post after post on the forums denigrating base takers as no skillz this and no skillz that...(This from so called grown men)Post after ranting post about basetaking ruining a fight....imagine that.
It's even been taken to new lows in game where an entire squad is being slandered for its base taking. Slagged for taking undefended bases!! Well you know if your bases are being taken,here's a concept for you .....DEFEND them!!! Instead of taking up an entire day stuck on one base up at the base being "horded" and show basetakers that furballers DO have a point!
There is one thing I wish hitech WOULD implement,a PERMANENT squelch on problem players,players who consistently,day in and day out go WAY over the top in denigrating others style of play.In a game. READ RAPIERS whole POST. :aok
P.S. I only have 1 post on the forums,recently just registered.I usually avoid forums like the plague,I have been in and out of Aces high for years,lately the sh*t talk and personal attacks in game have gotten way way way out of hand.
-
Agent,
There is a spectrum of human neurobiological oriented types. The extream of the types on each end are extream right brain dominant and extream left brain dominat. That would equate to Salvidor Dali and Geroge S. Patton.
A.) The ERB person is motivated by and rewarded by the pursuit of Novelty. A constant barage of new ideas and sensory experiences with no delay of gratification. Attendant to this is an extream ambiguousness to right or wrong and ambivolence to the concept of any being greater than itsself.
B.) The ELB person is motivated by and rewarded by the definition of goals and the resultant solutions to acheiving those goals. Attendant to this is an extream beleif in right and wrong. Delaying gratification to achive future rewards and a faith based certanty in a creator greator than themselves to live up to.
So you can use your imagination to fill in the spectrum between these two. Agent how are you going to reward everyone involved? The muppets recruit for a muppet standard personality to the game and so you are being a tad unfair. Step outside of your box and formulate a bigger picture. This is HiTech's greatest problem in presenting the game. The diverse personality types and what constitutes a reward for effort to them.
I thought my OP was pretty open ended. I did not intend to favor furballing or strategic play. I hoped to spawn a debate on what "combat" really means.
Thus I mentioned a "holy Grail" (I spelled it correctly this time for the word police). I agree with you that the problem is to figure out what "constitutes a reward for effort".
I did make a few assumptions. One being that if "combat" was the doctrine that the maps should contribute to that.
I said "It is my opinion that as the game exists now the doctrine even in its simplest form can not be realized. The "soldiers" simply can not see any reward for their efforts."
I meant this to apply to everyone. Not just furballers. The rescent dar changes is a good example.
I think my OP may have been taken the wrong way due to my reputation of prefering direct combat in fighters.
-
Not surprising how Rapiers entire post got missed.Typical forum fashion,a post that is 100% bang on get's missed.Slinging insults over substance.IN a lot of cases these insulters carry this off the forums into the game.They chose to be belligerent to ANYONE who refuses to play this game their STYLE.This game is what YOU make it,I will not belittle anyone for choosing to play it their way.However,there are grown MEN in this who have created quite the atmosphere and language,and they waste little time in game to let you KNOW you are: NO skillz horders,hotard,ace pilot,etc.These people know who they are and they don't give a ratz bellybutton what they say and to who
There are several playes(1 or 2 squads as well) who do NOTHING but horde together run to a base and endlessly chase fighters sometimes 7 or 8 of them chasing 1 enemy fighter,they do this DAY in DAY out,changing sides just to find a fight to score even more perk points.They contribute ZERO to the entire sides eventual goal to win a map.To them that is how THEY have adapted the game to their specific fun factor.So far they are BY far the most vocal in every forum,complaining about everything from other fighters not flying THEIR fight,to flying "dweeb planes".They are the furballers.THey sit, hour by hour, endlessly chasing and usually ganging up on weaker fighters.They have honed their fighter skills,yes they are decent sticks,however as individuals have shown very poorly in game. Yet time and again these are THE single most vocal complainers about the other styles.The base takers.
Yet this game is designed around capturing territory and eventually winning a map.
I choose to be the base taker,my skills are not that good in a fighter but I can hold my own at times. I enjoy the game very much,which is why I pay my 16 bucks a month.I do NOT enjoy being pm'd by someone I shot down,insulting me,I do NOT trash talk in a video game that I play for relaxation and squad fun,and I certainly do NOT get on vox and force a furballer to play the base taking game.Hence Rapiers POINT!!! I have seen post after post on the forums denigrating base takers as no skillz this and no skillz that...(This from so called grown men)Post after ranting post about basetaking ruining a fight....imagine that.
It's even been taken to new lows in game where an entire squad is being slandered for its base taking. Slagged for taking undefended bases!! Well you know if your bases are being taken,here's a concept for you .....DEFEND them!!! Instead of taking up an entire day stuck on one base up at the base being "horded" and show basetakers that furballers DO have a point!
There is one thing I wish hitech WOULD implement,a PERMANENT squelch on problem players,players who consistently,day in and day out go WAY over the top in denigrating others style of play.In a game. READ RAPIERS whole POST. :aok
I didn't miss it.
And, I actually read your post..although it was a bit hard due to the formating.
I really think you shoud re read my OP. It's not about furballing. It's not about why we should have furballing. It's not about anything to do with furballing.
It's not about telling people how THEY should play.
It IS about how to create a situation of combat which appeals to EVERYONE.
Can we agree that playing against predictable AI enemys offline is of limited fun for pretty much everyone. I then ask WHY does one play online?
WHY WHY WHY do we play online. I can tell you. Because we want to experience interaction with other players. We want to engage in combat.
What "combat" means is the whole intent of my OP.
Read my OP as though you never heard of me or had never seen any post I made.
-
Agent, I'm pretty sure I didn't intentionally insult you. I could equally say, what I posted went over your head since you haven't really addressed it. However in the interest of elevating the level of conversation in here, let's drop that.
I'm not sure what you are advocating here? Your original post seemed to be saying that the territorial game should be the focus? I'm assuming this since you seemed to be tying it to combat doctrine that countries reflexively create to win wars. No country creates a combat doctrine to make wars longer or more costly, that would be waaay counter intuitive, even though that is the model that AH uses.
While I applaud your intention to create combat that appeals to everyone, that kinda creeps over into game design, which is what HTC does. AH by nature and design has aspects of a sandbox game, that is pieces are made available in the game (A/C, GVs, Bases, CV groups) and the players make use of them as they will. The surest way to fail is for the developer to try and tell the community that there is one, right way to play (which prompted my initial response).
If we accept that HTC's goal is to make it difficult for one side or another to "win", then what could the doctrine be? Is it:
A: We go along with making it difficult to win, so we will change sides more often and choose the highest ENY planes available.
B: We try to overwhelm the system to get the win quickly.
(A) is counterintuitive to most people who like to win so community support may be tough. If you succeed in (B) HTC will put in more mechanisms to slow you down to achieve their goal of endless combat.
So what exactly are you trying to say? Your Subject is about doctrine but you are posting about maps. Do maps contribute combat? Absolutely. But this is again game design. For a map to work it has to be matched a number of variables that change quickly. Population has a huge effect. If you've ever played on a huge map when there aren't enough people, you get this one. It might be an awesome map for 2000 people but it won't work for 200.
There are a host of other variables. What are you trying to get to? And how is that NOT trying to tell people how to play? Wayneman makes some good points. I too am tired of being PMed by losers who try to rewrite what just happened so they actually won, instead of died. Most of what passes for dialogue in game and in this forum is testosterone laced hyperbole about how great my ideas and my skills are. That is beyond futile.
Alternatively, this place is filled with innumerable people who are willing to tell you how to play and enjoy your $15. It's frankly tiresome.
I tend to go the other way, which is HTC has created a great sandbox. We should start from the place of being thankful that others are willing to spend money and be in this space so we have playmates. Without it, this would be dead and all the game design in the world would be useless. I personally don't feel that we need anyone else trying to tell us how to be.
-
I think some people take things a bit too seriously including themselves.
To me it looked like he was asking what can be done to make it fun in the game. My suggestion was to have less bases on a map seeing in most case we do not have enough people to populate a large map and capture a large number of bases. Like you said Rapier, the game is like a big sand box and there are many ways to play in it.
HTC isn't making it more difficult to take bases and win the war, they are just making it so it isn't so easy. The idea of the game is combat. I don't care who you are, if you are here to try and avoid all conflict you should just save your money. It's like playing Monopoly and not spending any of your money or trading. Why are you bothering, you are NOT playing the game.
This is a game and the object of the a game is to win. To me winning is fighting in my cartoon plane and shooting down other cartoon planes. To others its the same but in GV's, to others it's taking bases. The doctrine should be as simple as "to engage in combat at every opportunity" because, after all that is what the game was designed around.
Nobody is saying how you should play other than what the owner and designer said, which is to engage in combat. How you engage and why is up to you.
-
Agent, I'm pretty sure I didn't intentionally insult you. I could equally say, what I posted went over your head since you haven't really addressed it. However in the interest of elevating the level of conversation in here, let's drop that.
I'm not sure what you are advocating here? Your original post seemed to be saying that the territorial game should be the focus? I'm assuming this since you seemed to be tying it to combat doctrine that countries reflexively create to win wars. No country creates a combat doctrine to make wars longer or more costly, that would be waaay counter intuitive, even though that is the model that AH uses.
While I applaud your intention to create combat that appeals to everyone, that kinda creeps over into game design, which is what HTC does. AH by nature and design has aspects of a sandbox game, that is pieces are made available in the game (A/C, GVs, Bases, CV groups) and the players make use of them as they will. The surest way to fail is for the developer to try and tell the community that there is one, right way to play (which prompted my initial response).
If we accept that HTC's goal is to make it difficult for one side or another to "win", then what could the doctrine be? Is it:
A: We go along with making it difficult to win, so we will change sides more often and choose the highest ENY planes available.
B: We try to overwhelm the system to get the win quickly.
(A) is counterintuitive to most people who like to win so community support may be tough. If you succeed in (B) HTC will put in more mechanisms to slow you down to achieve their goal of endless combat.
So what exactly are you trying to say? Your Subject is about doctrine but you are posting about maps. Do maps contribute combat? Absolutely. But this is again game design. For a map to work it has to be matched a number of variables that change quickly. Population has a huge effect. If you've ever played on a huge map when there aren't enough people, you get this one. It might be an awesome map for 2000 people but it won't work for 200.
There are a host of other variables. What are you trying to get to? And how is that NOT trying to tell people how to play? Wayneman makes some good points. I too am tired of being PMed by losers who try to rewrite what just happened so they actually won, instead of died. Most of what passes for dialogue in game and in this forum is testosterone laced hyperbole about how great my ideas and my skills are. That is beyond futile.
Alternatively, this place is filled with innumerable people who are willing to tell you how to play and enjoy your $15. It's frankly tiresome.
I tend to go the other way, which is HTC has created a great sandbox. We should start from the place of being thankful that others are willing to spend money and be in this space so we have playmates. Without it, this would be dead and all the game design in the world would be useless. I personally don't feel that we need anyone else trying to tell us how to be.
I am not advocating anything. I simply brought up the concept of an actual war doctrine of AH. And that is combat.
Obviously, maps are the root of the combat. Otherwise we would have a giant DA furball lake.
I intended my OP to include base takers as well as furballers. I did not favor either side.
Your post has some good points. This is the kind of discussion I hoped to spawn.
-
Hell why not.. I'll throw in my $.02..
It seems the general concensus is that "combat" is the purpose of the game, however "combat" has no purpose if you aren't "combating" against or towards some kind of goal..
The way I see the game now is we really have nothing to defend that affects anything, and we have nothing to attack except eachother and inconsequential/meaningless ground targets.. All we have to shoot at that matters "at all" is eachother, which in my opinion can get fairly boring quickly.. The only thing we have to show for our efforts in this game is score (which I truely believe doesn't add a damn thing to the game) and bragging rights by seeing your name in lights when you land 50 kills in a 262 and get 100 WTG's in the text buffer to inflate your ego, or pwning people, filming it, and posting it here on the boards so everyone can grovel at you..
Taking bases doesnt matter.. "Yay we took your base, we are better than joo!" No you're not.. You just had 50 more players in a certain area of the map.. Good for you.
Defending bases doesnt matter.. "Great the entire (insert chess piece here) air force is on my 6!" Screw it.. I'll go find an equal number fight somewhere else..
Bombing strats doesnt matter.. Seriously why? SOO boring and pointless..
Whats left? Furballing, but that only lasts until one team overpowers the other and then you're back to trying to find another "good fight." Everything else in this game honestly is pointless..
I'm not sure I really have an answer on how to fix these issues in the MA, but I've always thought some kind of deathmatch style arena would be fun (no the dueling arena doesn't work for this as its not structured).. Something like a base capture map 2 teams, 20 on 20 or something similar.. Auto balance etc like many modern shooter games.. Or 10 on 10 furball/GV battles etc etc. This would provide an immediate goal and the goal (winning) would be fair game for each side with more weight on skill than sheer numbers..
-
Nova,
I agree there is a clear lack of 'objective' in the game and all actions are pointless, hell, the map resets, and the war continues. Where I disagree is that the only 'point' is to furbal. I too enjoy to furbal but for alot of people, its more like hanging out, drinking and cracking jokes, with airplanes as a pretext around the social occasion.
Personally, I enjoy a good fight, and what drives me to the game is to get the rush from a good fight. Now what others get from it range from, 'cool look at that move I just did!, I just discovered something', to 'I pissed you off, I have power over you, this is fun', to 'I pwnd you, I'm gonna post it, I'm god's gift to cartoon aerial combat and I have digital confirmation of my greatness', etc... But regardless, they all stem from the fact that there is no clear objective and thus it resorts to everyone having some personal 'goal'. When the goals conflict, verbal arguments erupt on 200.
The challenge,
The obvious goal is, to have fun, but that is meaningless. What is the 'Tangible' goal. How do you have a goal in a game like this? is the goal to be as good as possible at '(aerial/ground combat)?
What is 'fun' combat? (obviously winning, but thats stupid, how can you have 'fun' combat with out disfranchising groups in your player base)?
-
What is 'fun' combat? (obviously winning, but thats stupid, how can you have 'fun' combat with out disfranchising groups in your player base)?
So I'm going to compare apples to oranges a bit, but take for instance the game Team Fortress 2 and Aces High..
Team Fortress has structured and fair combat system where two teams battle to achieve a specific goal (capture the flag, get the bomb to the other base etc).. You can play 9 different character classes where each class has its own purpose to achieve that goal.. 2 teams, equal number of players.. Have at it! Great fun.. The higher skilled team will most likely win using correct tactics and pwnage..
Aces High has an unstructured combat system where 3 teams battle to achieve nothing (essentially). 3 teams, tons of different planes to fly, unbalanced number of players (almost always).. No goal, unfair, and the team that has the most players will most likely win regardless of any retarded ENY values imposed on the higher number team.. Also there's no common satisfaction among your team mates (except for when you might take a base, but 99% of the time when a base is taken its capped and the fight is completely over.. Boring)..
From a pure '"this is a video game standpoint," I find I have MUCH more fun in a 'combat' situation playing team fortress than I do Aces High. The fight isn't over until one team actually wins a fair win.. Period..
-
So I'm going to compare apples to oranges a bit, but take for instance the game Team Fortress 2 and Aces High..
Team Fortress has structured and fair combat system where two teams battle to achieve a specific goal (capture the flag, get the bomb to the other base etc).. You can play 9 different character classes where each class has its own purpose to achieve that goal.. 2 teams, equal number of players.. Have at it! Great fun.. The higher skilled team will most likely win using correct tactics and pwnage..
Aces High has an unstructured combat system where 3 teams battle to achieve nothing (essentially). 3 teams, tons of different planes to fly, unbalanced number of players (almost always).. No goal, unfair, and the team that has the most players will most likely win regardless of any retarded ENY values imposed on the higher number team.. Also there's no common satisfaction among your team mates (except for when you might take a base, but 99% of the time when a base is taken its capped and the fight is completely over.. Boring)..
From a pure '"this is a video game standpoint," I find I have MUCH more fun in a 'combat' situation playing team fortress than I do Aces High. The fight isn't over until one team actually wins a fair win.. Period..
interesting I like that concept of actually winning something, seems like more heart pumping team oriented action
-
HTC isn't making it more difficult to take bases and win the war, they are just making it so it isn't so easy.
My head just exploded.
But seriously, great thread.
:salute to all contributors. Who's been handing out the smart pills?
-
I see no difference between team fortress and AH in basic game principles. Both are nothing more then capture the flag. Both have different rolls for players fighters,tanks,supplies ....
Both have an end game, I.E. win the war in AH.
Both have players not simply trying for the goal, but just playing to kill people.
NOVA: Under your idea of no purpose. All games that are simply played for enjoyment have no purpose other then enjoyment.
HiTech
-
I see no difference between team fortress and AH in basic game principles. Both are nothing more then capture the flag. Both have different rolls for players fighters,tanks,supplies ....
Both have an end game, I.E. win the war in AH.
Both have players not simply trying for the goal, but just playing to kill people.
NOVA: Under your idea of no purpose. All games that are simply played for enjoyment have no purpose other then enjoyment.
HiTech
I don't see AH as a game of capture the flag.. I see AH as 100 capture the flag games going on at the same time, all of which are unfair.. Capture the flag is only viable and enjoyable to me when its fair and balanced (equal numbers on both sides battling for superority of a small area), therefore AH is not an enjoyable capture the flag model. As far as the enjoyment factor, I enjoy shooting people down, but it would be MUCH more fun and satisfying to me if there was an "urgent" goal, IE you take a base you actually win, or lose a base you actually lose etc.. Currently if you take a base, there's 100 more you need to take, lose a base, there's 100 more bases that you have to lose before you "actually lose." Therefore there's no "urgent" reason to attack or defend anything because it take HOURS for a map to be won or lost.. I don't have the time nor do I care to play for that long to "win" and have that satisfaction that my actions mattered at all..
As far as people just trying to kill other people, sure you're going to have that anywhere, but I would say the majority of the people when I'm playing team fortress actually play towards caputring the flag when you play a "capture the flag" map, and the people that are just shooting people and not going for the flag are still contributing towards helping their team capture the flag whether or not they are actually trying to.. If you dont want any other match elements in play, just go to a deathmatch map if you want to do nothing but shoot at people..
-
So I'm going to compare apples to oranges a bit, but take for instance the game Team Fortress 2 and Aces High..
Team Fortress has structured and fair combat system where two teams battle to achieve a specific goal (capture the flag, get the bomb to the other base etc).. You can play 9 different character classes where each class has its own purpose to achieve that goal.. 2 teams, equal number of players.. Have at it! Great fun.. The higher skilled team will most likely win using correct tactics and pwnage..
Aces High has an unstructured combat system where 3 teams battle to achieve nothing (essentially). 3 teams, tons of different planes to fly, unbalanced number of players (almost always).. No goal, unfair, and the team that has the most players will most likely win regardless of any retarded ENY values imposed on the higher number team.. Also there's no common satisfaction among your team mates (except for when you might take a base, but 99% of the time when a base is taken its capped and the fight is completely over.. Boring)..
From a pure '"this is a video game standpoint," I find I have MUCH more fun in a 'combat' situation playing team fortress than I do Aces High. The fight isn't over until one team actually wins a fair win.. Period..
Wow, talk about off the reservation. Sorry Nova but... :huh Team Fortress only has a structured and fair combat system if there are squad matches, otherwise it's a frag fest.
To compare squad vs squad duels in Team Fortress to the TDM type of game play seen in the AH main arenas is way out in left field. In every multiplayer game available where equipment choices can be made without restrictions, people will always go for the class/weapons choices they think will give them the advantage; unless it's an arranged match between 2 squads where each team agrees to certain rules and limitations in an effort to "balance" the fight. On TDM servers, it's a free for all frag fest just like the main arenas in AH, every player grabs whatever they think will give them the best chances for the most frags before time runs out. Imagine Team Fortress with 100 different classes and 200 different weapons. If there is any concerted effort among the players, it's a short lived effort to "win the war" before the time runs out. In a first person shooter with smaller numbers and time limitations it's easy to have short lived team effort, but put 300 people in that first person shooter with a large number of weapons choices and a large number of objectives needed to "win the war" and run it 24/7 and you will get the same results as what's seen in the main arenas of AH.
Strangely enough, in your diatribe you failed to note that the same "team play effort" occurs in the AH Squad Dueling League, FSO and some other special events where the admins attempt to create "balance" with the available equipment so that more "player skill" and "team strategy" will determine the winner rather than how much more uber their equipment is over their opponent.
-
Wow, talk about off the reservation. Sorry Nova but... :huh Team Fortress only has a structured and fair combat system if there are squad matches, otherwise it's a frag fest.
To compare squad vs squad duels in Team Fortress to the TDM type of game play seen in the AH main arenas is way out in left field.
Strangely enough, in your diatribe you failed to note that the same "team play effort" occurs in the AH Squad Dueling League, FSO and some other special events where the admins attempt to create "balance" with the available equipment so that more "player skill" and "team strategy" will determine the winner rather than how much more uber their equipment is over their opponent.
So you're saying Team Fortress (or similar games) don't give each side an equal shot at winning? How so?
I dont see making a comparison way out in left field at all.. Both sides are able to choose what they want to fight with, but you have to work as a team to win.. A horde of LA7's isin't going to capture a base, and neither is a horde of c47's, just like a horde of heavy's (most likely) isn't going to capture the flag in Team Fortress. And I wasn't comparing the MA's to Team Fortress.. I was pointing out the differences between their gameplay structures and how Team Fortress does a better job at forcing a fight to achieve a common goal..
As far as the SDL, FSO, and other special events.. That requires me to set aside my time specifically to play those events.. While I like them, more often than not I don't have the time to participate which is disappointing time and time again that I miss them.. If there were 'mock' events like that going on 24/7, that would be awesome.. Thats basically all I'm saying here..
-
NOVA and gyrene,
Both of you are correct in your objective observations. The structural assertions by NOVA are misplaced due to their purely subjective personal nature. Aces High stopped challenging him, or he it.
The more accomplished players in Aces High are often people who seek novel spontanious complexity as its own reward without understanding their motivations. For NOVA becoming one of the permier sticks in the game and then his membership in the muppets over a short period is to be respected and a hallmark of such players. But, with the rapid rise in personal fortune is lost the 'Novel Spontainious Complexity" as it's own reward. It is here where the dissatisfaction creeps in with the systemic methodology for reward chosen by the game creators.
I will venture as soon as NOVA becomes one of the top predators in Team Fortress he will have to look elsewhere for "Novel Spontainious Complexity" to challenge and reward him.
-
From all that I'm reading I have to throw my opinion in here about this one concept Nova has.
Having an achieveable goal to work for that is reachable within min. 6 hours to max. 72 hours. I'm just throwing out some numbers off the top of my head for the reason being, it would be nice to log on and see immediate gratification from your efforts towards the team/country.
As long as I've been playing I've only seen 2 map wins and once I was on the winning team. Now I'm sure it's happen a lot more then that but I'm just saying at the time I was online playing.
It'd be nice to be able to win a map on average within 6 to 72 hours where you see your play is helping.
Then the 25 perks per category would be worth it in my opinion if the time of winning the map was shortened.
I might be off my rocker but this would increase combat/forced game play would it not?
-
So you're saying Team Fortress (or similar games) don't give each side an equal shot at winning? How so?
I dont see making a comparison way out in left field at all.. Both sides are able to choose what they want to fight with, but you have to work as a team to win.. A horde of LA7's isin't going to capture a base, and neither is a horde of c47's, just like a horde of heavy's (most likely) isn't going to capture the flag in Team Fortress. And I wasn't comparing the MA's to Team Fortress.. I was pointing out the differences between their gameplay structures and how Team Fortress does a better job at forcing a fight to achieve a common goal..
No, what I am saying is that AH gives each side an equal shot at winning just as much as Team Fortress or any other game does. It's the players and the choices they are given that dictates game play. Team Fortress doesn't allow several hundred people on a server, if it did I guarantee you would see a disproportionate number of heavies and snipers compared to the other classes unless whoever admins the server puts limitations on the classes. Take out the time limits, limited weapons/classes, increase the map size and the number of objectives and the team work aspect will break down except for short periods of time when a group of like minded individuals decides to work together just long enough to win the map. That same thing occurs in AH. In Team Fortress balance is achieved with side limitations and weapons/classes limitations...in the main arenas in AH weapons and side balance is achieved through ENY. As long as each side stays within certain ranges with the number of player there is no limit to what the players can use, but when the number of players on one side become substantially lower than the others ENY kicks in to restrict what equipment the factions with the higher player numbers can use. We may not like it when that happens, but we are all given the choice to either stay on the side we're on and deal with the ENY or change sides to balance the numbers out...most people just stay on the side their on and then post a bunch of ENY whines on the forums.
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, what would happen if we had maps with...
1) Less airfileds
2) More 'strategic targets' which impacted game play, such as factories, cities which limited the number of planes/gvs could be upped at one time.
3) Smaller maps
4) More arenas, each with 200 players instead of 2 with as many as 400
Just an idea....
-
Aces High stopped challenging him, or he it.
It's not that Aces High has stopped challenging me.. I see Aces high as extreemly challenging, and even being an experienced player I still get my bellybutton handed to me quite often.. It's simply that the challenge (IE dogfighting, bombing, GVing) serves no purpose in the grand scheme of the game.. There's no good or urgent reason to engage in any of those specific areas of the game except to engage just for the sake of soing so..
Your reward for dogfighting is killing another player, your reward for bombing is destroying meaningless objects, and your reward for GVing is to kill another player or destroying meaningless objects.. Every engagement unless there are EQUAL numbers on both sides is unfair, thus degrading the quality of gameplay. HiTech says the game is a big game of capture the flag, but I strongly disagree..
-
It's not that Aces High has stopped challenging me.. I see Aces high as extreemly challenging, and even being an experienced player I still get my bellybutton handed to me quite often.. It's simply that the challenge (IE dogfighting, bombing, GVing) serves no purpose in the grand scheme of the game.. There's no good or urgent reason to engage in any of those specific areas of the game except to engage just for the sake of soing so..
Your reward for dogfighting is killing another player, your reward for bombing is destroying meaningless objects, and your reward for GVing is to kill another player or destroying meaningless objects.. Every engagement unless there are EQUAL numbers on both sides is unfair degrading the quality of gameplay. HiTech says the game is a big game of capture the flag, but I strongly disagree..
It is a big game of capture the flag. In the main arenas it's just easy mode and players are left to do what they want, fight and talk stupid on 200 or win the war. The objectives for winning the war are spelled out in black and white somewhere around here, but there is nothing forcing anyone to win the war. Personally, capture the flag is boring as poop no matter what game it's played in, so are unlimited frag fests that's why I don't play first person shooters anymore.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, what would happen if we had maps with...
1) Less airfileds
2) More 'strategic targets' which impacted game play, such as factories, cities which limited the number of planes/gvs could be upped at one time.
3) Smaller maps
4) More arenas, each with 200 players instead of 2 with as many as 400
Just an idea....
That's an interesting idea Ardy. The only one can predict the outcome of is #4...and I quote:
Waaaaah the <insert arena name> is always full and I can't get in with my squad mates, why is the limit only 200? Why can't the limit be raised to 500? If HTC doesn't change this I'm taking my $15 somewhere else...
The forums would be full of such posts under the title "arena caps". The other ideas would definitely make things interesting.
-
.
It is here where the dissatisfaction creeps in with the systemic methodology for reward chosen by the game creators.
From NOVA...
HiTech says the game is a big game of capture the flag, but I strongly disagree..
Maybe I should respond in Swahili?????????????? :rolleyes:
-
From NOVA...
HiTech says the game is a big game of capture the flag, but I strongly disagree..
Maybe I should respond in Swahili?????????????? :rolleyes:
What I was saying is that HiTech has chosen a reward that I really don't see as a reward because it almost never happens. Not because of my bias opinion of what a reward 'should be'
Whichever team actually wins the war (which is supposedly the reward from a 'macro' gameplay stand point) I'd say 99% of the time that team has an unfair numbers advantage and ENY does nothing to stop it.. Where is the reward in winning an unfair war seeing that this is a video game?
-
Ni hapa ambapo kutoridhika na creeps katika kwa njia ya utaratibu wa malipo wamechaguliwa na waumbaji wa mchezo.
-
Well if y'all need a goal how about something like MW2? I'm sure Hitech and his staff would embrace this ..... :D If you land say 50 kills you get a B29 with a nook that takes out the whole map and a big flashing phalic symbol with your name flashes on everyones screen for 2 full minutes until the servers recover from their crash.......
OK I :rofl
Now i wuit
:bolt:
-
Ni hapa ambapo kutoridhika na creeps katika kwa njia ya utaratibu wa malipo wamechaguliwa na waumbaji wa mchezo.
LOL You made my day.
HiTech
-
Both have an end game, I.E. win the war in AH.
If you felt it worthwhile to put an end game I.E. "win the war" in the main arenas, is there any way we could get some programming to allow the same thing in Axis v Allies arena?
As it is right now, we don't have much control over what settings it will reset to, or which map, so it just ends up a mess after a reset.
-
The biggest difference between TF and AH and the reason the teams have to fight? The maps are smaller.. 8)
:bolt:
-
Bustr uses too many big words
-
Bustr uses too many big words
Translate (http://translation.conveythis.com/Swahili/)
-
Might as well use the bigest ones I can before I get any older and start that slow decline into using depends and viagra.... :old:
-
Bustr uses too many big words
supercalifragilisticexpialido cious
-
Given the sandbox model that AH works off of, that is in general terms a loose collection of items and functionality that can be used in various ways, the problem is generally not with the collection of items and functionality, provided they aren't broken.
If we assume that for the most part, the functionality offered by AH is not broken, then the problem revolves around communication. Communication is on two levels.
1. Are the benefits of game play clear, immediate, and attainable? It appears from the discussion going on here, that the set of benefits are not compelling to at least a set of users. Powning an opposing player in a fight or team in taking a base may be limited in their value in motivating players.
2. Are individual players aware of where the conflicts are located, and the value of participating in that particular combat clear and actionable?
I think the discussion here shows that #1 may not be entirely successful, particularly around territorial combat and winning the maps. It's pretty simple and intuitive to see that shooting down a plane or blowing up a GV is fun and counting up kills can be motivating. What is less clear is how that activity helps or hurts your side. It is also unclear how other behaviors play into the territorial combat. Does side switching help or hurt, what value comes to me if is stay or move? I did a little searching around and the it is not easy to find this information which pretty much guarantees that newbies are not going to see it. That may be something that HTC can choose to address. It can be as simple as a message that informs them of the value of winning the map at the time it occurs or if they have been offline, the next time they enter. Just informing them of what has happened and that it is noticed would help focus players.
As to #2, right now this is somewhat up to the individual user and their ability to read the map and/or the ability of individuals on a side to communicate the urgency and location of a combat, and the ability of others on that side to respond. The value of that participation is also not completely clear. The newbie might well conclude that all bases are important and go to defend them. They will find out two things very quickly:
1. In the vast majority of cases, losing that particular base doesn't change anything, the game goes on.
2. In the vast majority of cases, they lose nothing for the loss of the base.
Currently the only system message is a generic "base under attack message" that doesn't communicate location or urgency or value. That might be a simple addition that can focus attention to that area. Modifiers that indicate magnitude can also help focus, ie. "Large attack coming to A154" or "Single A/C in V 54 radar range." This would help the player locate worthwhile action and in general would be the kind of info they would get from an HQ.
If making kills of planes or GVs or CV groups helps the cause, recognition can help to motivate players. This could be as simple as a system message like, "PlayerX scored 15 Air kills and 4 GV kills their last session." or "PlayerY scored 47000000 bomb damage points their last session." This communicates their achievement and value to a team. This should probably be set at some threshold so people who are learning are not called out as being deficient but it gives them something to aspire to.
These of course are game design decisions and that is totally and completely up to HTC. I'm not espousing a style of game play but only looking at simple ideas to promote combat.
-
This thread got me thinking...
some of these thoughts are dumb, but may have hidden gems. A constant "whine" seems to be maps over the past 8 years. everyone has their favorite (mine was MINDANAO). I remember when HTC used to reset the MA map at 10AM CST every Wednesday, no matter the conditions. What if maps were reset by the host more often? I don't want to create more manual work for the HTC staff, maybe an automated system could be put in place. I see 2 possibilities; the map resets to an new random map every fixed time period say 6 hours, or there is a random time limit varying from 6 to 18 hours and an automated arena message is sent 30 minutes prior to the reset. The "winner" of the reset would be the country with the highest field count, if a tie the country that most recently captured a base. All members of said country would get the reset perks.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. With the fixed setting you may find people flocking to the highest number country trying to "win" right before the reset. There would have to be some mechanism in place either not allowing side switching, or not awarding points to those who switched within X time limit, let's say 3 hours. The side switch could also be limited to a player can only switch to a country with lower numbers, no time limit. Another disadvantage would be forum posts "Knights log on now LWOrange, we are about to get reset points". With the current arena caps I don't think it would as terrible, but still an issue.
With the random time setting there would still be forum posts, but less predictable in time, and with the caps even less of an issue.
Both of these can promote "land grabbing" and there would have to a check in place. Discussions of making it very hard to capture a base have been over-done. Things like 30 troops, and so on. I don't know the answer, I'm just throwing out thoughts.
Another couple possible "winner" scenarios include: most players "in-flight", country with highest k/d since last reset, country with most "large" air bases, country with most forces "in flight" near an enemy HQ, country with most enemy bases captured - bases lost (meaning you need to keep all your home bases which promotes defense), there are many other possibilities.
The static reset could even be spread across the 2 LW arenas, one is at 12, 6, and 12 CST; the other at 3, 9, and 3 CST giving a window for players around the world. They could even flip-flop randomly so 1 arena doesn't become just the "US arena" and the other the "EU arena".
There are nightmare gaming-the-game, and other negative possibilities to what I have thought of, but I just want to think out of the box and give ideas. Heck maybe HTC has already brainstormed these, but I haven't heard them before.
The whole point is promoting a "reward" for playing, not just casually, but being an active participant in the game. Someone like myself who flies maybe a few hours a week wouldn't benefit, but people like me only fly a few hours a week because we still love to be a part of the game, heck with the "rewards". These ideas are for encouraging new players, and building the player base. If it promotes combat then those who love combat will stay. It also promotes a reason to play often which gives the more intense gamers a reason to stay.
<S> just some ideas.
<EDIT> no matter what happens I love this idea:
The side switch could also be limited to a player can only switch to a country with lower numbers, no time limit.
-
Now if Mustaine can just translate this last peice of his into Swahili, I can get out of the old fart business for awhaile........ :cheers:
-
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
I know what your thinking and your wrong here it is
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilic ovolcanoconiosis
:D
Your word is shorter then mine
-
I know what your thinking and your wrong here it is
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilic ovolcanoconiosis
:D
Your word is shorter then mine
I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedali ophobia. Please, you are scaring me to death.
-
FREE BEER AND BBQ AT ARDY123's House...hehehehehehehehehheee eee :x
-
No wait, Bustrs house is bigger, and hes near by... crash at bustrs!!!!
-
1. Are the benefits of game play clear, immediate, and attainable? It appears from the discussion going on here, that the set of benefits are not compelling to at least a set of users. Powning an opposing player in a fight or team in taking a base may be limited in their value in motivating players.
The benefit of the game is the entertainment value. Why it is entertaining is up to each of us to decide.
I see where you are going here. In game, the consequences of actions/decisions need to be significant enough for the players to attack/defend, but not so much as to cripple any side.
2. Are individual players aware of where the conflicts are located, and the value of participating in that particular combat clear and actionable?
My pet peeve: incomplete transmissions.
“CV off shore!”
Where?
“South of me.”
Where are you?
“West of the field.”
This is a player behavior issue. It took me a while to figure out the darn X,Y,Z keypad location system. But still, clear, concise, useful info, please.
“2 sets B-17s inb aXXX ~20k”
What if maps were reset by the host more often? I don't want to create more manual work for the HTC staff, maybe an automated system could be put in place. I see 2 possibilities; the map resets to an new random map every fixed time period say 6 hours, or there is a random time limit varying from 6 to 18 hours and an automated arena message is sent 30 minutes prior to the reset.
The times seem a little too short.
Another couple possible "winner" scenarios include: most players "in-flight", country with highest k/d since last reset, country with most "large" air bases, country with most forces "in flight" near an enemy HQ, country with most enemy bases captured - bases lost (meaning you need to keep all your home bases which promotes defense), there are many other possibilities.
You may be on to something here. Something like K/D factoring into an arena reset would discourage behaviors like bomb ‘n bail. Then again, it might also lead to more risk averse play.
There are nightmare gaming-the-game, and other negative possibilities to what I have thought of, but I just want to think out of the box and give ideas. Heck maybe HTC has already brainstormed these, but I haven't heard them before.
Definitely need to be careful with incentives, because someone will figure out how to game the system.
<EDIT> no matter what happens I love this idea:
The side switch could also be limited to a player can only switch to a country with lower numbers, no time limit.
First impression, I agree. After some thought, it could really mess up squad nights.
-
This is an area in which the Axis vs Allies arena could shine.
With smaller maps and fewer bases enabled, along with experimenting with the downtimes and hardness settings to achieve the correct balance of difficulty required to "win the war" in a reasonable time frame.
If we had the ability to enable a series of maps that would rotate in order, we could run an entire campaign.
For example:
D-day and breakout on bob09, if that map is won, it rotates to battle of the bulge on arden08, if that map is won, it rotates to crossing the rhine on one of the rhine terrains and then onto a final assault on the new Germany terrain. etc.
This could provide it's own automatic reward in the culmination of reaching objectives and provide a "Yeehaw, we rolled the map and advanced the campaign!" experience.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,292433.0.html
-
<snip>
2. Are individual players aware of where the conflicts are located, and the value of participating in that particular combat clear and actionable?
<snip>
As to #2, right now this is somewhat up to the individual user and their ability to read the map and/or the ability of individuals on a side to communicate the urgency and location of a combat, and the ability of others on that side to respond. The value of that participation is also not completely clear. The newbie might well conclude that all bases are important and go to defend them. They will find out two things very quickly:
1. In the vast majority of cases, losing that particular base doesn't change anything, the game goes on.
2. In the vast majority of cases, they lose nothing for the loss of the base.
This is a very good point.
Perhaps a new clip board section - "messages from HQ". You could right click and then click an option to see information sent from HQ regarding the state of the war. Like intelligence or changes in the war front. Now, we can check the status of any base but that is not good enough. A country needs more specific info like...Enemy within X sectors of HQ...or "the enemy has penetrated X battle line"..etc.
jimson said
"D-day and breakout on bob09, if that map is won, it rotates to battle of the bulge on arden08, if that map is won, it rotates to crossing the rhine on one of the rhine terrains and then onto a final assault on the new Germany terrain. etc.
This could provide it's own automatic reward in the culmination of reaching objectives and provide a "Yeehaw, we rolled the map and advanced the campaign!" experience."
How about a rolling map front where it requires conquering one part of the map first, then the next, and the next until the map is won. This would put the fight in perspective and perhaps create an urgency of combat to stop the advance...or force an advance.
This way large maps would be useful. I guess its a matter of creating stepping strategic wins until the whole map is conquered.
I think the maps are part of the "Holy Grail". Take the "Pizza" map for example....how effective is that...it's a pizza for gods sake. I know it has canyons and has parts that promote high and low combat but the map itself doesn't offer a reward other than furballing. THe other map ??name with the volcano in the middle and 25k mountian ranges between countries is even worse.
You guys are coming up with great ideas. :aok
-
How about a rolling map front where it requires conquering one part of the map first, then the next, and the next until the map is won. This would put the fight in perspective and perhaps create an urgency of combat to stop the advance...or force an advance.
This way large maps would be useful. I guess its a matter of creating stepping strategic wins until the whole map is conquered.
These too are good ideas.
My take was a specific way to repurpose an arena with something close to what is already possible without a lot of development effort.
By tweaking the already existing map reset and rotation system and using small maps or enabling smaller areas of large maps until such time as the population increases to warrant larger maps etc.
I believe the AvA could serve as a test bed for this type of strategic game with loosely base historical campaigns.
It certainly needs something as it is quite difficult to run scenario type play in a 24/7 arena. This concept would make it more automatic.
If the worst thing that could happen is that off prime time milk runners reset the arena and advance the map, that would be preferable to how it is now where if the map gets porked it won't reset but will remain porked until a CM gets in to fix it.
-
After re-reading this thread in it's entirety it seems that in the simplest terms it always comes down to a "Tale of two playing styles."
Often debated as Furballers vs Basetakers
1. Those who are interested in the individual fight just for the sake of the good fight.
2. Those who are interested in strategic game play that rewards goals and objectives met.
They are not all inclusive and there is a middle ground where some people enjoy both aspects.
Here is the main point as I see it.
Individual examples of number 1 can occur within game play centered around number 2, but not the reverse.
Hence the reason it is desirable to have an end game or way to win, even if it is only temporary until the next map is loaded.
-
...
6.) Sandbox environments rely on the imagination of the child, not the complexity of the sand.
...
Well said, sir! :aok
-
Well said, sir! :aok
Quote from: bustr on July 10, 2010, 01:47:56 PM
...
6.) Sandbox environments rely on the imagination of the child, not the complexity of the sand.
...
Nice, kinda like sig material for the zen pilot.....
What if your sand box had rules. Rules that said you can only play in one part of the sand box until it was time to move to the next part. Or, you can only use certain toys in the sand box at certain times.
Now the child must use his imagination within the rules of the sand box.
-
Gurglesnort................
-
I believe that the combat side of it is that when attacking the bases or a base. Then defender's each all rally sufficient number's to either deffend or attack base's thus creating combat in 3 form's sorry 4-5 forms Land-air power 2 naval power 3 ground vechle power 4 naval air power and 5 the defence of the homeland by any means necesery.
That's my opinion i personally go where help is needed and try to give help but i normally arrive too late :lol.
:salute