Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Letalis on October 09, 2010, 12:01:38 AM

Title: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Letalis on October 09, 2010, 12:01:38 AM

1. First of all, I love this game and thumbs up for the recent updates (IE Towns/airfield/terrain changes) 

2. As much as I like the improved realism of the new city layout, a new gameplay dynamic seems to be prevalent.  If one side gets serious about taking a field, the amount of resources required seems higher.  The result is a scenario where even larger swarms of aircraft than before end up circling a dying base for a much longer period after the base itself has no real defensive capability.  This is a change from before when a handful of aircraft could take a base and just a few well-piloted defenders could break things up.

3. Nowadays those three valiant/foolhardy sticks are asked to fly against odds twice as hard and simply stop upping or grab a GV to plink for 20-40 minutes while the other team figures out who will bring troops.  Is this more realistic than before? Yep.  Is it more fun? Nope. Am I saying go back to the old towns? No way.

4. My initial hope for the town change was that the end result would be more organized missions and more organized  defenses.  I've seen a little of the first (though not more frequent than before, just bigger) but nothing of the second. The community is too fragmented and there is no motive for defenders to stay and fight when they can return the favor at the other end of the map.  The result is what I've seen the last two months:  Maybe one small fight somewhere on the map (maybe) and three blobs playing with a deserted base.  How do I know this?  I switch sides trying to find a fight and can't! (That was rarely the case 6 mos ago even if there were comparatively fewer players online.)

5. Perhaps the player base will do something, evolve somehow to correct this rather boring trend, but I don't see it happening. People seem to be quitting and I doubt new players will get hooked on the awesome combat gameplay that can be found here if they are unable to find substantial enemy numbers without overwhelming odds. The odds are bad enough for them simply by virtue of being new. (Conversely, flying 5-10 minutes, vulching one or two planes, loitering for 5 more and 5 minutes heading home can't be much fun either.)  This game rocks best when there's an air fight happening with less than 10-1 odds.

6. My playing time has taken a dive the past couple months for a couple reasons: 1. Less time to play due to real life commitments. 2. Less time to play means I can't spend an hour trying to make or find a fight. I don't have two hours to see a battle through into the base capture phase anymore. If I log in and there are basically 3 blobs in both arenas, it's logout time and that's a shame  :(

7. I don't think the player base will "adapt" at this point. I do think the fun factor has dropped which will lead to less players over time and exacerbate the new dynamic leading to exponential player fallout rates. (I know, doom doom doom) It's just not as much fun lately and there don't seem to be as many folks on as a year ago. (Economic woes not helping either)

Just my 7 cents...


 :salute

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: FiLtH on October 09, 2010, 12:48:46 AM

  Im with ya man, I do my flying in DA now. Hope something is re-thought.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: JHerne on October 09, 2010, 01:09:10 AM

The reason I shifted over to AvA. Well said sir!  :salute

I think part of the problem stems from the lack of numbers in the arena at any given time. With an arena cap of 100 or 200 split between 3 sides, a large map is going to have lots of little things going on and perhaps one or two bigger fights like you've described above. A smaller map obviously creates more player density and there's usually some sort of battle to jump into that's worthwhile. I prefer the smaller maps - it creates player density, and taking a base actually matters, as they're worth more in terms of percentage points. The exception to this is Tuesday night - I know most of us complain because of the lag issues, etc., but there's always something big happening when 450+ people are in one arena.

I think everyone has different expectations, too. Some live for the all-out 50-plane furball, others prefer the 1v1 tangles, some for the base take, some for the long buff runs, etc. Unless we have smaller maps that would enable all of these personalities to be in the same places, I don't see how the player base will effect any changes unless there's some dramatic shift in the game itself (delivered by HTC) that could create it.

One of the problems that you nailed on the head is that players will defend until it no longer becomes advantageous to them, then they'll move on. Certainly, there are lots of players on all sides who will defend to the bitter end, but most of the general population goes off to find a fight that its in their favor.

J

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: bustr on October 09, 2010, 04:52:32 PM

Smaller maps promote density of hoards, rapid taking of ground and a lack of ability by one or two of three sides to disengage from the constant forced stress of defending. Usualy at that point in the past before the MA arena splits players logged off for the night. Now they jump arenas or log off. As your maps get bigger players can distance themselves from the frustrations associated with hoards and do what they want or mount a counter attack. Most players want the illusion of being in numbers that favor their emotional needs instead of frustration levels.

What you are lamenting is the norm with human behavior. Conflict avoidence. Even in a conflict based game there will only be a minority of players who are emotionaly rewarded by conflict itself. The rest will seek the most reward for the least effort and exposure to danger they can. HiTech has provided you the ability to change sides if you are simply looking for conflict. I suspect your needs are more emotionaly complex than that though. My squads answer is to pick a fight. If no one shows up, we take their sand box away untill we get a fight or the wives say it's beddyby time. Guess we aren't as complex as some of yall's.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: StokesAk on October 09, 2010, 05:03:32 PM

I have seen this almost every time I log on, frankly it sucks.

My squad tries to go drum up fights by attacking a base, but no one ups because the concept of defending bases has been lost.

Although this is a problem, I dont know what could be implemented to stop it.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: BrownBaron on October 09, 2010, 05:07:39 PM

I can never find a decent fight in the MA, it seems. Been doing my flying in the DA or AvA, when I actually have time for flying, that is.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: bustr on October 09, 2010, 05:25:37 PM

Change to the knights. Everyone beats up on them now. Never takes very long for POTW to get a response from bish or rooks when we pick a fight. Guess peopols juuust loves to kick a Pig..... :)

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: BrownBaron on October 09, 2010, 05:33:17 PM

Quote from: bustr on October 09, 2010, 05:25:37 PM

Change to the knights. Everyone beats up on them now. Never takes very long for POTW to get a response from bish or rooks when we pick a fight. Guess peopols juuust loves to kick a Pig..... :)

I've flown on the knights since I first started playing. We are the "mindless furballers" of the 3 chess pieces. When ever I find a small fight with 2 or 3 players, the non-knights tend to vanish after finding that they won't be getting assured kills. If there's a big furball that could go on for hours on the map, there's almost always a 2:1 friendly to enemy ratio. It just isn't fun trying to beat 10 other guys to pick 1 poor spixteen. If I switch sides and try to combat the knight horde, I get ganged in to oblivion.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: bustr on October 09, 2010, 06:47:02 PM

Thats OK, this style of game is always feast and famin. There are always players like yourself and the OP who point out this obvious cycle. POTW has always found some way to amuse itself for the last 9 years. Before that I saw the same thing in AW for about 10 years.

I could simply be easily amused and lacking in imagination. But, I've also listened to players like yourselves lament other players misguided conduct and lack of the programers not coading cohersive manipulation of player activity taylored to your temperments and specific narrow expectaions as the never ending MUZAK of online gaming all of these long years. 

You are paying $14.95 for access to multiple virtual open access paintball arenas with free weapons and three large groups of individual players wearing three different T-Shirts. It's always been up to us paintballers to arrange working partnerships and/or choose who and how we smear each other with paint. Not all players are really looking for a fight. If they were the DA would have an arena CAP limit with complaints in this Forum to open a second DA or remove the CAP limit. Most players are looking for a narrowly defined Social Experience taylored to their tollerance of risk versus reward.

The pendulum is quietly swinging back from a few years ago because players are discovering they might want smaller maps to make it easier to find someone to have a Social Experience with. They used to want bigger maps to get away from the constant hoards and have cosy less stressful little tea parties. Lots of players like yourselves are making a similar observation from differing perspectives now about those private little tea parties. The maps are too big and everyone is avoiding each other because it's too cosy.

Big maps worked when we had a single MA Arena and for Titanic Tuesday. I wonder if something the size of NdisIsles is not more appropriate to the average population size these days in the two LWMA? You get a bit of hoarding but at least you don't have to hunt for action......

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: caldera on October 09, 2010, 08:21:22 PM

My observation is that there is less of a committed effort to base taking (by the general populace - not dedicated base taking squads) because of the increased difficulty with the new towns.  There is still base taking going on, but it seems to involve more steamrolling than before.  Unless a big horde gets rolling, smaller groups are more likely spending their time vulching up a few kills to get their jollies. 

I don't like taking bases, but the attempts do generate fights.  I would like to see the acks removed from the town and the field acks doubled.  Fields could still be porked and hangars bombed, but it's a one sided fight if the field is capped and the ack has been dropped.  Most fights shouldn't normally be right over the field IMO.  Fighting over the town (without ack interference) would be better than vulchers vs. "suicide score pad fodder" battles.  Certain players that only fly a select 5% of their sorties in fighter mode might disagree with that.  ;)

Making the towns a little easier to down and curtailing the vulching a bit might encourage some smaller fights.  Organized defense isn't likely to happen as the "organized" types typically prefer a numbers advantage and also like smashing stuff.  The "furballer" types and lone wolf types gravitate more toward defending against the numbers.  The only organized defense I can think of is the feeding frenzy that occurs when someone types "NOE LANCS!" over country channel.   :lol


   -signed,
            A skill-less, non-furballing, non-base-taking, gv bombing, side-switching spy.




EDIT: time to fire my damn proof reader

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Letalis on October 09, 2010, 10:40:38 PM

If I were at work and started this thread I'd have gotten hate mail about "presenting a problem without a solution" or somesuch lazy managerial blather- so here go some ideas for better or worse:
(Disclaimer: Approximately 15 seconds of thought went in to each of these ideas at a time when I should have been sleeping:)
(Disclaimer's Disclaimer: I stared at the "15 second" ideas for a few minutes, deleted them and actually put 22 seconds of thought into the new ideas. Enjoy:)

1. Smaller maps.  Yep, the blobs will have to run into one another at some point right? 

2. Assigned sides with a persistent war and tweaked perk system:
-Yep, that first part seems contradictory to the goal of "finding a fight now" when taken at face value, but hear me out and it might make even less sense :) Let's face it, most folks aren't going to cry if they have to switch sides from Rooks to Nits in order to find a fight. In fact, a lot of folks do it for the sake of balancing sides. Most of us don't care about chess piece worship. Do most of us care who wins the war?  :uhoh Is the war even getting "won" after the change with Titanic Tues/Wed/Thursday rolling around every week? Why care about getting organized when you are only in it for the fun or the stats? Personally I think the following would help:

A.   Expand the player's in-game identity.
B.   Giving said identity a chance to "make a difference":
C.   C. Rewarding the player adequately for making that difference. 

A. Expanded Player Identity:
-Since he is "more" he'll care about more: (Sorry Betty, I'm not PC:)   If a player gains an identity as member of Squad X and a member of Country Y, two things will happen:
-First, he won’t switch sides.
-Second, he’ll care more about the war, especially if he has something to lose or gain by the outcome of the war. How do you get this identity?  Limit his ability to switch sides. This isn’t to prevent spies, it gives “Loyalty” needed time to form. 

B. Giving Players a Chance to Make a Difference:
-Have a persistent arena that only switches maps when victory is achieved. No cap limit to kick you into another arena.  Wars need continuity for buy-in.  Titanic Tuesday was great for furballs, but it is less so now.  3 blobs are moving around trying to take bases on a map that should only last 24 hrs?  Nah… When I first joined, there was a definite ebb and flow to the war and I enjoyed it- it made me come back and just log on to see where things stood…
-I’ve seen/commented on threads out there talking about Forward Operating Bases http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,297762.0.html and improved mission planning: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,298048.msg3811546.html#new
-More missions going will mean bigger fights, protect the noobs and give them a quicker handle on the game.  Small Fwd operating bases and a retooled strat system will mean a few focused players can actually impact the course of the war.

C. Rewards:
-Other than the considerable and timeless joy watching enemy aircraft go down in flames… To gain something, something must have been held back. Work towards something for once! 
-Give new players 500 free perks when they first open their account- enough to unlock 5-6 fighters, a GV or two and a bomber. That is PLENTY to do for a month. (You’d be able to fly any plane in a mission created by another player)
-If you are online when your country makes a base capture, I say +3 perks for you in each of the three categories. Even if you weren’t there, chances were you’d tied up baddies elsewhere.  BUT...
-If you’re online and your country loses a base, so sorry, -5 perks for ya. This will keep people from sitting in tower accumulating perks for doing nothing other than throwing off ENY.  Hopefully it will also cause more flyers to consider mounting a coordinated defense as well…
-Alrighty, now the big twists: 1. You don’t get access to your perks instantly like you do now. You only get them at the start of the next tour. (Waaahhh!) 2. How many perks do you get?  Well, if you won you keep all the perks you earned by shooting down stuff last tour and get a 1.5 perk multiplier for capture perks earned during successful wars.  If you lose a war, you only get to keep half of the perks you earned by killing stuff and retain none of the perks gained from base captures in lost wars. (You never go negative for this BTW)  Will this drastically change gameplay?  Probably not- I don’t think many people care about perks, but it will make a few players care more about the outcome of the war.

3. Consider a two-sided arena in the style of AvA.
-Just “us” and “them”…This will guarantee your country has a fight on its hands at all times. Combined with limiting side-switching opportunities you can get into "ingroup" and "outgroup" dynamics. Sorry for the psych terms but I was a Psych major in a past life and am still amazed at the changes a little “us and them” can bring to competition. 

4. More realistic radar: (Big pet peeve) 
-The new radar settings make it easier to see the bad guys, perhaps too much so.  It takes something from the “WWII feel” IMO and makes the game feel a touch arcadey. Were some folks taking advantage of NOE raids before? Sure. Could 8 ME110s level a base for a capture in 4 minutes or less? Seen it.  Would the same tactics work as well on the new town? Yes, but not quite as well due to the increased size and spread. 
-Since coading realistic terrain-masking is probably a difficult proposition, mebbe something simpler? For radar base alt maybe try something like (Field Elevation +50ft)+[(0.3%x5280)(X miles from DAR)] The intent here is a radar beam starting at 50 ft above the field elev gradually sloping upward to ~80 feet at 1 mile, ~110 at 2 and  approx +350ft at 10 miles… This way you don’t have some radar sitting in the mountains atop a 50 foot tower at 1.5k MSL able to paint red dots 20 miles away at 100’MSL.

Well, that turned into a big post  :O! All easier said than done of course, but as much as I like new planes, you need a good war that you give 2 whits about to have the most fun in them.  :salute

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: FLOTSOM on October 09, 2010, 11:30:00 PM

oh damn you guys are making life difficult!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

do you have any idea how hard it is to be sarcastic and antagonistic in the face(s) of pure well thought out rational logic with supporting theories?????????

DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!

you must all stop this level of intelligent thought now before you strain the thunking equipment the rest of us cartoon heroes were gifted(?) with!!!!!!!!!!

if you fail to cease and desist in this current form of malicious behavior you will find yourselves speaking with my very wordy and extremely expensive Attorney!!!!!

Disclaimer: for those who have read my post and have failed to realize that my entire post was sarcasm based on complimenting the fine thoughts of the authors above, then i suggest you go back to school, i would suggest starting at kindergarden. this time don't eat the damn apple yourself!!!!!!!

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Letalis on October 10, 2010, 12:41:25 AM

Kindergarden? It was Meanergarden for me!
And I couldn't eat the fricki'n apple because some idiot with half the IQ and twice the thyroid gland took it from me! I'm never going back! Never!!!!
Roll that dancing banana!  :banana:

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: bustr on October 10, 2010, 05:40:05 AM

Letalis,

I bet you surf 3 or 4 movies on cable at the same time and get boared easily with simple plots but don't have any interest in complex puzzels like Rubics Cube if they take you more than 20-30 minutes to decisively solve. I bet you like well ordered spread sheets and presentations that reduce your complex view of things to black and white formulaic explanations. And here I have the patience to put 20 years into this stupid game. HiTech was an AW'er and did programming for them before Warbirds. I've had the unique and enjoyable experience of watching a fine work of art being crafted for 20 years. And you are so boared in such a short period of time and think the game needs a new groove...... :lol

Like I said earlier. This style of game is feast and famin. I've watched it cycle like clockwork for 20 years. Something will be different next month. The yearly player cycle will change depending on the time of year. HiTech will release a patch or new version up to a dozen times a year. I've been in the game AW till now through 2 recessions and the current one. That directly effects player personality and conduct. You are getting older and less easily amused by simple things.

As HiTech once put it if I remember correctly: What you want is not what you need.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Letalis on October 10, 2010, 09:50:50 AM

Bustr,
-You have the disease right, but not the symptoms :) I don't pay for cable: cable=mental autopilot.  Rubic's cube? Not that smart, it's a daunting challenge to continued sanity. :headscratch:
- I would point out that you were right about the social side of AH on previous posts. It seems the Pigs have the social thing happening, which is huge.  You guys are also large enough to mount your own legit offensives. You also only play as Knights so you have a strong Squad/Country identity. Would I be correct in saying that adds alot to your AH experience? (On the other side of the coin, I haven't seen a squaddie for 2 months which has led me to look more at the game itself)
-I get what you're saying and you're probably right- I just have my own limited perspective of the last 3 yrs.  Because I have ideas that might make the game better doesn't take anything away from what the game already is. 

Getting older sucks, but there are still simple things that occasionally amuse me.
Roll that dancing banana! :banana:

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Chilli on October 10, 2010, 02:24:12 PM

I must be insane, I agree with everything said here, seems to me not to be any contradiction to be for changes in gameplay or simply waiting for the next patch or group of players to decide "What we gonna do now, Willy?"

Anyhow Letalis and others are right to kick out suggestions that might offer solutions to AH cabin fever.  So, here are some of my under developed thoughts:

Option to allow AI to control gunner positions in bombers...

results in more bomber activity and maybe slightly better bombing

Add more than one task group for each port...

results in more purely sea battles, blockades, perimeter defenses, etc

Artillery lines behind spawn points...

results in advanced scouting capabilities and spawn camp busting

Not all above ideas are original, credit to those who thought of it first, but I would hope that presenting options with a greater chance of survival, are always attractive.  This is why we have squads, hordes, and side balancing measures.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: JHerne on October 11, 2010, 12:37:11 PM

Well, regardless of your position on this, there's same damned well-thought ideas here.

People by nature tend to resist change - it takes them outside of their comfort zone - more so if they've established themselves within the upper half of the population with regards to the behavior within their environment (yea, I was a psych major once, too).

I'm all for new ideas or concepts to make the overall game more diverse. New planes, vehicles, etc., are nice, but they don't do much to address the out boundaries of the game (and game play). I think implementing new concepts, while not an easy task, is the easiest way to keep the game interesting.

Case in point - artillery. It adds an element to the game that we don't currently have. Some will argue there's a need for it - others say we can achieve the same results with our existing GVs. However, it adds a new element to the game, that requires new strategy, countermeasures, and planning and implementation into the way we currently do things. Finding things like that - I'm all for it.

J

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Chilli on October 11, 2010, 01:57:35 PM

I should be working on ideas for AvA terrain, but I got bogged down with limitations of my old POS system.  In it I had hoped to include the new AT guns hidden on hilltops to simulate an Iwo Jima island type scenario.  If anyone, would like to offer any assistance in that area let me know.  USRanger and MrMidi have been more than generous with their time and help.  With my system limits I am pretty much stuck with coming up with ideas and only being able to implement them on very small scale maps.

Concept:

(Hill:  AT gun )      (Hill: AT gun )     (Hill: AT gun )

(Spawn point here:  X  )


(Invasion spawns here:  X )

(Beach Landing / Vehicle Base with AT gun positions)

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: JHerne on October 11, 2010, 02:41:21 PM

I'm kinda in the same boat with regards to AvA setups. I have all the data and historical stuff, just haven't learned how to implement it all yet.

We should talk offline about some AvA ideas I have. Combined with your terrain ideas we might have something.

J

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: SmokinLoon on October 11, 2010, 05:07:44 PM

At the end of the day, the number of towns leveled, bases taken, CV's sunk, or strats bombed is irreverent to the combat experience of the players involved.  Sure, everyone likes to "win", but what is the point of the fun meter is minimal.  I think most people would rather have success in a mini-mission and be involved in that success or near success vs having no effect while in a 20 vs 1 vulch-furball fest while taking a base.  That is no different than standing on the sidelines and watching your team score all the points and then getting a pat on the back for doing a good job. 

For every action (offense) in AH there is a viable re-action (defense).  If team A swarms base X like fleas then team A can get leg humped by team B who launched from base Y and comes in from an advantageous position.  There are so many mini-missions that can be had other than taking/defending a base.  I take great pride in taking out barracks (no troops/supps) at a nearby enemy base knowing that their offensive just got delayed a bit while they wait an hour for barracks to repair or a 15 min or so to be re-supped.  What is even more fun is to go on up the line and take out the barracks of the base they are using to re-supply the base you just disabled troops at.  It is amazing what a single Mossi, or better yet a pair of Mossis can do to an enemy's supply line.

My point is simple: stop focusing on taking a base and learn to broaden your scope of what fun can be had in AH.  Not all the missions in WWII were to capture territory.   ;)       

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Ghosth on October 11, 2010, 05:10:12 PM

Smoking nailed it. With a big hammer!

Lots to do, you just need to look around a bit, get a bit creative.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Letalis on October 12, 2010, 02:36:36 PM

Quote from: SmokinLoon on October 11, 2010, 05:07:44 PM

At the end of the day, the number of towns leveled, bases taken, CV's sunk, or strats bombed is irreverent to the combat experience of the players involved.  Sure, everyone likes to "win", but what is the point of the fun meter is minimal.  I think most people would rather have success in a mini-mission and be involved in that success or near success vs having no effect while in a 20 vs 1 vulch-furball fest while taking a base.  That is no different than standing on the sidelines and watching your team score all the points and then getting a pat on the back for doing a good job. 

For every action (offense) in AH there is a viable re-action (defense).  If team A swarms base X like fleas then team A can get leg humped by team B who launched from base Y and comes in from an advantageous position.  There are so many mini-missions that can be had other than taking/defending a base.  I take great pride in taking out barracks (no troops/supps) at a nearby enemy base knowing that their offensive just got delayed a bit while they wait an hour for barracks to repair or a 15 min or so to be re-supped.  What is even more fun is to go on up the line and take out the barracks of the base they are using to re-supply the base you just disabled troops at.  It is amazing what a single Mossi, or better yet a pair of Mossis can do to an enemy's supply line.

My point is simple: stop focusing on taking a base and learn to broaden your scope of what fun can be had in AH.  Not all the missions in WWII were to capture territory.   ;)       

Gave this some thought...right now at the end of the day, you could make a case that towns leveled etc is irrelevent to the combat experience of the players involved.  Make a case, but probably not win.  The game's mechanics drive gameplay dynamics and hence the experience.  This thread would not have started were it not for the three independent hordes usually seen in MA.  "Combat"  (players fighting players) has seen a decline and the game is not as fun as a result. I'd say that qualifies as affecting "the combat experience" of players involved.

Right now the "war" is an abstract backdrop to the fighting with no real purpose for existence.  Your example of killing barracks (while interesting) is ultimately equally irrelevant to vulching the lone spixteen with 30 of your closest friends. The gameplay mechanics should promote players fighting other players.  How often do you see people ask "where's the fight?" and get frustrated.  A massive vulch-fest does not qualify as a fight.  The war should provide context for the action and give it meaning; for that to have any chance of happening there should be a winner.

If you disagree with all the above, I still say it is a rather backwards proposition having to find creative ways to enjoy a game that costs $180/yr to play.   

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Yossarian on October 12, 2010, 07:12:12 PM

The one thing that's become apparent to me in this thread is that if you want strategy, you need smaller maps.  I personally think more strategy in AH can't be a bad thing, and I think smaller maps are more fun anyway.

That said, however, the #1 goal of any game is to have fun.  I personally have fun by lobbing 75mm shells at tanks from 1K out, and watching the turret fly off (1000lb bombs will also do nicely, if said tank happens to be a T-34).  Other people will have fun by attempting to prevent me from doing the above.  Overall, if you don't have fun, then don't play.  But never forget that overall purpose of any game: to have fun.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Chilli on October 13, 2010, 05:07:08 PM

Letalis has a point.  Gaming is for FUN!  Yet, "Furballers" are frequently called out for ignoring base capture attempts/ defense on MA country channel.  What is that furballers do?   :banana: Have fun with ACM  :joystick: and the flight models  :airplane: developed by HTC.   

The DA, I suppose could possibly be a snack for the furballers appetite, but the full blown Squad versus multiple enemy combatants meal ticket is not complete.  There are no scores or stats or crowning of monthly DA heroes. 

Okay, KOTH then  :aok .  Twice a week  :headscratch: Though, a totally awesome experience, it is a tournament, that hosts many of the MAs top furballers, and forbids any wingman tactics at all.

Axis versus Allies, the meat AND potatoes for me....... buuuuuuuuuu...... tttttttttt      You freaks  :mad: won't fly in there (self involved moment).   :neener:

Somehow, I still manage to slip into a furball or two or three (who's counting  :uhoh ), bang on a few hangars  :rock , wing up with my squadees  :cheers: , get pwnd in a KOTH joust tourney  :noid , and find a few other than myself to enjoy historically matched air battles in the AvA  :pray .

Is it too late to demand a refund for my $15? (sarcasm)   But the MOST despicable gameplay, and least fun exists in the mechanics of how fields are captured.  :furious

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: EskimoJoe on October 13, 2010, 06:17:19 PM

Quote from: Letalis on October 09, 2010, 10:40:38 PM

<snip>
-If you’re online and your country loses a base, so sorry, -5 perks for ya. This will keep people from sitting in tower accumulating perks for doing nothing other than throwing off ENY.  Hopefully it will also cause more flyers to consider mounting a coordinated defense as well…
<snip>

Sorry, but I don't want to lose perks for every time my retarded country-mates can't defend a base or my retarded enemies sneak a base while others are having a nice fight elsewhere.

Just my two cents.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: Chilli on October 14, 2010, 01:00:32 PM

I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, that someone suggested tying the factories to certain aircraft.  I don't think that HTC would ever consider that, but that is a more realistic simulation of effects from strategic attacks on country resources.

Title: Re: New Gameplay Mechanic Needed? My Feedback
Post by: FLOTSOM on October 14, 2010, 02:33:55 PM

Quote from: Chilli on October 14, 2010, 01:00:32 PM

I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, that someone suggested tying the factories to certain aircraft.  I don't think that HTC would ever consider that, but that is a more realistic simulation of effects from strategic attacks on country resources.

as an offshoot to your offshoot someone once mentioned in another thread somewhere that they should tie factories to current country eny. obviously the uber rides will be the first effected by the strat bombing. which in reality serves the purpose of weakening your opponents ability to mount offensives against you using the top of the line gear. this creates a slightly more significant air of reality of cause and effect. it gives motivation to both attack and defend the strat targets.

before the argument of greater number sides will attack strats to balance the eny........ummmmm well yes they will use their greater numbers and worse rides to attack fewer numbers in better rides....see the balance potential? additionally when being attacked by these greater numbers worse eny countries then by porking thier factories you will increase an already elevated eny causing the horde to use worse and worse rides thus giving the lower numbered country a better fighting chance.