Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Guppy35 on November 26, 2010, 01:42:33 PM
-
No more whines, no more complaints. Just your ideas to make AH the game it's supposed to be in your eyes. Be specific. No blame game. No ripping someone elses idea. Just put your 'cure' to all that makes AH broken in your mind.
-
Hell I just got out of two+ hours playing the game. Everything worked fine as far as Im concerned.
-
get rid of the BBS :P
-
The game worked fine for me, killed plenty of lemmings so far. Did something break?
-
As far as I am concerned the only thing that really was broken had been corrected recently. The only other thing being somewhat close to broken status may the map rotation, because right now there is none.
But there is always a lot room for improvement on many aspects ;)
-
Give Jeeps nukes.
-
No more whines, no more complaints. Just your ideas to make AH the game it's supposed to be in your eyes. Be specific. No blame game. No ripping someone elses idea. Just put your 'cure' to all that makes AH broken in your mind.
We have maps with 200 bases and a zillion sectors, yet most clump together in a very small area (I don't even know if many people view that as an issue?)...... as has been said before, zone eny, or ever better IMO, limits of how many can be aloft from individual bases. Would spur mission planners to exercise some thought, having different types of planes upping from different bases...something more than just a crapload of 51's and mossies running from point A to point B asap. When's the last time you joined a mission that had waypoints?
-
more spitfires!
-
Bring back the single LWM arena. :D
-
Add a WWI MA.
G, D, R... :t
-
Make it easier for the base takers again. ive heard from many in the game that the game's base taking aspect is too hard now. some of these guys are respected by the community too. alot dont voice their opinions out loud. ive actually heard from multiple bishops through PMs that they want to leave now because the game has become... boring.
Not my opinion. what i love doing is still there taking bases or not...
-
I've been working on a strat system idea for a bit. Might get it posted next week.
-
:aok
Dan, i love you
-
Lose the rank system, then people will be less likely to avoid "dying" :D
-
Just your ideas to make AH the game it's supposed to be in your eyes. Be specific.
I like your previous idea about getting everyone laid. :devil
-
I don't think that it is broken...but I do have an idea to freshen things up...
Queued arenas.
Sorta like missions, but they get there own mission arena for the duration.
Players wait in a lobby like we have now, only with missions posted. People sign up till que is filled up and could be anonomys or not.
examples:
1vs1 random same plane 5k
1vs1 ijn vs usa random 8k
10vs10 lw vs usa random 25k
10 player ffa random 10k
10vs 10 cv battle
really limitless possibilities...withnin the planeset.
-
More 109's g10 and the A/S models
-
I don't think that it is broken...but I do have an idea to freshen things up...
Queued arenas.
Sorta like missions, but they get there own mission arena for the duration.
Players wait in a lobby like we have now, only with missions posted. People sign up till que is filled up and could be anonomys or not.
examples:
1vs1 random same plane 5k
1vs1 ijn vs usa random 8k
10vs10 lw vs usa random 25k
10 player ffa random 10k
10vs 10 cv battle
really limitless possibilities...withnin the planeset.
I like that concept....a mission arena. Special Events covers quite a bit of this, obviously, but not every night, I don't believe, and certainly not every 30-60 min
-
I like your previous idea about getting everyone laid. :devil
+1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 :devil
-
I like that concept....a mission arena. Special Events covers quite a bit of this, obviously, but not every night, I don't believe, and certainly not every 30-60 min
not coincindentally, the ava could serve as such. great maps from ranger, great setups from the crew there........ :aok :D
and grizz......yes. :rofl
-
The current maps we have are a bit too big for 24/7 split arenas
create smaller maps for:
early war arena - 64 x 64 mile map
mid war arena - 128 x 128 mile map
late war arenas - 256 x 256 mile map
-
Remove squadrons, arenas, planes, and online interaction.
Make printable gridded versions of the arena maps and then have players draw their suggested base taking strategy on these maps. Scan and upload your version of the map to stand in poll with others. The winning map for each country is the new state of the "arena". Repeat every week, with luck the war could be won in a year or two.
The prize for winning could be a new sharpie to plot base takings with, or perhaps a decorative frame to place the winning map in.
For added fun implement map caps, where only so many people may submit maps at a time depending on the time of the day, everyone else can receive a "SERVER IS BUSY" message.
-
Get rid of the 38's and more importantly those who fly them. :D
-
Remove squadrons, arenas, planes, and online interaction.
Make printable gridded versions of the arena maps and then have players draw their suggested base taking strategy on these maps. Scan and upload your version of the map to stand in poll with others. The winning map for each country is the new state of the "arena". Repeat every week, with luck the war could be won in a year or two.
The prize for winning could be a new sharpie to plot base takings with, or perhaps a decorative frame to place the winning map in.
For added fun implement map caps, where only so many people may submit maps at a time depending on the time of the day, everyone else can receive a "SERVER IS BUSY" message.
Epic win.
-
Bring back the single LWM arena. :D
Well with the arena closing, I need a pie chart here. 20 mins waiting till i get the boot. 40 more mins waiting for the arena to fill and start fighting. Hey, Snailman doesn't have to do this watermelon so it's gravy! This crap will get old fast so yes give me 1 arena!
-
Get rid of the 38's and more importantly those who fly them. :D
Are we done spamming the Rook country channel Sunbat! You were so uber last night!
-
Finish up & give us our private servers with custom terrain & AI use. All I need. :aok
-
get rid of the BBS :P
There is the best idea I've heard in a looooooooong time. :aok
-
Give me the La-5, cut it down to only two chess peices in the MA's and better maps :)
-
Give everyone a trophy, just for participating.
:banana:
:bolt:
wrongway
-
Are we done spamming the Rook country channel Sunbat! You were so uber last night!
LOL. I just got the ball rolling. I got in a fight and looked at the buffer 10 minutes later and it was still going. :D
-
1. Remove the facility for ingame comms between opposing sides.
2. Remove the facility for identifying who shot down who ingame.
1+2=(closer to reality X 2)
-
WAAAAIIIIIITTTTT!!!!!!!!!
Ok, im ready(:
(http://elitechoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Pet-Cine-Lounge11.jpg)
-
Personally I dont think the game is broken, just the balance appears to be a tad biased. Biased towards the furballers, to the detriment of the base takers (speaking in general here)
To resolve that, it could be an idea to adjust the radar height from 65ft to 150, but remove the ability to put the plane on auto pilot. Adjust the requirement for town to be fully down (80 - 90%? instead) which could be done globally without (if the way its coded allows) having to adjust all the towns individually.
This would give the base takers the ability to run noe missions, but make them work at it too. Leave the radar rings size as is, and make town flash when an NOE hits the outer limits of the radar (as it currently does).
Merely options, ymmv,
Wurzel
-
I'd love to see some new maps similar in size to NDisles & Mindinao or just a bit larger. Yeah...I know..."Max, go make one." If I had the time, I might.
I fall half way in-between the "furballers/win the war" mentality. Either can be fun depending on circumstances. I'd like to see a new water based map...perhaps a bit larger than Ndisles as an alternative to the large maps normally rotated through the LWOrange arena. And yes, provide a TT/furballer center combat area.
my .02
-
I just got back from quite a break from AH. ( my computer had crashed, and I didn't have the immediate funds for a new new one. )
There doesn't appear to be any glaring issues with the game itself, I returned to find it fun and as addicting as ever. :)
There were plenty of fights and the numbers were pretty balanced. I had no trouble at all getting in the same arena as my squaddies, I think the off-hour arena is a great idea.
The game has definitely changed for the better since the last time I played. Great job HTC.
-
Well with the arena closing, I need a pie chart here. 20 mins waiting till i get the boot. 40 more mins waiting for the arena to fill and start fighting. Hey, Snailman doesn't have to do this watermelon so it's gravy!
Oh please stop exaggerating, oh disgruntled one!
Right now, it's 15 minutes after the peak arenas were closed and 5 minutes after boot. And there are 104 players in the offpeak arena, and the fight is already on. Not even close to "40-60 minutes" to get the fight started. And of course it's easy to totally ignore the fact that with the old system, we had hours of reduced action due to 100 players on a large map or 20 people staring at a small sized one.
And yes, "Snailman has to do this chit" too. The switch to peak mode happens at 23:00 local and back to offpeak at 8:00 in the morning. And as you can see, I'm already playing.
-
It was classic in Blue tonite. A guy comes in about 1/2 hour before the switch. "Only 98 people in here. When is HTC going to figure out we need only one arena so we can at least have people to fight!"
Half hour later "5 minutes til the arena closes" "This is lousy! We've got good fights going on here. Why is HTC wrecking this!"
Damned if you do and damned if you don't :)
-
Lose the rank system, then people will be less likely to avoid "dying" :D
:aok
Would be best thing for this game.....get rid of score and rank!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RV1iVAt9Ak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RV1iVAt9Ak)
-
an option to opt out of ranking system. Not talking about perks or score. At the beginning of each tour a player would be given an irreversible option to opt out or stay in for the entire tour. On the clipboard it would say something like NA.
see related discussion here
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,300937.0.html
-
It was classic in Blue tonite. A guy comes in about 1/2 hour before the switch. "Only 98 people in here. When is HTC going to figure out we need only one arena so we can at least have people to fight!"
Half hour later "5 minutes til the arena closes" "This is lousy! We've got good fights going on here. Why is HTC wrecking this!"
Damned if you do and damned if you don't :)
and he is the type of person i've referenced here on the bbs many times in the past. :aok
-
We need base or zone limits. Bases should not be able to support unlimited numbers of planes at one time. The ability to take bases is not the problem. the hordes are the problem. Particularly the ones that insist on only attacking bases where the enemy isnt. Create a base limit and you spread the uppers into wider front
While I respect the idea posted in another thread about points and victory conditions. I still dont beleive that points and/or victory condidtions alone are not going to get people to bomb the strat targets more. Nor will it cause people to want to defend them. I think that for most people its nice to be around when a war is "won". It really isnt that big a deal to most when it isnt.
We need strat targets that actually do something. that are actually worth attacking. right now the strats simply arent worth the effort ot attack or defend. HQ is the only strat target with any meaning. and half the time only a few people even bother to defend that. opting instead to just resupply it when its hit.
We also need to return to zone bases. When we had zone bases it placed some greater value on certain bases over others. there was a certain degree of strategical thinking in planning attacks. and you were far more likely to get people to run over to defend a zone base then you were any of the others
I also liked the idea of limiting heavy bombers to bases behind the front lines. Though I think what what would be a better idea would be to limit bombers to the type of base. Small feilds should only up fighters and the lightest of bombers as IRL they would have had dirt runways and the smaller feilds wouldnt be able to logistically support the heavies. Medium feilds being a bit more developed and a bit larger would be able to support the mediums. And limit the heavies B-17s, Lancs to the large bases.
Though I dont think that idea will ever see the light of day. It would add a touch of realism
-
I personally think that split capped arenas are a really bad idea to begin with regardless of the reasons given other then technical. And no amount of tweaking is going to fix it.
Leave two arenas but uncap the arenas for a week and you will very quickly see what the community as a whole thinks is "fun"
While numbers over 400 may create bad blood. Forcing people to play where they dont want to and without the people they want to is creating even more bad blood then you had before.
-
3 guys offering ideas....100 being jerks...don't think that can be fixed or programmed out Dan .....
bottom line is the same 5 guys jumped in faster then the guys who have concerns...little internet warriors that are tards just because....
sorry not even worth me offering my two cents....
honestly Dan...can't YOU let it go...you were kind enough to bow out of the last thread but then jump back in to start another troll???? I've always considered you a mature member of this community...please don't prove me wrong :salute
-
3 guys offering ideas....100 being jerks...don't think that can be fixed or programmed out Dan .....
bottom line is the same 5 guys jumped in faster then the guys who have concerns...little internet warriors that are tards just because....
Well, if it's not broken....
wrongway
-
Bring back the single LWM arena. :D
-
3 guys offering ideas....100 being jerks...don't think that can be fixed or programmed out Dan .....
Dont exaggerate the facts, only 49 replied.... many of those duplicated posts, nowhere near 100.
-
My Problems + Reasons
In no particualr order;
Collision Model - Often used to score kills through ramming rather than actual combat. It seems a bit messed up when the one trying to avoid contact should crash and die, leaving the rammer to fly home damage free to land his hard earned ram kill.
Aircraft - Lack of the He 111 makes the BoB lack immersion. I'd like more options, Wellington, Blenheim, Hs129, Oscar, Nick, Raiden, Tojo, Irving, I153, IL10, LaGG3, IL4, Tu2, Fiat G50/55, Ju52 to name a few I've enjoyed in other sims.
Graphics - I'd like an option to have the mirrors the actual aircraft had, would help out the non-bubble canopy aircraft. C47 and a few others are seriously graphically deficient. The Clouds/Weather SFx are also in need of more eyecandy.
Arena Caps - I've waited to join my squad. Time waiting to enter an arena, is time not best wasted. Why are we balancing arenas when ENY exists?
inFlight PMs - Any victim of vD****S will agree that we don't need these channels for 'that' kind of purpose.
-
How about some maps with light snowy terrain? ...or at least Fall colors? ...and for god sakes some desert terrain?...... I am sooooo bored with these endless green tiles....I have served in this game for twice as long as the bloody war lasted...yet the seasons NEVER change ....boring
how about some more clouds? ...and some rain and snow? ....bring back the cold front!!
bring back the 5min of night time ....I liked it ...and i don't care if you didn't like it! my 14.99 is just as good as yours!
Maps are entirely too big ....oz Kansas is good example ...its a great design ( I love it) ....if we had 1500 players on it it would be great ...but 200 on people on it? .....it's 3 times too big
Helm ...out
-
3 guys offering ideas....100 being jerks...don't think that can be fixed or programmed out Dan .....
bottom line is the same 5 guys jumped in faster then the guys who have concerns...little internet warriors that are tards just because....
sorry not even worth me offering my two cents....
honestly Dan...can't YOU let it go...you were kind enough to bow out of the last thread but then jump back in to start another troll???? I've always considered you a mature member of this community...please don't prove me wrong :salute
This is pretty weak, even for you.
-
un cap and leave one main arena, secondary main arena is fine but the main should not be capped at less than 300!
if not that then show side numbers in the lobby and allow players to change sides there to get into capped arena's for side balancing.
bring back old strats as secondary strat targets,
bring back the old tank town or something like it for the hours of senseless GV fights and build some big mountains around it
Make small airfields, fighter only.
-
How about some maps with light snowy terrain? ...or at least Fall colors? ...and for god sakes some desert terrain?...... I am sooooo bored with these endless green tiles....I have served in this game for twice as long as the bloody war lasted...yet the seasons NEVER change ....boring
how about some more clouds? ...and some rain and snow? ....bring back the cold front!!
bring back the 5min of night time ....I liked it ...and i don't care if you didn't like it! my 14.99 is just as good as yours!
Maps are entirely too big ....oz Kansas is good example ...its a great design ( I love it) ....if we had 1500 players on it it would be great ...but 200 on people on it? .....it's 3 times too big
Helm ...out
have you seen rangers twinrivers map yet?
i've lfown night time as recently as a month ago.
-
3 guys offering ideas....100 being jerks...don't think that can be fixed or programmed out Dan .....
bottom line is the same 5 guys jumped in faster then the guys who have concerns...little internet warriors that are tards just because....
sorry not even worth me offering my two cents....
honestly Dan...can't YOU let it go...you were kind enough to bow out of the last thread but then jump back in to start another troll???? I've always considered you a mature member of this community...please don't prove me wrong :salute
WoW, seeing as you didn't offer any suggestions for the game I'm guessing your post falls under the "....100 being jerks..." Thanks for posting.
As for me, I don't think the game broken. The changes made have made it more challenging. More challenges equals more fun.
-
get rid of the BBS :P
+102,397
Changeup
-
1.New maps and different types of bases. Ie.....bridheheads railyards
2.nerf the Brewster lol
-
WoW, seeing as you didn't offer any suggestions for the game I'm guessing your post falls under the "....100 being jerks..." Thanks for posting.
As for me, I don't think the game broken. The changes made have made it more challenging. More challenges equals more fun.
bolded......truest, and most common sense statement i've seen on these boards.
-
have you seen rangers twinrivers map yet?
i've lfown night time as recently as a month ago.
What arena does this map pop up in? ....I have never seen it. Thanks for the information.
Helm ...out
-
As for me, I don't think the game broken. The changes made have made it more challenging. More challenges equals more fun.
I don't think it is broken either,,, I do however think there is less to do now than there was, we have the same tools yet the jobs , other than killing,, have all become harder
More to do = more fun= more players,, I have said before,,not everyone who plays this game can be a great fighter jock, and that is the only roll that has not gotten harder,
IE base capture is harder= more players to take a base or requiring less to defend it
bombing strats and or towns is harder= less players doing it or requiring less people to defend from it
game play will adapt to the new towns,, yet the strat system and its destruction has for the most part,, stopped!
while some may think that is good, i would think that it should still be important to the game,
bombers flying to strats= targets for fighters
strats that have been hit= reasons to resupply= cooperation.
something for the bomber drivers to do besides hitting all the hangers would be a good thing in my opinion!
I still wish for the old,, or another version of tank town as well
I remember the old tank town having 75 or more people fighting at it for hours on end,, the only thing anyone complained about that i can remember were the bombs falling, so making it a little harder to get ord into tank town would be a good thing!
maybe a GV arena
-
+102,397
Changeup
You do realize that reading and posting in the BBS is not mandatory, right?
-
You do realize that reading and posting in the BBS is not mandatory, right?
He's addicted, he can't help it :D
-
What arena does this map pop up in? ....I have never seen it. Thanks for the information.
Helm ...out
it comes up in the ava. it's been up 2x in the last 3 months, although i don't know when next it'll pop up. with that map, we had night time for 5 minutes at a time. we also had a coral sea(i think) map that not only had night time for 5 minutes, but also had weather sometimes....such as a hazy 5 mile vis(which looked VERY much like it does in real life), and wind......and wind can throw your whole fight off. :devil
this is a destroyable bridge on that map. there's towns on each side of the bridge, and v-bases a couple miles inland of the river.....
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/groundattack2.jpg)
higher alt fight, but ya can see some of the terrain....
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/avavsfw190.jpg)
and a couple night time pics....
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/avanighticonson.jpg)
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/avanighttimeinthesights.jpg)
-
3 guys offering ideas....100 being jerks...don't think that can be fixed or programmed out Dan .....
bottom line is the same 5 guys jumped in faster then the guys who have concerns...little internet warriors that are tards just because....
sorry not even worth me offering my two cents....
honestly Dan...can't YOU let it go...you were kind enough to bow out of the last thread but then jump back in to start another troll???? I've always considered you a mature member of this community...please don't prove me wrong :salute
Wasn't meant to be a troll. Just thought consolidating specific ideas might make some sense.
-
I just got in game and also realized we need many more small water craft in the game,, destroyers groups and the like,, we have a lot of ocean on many maps that is just wasted space!
smaller battle groups and the like would give someone the opportunity to to sail the high seas much like the bombers with formations fly around now!
-
Lose the rank system, then people will be less likely to avoid "dying" :D
I get more fun out of trying to make it back than the actual fight itself. Getting rid of the rank system will not coax folks like me into turn fighting an a20 against an a6m.
-
WoW, seeing as you didn't offer any suggestions for the game I'm guessing your post falls under the "....100 being jerks..." Thanks for posting.
As for me, I don't think the game broken. The changes made have made it more challenging. More challenges equals more fun.
You are such a troll...you have posted in the other thread where most of this has been hashed out and suggestions were made. So you are very aware that I have already shared ideas AND i feel this thread is a troll. YOU have posted in a thread titled "fix the game" to try and shutdown ideas by stating how you don't think anything needs fixed. :huh A brighter bloke might have realized this wasn't really pertinent to him UNLESS he just liked being a jerk... :rolleyes:
-
You are such a troll...you have posted in the other thread where most of this has been hashed out and suggestions were made. So you are very aware that I have already shared ideas AND i feel this thread is a troll. YOU have posted in a thread titled "fix the game" to try and shutdown ideas by stating how you don't think anything needs fixed. :huh A brighter bloke might have realized this wasn't really pertinent to him UNLESS he just liked being a jerk... :rolleyes:
Pound sand?
-
I get more fun out of trying to make it back than the actual fight itself. Getting rid of the rank system will not coax folks like me into turn fighting an a20 against an a6m.
in ava last week, i kept upping a p-39d against zeeks. it was suggested to me to bnz em, as that's the only chance a 39 has against them,. same thing was suggested the week prior in a p-39q against the 109's and 190's.
guess what? although i spread a LOT of parts of my own planes on the landscape, i did land 3 109 scalps in a single run.......i don't do the rank thing. i just fly to fight, or help where it's needed.....and sometimes i bravely run away to see if i can land em. oh yea.....i didn't bnz anyone either. :devil
-
it comes up in the ava. it's been up 2x in the last 3 months, although i don't know when next it'll pop up. with that map, we had night time for 5 minutes at a time. we also had a coral sea(i think) map that not only had night time for 5 minutes, but also had weather sometimes....such as a hazy 5 mile vis(which looked VERY much like it does in real life), and wind......and wind can throw your whole fight off. :devil
Thanks Cap .... weather and visibility issues are such an important part of being a pilot. I wish the members of the Aces High comunity would see weather/visibility as a excitement to the game, not as a hindrance. Oh well ...I can dream can't I? LOL
Thanks again CAP ...and much thanks to Ranger ....what an awesome job he did
Helm ...out
-
Thanks Cap .... weather and visibility issues are such an important part of being a pilot. I wish the members of the Aces High comunity would see weather/visibility as a excitement to the game, not as a hindrance. Oh well ...I can dream can't I? LOL
Thanks again CAP ...and much thanks to Ranger ....what an awesome job he did
Helm ...out
yep...without him, and people like him making these maps, this game....and that arena would totally suck. as it is, i still think we have the absolute best entertainment value for our money sitting right here under our noses......... :aok
-
In another thread it was about ENY and 2 sides with less numbers attacking the one with peak numbers (defending outnumbered and with ENY penalty).
I have an idea.
It's not elaborated at all.
It would combine 2 game dynamics: ENY on country level and Earned perk points on the individual level.
An extension in the clipboard would show a dialog like:
=============================================================
Your country is penalized by ENY:
If the players of your country sacrifice x thousand perk points within the next x minutes(count down), the following planes and loadouts will be available during the next x minutes
In the bucket: x thousand perk points
Stille needed: x thousand perk points
plane/loadaut
----------------------
xxx/yyy
.
.
.
List of players and perk points
-------------------------------
playera/xxx
playerb/xxx
If the x thousand perk points are delivered in the announced time span, the conversion perk points to reduced ENY is executed.
Otherwise the perk points are sent back to the individuals.
=============================================================
-
Not a fix but some "tuning" maybe.............
In no order of priority and without elaboration.
Thresshold for an "attaboy" @ 2 kills plus 2 perks earned. (motivation away from uber rides)
A local horde limiting gameplay control or motivation( reduce hording excesses)
Heavy ordinance load outs perked .
Attack given its own perk classification. (to buy heavy ordinance with)
Bombers only able drop from F6 view after a residence delay.
Formations disabled when attack classification is chosen
Attack aircraft forced to release from Pilots view.
F3 disabled for all but formation bombers.
Terrain mechanisms to remove the airfield as the focus of capture and therfore attrition/combat. (maintain the "war" focal point but remove attrition mechanisms that deny players local access)
Spawn roads for GVs to foil spawn campers.
Require only 80% of the town to be down prior to capture being viable.
-
Maybe tweak the assist model??
-
I like the game as it is, can't really think of anything to change other than the age old DA requests..
- Turn killshooter off in DA
- No F3 view in DA
other than that, perfect game. :aok
-
I agree with the DA suggestions Batty. :aok
On the question of how to fix the game.....i've never seen a game everyone is 100% happy with. No matter what HTC does there will always be someone who doesn't like something about it. There ain't no fix for that. The best we can hope for is that HTC does whatever needs to be done to make the majority happy and willing to come back for more.
The game itself i think it's a blast the way it is. Far better then anything i've played before. It's usually the PLAYERS actions that can make it suck sometimes, not HTC. :old:
-
I like the game as it is, can't really think of anything to change other than the age old DA requests..
- Turn killshooter off in DA
- No F3 view in DA
other than that, perfect game. :aok
i wonder what it would be like with killshooter off in all of the arenas.
-
i wonder what it would be like with killshooter off in all of the arenas.
As far as the MA goes: unplayable
-
* New MA maps... Its been the same maps for years.
* more advanced weather & turbulence, it often feels like I'm flying in a vacuum
Oh and snailman, have you had the opportunity to visit bar-chartia? they have cheap flights from Nerdovsk to Geeksburg.
-
I like the game as it is, can't really think of anything to change other than the age old DA requests..
- Turn killshooter off in DA
- No F3 view in DA
other than that, perfect game. :aok
Split the furball and the dueling portion and enable eny in the furball portion then it would be perfect.
Oh and get rid of overwrought ppl who have no sense of humor and who can't take a joke like falconwng. :aok
-
I like your previous idea about getting everyone laid. :devil
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl now thats funny!!!!
mmmmmmmm....lets see, what will make ME happy in the game???
i would like 2 5" guns put on my tiff, i would also like a female pilot inside my tiff instead of the ugly lil dude thats in there now....and bring back the donut map!!! :)
yep, thats all i want....i already have my name on the front of my tiff, so im pretty damn happy to begin with :)
-
Split the furball and the dueling portion and enable eny in the furball portion then it would be perfect.
Oh and get rid of overwrought ppl who have no sense of humor and who can't take a joke like falconwng. :aok
Gooooo Aggies beat Texas.....oh wait thats right we just did :aok NOW thats funny!!!!! :lol :rofl :lol :rofl
-
Will post my thoughts/full write up of my ideas in a wishlist thread soon Guppy. Tingle in anticipation.
-
Gooooo Aggies beat Texas.....oh wait thats right we just did :aok NOW thats funny!!!!! :lol :rofl :lol :rofl
I think what is even funnier is the overall series is 75-37 so it will take the Aggies 38 straight years of wins before they can make any claims of dominance. Now THAT is really funny!!!
-
I think what is even funnier is the overall series is 75-37 so it will take the Aggies 38 straight years of wins before they can make any claims of dominance. Now THAT is really funny!!!
I had a GOOD Thanksgiving! Slept well!!!! :rofl :x :bolt:I look forward to 38 more of these!!!!
(Your only as good as your last whooping) :D
-
I want a streak counter
better yet i want windows 7 so i can alt tab without discoing or randomly crashin gand ruining my once a tour no deaths or dc streak.
fck vista formatted hd still sucks
-
Thanks Cap .... weather and visibility issues are such an important part of being a pilot. I wish the members of the Aces High comunity would see weather/visibility as a excitement to the game, not as a hindrance. Oh well ...I can dream can't I? LOL
Thanks again CAP ...and much thanks to Ranger ....what an awesome job he did
Helm ...out
I agree we need weather and night time back, it was fun to fly at night. While we are at it we need constant speed prop controls and we need random mechanical failures and random engine failures,
guns jamming etc.
-
I agree we need weather and night time back, it was fun to fly at night. While we are at it we need constant speed prop controls and we need random mechanical failures and random engine failures,
guns jamming etc.
A random cloud or two would be a start for me. Changing terrain would be nice also. Meh, I'll pass on gun jamming!
-
Lose the rank system, then people will be less likely to avoid "dying" :D
Damn Rino, haven't a bunch of us been saying that for years upon years but nobody seems to hear it. hehehe
All the Best...
Jay
-
I agree we need weather and night time back, it was fun to fly at night. While we are at it we need constant speed prop controls and we need random mechanical failures and random engine failures,
guns jamming etc.
those things would make it quite interesting..........
-
The only thing I would like to see changed is the number of bases on most of the maps. Even on a semi busy time, say with 250 people in LWO, there are maps with over 100 bases. Having the number of bases dropped to say, 15 per side, so 45 total would encourage a lot better fights IMO. I have no idea what this would do for the strat type players, but I know for the players who log on and immediately look for a good fight, it'd be a lot easier to find them if things weren't spread out so much. Having more bases than players a lot of the time seems strange to me. We would have a lot faster map rotations no matter what, hahah.
-
kill this server change
I don't feel like playing anymore when a perfectly fine arena decides it's time to go night night and open up the "off hours" if it's "off hours" why am I paying for it. O_o
-
kill this server change
I don't feel like playing anymore when a perfectly fine arena decides it's time to go night night and open up the "off hours" if it's "off hours" why am I paying for it. O_o
So HTC's response to the concerns of the off peak hours players was a bad thing? Does this mean you are for the two LW arena set up? There seem to be some mixed messages about this lately.
-
smaller maps and lessen the number of airfields for early and mid war arenas
-
Change the scoring system so that difficult things score higher.
For instance the relative numbers of friendlies and enemies in a fight are one of the most important factors in determining who lives or dies. Have the FE tot up the numbers of red and green icons in view at the point of each kill and apply a multiplier, maybe factor icon distance in too. So twice as many green as red would reduce the number of points you get for the kill and vice versa. The effect of this would be to reduce the gangbang mentality of those who fly for score as those players would tend to seek out more even fights. Currently their best option is to hide in a horde of teammates and pick those who are already engaged. The benefit to those like me who don't care about score is they would be more likely to get into a fight without getting dogpiled.
Alter the way bomber scoring is done to make strat city targets more valuable. This would open a whole new level of MA play; high altitude bomber raids with escorts, plus interceptors. Currently the easiest way for bomber guys to get points is to hit airfields. Bombing the strat cities is more difficult, has no real strat effect and earns less points. All that effort making the new strat cities has been largely wasted by the score system.
-
What Greebo said :aok
BTW, perk Greebo in his Hellcat! Greebo + Hellcat = 2 x perk points :salute
Maybe put in a few Air spawns on maps to help drive the fight to a reasonable altitude. No matter how high you come in, if you find someone co alt and engage in a dog fight the altitude quickly melts away. This is a tactic that I use when I know players are flying high cap over our fields. I come in with equal alt and push the fight down to the point where they are exposed to attacks from below as well.
-
Change the scoring system so that difficult things score higher.
For instance the relative numbers of friendlies and enemies in a fight are one of the most important factors in determining who lives or dies. Have the FE tot up the numbers of red and green icons in view at the point of each kill and apply a multiplier, maybe factor icon distance in too. So twice as many green as red would reduce the number of points you get for the kill and vice versa. The effect of this would be to reduce the gangbang mentality of those who fly for score as those players would tend to seek out more even fights. Currently their best option is to hide in a horde of teammates and pick those who are already engaged. The benefit to those like me who don't care about score is they would be more likely to get into a fight without getting dogpiled.
Alter the way bomber scoring is done to make strat city targets more valuable. This would open a whole new level of MA play; high altitude bomber raids with escorts, plus interceptors. Currently the easiest way for bomber guys to get points is to hit airfields. Bombing the strat cities is more difficult, has no real strat effect and earns less points. All that effort making the new strat cities has been largely wasted by the score system.
nice!!
how about when you up to defend a base , the hangers all go down and your left by yourself, in a tiger YEA!!! but you kill 3 other tigers 15 t-34s, 11 m-4's, countless m-3' ect ect,, as well as fending off bomb after bomb and getting a few planes into the mix,,
40 plus kills in a 40 perk tiger should pay more than 12 perks!
I guess I am thinking of local ENY,, If its one against a 40 it should pay better,, if the hangers are down,, it should pay more,, as you kill more,,, the value of the kills should pay more,
-
Change the scoring system so that difficult things score higher.
Alter the way bomber scoring is done to make strat city targets more valuable. This would open a whole new level of MA play; high altitude bomber raids with escorts, plus interceptors. Currently the easiest way for bomber guys to get points is to hit airfields. Bombing the strat cities is more difficult, has no real strat effect and earns less points. All that effort making the new strat cities has been largely wasted by the score system.
I Still dont think its the score system that prevents the strats from being hit, but rather the lack of impact hitting them has. But yes. I think all the effort put into making the new strat targets has been wasted
Reasons I say this are,
You can get all kinds of perks in EW fighters. Yet most fly late war rides.
You can get more perks per flight by simply setting up your plane for "Fighter" or "Attack". and then sticking to that kind of mission. Yet I bet very few actually do this.
People blow up the FH, VH, ord and radar not for the points. But because they have an effect. I dont ever recall anyone saying, "Hey, Im gonna go blow up the radar and ammo at feild A-222 so I can get alot of perks"
Furthermore. There isnt any real reason to get bomber perks. Sure we have the 234. but how often are they used? Im sure we will have a rush of folks blowing things up to get the perks for a B-29 when that arrives. But eventually that novelty will wear off and we'll be back to square 1.
People dont necessarily want to do things just for points. They want to have an effect n the game. Currently the strats have no impact. They simply dont do anything. So why waste all that time upping, getting to alt then flying all that way to blow something up thats not going to do anything once you do get there and will have regenerated by the time you get back home again.
THERE IS NO POINT to bombing strats. Thats why I dont bother hitting them. And I'd be willing ot bet that thats why most other people dont either.
Its also why I dont bother defending against them and why most people dont.
Ok, Lets say you award 10,000 points for blowing up the strats. Even if the buff pilots say thats great, lets go do it. There is still ZERO reason for anyone to bother upping to defend against them, because they dont have an effect in the game.
Why subject yourself to the buffs laser beams if all they are going to do is blow something up that doesnt matter?
I say "Hey, let em do it. Then there are that many less hitting my airfeild."
Until the Strat targets are given a real game impacting meaning. they will never be a primary target no matter how many points be you award for them
-
THERE IS NO POINT to bombing strats. Thats why I dont bother hitting them. And I'd be willing ot bet that thats why most other people dont either.
Its also why I dont bother defending against them and why most people dont.
Ok, Lets say you award 10,000 points for blowing up the strats. Even if the buff pilots say thats great, lets go do it. There is still ZERO reason for anyone to bother upping to defend against them, because they dont have an effect in the game.
Why subject yourself to the buffs laser beams if all they are going to do is blow something up that doesnt matter?
I say "Hey, let em do it. Then there are that many less hitting my airfeild."
Until the Strat targets are given a real game impacting meaning. they will never be a primary target no matter how many points be you award for them
I think you are underestimating the power of score ponts and landed damage messages.
There is also no point in bombing remote town centers - in case of frontline towns, it is often even contra productive due to offset building respawn times.
Yet it is constantly done - just because it's the most "rewarding" target. The majority of those 15k+ landed damage messages you see in the arena come from bombing town centers.
Once the strat target would get it's point value adjusted, so that the most difficult to reach and heavily defended (puffy) target outclases the towns, you will see a lot more attackers.
Of course, the perfect combination would be score AND impact on gameplay.
-
Maybe along with the addition of this new bomber there will be more emphasis on the strats and a good reason to fly it instead of what they do with heavy bombers now, the NOE Sacri-tards............. :devil
-
I would like to see the fights concentrated over the towns or strat targets. Instead, we have a group of red guys hovering over a friendly field and a group of green guys over an enemy field. Not much fun when you get gang BNZ-ed if you venture off the runway.
-Double the number of ack on the airfield and eliminate it from the towns. Let the fight be where there is no ack to hide in and no vulching.
-Move the strats much closer to the front so they actually offer an attainable target.
-Add in rail yards or factories - anything to move the location of the fight from the airfields.
-Add in vehicle spawns to more locations. Multiple bases to spawn into makes more places to fight. We need to have more and smaller fights instead of fewer large ones.
-
Change the scoring system so that difficult things score higher.
For instance the relative numbers of friendlies and enemies in a fight are one of the most important factors in determining who lives or dies. Have the FE tot up the numbers of red and green icons in view at the point of each kill and apply a multiplier, maybe factor icon distance in too. So twice as many green as red would reduce the number of points you get for the kill and vice versa. The effect of this would be to reduce the gangbang mentality of those who fly for score as those players would tend to seek out more even fights. Currently their best option is to hide in a horde of teammates and pick those who are already engaged. The benefit to those like me who don't care about score is they would be more likely to get into a fight without getting dogpiled.
Alter the way bomber scoring is done to make strat city targets more valuable. This would open a whole new level of MA play; high altitude bomber raids with escorts, plus interceptors. Currently the easiest way for bomber guys to get points is to hit airfields. Bombing the strat cities is more difficult, has no real strat effect and earns less points. All that effort making the new strat cities has been largely wasted by the score system.
Mucho greato....+1
-
I Still dont think its the score system that prevents the strats from being hit, but rather the lack of impact hitting them has. But yes. I think all the effort put into making the new strat targets has been wasted
Reasons I say this are,
You can get all kinds of perks in EW fighters. Yet most fly late war rides.
You can get more perks per flight by simply setting up your plane for "Fighter" or "Attack". and then sticking to that kind of mission. Yet I bet very few actually do this.
People blow up the FH, VH, ord and radar not for the points. But because they have an effect. I dont ever recall anyone saying, "Hey, Im gonna go blow up the radar and ammo at feild A-222 so I can get alot of perks"
Furthermore. There isnt any real reason to get bomber perks. Sure we have the 234. but how often are they used? Im sure we will have a rush of folks blowing things up to get the perks for a B-29 when that arrives. But eventually that novelty will wear off and we'll be back to square 1.
People dont necessarily want to do things just for points. They want to have an effect n the game. Currently the strats have no impact. They simply dont do anything. So why waste all that time upping, getting to alt then flying all that way to blow something up thats not going to do anything once you do get there and will have regenerated by the time you get back home again.
THERE IS NO POINT to bombing strats. Thats why I dont bother hitting them. And I'd be willing ot bet that thats why most other people dont either.
Its also why I dont bother defending against them and why most people dont.
Ok, Lets say you award 10,000 points for blowing up the strats. Even if the buff pilots say thats great, lets go do it. There is still ZERO reason for anyone to bother upping to defend against them, because they dont have an effect in the game.
Why subject yourself to the buffs laser beams if all they are going to do is blow something up that doesnt matter?
I say "Hey, let em do it. Then there are that many less hitting my airfeild."
Until the Strat targets are given a real game impacting meaning. they will never be a primary target no matter how many points be you award for them
i used to hit strats, but the better part of the strats for me was, resupplying them,, i have seen it pay as much as 40 perk points for one M-3 trip,, now that is gone!
-
I think you are underestimating the power of score ponts and landed damage messages.
There is also no point in bombing remote town centers - in case of frontline towns, it is often even contra productive due to offset building respawn times.
Yet it is constantly done - just because it's the most "rewarding" target. The majority of those 15k+ landed damage messages you see in the arena come from bombing town centers.
Once the strat target would get it's point value adjusted, so that the most difficult to reach and heavily defended (puffy) target outclases the towns, you will see a lot more attackers.
Of course, the perfect combination would be score AND impact on gameplay.
I dont think so. Im still convinced the reverse is true.
Most of the landed bomb score messages I see arent the result of fishing for perks, but rather attempts at dropping the fields or towns for a base capture.
They do it in part for the perks yes. but its a small part. They do it mostly to have an effect on the game.
And of those most of the bomber attacks I see are on the feilds themselves. Again. It has a potential impact on the game.
Question to the buff pilots. Why do you bomb feilds/towns?
If it were mostly about perks. You would see far far more bomber, single or group attacks on those undefended bases. Yet still when you see attacks on undefended bases they are, by far more often then not base capture attempts. Again. It has or potentially has an effect on the game.
And yet still. the very vast majority of bomber runs on bases and their towns. Are at bases and towns where a fight is already occurring.
Why? There is no point benefit by taking the harder route and hitting a base where enemy already is. Its far easier and less likely to run into enemy opposition in any kind of numbers where the enemy isnt then you would at a base where a fight is underway. If your perk farming. it makes more sense to go where the enemy isnt and no sense at all to go where the enemy is.
As for the strat targets. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've personally seen in the last month missions to the strats and have a bunch of fingers left over. Not that they dont happen more then I've seen. but its still in the greater scheme of things. a relatively rare occurrence.
The entire reason I dont fly to the strats is not because of the lack of reward points. I like many here couldnt care less about points. But because hitting them does absolutely nothing. The entire reason I might bomb a feild is because it can potentially have an effect.
I, and Im am quite sure many if not most others here arent going to fly a bomber just so I can say "whoopie! look how many points I got." If I fly a bomber mission I want to actually accomplish something.
-
I dont think so. Im still convinced the reverse is true.
Most of the landed bomb score messages I see arent the result of fishing for perks, but rather attempts at dropping the fields or towns for a base capture.
They do it in part for the perks yes. but its a small part. They do it mostly to have an effect on the game.
And of those most of the bomber attacks I see are on the feilds themselves. Again. It has a potential impact on the game.
I mentioned 15k+ perks for a reason, not any landed score ;)
And they are not fishing for perks... just for effect. Score & landed damage. Only with the upcoming B-29 perks are really starting to be a motivation for bomber pilots.
And they were / are doing it a lot. I just finished a 2 1/2 hour high altitude B-17 sortie on SMFA. I did fly all over Bish & Rook territory doing exactly what I described. Or better: I tried.
Wherever I was going, almost all towns had their center (and only their center) destroyed. When you watch the map for a considerable amount of time, you see them dots moving sector to sector from town to town, striving for the perfect hit %.
Of course most bomber sorties are flown in direct support of base captures or defense by porking. But the amount of center-dropping sorties flown is quite remarkable, and it started after pilots learned that that way they can get the most "reward" for their sorties.
I do fly myself about half of my sorties in support of "the war" (= porking, killing VH's and so on), and the other half just to watch the text buffer fill with "building destroyed".
As for the strat targets. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've personally seen in the last month missions to the strats and have a bunch of fingers left over. Not that they dont happen more then I've seen. but its still in the greater scheme of things. a relatively rare occurrence.
Yes, the only times they really become a target is for the (unfortunatly rare) big bomber missions. But that's not surprising.
-
un cap and leave one main arena, secondary main arena is fine but the main should not be capped at less than 300!
if not that then show side numbers in the lobby and allow players to change sides there to get into capped arena's for side balancing.
bring back old strats as secondary strat targets,
bring back the old tank town or something like it for the hours of senseless GV fights and build some big mountains around it
Make small airfields, fighter only.
I REALLY like this idea. small airfield would allow lower altitude fighters, and bombers to get more altitude by starting from a place that is further out. (medium fields) The B29 when it comes along could only launch from LARGE airfields.
-
I REALLY like this idea. small airfield would allow lower altitude fighters, and bombers to get more altitude by starting from a place that is further out. (medium fields) The B29 when it comes along could only launch from LARGE airfields.
Currently, fields are not distributed on the maps with such a setup in mind. It's not that large fields are to the rear when the map comes up. Sometimes we have large fields on the front, sometimes in awkward places - for example on Ndsisles, the tank town airbases in the center are the large ones, for one country the bases near HQ are medium ones, but for the other country the corresponding bases are high altitude large fields.
-
Perhaps we need a piechart
:bolt:
-
Perhaps we need a piechart
:bolt:
what's wrong with bar charts? or graphs? you got a problem with them? :noid :neener: :bolt:
-
Perhaps we need a piechart
:bolt:
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/b80b713d.jpg)
-
(http://PIE CHART)
LOL! That made my afternoon
-
No more whines, no more complaints. Just your ideas to make AH the game it's supposed to be in your eyes. Be specific. No blame game. No ripping someone elses idea. Just put your 'cure' to all that makes AH broken in your mind.
(1) Get rid of ENY.
(2) Get rid of arena caps.
(3) Town buildings stay down 1 hour.
(4) Radar and field (not town) auto-ack pops after 15 minutes.
(5) While touching the ground, planes are invulnerable and cannot fire any weapons.
(6) Did I mention getting rid of ENY?
-
:rofl Zoom you are behind the curve, you better go catch up! (made me smile)
-
While we are at it we need constant speed prop controls
what do you think + and - are?
-
I REALLY like this idea. small airfield would allow lower altitude fighters, and bombers to get more altitude by starting from a place that is further out. (medium fields) The B29 when it comes along could only launch from LARGE airfields.
Ditto (small fields as fighter only) Anything to throw a monkey-wrench into the normal goings on
-
I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech. This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.
Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:
Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage
There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend. The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat. The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.
There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort. If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.
Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack. If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).
It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique. I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.
More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.
There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base. They don't like static maps. Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy. People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent. After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".
The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years. When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required. Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast. A change to 40% was the response. With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try. It would be a minimalist change.
Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.
Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience. Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles. They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles. The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again. The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time. It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed. It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters. I think that such imaginative play was fun. Its loss is sad.
If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods. Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.
Investigate why the Donut map was so popular. I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions. If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly. Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place. The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict. What a shame.
Thanks for reading,
regards.
-
I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech. This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.
Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:
Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage
There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend. The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat. The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.
There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort. If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.
Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack. If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).
It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique. I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.
More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.
There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base. They don't like static maps. Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy. People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent. After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".
The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years. When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required. Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast. A change to 40% was the response. With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try. It would be a minimalist change.
Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.
Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience. Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles. They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles. The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again. The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time. It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed. It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters. I think that such imaginative play was fun. Its loss is sad.
If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods. Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.
Investigate why the Donut map was so popular. I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions. If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly. Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place. The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict. What a shame.
Thanks for reading,
regards.
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
yes
-
I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech. This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.
Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:
Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage
There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend. The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat. The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.
There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort. If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.
Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack. If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).
It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique. I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.
More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.
There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base. They don't like static maps. Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy. People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent. After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".
The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years. When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required. Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast. A change to 40% was the response. With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try. It would be a minimalist change.
Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.
Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience. Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles. They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles. The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again. The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time. It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed. It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters. I think that such imaginative play was fun. Its loss is sad.
If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods. Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.
Investigate why the Donut map was so popular. I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions. If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly. Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place. The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict. What a shame.
Thanks for reading,
regards.
Awesome post! :aok
-
What's interesting in Dantoo's post, is his mention of the 3 uncapturable fields. Seems like that's what the 'furballers' were asking for so they could have a spot to fight without the inevitable 'go to the DA' commentary. For whatever reason that's never been an option.
If I'm at all a typical example of a 'furballer', upping to defend a field is something I do all the time, often into the 'horde". Watching for a darbar to pop is not a big deal.. Depending on time constraints on my flying time, it's also nice to have a place to up for a quick fight.
Last night was a good example. Thankfully the center isle in Blue was still one field a country. It was nothing but large dar bar vs tiny dar bar elsewhere. Soulyss, Drex, Sunbat, SHawk and myself were able to set up to meet in the middle for some dog fighting. Often times that's not the case as folks have decided that one spot conducive to setting up a fight, has become the focus of capture.
I don't think anyone plays the game completely one way. I also believe that providing all the options for game play in the MA is the most productive way to keep the community together.
Kudos to Dantoo for putting it so clearly in words. Despite what he says about it being a win the war post, I believe it covers more then that.
-
A long standing whine has been the Tank town bases need to be un capturable and the three airbases around it should not have ord!
I agree with this to a point,, nothing kills a good gv fight faster than bombs falling or someone taking the bases, and as it stands I have not seen any good gv fights in the DA!
maybe,,, of the many arenas we have one could be the old tank town and fighter brawl! but without ord or b-25,s and IL-2's
I doubt it would happen and would not be perfect but it would be a nice place to just go and kill or be killed!
-
Put strategic back into AH. Add more strategic targets (rail yards, strategic supply bridges (rail and road, which would stay down like all other strats), power stations, radar facilities, supply ports, supply depots, freighter convoy's, etc.) and insure that hitting them, is worth the effort. I cannot remember which thread it was in, but someone posted that the game is now geared more towards furballing and less on base taking and strategic runs. I would have to agree with that. When I first played AH, which was around the middle of last year, I found myself upping bombers a lot to make runs on the strats. It was fun. I didn't do it for score or perks, I did it because it was fun. The beneficial side effect was that it hurt the country I was hitting and they stayed down for an hour or more. I recall that hitting all the fuel at an airfield, would reduce it to 25% as well. Maybe I was seeing things then, but it did fall below 75% from what I remember. People say they can't defend with 25% (or even 50%) and they have to sit in the tower. Dwayna forbid they would have to resupply the field or up from another one....
With the current strategic system, not even the B-29 will affect it. Fewer bombers to do the job, still have to hit the same target which doesn't seem to affect anything. I love the Capital. Definitely keep that, but more strats please. Boosting the amount of ack over it would be nice as well. The sky was filled with ack, especially over high value targets. It's funny and sad, to see one set of bombers taking all the ack when there are 4 or more set's over the Capital.
Whiskey, I would have to give you that (even I will go to TT or furball, once in a blue moon). What about restricting ords to rockets only, no bombs? You have to give them SOMETHING to use after all. Or leave the B-25H, and have no rockets, bombs and IL-2's??
-
Put strategic back into AH. Add more strategic targets (rail yards, strategic supply bridges (rail and road, which would stay down like all other strats), power stations, radar facilities, supply ports, supply depots, freighter convoy's, etc.) and insure that hitting them, is worth the effort. I cannot remember which thread it was in, but someone posted that the game is now geared more towards furballing and less on base taking and strategic runs. I would have to agree with that. When I first played AH, which was around the middle of last year, I found myself upping bombers a lot to make runs on the strats. It was fun. I didn't do it for score or perks, I did it because it was fun. The beneficial side effect was that it hurt the country I was hitting and they stayed down for an hour or more. I recall that hitting all the fuel at an airfield, would reduce it to 25% as well. Maybe I was seeing things then, but it did fall below 75% from what I remember. People say they can't defend with 25% (or even 50%) and they have to sit in the tower. Dwayna forbid they would have to resupply the field or up from another one....
With the current strategic system, not even the B-29 will affect it. Fewer bombers to do the job, still have to hit the same target which doesn't seem to affect anything. I love the Capital. Definitely keep that, but more strats please. Boosting the amount of ack over it would be nice as well. The sky was filled with ack, especially over high value targets. It's funny and sad, to see one set of bombers taking all the ack when there are 4 or more set's over the Capital.
Whiskey, I would have to give you that (even I will go to TT or furball, once in a blue moon). What about restricting ords to rockets only, no bombs? You have to give them SOMETHING to use after all. Or leave the B-25H, and have no rockets, bombs and IL-2's??
if i'm not mistakern, there ARE strat targets.
hit the fuel depots, and you screw with their fuel supply.....same for dar, and troops. the trains are killable. the convoys that you see resupplying damaged bases are killable.
strats exist.....ya just hafta.....oohh...i dunno.......go kill em?
-
I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech. This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.
Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:
Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage
There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend. The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat. The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.
There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort. If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.
Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack. If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).
It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique. I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.
More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.
There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base. They don't like static maps. Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy. People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent. After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".
The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years. When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required. Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast. A change to 40% was the response. With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try. It would be a minimalist change.
Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.
Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience. Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles. They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles. The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again. The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time. It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed. It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters. I think that such imaginative play was fun. Its loss is sad.
If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods. Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.
Investigate why the Donut map was so popular. I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions. If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly. Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place. The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict. What a shame.
Thanks for reading,
regards.
Extremely articulate post from a well respected player...thanks for taking the time bud :salute
-
if i'm not mistakern, there ARE strat targets.
hit the fuel depots, and you screw with their fuel supply.....same for dar, and troops. the trains are killable. the convoys that you see resupplying damaged bases are killable.
strats exist.....ya just hafta.....oohh...i dunno.......go kill em?
They basically have no impact on gameplay, and on large maps they are back up when you are back home, landing your bombers.
-
I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech. This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.
Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:
Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage
First off, that was a very good post Dantoo, concise and well reasoned. I do think it's important to view some of these strat/field changes in light of a changing game environment. I think it's a slightly different picture if one also considers the other arena variables aren't fixed or static but also changing as well. If we go waaaaaaay back to the beginning the map rooms were on the fields themselves and all someone had to do was de-ack the field and land troops, and I think if even the war winning types stopped to think about it objectively for a few minutes it's pretty clear that such a set up probably won't work in today's game.
Again, thanks for the post, it was good reading.
-
If I was a bbs warrior i would.
1. Increase down times of cities and factories.
2. Add a cement factory that increases down time of towns.
3. Add a % needed variable to control the number of town buildings down needed for capture.
4. Add a flag that went down, or changed color when the town was surrendering/ready for capture.
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
and I would add Mountable sheep" to "ride" into town as Victory Parade to taunt captured enemy (that were added of course) :aok
<S> Oz
-
If I was a bbs warrior i would.
1. Increase down times of cities and factories.
2. Add a cement factory that increases down time of towns.
3. Add a % needed variable to control the number of town buildings down needed for capture.
4. Add a flag that went down, or changed color when the town was surrendering/ready for capture.
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
I'm reporting this trouble maker...... :neener:
-
:lol
-
A "challenge button"
Would work like the "check 6" button. Scroll thru enemy cons to "challenge" one, the enemy hears the challenge thru audio and could reply if interested by pressing button, both planes now are treated as "KILLSHOOTER" till one is dead ! This "KILLSHOOTER" would work cross country! Ofcourse the icons of both aircraft would have to change to signify to ALL that they are "in challenge". If the enemy would rather not they simply ignore the challenge, the challenge could "time out" say after 3 seconds! also the "challenge" would automatically terminate if the "challengers" get more than say 2k away from each other!
I'm sure there would be issues to work out, that is above my pay grade ;)
This may settle down the GAYnging a bit. IMO folks don't mind being GAYnged usually, it's when the GAYnging happens AFTER you're already deep into a "hellafight" that really gets the goat!
Just my $.02 :aok
-
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
If HTC sucks so much, why don't you go and program your own combat flight sim?
:neener: :bolt:
-
Not sure how it would work, but here are a couple of things I'd like to see:
I: Two Country MAs: Seems to me depending on the map or time of the day, Country A and Country B goes after Country C while no fights take place between Country A or B. This may help aleviate some of the ganging on the side with the lesser numbers, or two vs one countries depending on the maps. Bring the % to "win" down to 30% to help with map rotation
II: ENY Factories: Place factories in the strat areas that have factories that produce certain ENY level of planes. Exp: ENY 5 factory at the strat destroyed, no ENY 5 planes could be flown say for 60min. This brings back some the strategic value for the buffers, gives the guys who want to keep the Spits, 51D, 190D ect ect something to protect.
III: Zone Strats: Perhaps more zone oriented strat cities. Currently we only have one moving strat city, I propose more. Say you have four zones, each with a strat target associated to it. Perhaps lessen the ack at these zones strats (except the HQ strat). If one was to destroy the fuel for that zone maybe only 25% could be taken, destroy ord: maybe only the lightest load of ord could be used, troops: troops for captures must be flown in from other strat zone. These strats could be great places for A2A and ground battles to take place. This also give the buff guys a target that may affect the out come of the "war" vs. killing the fighter and bomber hangers.
Just my thoughts though.
-
If I was a bbs warrior i would.
1. Increase down times of cities and factories.
2. Add a cement factory that increases down time of towns.
3. Add a % needed variable to control the number of town buildings down needed for capture.
4. Add a flag that went down, or changed color when the town was surrendering/ready for capture.
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
Its good to be king....
Changeup
-
:rofl :rofl
always worth a check when HT chimes in
-
Hitech's #3 is one of the things I had intended to mention. But I've also been toying with the idea of what might happen if, instead of a simple pass/fail on the 10 troops, if for each 2 or 3 troops that entered the tower if a/any structure(s) were still up, the most damaged structure in town were destroyed instead of those troops counting for the capture. This way, if you drop 20 troops, up to 3 structures could still be standing when the last troop went in the tower and the capture would still take place.
Additionally, I'd restructure TG control, such that both rank and distance from the TG factor into who can take control, so that a moderatedly low ranked player at the CV could potentially take control from an even lower ranked player that's across the map from it. (Either that, or come up with a different system than rank for determining control.)
Finally, anything that spreads the fight out some is going to be a good thing, I think.
<S>
-
I like those ideas, HiTech, but I'd ask that you try placing the cement factory somewhere defending 163s can not easily reach it (especially since its destruction would not be as crippling as the HQ's).
It would be interesting to have a target that induced sectors-long interceptions and escorts, without people being able to just sit around, scramble 163s at the last minute, and completely annihilate the mission with relative ease.
Der Grosse Schlag was an extremely popular scenario, and it would be great to have the opportunity to form missions that emulate it in the MA with regularity.
THAT's something I think is currently missing in this game.
If I was a bbs warrior i would.
1. Increase down times of cities and factories.
2. Add a cement factory that increases down time of towns.
3. Add a % needed variable to control the number of town buildings down needed for capture.
4. Add a flag that went down, or changed color when the town was surrendering/ready for capture.
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
-
Better padlock`s
Full screen view`s
Reduce ENY`s
Better graphics
Collision`s that effect both sides....
-
A "challenge button"
[snip]
Great idea... for the DA. Has no place in the MA.
First thing that would happen if you enacted such a system in the MA is that people would switch sides and "challenge" their buddies so they could be invulnerable to everyone else on their porking runs.
-
The NOE hoard missions worked very well on many levels for a large portion of the player population. Now that they are harder to perform we have found out how many players actually want to fight for anything as an enjoyable pastime versus the internet illusion of being a Fighter while being on the winning side.
Very few of us are real world fighters by choice and temperament. That's why high school football teams and wrestling teams are not turning away hoards of players every season and why martial arts schools for the most part are failures as a business model. Internet games are an illusion that still triggers all of the bodies fight or flight responses without the down sides of being horribly maimed or dieing for it.
The NOE'ers are your general 98% of the population. They are conflict adverse because humans are happier building communities but, still want to play at being a fighter. In real life loosing is no different than dieing at the deepest emotional level. Winning with a low level of risk is addictive in the face of accomplishing it under the fighters noses. Fighters win because winning and loosing is not the reason for being there. It is the only time in their lives they feel alive. They don't really want the war won. They want what the war gives them to keep going on and on and on.
The NOE mission was addictive because of the high probability of survival with the illusion of a great personal accomplishment as a fighter. You could hide in the company of numbers. Blow up things that mattered to the mission goal. And kill lots of red guys with very littel personal danger involved, then land a big kill string message. In a nutshell that was how boring old style NOE missions were. SAFE.................and thats why they had such a large following.
Human beings hate to loose. If they are not very skilled at your game, they know they are not. Because of this they hate loosing all the more. They hate the feeling of being helpless fodder. Very few will invest the time or effort to aleviate this condition. Instead they will go for all of the quick fixes they can find. NOE missions. HOing, picking, vulching, high hoards, low hoards and running at any sign of danger.
Put the NOE mission back in the game. The fighters need the ongong war.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
IMHO making the strats actually affect gameplay, and be down longer unless resupplied would the best thing for this game. Like the spit factories in AW. And I'm a fan of no caps on the arena.
-
See Rule #4
The purpose of the NOE's the developed in AH for a time were to avoid opposition and to just role the map as fast as possible. Any resistance was met by moving to another undefended field, hence the phrase "whack a mole" :) That was the issue as seen by many of us. Again, this isn't war and no one really dies, so avoiding combat seems a tad bit silly.
If it's all about strategy, nothing has changed that can't be overcome by more of that strategic thinking.
-
See Rule #4
At least you are willing to be entertaining in a conversation after you show your audience you are younger than dirt.
This being a game with unlimited lives but, designed to trigger fight or flight responses, those who in real life avoid conflict due to the risk of loosing will do the same here. The majority of human beings are geneticly conflict adverse. The NOE mission was a magnet to that kind of personality because it gave them the highest odds of a risk free reward. What ever the motivations of the missions leaders, the followers followed due to the risk versus reward equation. The missions leaders consistantly deliverd a high survival rate.
So much of the games population was taking part in the NOE and variations on the theme that HiTech could even see a change was needed because of conflict avoidence. But, given a bit of time we are seeing the same conflict avoidence and risk versus reward behavior evolving into the current high flying hoards picking uppers at fields and running away that takes place when they are met by an equal coalt force.
At least with the NOE missions no one was running away in full view. You just had to get a feel for the mission leader's game plan and show up at the next base with a few freinds.
The restrictions to the current NOE missions could be loosend a bit as a positive tweak. With the current town layout making it take longer to capture a base, NOE's seem a bit more strategic in pulling resources away from the multi hour stalemate slug fests we have while trying to capture feilds. They might be able to resum being a tool in the game rather than a lifestyle expression.
-
If I was a bbs warrior i would.
1. Increase down times of cities and factories.
2. Add a cement factory that increases down time of towns.
3. Add a % needed variable to control the number of town buildings down needed for capture.
4. Add a flag that went down, or changed color when the town was surrendering/ready for capture.
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Why is it the same people who take bases at 2AM with large numbers against a group of 2 or 3 defenders complain about the loss of NOE raids? 40v2 your still going to win, NOE or no NOE, so why whine?
-
If I was a bbs warrior i would.
1. Increase down times of cities and factories.
2. Add a cement factory that increases down time of towns.
3. Add a % needed variable to control the number of town buildings down needed for capture.
4. Add a flag that went down, or changed color when the town was surrendering/ready for capture.
But I don't know why I post these ideas, HTC never will do anything about it.
HiTech
What about this? Cement Factories would affect towns, rail yards would affect the down times (on top of the increase to their "natural" down times) of the Cities (assuming you revamp the old city strats and re-add them), Industrial Center (IC) at the Capital and supply lines, and Power Stations that would affect HQ down time.
An example, You knock out the rail yard for a zone (which would stay down the same amount of time as the other strats but is affected by damage to it's zone City/Capital's IC). Instead of a convoy of trucks (to bases) and trains (to Cities, factories and the Capital) leaving every, say 30 mins, they will leave to supply every 1 hr. Fuel Factory is at 5%, rail yard is at 8%; You would have trucks carrying fuel, but they would only make their supply run every 1 hour. Meaning, the down times of the fuel at a field would be, say the standard is 1hr dt, tack on 30 mins for each, a total of 2 hrs. So if just the rail or fuel were hit, the down time of the fuel at a base would only be 1 1/2 hrs. This is a very crude idea, but I drool at the thought of hitting AH rail yards. *drools*
Now for the Power Stations and the HQ: There are maybe 3 power stations that "supply" the HQ (with a down time the same as the other strats but can't have their dt's affected by damage of rail yards or the Capital's IC). The HQ is no longer resupplyable, but just knocking it down without hitting the power stations, it would only stay down for 15 minutes. Hitting each power station would increase it's down time by an 15 minutes. Hitting all 3 and dropping the HQ would keep the HQ down for 1 hr. To offset, the power stations would be tough targets (requiring 1-2k to drop the main buildings and the flak would be moderate-heavy), spread out through out the rear zone (while still close to the uncapable bases and HQ) and fairly decent in size (maybe a half to 2/3rds of what the Capital's IC is. Wonder how we could factor a hydro dam into this... :headscratch:).
Great, now I want to load up the DOS version of B-17 and go hit some Power Stations...*drools*
-
See Rule #2
I have been censored!! I AM SOMEBODY NOW!!!!! ACKACK would be proud!! lmao
Changeup
-
I would run maps which fit the roster size--on the smaller maps, the furballers and whorders often run across each other, and it's nearly always a blast :aok Looked in Orange last night, 400 sectors, rooks owned tt, whole nit country was raiding an empty base in ne corner, most-all the bish were in 1 small area, just having sunk rook cv, and the rooks were whording a base in sw. NO interaction between the masses I go to Blue, and it's good ol small PAC map, and there's fights EVERYWHERE! Had a blast for hours
-
1. Bring back, or actually create, a strategic game to go along with all the furballing. Some of us actually like BOMBING, and the furballers would probably like it if we had something other than Bases and the CVs to bomb.
2. To facilitate #1, we need new maps with actual strategic targets worth hitting. I'm talking like a 25 mile square sector that is ALL city, factories, HQ, with bridges, trains, convoys, etc. as valid targets for bombing and ground attack. A few years ago when HTC was working on their AI missions for AH, they showed us a demo map that was perfect for this... whatever happened to it?? The strategic center of each country should be heavily defended (surrounded by airfields, radar and puffy ack sites so that we might have a little REALISM from time to time.
3. MISSIONS - this game benefits from having missions put up. It would benefit from having a system where you can click on the missions tab and "request a mission" - missions could come in various flavers - "bomb a particular target", "fighter sweep over an airfield", "destroy radar site in sector x,y", etc. Give bonus perks for completing a mission, and you can use the missions system to help train newbies. I know many folks around here think of newbies as something akin to sewer dirt, but online games survive by adding new players - providing missions they can do on their own, and perhaps adding your "trainers" as mission runners will help get the newbies into the game and lead to better player retention.
4. Perkies and ENY - EVERY ride should have a price - even if it is only a few perk points. Bring it home pilot, or pay the price for it. This can be used with the ENY system so that instead of preventing people from upping rides when the sides become unbalanced, you use it as a MULTIPLIER and charge more perks points for the ride. For example, if we set a P-51D as a 10 point ride normally, it might be 20 or 25 points to take one up as the sides become unbalanced. Couple this with the mission system, and perkies become worth something as you will continually be earning and spending them.
5. Radar - more realistic information please. Dot dar is nice, but their is no height finding built in - we need some kind of system that will tell us if incoming contacts are high or low. This facilitates ACTION as people can actually up and try to intercept incoming raids. Something akin to being able to click on a sector with a dar bar and get a report back that shows "10+ large contacts, altitude 15K+ and climbing", or "3 small contacts around 5K" gives you enough game info to get a interception going.
-
Just let us go back to seeing the game through the eyes of a noob.
It,s was fun, no exhilarating just to get the chance to try to shoot someone down. Or joining a mission and taking off with 25 other guys all out to bomb a base into oblivion.
We didn't care about hoes, damage models or getting picked. It was how fast can I get a new plane in the air.
:salute :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute :airplane: :airplane: :airplane:
-
1. Bring back, or actually create, a strategic game to go along with all the furballing. Some of us actually like BOMBING, and the furballers would probably like it if we had something other than Bases and the CVs to bomb.
2. To facilitate #1, we need new maps with actual strategic targets worth hitting. I'm talking like a 25 mile square sector that is ALL city, factories, HQ, with bridges, trains, convoys, etc. as valid targets for bombing and ground attack. A few years ago when HTC was working on their AI missions for AH, they showed us a demo map that was perfect for this... whatever happened to it?? The strategic center of each country should be heavily defended (surrounded by airfields, radar and puffy ack sites so that we might have a little REALISM from time to time.
3. MISSIONS - this game benefits from having missions put up. It would benefit from having a system where you can click on the missions tab and "request a mission" - missions could come in various flavers - "bomb a particular target", "fighter sweep over an airfield", "destroy radar site in sector x,y", etc. Give bonus perks for completing a mission, and you can use the missions system to help train newbies. I know many folks around here think of newbies as something akin to sewer dirt, but online games survive by adding new players - providing missions they can do on their own, and perhaps adding your "trainers" as mission runners will help get the newbies into the game and lead to better player retention.
4. Perkies and ENY - EVERY ride should have a price - even if it is only a few perk points. Bring it home pilot, or pay the price for it. This can be used with the ENY system so that instead of preventing people from upping rides when the sides become unbalanced, you use it as a MULTIPLIER and charge more perks points for the ride. For example, if we set a P-51D as a 10 point ride normally, it might be 20 or 25 points to take one up as the sides become unbalanced. Couple this with the mission system, and perkies become worth something as you will continually be earning and spending them.
5. Radar - more realistic information please. Dot dar is nice, but their is no height finding built in - we need some kind of system that will tell us if incoming contacts are high or low. This facilitates ACTION as people can actually up and try to intercept incoming raids. Something akin to being able to click on a sector with a dar bar and get a report back that shows "10+ large contacts, altitude 15K+ and climbing", or "3 small contacts around 5K" gives you enough game info to get a interception going.
+1 :aok
I like this but I don't want people to know alt. - not for MY benefit because, frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn. lol. But because they would just fly away and try to out climb each other. It happens when they see each other in person, why make it worse?
-
Well, not EVERYBODY is a pickin' alt monkey. Some of the best fights I've seen were trying to stop hi-altitude buff raids in FSO. Being able to identify a large hi-alt buff raid means that I can get a group together for interception. Since the buff leader knows this, and knows that his fat load of hi-alt buffs can be identified from a long way off, he might want to take a bunch of escorts with him. Theoretically anyway, this could lead to some hi-alt action that isn't just a bunch of guys trying to catch the hi-alt buffs after they have been sighted visually. There isn't anything actually WRONG with high altitude - an awful lot of fighting used to take place around 25K, and the differing performance of various rides up that high might make for some interesting action.
$.02 more
-
Well, not EVERYBODY is a pickin' alt monkey. Some of the best fights I've seen were trying to stop hi-altitude buff raids in FSO. Being able to identify a large hi-alt buff raid means that I can get a group together for interception. Since the buff leader knows this, and knows that his fat load of hi-alt buffs can be identified from a long way off, he might want to take a bunch of escorts with him. Theoretically anyway, this could lead to some hi-alt action that isn't just a bunch of guys trying to catch the hi-alt buffs after they have been sighted visually. There isn't anything actually WRONG with high altitude - an awful lot of fighting used to take place around 25K, and the differing performance of various rides up that high might make for some interesting action.
$.02 more
s much as i like to have my low alt fights, i've had 38j vs 38j against oldman, and rvflyer.....both started around 20k alt. had one against a spit9 i think it was....also around 20k alt. all co-alt merges. all super slow motion it felt like too. massive fun. very different feel way up there, compared to 2k alt.
-
In a Nut Shell, The only Fix is to the player mentality of a tactic and how it is used.
The game is not broke, it is not favored either way. Players must simply get out of their comfort zone and learn the other aspects of the game beside the consistant noe tactic that HT has placed as a catalyst to attract the new players. Your not only seeing new players but a few of old timers still doing this, progress has become stagnant in their development in this game and continue to breed this easy mentality.
To get out and learn some ACM helps everyone, it promotes growth for the game, not only in your ability but quality of fights for everyone which improves the health of the game, it gives that new guy a goal to aspire to do instead of what has been and still is ridiculously easy, noe hording.
Some will say its too hard to noe, or too hard to take a town, I call BS!! Its just as easy as it ever was you just cant do it with 3 people anymore, you have to do it with even more. Super Hordes. That's the next issue, how to fix Super Hordes, local eny would do that but thats another discussion later and totally dependant on player behavior.
So now the only problem there is to complain about is players that choose NOT to police themselves and instead participate in what is easy, the super horde noe, that cares less about the health and welfare of the game but their own selfish need to roll a base as easy as HT can allow it, the same selfish whack o mole players that wants nothing to do with development of the game or oneself, but to take the easiest route with the littlest of conflict for the maximum amount of reward in whatever way they define that.
How does that help the game and the community again?
Remember, the fight isnt about the quantity of a fight but the quality of a fight. Nobody is advocating getting rid of the practice of noe, its more about advocating knowing when to use it responsibly as one of the tools in the tool bag and not the fix all, end all, means of running missions of which it has become.
-
In a Nut Shell, The only Fix is to the player mentality of a tactic and how it is used.
The game is not broke, it is not favored either way. Players must simply get out of their comfort zone and learn the other aspects of the game beside the consistant noe tactic that HT has placed as a catalyst to attract the new players. Your not only seeing new players but a few of old timers still doing this, progress has become stagnant in their development in this game and continue to breed this easy mentality.
I think a lot of people read too much of a plan into stuff. I don't think having a minimum radar height was specifically designed as something for new guys to do, but rather because it's there people gravitate toward it. People like to succeed. The vast majority of people also like to find the path of least resistance to success. Why make it harder for yourself than it has to be?
When you're dogfighting, it would be silly to limit yourself to only using 50% throttle at the most, and only roll to the right. However, a lot of people seem to expect the land grabbers to do exactly that, artificially limit themselves in game where they could be doing more to increase their chance of success.
NOE has 2 things going for it- First, it generally produces less defense because of the surprise factor, and increases the chance for success. Second, it's convenient. People don't have to 'waste time' getting to altitude and going in, they can up and head direct to target, which apparently is appealing.
Some will say its too hard to noe, or too hard to take a town, I call BS!! Its just as easy as it ever was you just cant do it with 3 people anymore, you have to do it with even more. Super Hordes. That's the next issue, how to fix Super Hordes, local eny would do that but thats another discussion later and totally dependant on player behavior.
The only "problem" with hording is that nobody seems to want to put up an organized defense against it. My favorite times in the game, bar none, are with my squad going into the largest bar dar we can find. We don't always live to land our kills, but we do have a heck of a good time getting kills and working on wing tactics. For some reason what happens more often than not though, is two hordes will clash, and one of them will pretty much immediately die out, leaving the few guys who wanted to stick it out to be constantly outnumbered until the horde gets over a field, generating a vulchfest.
The problem is not that there's a horde there, the problem is there aren't enough numbers choosing to oppose it.
So now the only problem there is to complain about is players that choose NOT to police themselves and instead participate in what is easy, the super horde noe, that cares less about the health and welfare of the game but their own selfish need to roll a base as easy as HT can allow it, the same selfish whack o mole players that wants nothing to do with development of the game or oneself, but to take the easiest route with the littlest of conflict for the maximum amount of reward in whatever way they define that.
How does that help the game and the community again?
The same could be said about the people who don't oppose the horde. They get shot down once, and head off to find easier prey. How does that help the game and the community again?
Remember, the fight isnt about the quantity of a fight but the quality of a fight.
...to you. Not everybody enjoys the same parts of the game. I happen to like multiple on multiple engagements. I get my 'Walter Mitty' moments from being on one side of two hordes clashing with many planes and people of widely varying skill levels. That's what takes the game beyond an XBox game, the sheer number of other humans at work in my vicinity.
Nobody is advocating getting rid of the practice of noe, its more about advocating knowing when to use it responsibly as one of the tools in the tool bag and not the fix all, end all, means of running missions of which it has become.
Nobody is advocating getting rid of the practice of using full throttle when you're fighting and need to go fast, it's more about advocating knowing when to use it responsibly as one of the tools in the tool bag and not the fix all, end all means of going fast it has become.
...Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? When you wish to insert a nail into a board, you do not do anything fancy. You grab a hammer, and pound it in.
The heart of the problem is, there were a lot of people that enjoyed being able to feel like they had an effect on the game by taking a few (operative word, few) of their casual buddies and go take a base. A half dozen heavy fighters and a goon were all it took to take out the town.
It didn't require that everybody have the town map memorized with specific points to drop bombs for maximum building destruction coverage. They were able to just go in, drop their bombs, fire their rockets, and gun down the few remaining buildings. They felt like they'd made a difference, and maybe a few guys upped to fight. A nice piece of bite size fun, it didn't take hours of planning or multitudes of people. Heck, half the guys could be drunk, and still be able to pull it off.
The problem is, a base that's reasonably takable by the above mentioned group of casual guys is completely trivial for a horde of 15 or 20. This becomes the path of least resistance, hence why it becomes popular.
As it stands now, the town requires one of two things, either a few guys that have put in the time to memorize the town layout and figure out where to drop their bombs for maximum effect and some escorts, or large numbers. One of those options is far more common and easier to find in the arena.
The other problem with the arena is, the maps were designed with the old setup in mind, under the new setup bases take way more effort and time to roll, making it more difficult to win the war.
Although I'm not much of a landgrabber, I personally think it's far better for the game to have that option available to them, and live with the fact that hordes and NOEs can do it 'too easily' than to remove the option and force people who don't find it fun to diagram the town and have specific assigned targets to do so.
I personally think Hitech's response in this thread is a really reasonable one. I'm looking forward to seeing how those changes work. The only other arena tweak that I think would be beneficial is the often mentioned 150 foot radar limit, but the inability to use autopilot below 151 feet.
Wiley.
-
Sorry if this has already been suggested as I only had a chance to read the first couple of pages.
I think going to 2 countries vs. 3 would be of benefit for everyone. For the furballers, this means that everyone playing will be engaging 100% of the possible target pool. With three countries, each side is missing out on 33% of the possible participants. I think that's why tank island and fighter town was/is so popular. Everyone is so close in proximity that it virtually allows a player to engage 100% of the total possible adversary set.
For the base capture guys, it allows for more possible participants to add to the horde and you possibly can go from a base capture to a huge fight potential.
The only decision left then is which country to eliminate. I say you start from the outside of the chess board and work in... Sorry rooks. :neener:
-
Personally, I think we should get rid of the Queens - they are responsible for so much of this drama.
(ok, Back to work)
Wurzel
-
In a Nut Shell, The only Fix is to the player mentality of a tactic and how it is used.
The game is not broke, it is not favored either way. Players must simply get out of their comfort zone and learn the other aspects of the game beside the consistant noe tactic that HT has placed as a catalyst to attract the new players. Your not only seeing new players but a few of old timers still doing this, progress has become stagnant in their development in this game and continue to breed this easy mentality.
To get out and learn some ACM helps everyone, it promotes growth for the game, not only in your ability but quality of fights for everyone which improves the health of the game, it gives that new guy a goal to aspire to do instead of what has been and still is ridiculously easy, noe hording.
Some will say its too hard to noe, or too hard to take a town, I call BS!! Its just as easy as it ever was you just cant do it with 3 people anymore, you have to do it with even more. Super Hordes. That's the next issue, how to fix Super Hordes, local eny would do that but thats another discussion later and totally dependant on player behavior.
So now the only problem there is to complain about is players that choose NOT to police themselves and instead participate in what is easy, the super horde noe, that cares less about the health and welfare of the game but their own selfish need to roll a base as easy as HT can allow it, the same selfish whack o mole players that wants nothing to do with development of the game or oneself, but to take the easiest route with the littlest of conflict for the maximum amount of reward in whatever way they define that.
How does that help the game and the community again?
Remember, the fight isnt about the quantity of a fight but the quality of a fight. Nobody is advocating getting rid of the practice of noe, its more about advocating knowing when to use it responsibly as one of the tools in the tool bag and not the fix all, end all, means of running missions of which it has become.
Players simply arent going to police themselves. You've been around long enough to see what goes on to realize that as a point of obviousness. Its a nice thought. But unfortunately its never going to happen.
What can be done is the addition of interesting things for people to do. that can encourage the players to play a different way. If you put in something and make it interesting. Folks will start doing it. That is why I will continually push for more strat type targets (factories) that actually have a direct impact on the game. But its gotta be interesting for both sides. both sides have to have a stake in it for it to be interesting enough for both sides to take part in both attacking AND defending.
Our new and wonderfully rendered strat targets are a great example. At first they generated alot of interest so people hit them..alot. But with no real tangable effect on gameplay. That interest has since waned considerably. First for the defenders. then for the attackers. Defenders for the most part dont bother trying to stop these raids because they have nothing to loose if they get hit. Attackers dont bother hitting them often because they dont really do much other then just blow up.
which makes them less then interesting.
Now if both sides had a real stake in the strats. For the attacker it would mean the defending side loses something for a period of time. They would be more likely to attack them. And if the defender stands to loose something they may rather not loose. Well now you have every reason to try and up and stop it in numbers.
It becomes interesting and stays interesting. Right now they just arent that interesting
Problem is Virtually any changes that are made to make things more challenging. Only promotes the super-horde. But the changes that have been made seem to be doing little to promote the superfight, When two hordes collide. Particularly since once any kind of serious resistance is met by the attacking horde. The horde goes someplace else the easiest path. This is another reason why I support plane limits on bases. It would break up the superhorde into a wider front making defending against such attacks both more easily recognizable and more manageable to defend against. Which should encourage more people to move to defend against it. You would have more fights on a larger front rather then just one big blob that people take one look at call out for help and say "screw dat" when nobody else shows up.
It would also make things more interesting when planning missions as it would require a bit more thought in planning and coordination then "ok everyone up A-15 climb to 15K and lets just gangbang our way in".
I have no problem with the lowering of the dar. At its new lower setting I can still fly a 262 over just about any terrain at full speed and still not create a dar bar. I know its possible because I've done it. If it can be done in a 262. You can do it in other planes as well.
I would however like to see a chain of radar rings outside the fields similar to what they had as a sort of early warning radar that coud be taken out to create a break in the radar chain. I think that too would also make things a bit more interesting. To clarify. Not in place of field dar. But in addition to field dar.
Players arent going to just police themselves. Things have to be implemented to encourage gameplay. You do that by making things not necessarily harder. But more interesting. If you make things interesting. People will be more inclined to willingly participate then then complain about it.
-
Dred,
All of the current observations are valid by all posters here at this incarnation of the game.
1. More structure and relevance to achieving objectives.
2. Meaningful rewards for making the effort to participate in a structured manner.
3. A more realistic cause and effect model to the overall relevance of strategic objects.
4. A change in the game process that will motivate the return of Missions as positive conflict generators.
In the heyday of game Missions, players were too busy participating and having fun rather than really gaming the system and such things. But, eventually things evolved and here we are airing our late understanding that we lost something good.
No one in this game is a "bad guy" or anti "good game play" and fun. Everyone seems stuck not trusting any solutions so far for working within the current restrictions of our environment. Drop off in total missions per tour. We seem to be at an impass to which idle hands come to mind. I trust HTC to have some solutions to this impass.
-
I feel a worthy addition would be to somehow force the need for better integrated combined forces attacks. For example..
1) If towns had rivers in them, so bridges needed to be captured to enable troops/GVs to get from one side to the other.
2) If a better concept of a 'front' was established such that GVs/ airplanes, etc.. are actually dependent on being able to establish and keep supply routs.
3) If Infrastructure had a bigger impact on the game, for example, in order to 'spawn' at a certain location, the railroad yard at the town and the spawn point must not be destroyed.
4) Make a maximum number of planes being able to up from a particular field. That number could be based on the size of the field, and other game dynamics such as the total number of bases, etc..
-
Personally, I think we should get rid of the Queens - they are responsible for so much of this drama.
(ok, Back to work)
Wurzel
:rofl
-
Well... I was going to post something that I thought would be funny.... but then had this idea.
Folks have been asking for weather... how about whenever the combatants in one area reaches a certain number the weather starts to deteriorate.
I don't know... just an idea. I hate posting in Corky's threads as it usually means peeling more potatoes.
-
Well... I was going to post something that I thought would be funny.... but then had this idea.
Folks have been asking for weather... how about whenever the combatants in one are reaches a certain number the weather starts to deteriorate.
I don't know... just an idea. I hate posting in Corky's threads as it usually means peeling more potatoes.
Thats a cool idea. I can't wait to fight in turbulent storm clouds! :rock
-
hmmm.. I was flying through heavy clouds and low fog just last night
-
Well... I was going to post something that I thought would be funny.... but then had this idea.
Folks have been asking for weather... how about whenever the combatants in one area reaches a certain number the weather starts to deteriorate.
I don't know... just an idea. I hate posting in Corky's threads as it usually means peeling more potatoes.
I vote for dense fog over all airfields that extends to the range of the ack.
-
I think that there needs to be portals for aircraft so it doesn't take so long to get places. Make it more like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 or Call of Duty Black Ops.
Also....I would eliminate the pts based system and create individual based levels of play. A higher level equates to more options for vehicles or planes. There should also be options to equip your airplane/vehicle with additional stuff to help in killing. Of course each option would have a counter. Basically...this game needs to be like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, but with a WWII theme and NO KIDS.
Another thing I would like to see is the option to have this game integrate with other games. I heard a rumor a few years ago that mentioned tying this game into a ground soldier based first person shooter. I think that's a great idea. I would even go one step further in adding a virtual life concept in which we could create communities much like those of 'The Sims'. We could develop families with mothers fathers and children who would eventually grow up and go fight wars (virtually speaking).
If all of these things come true, which I'm pretty sure of, it would make this game the best game to ever grace this planet.
That's my 2 cents.
-
I think that there needs to be portals for aircraft so it doesn't take so long to get places. Make it more like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 or Call of Duty Black Ops.
Also....I would eliminate the pts based system and create individual based levels of play. A higher level equates to more options for vehicles or planes. There should also be options to equip your airplane/vehicle with additional stuff to help in killing. Of course each option would have a counter. Basically...this game needs to be like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, but with a WWII theme and NO KIDS.
Another thing I would like to see is the option to have this game integrate with other games. I heard a rumor a few years ago that mentioned tying this game into a ground soldier based first person shooter. I think that's a great idea. I would even go one step further in adding a virtual life concept in which we could create communities much like those of 'The Sims'. We could develop families with mothers fathers and children who would eventually grow up and go fight wars (virtually speaking).
If all of these things come true, which I'm pretty sure of, it would make this game the best game to ever grace this planet.
That's my 2 cents.
:lol
-
Sorry if this has already been suggested as I only had a chance to read the first couple of pages.
I think going to 2 countries vs. 3 would be of benefit for everyone. For the furballers, this means that everyone playing will be engaging 100% of the possible target pool. With three countries, each side is missing out on 33% of the possible participants. I think that's why tank island and fighter town was/is so popular. Everyone is so close in proximity that it virtually allows a player to engage 100% of the total possible adversary set.
For the base capture guys, it allows for more possible participants to add to the horde and you possibly can go from a base capture to a huge fight potential.
The only decision left then is which country to eliminate. I say you start from the outside of the chess board and work in... Sorry rooks. :neener:
HTC has tested 2,3,4,and 5 sided games and 3 works best according to them. I don't think you'll ever see a 2 sided game.
-
Well... I was going to post something that I thought would be funny.... but then had this idea.
Folks have been asking for weather... how about whenever the combatants in one area reaches a certain number the weather starts to deteriorate.
I don't know... just an idea. I hate posting in Corky's threads as it usually means peeling more potatoes.
go to the ava. heavy weather in there. if ya want wind added, i'm sure that can happen too. and you'd be absolutely amazed at what wind can do to you in a turnfight.
it's kinda funny.......people ask for night time, weather, wind, more realisitc and/or moving clouds.......there is one arena where it all exists at one point or another, yet those same people asking for these things won't go there and give it a try. :noid
-
go to the ava. heavy weather in there. if ya want wind added, i'm sure that can happen too. and you'd be absolutely amazed at what wind can do to you in a turnfight.
it's kinda funny.......people ask for night time, weather, wind, more realisitc and/or moving clouds.......there is one arena where it all exists at one point or another, yet those same people asking for these things won't go there and give it a try. :noid
I've flown in weather :D
-
I've flown in weather :D
i know. just tryin to get you guys in there more. :devil :angel: :neener:
-
The other day I crushed my keyboard with my fists because I got shot down again. The "enter" key was stuck. The game wouldn't work like that. After my wife got done yelling at me, I got a screw driver and got the "enter" key unstuck.
I fixed the game.
-
The other day I crushed my keyboard with my fists because I got shot down again. The "enter" key was stuck. The game wouldn't work like that. After my wife got done yelling at me, I got a screw driver and got the "enter" key unstuck.
I fixed the game.
woohoo!! wtg. :aok :noid