Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: grizz441 on May 29, 2011, 03:33:48 PM
-
Anybody have any?
The strategy is mundane and static. Shoot town, take base, rinse repeat, win war, boot to desktop. To use an analogy, I would equate it to playing a game of monopoly, except instead of a board with real estate, draws, go to jails, cool game pieces, fake money etc., it's just a blank board with nothing. Roll the dice first one to get around the board wins. The game needs more strategy. Strats that have impact, factories and cities that actually matter, objects that when destroyed unlock other things that can now be destroyed. Incentive to plan missions, incentive to defend against missions, incentive to get involved in the war! The game has all the pieces it needs to actually be very fun. 100+ fully modeled aircraft, tanks, and carrier fleets. Yet no dynamic strategy?
This is why I just fly around shooting bad guys. I have no incentive to get involved in the war, because I find it incredibly dull.
-
too bad they ditched Combat tour....
I think if they made the strats the source of the "war" it would be far better...IE you cant take town until the Strats for that town are down or destroyed to a certain point.
destroying Strats and factories should have an impact on the war, what can be flown from that field how much fuel can be taken....ECT ECT
-
Anybody have any?
Yes, every once in a while I do. But most of the time they are crap to begin with, and if not, they still could kill AH as likely as they could "help" it. ;)
I think there are two basic problems that are part of the OP. One is about individual player's longtime motivation, the other is about creating a gameplay that can (in best case) please many different people and results in as many subscribers at the same time - which doesn't necessarily mean to keep every single player as long as possible. As a matter of fact, player while do burn it, no matter what. There could be a design that keeps a few players interested enough to subscribe for a long time, or one that could be one that creates a higher net rate of subscribers, but only for shorter time.
Now the MA gameplay has been a very successful formula for many years. A big sandbox allowing players to do as they like, choosing their own play modes, goals and challenges. And I do accept the fact that it's not the game's fault that I do burn out more and more often, because that's just natural. Being here for 5+ years is pretty rare anyway. I seriously doubt any other "game" could have held my interest for so long.
But still I do sometimes wonder if the current MA gameplay is still sufficient these days, not for myself, but to compete with other, even very different games. The player demographics do change, and the number of "new" people coming here because of a inherent & genuine years long interest in WW2 air combat (you know, the kind of guys having read hundreds of books about the subject from childhood on) will probably go down more and more compared to those just looking for another game. Just being able to fly and fight a P-51, Spitfire or even a Ta-152 may not be enough to them ...
-
Ground combat with real cities would be awesome.
-
Ground combat with real cities would be awesome.
But how to include that? Reads like a great & simple idea, but the actual implementation could be quite a challenge, not onyl from a technical/resource point of view (I havn't that much knowledge about that), but also from a gameplay / balance one. In RL, there were thousands of ground combatants for each plane / tank. In here, where everyone can fly & drive what and when he likes, what could a foot soldier do? 10 players on foot in a town compared to 20 or more in Lancasters carpet bombing the hell out of 'em? ;)
-
And here I thought you were going to post great new ideas for the strategic evolution of the game.
-
Truthfully? I say put the game back to how it was 7 years ago....one arena, fighter town, big missions, and so forth. I will come back in a heartbeat. I personally started to get bored of the game when they put more then one arena, and then the arena cap...all it did was screw up squad-nights. Also they never play any of the ORIGINAL maps anymore, the FUN ones that us classic players enjoyed more.
-BigBOBCH
-
I think we need more "goals" The game has been taken over by the "xbox generation", and there play revolves around a goal. For a vast majority it's "win the war". This generates they drive to win the war at all cost type of play that has I think anyway dropped game play. While I have no problem at all with the win the war part of the game I have a HUGE problem with how it's done.
As an attacker my choice is to join the horde, or lead one to smash and grab base after base. As a defender my choice is to jump from base to base putting up as much resistance as possible with how ever many other happen to get there in time. Gets old fast, and makes me avoid the "war" at all.
If you make the bases harder to take, you make bigger hordes which defeat the purpose of making the game any more fun. Leave the base capture as it is, but add a variable that monitors the numbers inside the dar circle. If 15 attackers are inside the circle its a normal take, if the number is 20 either make it take more troops to take, or add time to the timer that the attackers MUST defend and hold the base. If that base is captured and HELD for 30 minutes that team gets 25 perks. Add 10 minutes longer for every 5 extra guys they use to capture the base.
This cuts down the number AT the base and would make defending a bit easier. It wouldn't stop the horde, with the extra numbers being used as intercepts OUTSIDE the dar rings bringing more strategy to an attack. It would also bring more strategy in to play on what was damaged during the attack because the attacker MUST hold the field to "win" the perk award.
The same could be used for the strats. Keep a strat below a certain percentage for a certain amount of time and the team gets perks.
Most gamers look for a reward. Scoring in Aces High isn't the easiest thing to do. Most players these days don't have that kind of attention span :neener: Give them quick rewards to guide gameplay. Creating better game earns rewards, taking short cuts doesn't. Generating MORE combat can't be a bad thing and I think that is what ALL changes should be geared toward. The changes in GVs I think does that. I have spent more time in GVs since the changes and have added to a number of peoples K/S and K/D
I don't know if it's perks the players are after, or their name in lights, or seeing changes on the scoreboard. But I think those are good "carrots" to damgle in front of peoples noses to work toward making a better gaming experience.
-
Truthfully? I say put the game back to how it was 7 years ago....one arena, fighter town, big missions, and so forth. I will come back in a heartbeat. I personally started to get bored of the game when they put more then one arena, and then the arena cap...all it did was screw up squad-nights. Also they never play any of the ORIGINAL maps anymore, the FUN ones that us classic players enjoyed more.
-BigBOBCH
Thats ok, we didn't want you back anyway :neener:
They do play the old maps, Mindinao was up in one of the arenas Saturday. With the numbers as low as the "seem" maybe it is time to go back to a single arena. Altho, maybe HTC is hoping that the summer influx might bring them back up again.
-
And here I thought you were going to post great new ideas for the strategic evolution of the game.
Marketing 101.
-
Altho, maybe HTC is hoping that the summer influx might bring them back up again.
Summer is traditionally the time with lesser player activity (played hours, players logged on). And the numbers are slowly declining for about 2.5 years now anyway. I don't see that trend broken in the near future, but I hope I will be proven wrong big time ;)
-
Air spawns at TT. Would redefine spawn camp for sure.
-
Now the MA gameplay has been a very successful formula for many years. A big sandbox allowing players to do as they like...
Diversity is good. :aok
We all fly for different reasons. Many like to change it up in just an evenings time too: to fly alone, in missions and with squad etc. etc.
-
Thats ok, we didn't want you back anyway :neener:
They do play the old maps, Mindinao was up in one of the arenas Saturday. With the numbers as low as the "seem" maybe it is time to go back to a single arena. Altho, maybe HTC is hoping that the summer influx might bring them back up again.
Idk man, its just that back when AH had single arena, huge missions, and more cooperation it was funner. Once it split it got so boring. The fact that the arena cap screws squadnight up, that made me really mad. And with the huge missions, I remember a mission with 30 people in lancasters, I mean 30! Not including like 20 escorts! You never see that anymore, atleast when I went back for a month and got bored again. I mean I just wish HTC went back to how it used to be. I thought it was way better, more fun. I mean damn, I would be on there flying for 5-6 hours and it was soooooo fun. Really the only fun thing I enjoyed when I went back that I used to enjoy was FSO. Seems like there's more hoers, cherry pickers, and spitdweebs then there used to be. By far the funnest thing EVER put in AH was fighter Town back in the day. Dropping in on that giant bowl, having hundreds of people there, enormous dogfights. That was sooo fun! I mean a huge thing that makes me want to go back is the "brothers" that I made after over 7 years of playing. Its just that it doesnt have the pull anymore. I mean Floatsup and his amazing mission skillz,0000009(or however many zeros lol) bomber skillz, all my CH brothers, Bruv and his ninja skillz, and everyone else. I had played this game since I was a squeaker lol. IDK if im the only one that feels this way, but AH had so much more potential back in the day.
-BigBOBCH
-
Idk man, its just that back when AH had single arena, huge missions, and more cooperation it was funner. Once it split it got so boring. The fact that the arena cap screws squadnight up, that made me really mad. And with the huge missions, I remember a mission with 30 people in lancasters, I mean 30! Not including like 20 escorts! You never see that anymore, atleast when I went back for a month and got bored again. I mean I just wish HTC went back to how it used to be. I thought it was way better, more fun. I mean damn, I would be on there flying for 5-6 hours and it was soooooo fun. Really the only fun thing I enjoyed when I went back that I used to enjoy was FSO. Seems like there's more hoers, cherry pickers, and spitdweebs then there used to be. By far the funnest thing EVER put in AH was fighter Town back in the day. Dropping in on that giant bowl, having hundreds of people there, enormous dogfights. That was sooo fun! I mean a huge thing that makes me want to go back is the "brothers" that I made after over 7 years of playing. Its just that it doesnt have the pull anymore. I mean Floatsup and his amazing mission skillz,0000009(or however many zeros lol) bomber skillz, all my CH brothers, Bruv and his ninja skillz, and everyone else. I had played this game since I was a squeaker lol. IDK if im the only one that feels this way, but AH had so much more potential back in the day.
-BigBOBCH
Thats the point tho, THAT game is still here, unfortunately todays players don't play it that way. It was fun getting a bunch of people together and climbing to alt, 14k for buffs, 16k for fighters for cover, turn in towards the target sending a few fighter off in front to drag the cap down. Bomb the snot out of the town and deack to hold the field until the goon came in and did that screaming nose dive to pull up at the last second to drop the troops right over town in a nice big loop.
Ya I remember those days too, but todays players don't have the time for "chit-chat" they are getting to the next field as fast as they can to drop EVERYTHING and make the field totally useless to everyone because once they grab it they have no intention of defending it, because they will be on the other side of the map stealing a base there.
The only goal they can see... and reach, is to win the war and they do that the quickest easiest way they can.
-
Funny, someone punted a thread from 03' that said the exact same thing.
-
You want some ideas well, I'm never one to not propose something different so here goes some unrefined ideas off the top of my head to begin a discussion.
First go back to a single arena. I think the split arenas and arena caps did more to harm the game than to help it and took away a lot of the sense of community as people were split apart.
Go back to the zone strat system. More on that later.
Redesign the maps so that in default configuration all the large fields are in the rear, medium fields in the middle and small fields are along the front lines.
Limit the type and number of aircraft that can take off from each type of field. Heavy bombers only from large fields, medium bombers from large or medium and light bombers from anywhere. Limit how many fighters can utilize each type of airfield with more being able to take off from the larger fields than the smaller ones maybe limiting a small field to the size of an official AH squadron (what's that? 16?), twice that at a medium field and twice that again at a large field. This will help disburse the hoards. Also limit the impact of ENY so that it has full effect at the small fields, no effect at the large fields and something in between at the medium fields. That way if you really want your uber bird you can have it but you'll have to fly to get it into the fight. It will also limit the impact of ENY if one country is getting ganged as there would be no ENY restrictions at the rear (large) fields as you got beat back.
Back to the strat system. Make each strat capturable. If you take a field and don't own it's associated strat then whatever that strat controls is at a minimum at that field (maybe 25% fuel, no troops, no ord, no radar, no manned ack without the strats). You want to use a field for more than short range fighter sorties then you better own the strats. This would create a good war over the strats maybe even more than the fields and the interuptions of service between friendly and enemy fields in the same zone would create a dynamic strategic war.
Expand the naval and amphibious wars. There's been a lot of demand for it over the years.
So there's a few rough ideas.
Here's another idea for the strat thing. Maybe not owning it does what I said above but also owning it with it destroyed allows only 1/2 use or something along those lines (50% fuel, reduced radar range, lower value ords (say 500 lb bombs instead of 1000 lbers), 1/2 manned ack available, troop transports can only carry 5 instead of 10).
-
I started playing this game after seeing a friend play it.
First reason was it was a WWII combait Sim with realistically handling planes.
Second reason was, it was real players from all over the world where we could match skills and see who was best for that fight.
Third reason i end up staying is because until i can shoot everyone down and not get shot down myself,until that point (which I'm know where near) I still have not reached my goal.
I think the game is just fine and to many changes can go quickly from an evolution to a De evolution.
My great idea is if its not broken don't fix it. :aok
-
My great idea is if its not broken don't fix it. :aok
I think some would say: It is ;)
I think I have to clarify: No, I personally do not think it's broken, but it has some dents and and quite a few spiderwebs all over. :old:
-
Idk man, im just saying. Take the multiple late war arenas out, and the game will double in greatness, not as good as it was, but close.
-BigBOBCH
-
Small targets.
The game needs small targets that can be taken by one player only.
:salute
-
The game needs small targets that can be taken by one player only.
And that would help how?
-
Most people don't like change even if things may be better it is just hard to change people's habits of many years. I am not against any change of strategic targets. I do think any new change may just break the back of many players who don't like their game habits to be broken,& will just move on.
So what is the answer? I don't know the only thing I can offer that seems to get people excited is new vehicles. This is a slow process with a small staff as HTC is. If it was possible hammer out as many new items as quickly as they can & maybe even faster than the pace has ever been.
-
Most people don't like change even if things may be better it is just hard to change people's habits of many years. I am not against any change of strategic targets. I do think any new change may just break the back of many players who don't like their game habits to be broken,& will just move on.
If the change is too big, there is indeed a risk of alienating too many old players.. you always have to judge if it's worth it.
So what is the answer? I don't know the only thing I can offer that seems to get people excited is new vehicles. This is a slow process with a small staff as HTC is. If it was possible hammer out as many new items as quickly as they can & maybe even faster than the pace has ever been.
The pace has sped up a lot since Combat Tour was dropped. Doesn't seem to have had much impact on player numbers though :headscratch: Is just "more planes" enough to keep new generations interested in this game to sign up?
I think the GV changes - as much as I do not like certain aspects personally - are an example for a good adjustment for the changing player demographics.
-
If the change is too big, there is indeed a risk of alienating too many old players
I quit the game because of the changes were to big, so this is a fact. I played for years and years, and then when all the stupid changes went in effect it made me not want to play anymore. And again, I would love to give HTC more of my money, and I do greatly miss AH, but I would like for the arenas to be put back to one. I would re subscribe in a heartbeat. Just have to run to the store and get a new joystick cause my X52 took a dump.
-BigBOBCH
-
For me, it is about the maps, lack of target variety, and a narrow strategic system.
Maps: there are no snow maps and no desert in the MA. Why? If the odd-ball map "Mundanao" can be used in the MA then I ask why cant any of the snow or desert maps be converted for use in the MA??? is it really that complicated??? There are some very nice player made winter and desert skins that could be used. I, along with many other players are weary of constant green-green-green maps. Also, is there a possibility to rotate the front lines on some of the bigger maps, maybe each team swap 4-5 bases on teh other side of the lake or front? There are probably hundreds of bases out there that have no tank battles yet provide great terrain but are so far from the front that the opportunity for them to get used it nil.
Target Variety: There are no targets to hammer that are not bases, towns, or heavily defended strategic strongholds. Prior to the new strategic game, a group of players (or just one) could take NOE jabos to a radar factory, fuel refinery, etc, and pound it flat. Those are non-existent now. There are no targets to try and stealthily fly to, quickly hammer, and get out. I like the large complexes to bomb, but they are an "all or none" mission. I'd like to see those old strat targets return if for nothing else just something to have to attack that isn't heavily defended.
Narrow strategic system: Perhaps that is a bit broad of a statement, but I'd like to see even more repercussions for hammering the strategic complexes in AH. When the HQ goes down, there is a mad scramble to try and get it resupplied. I'd like to see HTC develop something similar for the different factories. Maybe there is such a thing as once the ammo factory is down below %50 there are no 1000 lb and larger bombs available??? Etc.
I also think ammo bunkers and barracks should have a tiered system similar to the fuel tanks. Why not??? This all or none stuff has absolutely no flavor. Likewise, why not vary the troops carriers in the number of troops they can carry??? Why are we stuck on 10? Give the carries their due! Let the C47 carry 20, the LVT 16, the M3 and 251 12, and the keep the jeep at 3. Why not? Why is 10 the magic number for troops needed for capture? Give the defenders more to shoot at, stop and think how many request have been made to involve infantry that much more? Allowing MORE troops running on the ground might be a good start? It will give the MG's something to do, and gv's a reason to carry HE shells.
-
I quit the game because of the changes were to big, so this is a fact.
But allow me the sarcasm: You are just one ;)
The big arena split of Split 2006 had created the biggest community outrage ever since... yet in the big picture, it did not hurt AH at that time at all, quite the contrary.
-
But allow me the sarcasm: You are just one ;)
The big arena split of Split 2006 had created the biggest community outrage ever since... yet in the big picture, it did not hurt AH at that time at all, quite the contrary.
How did it not hurt the game? It destroyed squad nights. There are times 3/4 of the squad cant get in an arena. Or a certain 3-4 people cant.
-BigBOBCH
-
Anybody have any?
The strategy is mundane and static. Shoot town, take base, rinse repeat, win war, boot to desktop. To use an analogy, I would equate it to playing a game of monopoly, except instead of a board with real estate, draws, go to jails, cool game pieces, fake money etc., it's just a blank board with nothing. Roll the dice first one to get around the board wins. The game needs more strategy. Strats that have impact, factories and cities that actually matter, objects that when destroyed unlock other things that can now be destroyed. Incentive to plan missions, incentive to defend against missions, incentive to get involved in the war! The game has all the pieces it needs to actually be very fun. 100+ fully modeled aircraft, tanks, and carrier fleets. Yet no dynamic strategy?
This is why I just fly around shooting bad guys. I have no incentive to get involved in the war, because I find it incredibly dull.
I think it still comes down to finding a way to get people to want to fight. Generally the 'strategy' seems to be get it done fastest and with the least amount of effort.
I have not idea how you get folks to want to have a decent fight. The minute things get a bit more difficult, the crowd comes screaming that they can't win fast enough.
Maybe a layered base system where the forward bases only have fighters and attack birds, the next ring has fighters, attack birds,and Mediums, and a final layer that has all planes enabled.
As you move into a country the amount of stuff that can be thrown at you gets larger so it gets tougher and takes more effort.
Gotta believe folks would scream bloody murder though at that kind of set up.
-
How did it not hurt the game? It destroyed squad nights. There are times 3/4 of the squad cant get in an arena. Or a certain 3-4 people cant.
That's YOUR game. I'm talking about the game as a whole, player numbers, subscriptions, business :)
-
Maybe a layered base system where the forward bases only have fighters and attack birds, the next ring has fighters, attack birds,and Mediums, and a final layer that has all planes enabled.
As you move into a country the amount of stuff that can be thrown at you gets larger so it gets tougher and takes more effort.
I think this would be an interesting idea. Maybe also time dependent, bases would "upgrade" after some time, so the faster you push forward, the less equipment you have available.
On the other hands... maybe the effect could be contrary, by encouraging the enemy not to push a single front but to change fronts & targets even rapidly... have to ponder over it :headscratch:
Gotta believe folks would scream bloody murder though at that kind of set up.
Somebody is always screaming, no matter what, If it's not hem, it will be me :D
-
That's YOUR game. I'm talking about the game as a whole, player numbers, subscriptions, business :)
Lol, I am probably gonna come back late this week for another shot. I miss all my guys ;) (like you) so much. Will give the game ONE last shot.
-BigBOBCH
-
:aok
The game, and the players of course, yield some incredibly thrilling fights. While I find the "mano y mano" fight in itself a reward, I prefer that there be a purpose to the fight, and winning the war offers that purpose. However, on a strategic level the game is rather shallow, with the apparent singular strategy for winning the war being assembling the largest horde for base takes. The game would offer so much more if it included a means to strategically limit the enemies ability to wage war, and likewise a necessity to prevent the enemy from limiting my county's ability to wage war. Currently, it could be argued that a strat or HQ raid offers this, but rarely do these effects last long enough to even land a mission before they have expired.
Personally, though I will gladly join the horde for the sake of winning the war (duh, his names starts with "v"), I agree that the horde can diminish the enjoyment and rewards for both sides when it occurs. It diminishes the return for the horder (less opportunity and reward for individual success), and the hordee (less likelihood for success).
a few thoughts to offer for improving the challenge:
1. Zone (country vs. country) ENY. Link the ENY vs. a country to the combatants each country provides to the other. If 2 countries gang the third, recognize that the third is fighting a 2 front war while the others are only fighting a one front war. Don't encourage country ganging!
2. Link the number of troops needed to capture a base, or the numbers of troops a transport can carry to ENY. If you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.
3. Link the percentage of town that requires destruction to ENY. Once again, if you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.
4. Make long term strategic initiatives matter. If someone takes the time and effort to strategically damage their opponent, meaningfully reward them AND their country for it. Likewise, make it worth taking the time and risk to stop them.
5. Reduce or rid the game of its AI defenses, or at least diminish it's effect on both score and rank. Give the "score/rank potatos" less disincentive to fight for a reason. Go ahead, try to sink that carrier, you might die to the AI puffy ack or AI ack guns, but HTC shouldn't diminish you rank vs. other players unless you're defeated by another player. (I don't pay my $15 bucks to fight an algorithim). Likewise, if you man that field or ship gun, you deserve credit for it, and credit for dieing in it as well if it happens.. (You're welcome MANaWAR).
6. Link ENY to the numbers of players in flight, not online, and don't have it instantaneously update. Or, base it upon an average, or the total number of a countries "in-flight" time over the previous X number of minutes. Diminish the players ability to influence ENY by doing anything except actually playing the game. I'm not sure to what extent this actually happens, but I'm sure tired of hearing so many insist it does.
7. Increase the time required between country switches (I suggest 24 hrs for LW), and prevent recent country swappers from gaining control of Task Groups (I suggest a 2 hour delay).
8. If I'm NOE, then even my own country shouldn't be able to see me on radar. If I'm trying to hide my goon or mission, let me hide it from everyone!!!
9. Proxies? Get rid of them, if you wanna kill, kill someone.
10. Give a time penalty before re-upping on the next sortie after you collide with another player, and make the penalty increase based upon your ratio of collisions/sortie during the campaign. Make collisions more important to avoid.
11. Make a few more Hungarian plane skins, It's getting boring getting shot down by Debrody's 109G6 over and over again. (Dude, I don't even know you're sister, no way it could have been me)
-
I think this would be an interesting idea. Maybe also time dependent, bases would "upgrade" after some time, so the faster you push forward, the less equipment you have available.
On the other hands... maybe the effect could be contrary, by encouraging the enemy not to push a single front but to change fronts & targets even rapidly... have to ponder over it :headscratch:
Somebody is always screaming, no matter what, If it's not hem, it will be me :D
It seems to me that if the heavies had to go further and further as the war progressed, the defenders would have a better chance to stop them, instead of the heavies upping a field over and clobbering everything so fast.
The 17s and 24s never left England as the war in the ETO went on. The Heavies in Italy didn't move forward. The 29s had to go a long way to hit Japan. You'd quickly get rid of "LancStukas' this way. I'd think it would make it more 'mission' like if you wanted to take the heavies. You'd want escort as the effort to make that flight would be greater. You'd be more apt to get a bunch of buffs with escorts to either pound the front lines, or possibly go deep and take out the other guy's heavy bomber fields. On the other side it would give the fighters a chance to up and get to altitude to defend. Obviously the jets would be further back too so they are less likely to spoil a front line fight, but would be in place to do what they really did in going after bombers.
I sure don't mind escorting a buff mission if it even remotely might feel like the history I like. I'd be much more likely to pay attention to them then. And if you could figure out a way to make refineries, aircraft factories, munitions plants etc a part of the bombing game, it might draw more of those kinds of missions to the game.
Along the front line if it's Fighter Bombers, A20s, Mossies, Dive bombers etc, it's going to take a bit more to take a field. I suppose you could even think about flak traps between field layers
-
9. Proxies? Get rid of them, if you wanna kill, kill someone.
Don't agree on this one. I have both won and lost fights by being outflown or outflying my opponent, without a shot ever being fired. Plus, I don't see how removing proxies would affect gameplay in any way whatsoever.
-
It seems to me that if the heavies had to go further and further as the war progressed, the defenders would have a better chance to stop them, instead of the heavies upping a field over and clobbering everything so fast.
The 17s and 24s never left England as the war in the ETO went on. The Heavies in Italy didn't move forward. The 29s had to go a long way to hit Japan. You'd quickly get rid of "LancStukas' this way. I'd think it would make it more 'mission' like if you wanted to take the heavies. You'd want escort as the effort to make that flight would be greater. You'd be more apt to get a bunch of buffs with escorts to either pound the front lines, or possibly go deep and take out the other guy's heavy bomber fields. On the other side it would give the fighters a chance to up and get to altitude to defend. Obviously the jets would be further back too so they are less likely to spoil a front line fight, but would be in place to do what they really did in going after bombers.
I sure don't mind escorting a buff mission if it even remotely might feel like the history I like. I'd be much more likely to pay attention to them then. And if you could figure out a way to make refineries, aircraft factories, munitions plants etc a part of the bombing game, it might draw more of those kinds of missions to the game.
Along the front line if it's Fighter Bombers, A20s, Mossies, Dive bombers etc, it's going to take a bit more to take a field. I suppose you could even think about flak traps between field layers
This idea is very interesting. It deserves exploration.
-
It seems to me that if the heavies had to go further and further as the war progressed, the defenders would have a better chance to stop them, instead of the heavies upping a field over and clobbering everything so fast.
In AH it's usually the opposite: The heavies with the least impact on the enemy are the ones upping a field over - many of them die quickly before reaching the target because of their low altitude.
Those that do shut down whole fields mostly come in at altitude, the higher you go the safer you are, even with increased warning time. It's sometimes hard to believe how inept players can be at reading a map... :bhead
And with a single fighter being able to kill a hangar, it's more efficient to up a dozen of jabos one base away, dash in and shut the base down.
-
:aok
The game, and the players of course, yield some incredibly thrilling fights. While I find the "mano y mano" fight in itself a reward, I prefer that there be a purpose to the fight, and winning the war offers that purpose. However, on a strategic level the game is rather shallow, with the apparent singular strategy for winning the war being assembling the largest horde for base takes. The game would offer so much more if it included a means to strategically limit the enemies ability to wage war, and likewise a necessity to prevent the enemy from limiting my county's ability to wage war. Currently, it could be argued that a strat or HQ raid offers this, but rarely do these effects last long enough to even land a mission before they have expired.
Personally, though I will gladly join the horde for the sake of winning the war (duh, his names starts with "v"), I agree that the horde can diminish the enjoyment and rewards for both sides when it occurs. It diminishes the return for the horder (less opportunity and reward for individual success), and the hordee (less likelihood for success).
a few thoughts to offer for improving the challenge:
1. Zone (country vs. country) ENY. Link the ENY vs. a country to the combatants each country provides to the other. If 2 countries gang the third, recognize that the third is fighting a 2 front war while the others are only fighting a one front war. Don't encourage country ganging!
2. Link the number of troops needed to capture a base, or the numbers of troops a transport can carry to ENY. If you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.
3. Link the percentage of town that requires destruction to ENY. Once again, if you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.
4. Make long term strategic initiatives matter. If someone takes the time and effort to strategically damage their opponent, meaningfully reward them AND their country for it. Likewise, make it worth taking the time and risk to stop them.
5. Reduce or rid the game of its AI defenses, or at least diminish it's effect on both score and rank. Give the "score/rank potatos" less disincentive to fight for a reason. Go ahead, try to sink that carrier, you might die to the AI puffy ack or AI ack guns, but HTC shouldn't diminish you rank vs. other players unless you're defeated by another player. (I don't pay my $15 bucks to fight an algorithim). Likewise, if you man that field or ship gun, you deserve credit for it, and credit for dieing in it as well if it happens.. (You're welcome MANaWAR).
6. Link ENY to the numbers of players in flight, not online, and don't have it instantaneously update. Or, base it upon an average, or the total number of a countries "in-flight" time over the previous X number of minutes. Diminish the players ability to influence ENY by doing anything except actually playing the game. I'm not sure to what extent this actually happens, but I'm sure tired of hearing so many insist it does.
7. Increase the time required between country switches (I suggest 24 hrs for LW), and prevent recent country swappers from gaining control of Task Groups (I suggest a 2 hour delay).
8. If I'm NOE, then even my own country shouldn't be able to see me on radar. If I'm trying to hide my goon or mission, let me hide it from everyone!!!
9. Proxies? Get rid of them, if you wanna kill, kill someone.
10. Give a time penalty before re-upping on the next sortie after you collide with another player, and make the penalty increase based upon your ratio of collisions/sortie during the campaign. Make collisions more important to avoid.
11. Make a few more Hungarian plane skins, It's getting boring getting shot down by Debrody's 109G6 over and over again. (Dude, I don't even know you're sister, no way it could have been me)
For the most part I really dig your list. :aok
-
Don't agree on this one. I have both won and lost fights by being outflown or outflying my opponent, without a shot ever being fired. Plus, I don't see how removing proxies would affect gameplay in any way whatsoever.
I have no problem "penalizing" a player who is so poor a pilot that he augers, or so unsporting that he bails (make it count for 2 deaths for all I care), but I'm not sure I understand the rationale of rewarding someone for being near him when he does it. Ever up a carrier that's under attack and get multiple proxies from your task groups ack? What did you do to earn them? Kills should be earned. On the other hand, that doesn't mean I advocate that a death at your own hands isn't still a death.
-
In AH it's usually the opposite: The heavies with the least impact on the enemy are the ones upping a field over - many of them die quickly before reaching the target because of their low altitude.
Those that do shut down whole fields mostly come in at altitude, the higher you go the safer you are, even with increased warning time. It's sometimes hard to believe how inept players can be at reading a map... :bhead
And with a single fighter being able to kill a hangar, it's more efficient to up a dozen of jabos one base away, dash in and shut the base down.
So dare we say it? Maybe field captures might need to be a bit tougher? That or throw in satellite fields and more then one VH so that to knock out a field takes more coordination and with the 'fighter strips' the defenders have more then one place to get up to defend that particular patch of real estate.
-
Unfortunately many of us dont want to spend our time flying cap, or sitting in the tower waiting for a scramble call. Its the fighting thats the fun in AH. Events provide the realism end. The basic game of the MAs is rinse/repeat.The only difference between the MA and the DA lake is transit time to combat.
To set it up so players govern other players would be like WW2OL and that sucked.
-
Unfortunately many of us dont want to spend our time flying cap, or sitting in the tower waiting for a scramble call. Its the fighting thats the fun in AH. Events provide the realism end. The basic game of the MAs is rinse/repeat.The only difference between the MA and the DA lake is transit time to combat.
But since the LW MA does make up 99.9xx% of the spent Aces High time flying, it is ultimately the most important, and improving the quality of play in this environment should be weighted accordingly.
To set it up so players govern other players would be like WW2OL and that sucked.
Yes but who ever mentioned that? :headscratch:
-
So dare we say it? Maybe field captures might need to be a bit tougher? That or throw in satellite fields and more then one VH so that to knock out a field takes more coordination and with the 'fighter strips' the defenders have more then one place to get up to defend that particular patch of real estate.
Taking a field is plenty tough already, unless you're being horded. I think it should be harder for a horde to take a base. If 8-10 guys with sufficient skills and strategy can close a base and capture it against an enemy with comparable resources, they deserve it. On the other hand, if 140 guys from 2 countries are ganging a country with 80 players, and 40 of them join a horde, they should find it much more difficult to take a base. The game should encourage them to attack the other front.
-
For the most part I really dig your list. :aok
Yeah, I disagree with #5-9-10
Aside from that, some points need clarification and especially on how to implement that in the game in order to avoid possible exploits and low ratio of workload VS impact.
Oh and taking a town aint hard... all it takes is two P47s and a C47...
-
Most of the mentioned proposals are just tuning the old concept.
But in the face of steadily sinking player numbers and a new generation of players (or "gamers", as some like to say), with different expectations and more competition in the online gaming world... what about some more radical changes? Bringing in some more Combat Tour elements, reviving the idea of a Training Academy or mandatory (short) training missions? And *gasp* gearing the arena stronger towards a true "war", with featured news on the frontage, a more detailed and worthy strat system and some kind of enhanced teambuilding? Maybe augmenting this War Arena with an improved Furball Arena?
-
Just throwing this out there to see if it sticks. I do not know as to the feasibility of implementation. For me I would think it would be rather appealing to include components to the game that would directly effect a countries ability to win the war. Whats the feeling on adding forward observation posts, rail yards, ship yards, local factories tied to an individual base or town, targets scattered around the map that wouldn't necessarily be seen on the map, but offered stratigec value to capture and hold. Sometime ago there was a discussion on having a large town complex with varying bridges to gain access. Having to ward off attacks on those bridges and hold that town could lead to some savage and meaningful fights. Of course some how, some way this would all need to be tied in to what the games over all objective is,was or would be. As I stated earlier im.just throwing some thoughts out there with no real answer as to how.
-
Just throwing this out there to see if it sticks. I do not know as to the feasibility of implementation. For me I would think it would be rather appealing to include components to the game that would directly effect a countries ability to win the war. Whats the feeling on adding forward observation posts, rail yards, ship yards, local factories tied to an individual base or town, targets scattered around the map that wouldn't necessarily be seen on the map, but offered stratigic value to capture and hold. Sometime ago there was a discussion on having a large town complex with varying bridges to gain access. Having to ward off attacks on those bridges and hold that town could lead to some savage and meaningful fights. Of course some how, some way this would all need to be tied in to what the games over all objective is,was or would be. As I stated earlier im.just throwing some thoughts out there with no real answer as to how.
Actually that sounds like a cool idea. Like have munition factories but thy don't show up on the map. And if you destroy it then all bases within so many miles can only take off with half the normal amount of ammo or something like that. Would defiantly throw some good aspects in the game.
-BigBOBCH
-
moin
another idee,
what if only 3 or 4 bases are importen to take for a country maybe that ones that are close to the strat.
that means every base on the map is takeable but only 3-4 are for wining the war. i gues expezialy on the big maps it would be rice the fun because every country is forced to made big bridghads into the enemy country.
cu christian
-
Just do a search on the strat suggestions I've made over the last few years and repeat them here. Including but not exclusive to.
Go back to the zone base system
Institute a zone or sector based ENY or number limiter that ties in with overall ENY
Have strat factories that actually make something and who's destruction will cause that product to cease or at least severely limit to be available. But can be resupplied just like HQ
"With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available" Not to mention aspects of the game such as fuel,ord,troops,AI resupply trains,barges & vehicles,C'mon, we cant have a couple of factories that actually effect a couple of them? I mean really.
Maybe we can have a variable hardness for factories. The more numbers a country has. The more ord it takes to destroy the opposing factories
Its a long flight to the strat targets. Reducing at least 1 aircraft or vehicle for a short period of time should be the reward for being willing to make such a trek, successfully getting there and then being able to actually hit it. And with that long flight time to get to target. The opposing side has plenty of warning that its coming. There is no excuse for not defending. And if you dont. There isnt a plane or vehicle ("out of "over 100")in the game that nobody cant be without for 15 min.
If a significant amount of people wont log off due to ENY then they shouldnt over this as it actually has a lessor effect then ENY does over and would over a shorter period of time.
-
Just a couple random thoughts for strategic play:
1. Base captures that require a multi-faceted approach, targets within town that require a GV only attack, required hardened targets that require a massive bomber bomb load, etc. - anything to stimulate a more realistic 3D approach to a base take.
2. A more complex mission planner for the general purpose and Squadron use. Something that would give the ability to plan a single or series of missions to be launched simultaneously or on a schedule for a longer term strategic objective and would also allow the mission CO to assign individual targets within the mission. This would not replace the existing simplistic mission planner, but be an alternative, available to be Commanded based upon ranking or other game variables (I know no one likes the ranking system, but lets face it, to achieve a reasonable rank you have to be somewhat skilled in most of the disciplines in the game).
3. Pay the mission participants, after all even our Military receives a paycheck. I suggest a perk point system to reward the mission participants if the mission(s) succeed, the participant lives and/or destroys his assigned target. Each mission can have a fixed amount of award-able perk points and the mission CO can decide how many perk points are alloted for each position or target.
The hope would be that missions become more meaningful and strategically executed and not just an overwhelming horde of warm bodies waiting to be killed!
-
More trains, add railyards, add some type of more significant supply system.
Add napalm for hitting towns. Add partisans to the towns.
-
Rescuing squad members in jeeps etc or PBY's would add drama to the game :)
-
I'd like to have those tracked German motorbikes to tow planes back onto concrete.
-
Most of the mentioned proposals are just tuning the old concept.
But in the face of steadily sinking player numbers and a new generation of players (or "gamers", as some like to say), with different expectations and more competition in the online gaming world... what about some more radical changes? Bringing in some more Combat Tour elements, reviving the idea of a Training Academy or mandatory (short) training missions? And *gasp* gearing the arena stronger towards a true "war", with featured news on the frontage, a more detailed and worthy strat system and some kind of enhanced teambuilding? Maybe augmenting this War Arena with an improved Furball Arena?
Talking with my son and his "gamer" friends I asked what would draw them to AH, and what do they look for in a game. The answers were simple, but how to incorporate them....... well here are a few thoughts.
Gamers look for competition, achievements, and side quests along with the main quest of "Win the War".
Add a training arena like Lusche said. Create half a dozen missions that the trainee MUST complete before they can enter the MA or other arenas. Nothing too horrible but things that push them toward "learning".
1st mission Chalkboard on the wall of the Training HQ gives you the basics of the mission, Take off, fly to next sector going to Angels 5 (5K in altitude) dive in on target at a 45 degree angle and strafe target down with guns, return to base and land successfully.
Candidate takes off (auto take off enabled, later missions it's not), grab to 5k fly to next sector and strafe down a building with guns (building hardness is set so that it takes 80% of the trainers planes ammo to take out), return and land for a completed mission.
Completed mission gives them an atta-bot and a plaque on the wall and access to the next mission. First mission gets them in the air for some basic flying, strafing of target teaches aim, angels for dives, compression for those who go too high, and how to pull out of a dive as well as landing, all basic skills needed to play the game.
Each mission successfully completed gives them a "award" (plaque on the wall) and teaches them some aspect of the game. missions can include bomber runs, dropping the last few buildings to get the "white flag" to pop, obstacle courses for a GV run to target and so on. Teaching the basics of the game getting a player use to the controls and giving them awards for succeeding. Once all 6 missions are complete the MAs open up for a taste of the real thing.
The MA's
The competition is there, but for many they KNOW they can't compete. This is what drives the hordes. In most cases it could take 8 months to a year to be an average fighter in this game. So while they are learning give them something else easier to strive for. This is where the Achievements and side quest come in. Add a new column in the score sheet called achievement points. Like all scores it's reset each month. Some achievements that earn points...
1 point for their first kill in each plane type they fly. With 83 planes to fly and get a kill in max is 83. If you get all 83, it gets rounded up to 100 as a bonus. Many have tried to get a kill in each plane, not many have succeeded, but as something to do as a "side quest" and you can add to your achievement points it something people have an option to do for themselves or by themselves.
1 point for a resupply run for a damaged base.
1 point for dropping supplies to GV (must have GVs in the area to use them)
1 point for RTBin in any vehicle or plane
1 point for bombing a strat
For side quests a number of missions could be added. to be used over and over again in the mission planner.
Mission 1, HQ bombing mission max 10 players 8 buffs, 2 fighters. Mission launches from a rearward base flies to enemy HQ bombs and returns. Successful landing is 10 achievement points for each that makes it.
Mission 2-6 assign a forward base as launch point, 20 guys max attack mission for next base. These missions won't come into play until the front opens the attack base to an attack mission. Again 10 achievement point to each who make it back.
Missions 7-15, pork run missions to enemy bases, max 5 people again either they are long mission behind enemy lines, or you wait until they become front line bases to shorten the trip. 5 achievement points for a successful landing.
Any player made mission using the mission editor with 20 or less slots available, 5 achievement points on a successful landing.
These are just a few things I can think of. These side quests, and I'm sure MANY more could be thought up and added will give people more options of game play, more options to achieve something and be successful, and be able to compete with other players even tho they have more experience. While the "hot sticks" may get the 83 points for a kill in each plane a rookie could do the same by porking ord and dropping supplies. The "achievement points" would give a reason to do these other things and bring more stratiegyinto the game at the same time still having the win the war as the big prize!
-
Most of the mentioned proposals are just tuning the old concept.
But in the face of steadily sinking player numbers and a new generation of players (or "gamers", as some like to say), with different expectations and more competition in the online gaming world... what about some more radical changes? Bringing in some more Combat Tour elements, reviving the idea of a Training Academy or mandatory (short) training missions? And *gasp* gearing the arena stronger towards a true "war", with featured news on the frontage, a more detailed and worthy strat system and some kind of enhanced teambuilding? Maybe augmenting this War Arena with an improved Furball Arena?
Well, I`ve been reading these posts for awhile and I continue to be amazed at all the complex ways to improve the game that people are coming up with....Worried about the"steadily shrinking player numbers"?... I believe that many people are missing some of the main reasons....I talked about this before and was royally smacked down....You want some radical changes?....
Improve the graphics...Compared to FA, AH graphics have a washed out appearance...The explosions all look (even 4,000lb`ers) like a kid kicked up some dust that was left in a carpet...
Arena caps....Your joking, right?....I can`t count the number of times I have logged into an uncapped arena, found a great fight in progress, only to get the warning, "5 minutes until arena is shut down" (or such)....Large numbers make for better fights and as such, more fun....If the servers can`t handle it, then, well...fix it....
Flight physics....Absolute, level 10 flight physics?....This is going to be a shock to some "old timers" here but, Not everyone who fly`s in AH can be a A+++ flyer....Many are only average or even mediocre....The attitude apparently is, "AH is ONLY for Top Guns"....And another secret, people don`t like being shot down all the time...There is nothing wrong with reducing the physics down a couple of notches....Some people here have already mentioned the length of time it takes to even fly properly, never mind shooting someone down....I once before talked about reducing the flight physics slightly and or having full screen views instead of cockpit views...But was greeted with howls of, "you want an arcade game!", and, "what`s next, unlimited ammo and fuel!?"....When people get frustrated, they leave....The last thing AH needs is to put more people off by "demanding" mandatory flight training...
ENY and perk points...See above....Not everyone is a fighter ace like Eric Hartmann, or a tanker like Micheal Wittmann...And not everyone plays 24/7 to get "perk points" to take out the better planes/tanks....Some people struggle to get the points to get a certain tank/plane, then get quickly destroyed....Now they have regain all those points lost...That quickly tires, and hence, "steadily shrinking player numbers".....Everyone says, "it`s the pilot, not the plane", so who cares if a newbie takes out a Tempest without needing points?....And the, "everyone will just fly Tempests and use Tigers", does not hold water...FA had not such limitation, and people were flying a wide variety of planes...And ENY?...Good Grief....On one hand, people want a game as close to WW2 realism as possible, then they want ENY to, "balance the game"...Hint: Not everything in life is fair...
BTW...FA went under due to the failure to adapt, to make changes...The same thing AH seems to be doing....That`s "strategic" enough for now...
Now, flame away....
-
change the location of the fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,314059.msg4071213.html#msg4071213)
I think this post by Snuggie in th wishlist forum (as well as by others who have made similar proposals) has a lot of merit: To change the location of the fight. Change the basic landgrab system by changing the objectives.
A new map design could feature several larger towns/ cities as the actually capturable objectives, each one being supported by a small number of (small) air fields and vehicle bases (and, in coastal areas, by ports). Those fields are part of that cities "zone", and when the city get's captured, the bases will change ownership too. GV spawns are located at those cities.
I will flesh pout this concept later this evening, as there are still some flaws and a lot of open questions. But if it can be made workable, it may indeed shift the kind of fight from a standard "smash-cap-vulch" profile to a battle over a remote location.
As some of the Gv guys know, some of the best battles in the true sense do happen at locations like V135-136 on Ozkansas, where two bases hostile to each other spawn to a different location (without the spawns being just on top of each other), so that neither side has a significant "home turf" advantage, unlike in standard base attack situations when the attacker drives 5 minutes just to get killed by a Panther sitting on base (which can easily "land" if things get tough). Let's take this to a higher level!
-
change the location of the fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,314059.msg4071213.html#msg4071213)
I think this post by Snuggie in th wishlist forum (as well as by others who have made similar proposals) has a lot of merit: To change the location of the fight. Change the basic landgrab system by changing the objectives.
A new map design could feature several larger towns/ cities as the actually capturable objectives, each one being supported by a small number of (small) air fields and vehicle bases (and, in coastal areas, by ports). Those fields are part of that cities "zone", and when the city get's captured, the bases will change ownership too. GV spawns are located at those cities.
I will flesh pout this concept later this evening, as there are still some flaws and a lot of open questions. But if it can be made workable, it may indeed shift the kind of fight from a standard "smash-cap-vulch" profile to a battle over a remote location.
As some of the Gv guys know, some of the best battles in the true sense do happen at locations like V135-136 on Ozkansas, where two bases hostile to each other spawn to a different location (without the spawns being just on top of each other), so that neither side has a significant "home turf" advantage, unlike in standard base attack situations when the attacker drives 5 minutes just to get killed by a Panther sitting on base (which can easily "land" if things get tough). Let's take this to a higher level!
Now THAT would be great. If regions were contested for with a group of bases in a region. Maybe hangars and damage could stay down for an hour or so per base. Once this main city/hub/whatever it is is destroyed, this region switches control to the other side. Idk if this capture should be an "instantaneous" thing. I think the switch would have to be instantaneous but the objects stay on their natural timer for being down, so defense of this region would be crtical after it is captured. Running supplies to help it build faster would also help it build faster. Supplies would have to be run from another region. Just a quick build on a great idea.
The only problem I see with it which would require some clever map making would be to ensure that flight times don't increase to get to the action.
-
The only problem I see with it which would require some clever map making would be to ensure that flight times don't increase to get to the action.
That's one of the many open questions. Making this thing playable in practice and not just "reading great in theory" is the key.
Interesting task... to be continued :)
-
Well, I`ve been reading these posts for awhile and I continue to be amazed at all the complex ways to improve the game that people are coming up with....Worried about the"steadily shrinking player numbers"?... I believe that many people are missing some of the main reasons....I talked about this before and was royally smacked down....You want some radical changes?....
Improve the graphics...Compared to FA, AH graphics have a washed out appearance...The explosions all look (even 4,000lb`ers) like a kid kicked up some dust that was left in a carpet...
Arena caps....Your joking, right?....I can`t count the number of times I have logged into an uncapped arena, found a great fight in progress, only to get the warning, "5 minutes until arena is shut down" (or such)....Large numbers make for better fights and as such, more fun....If the servers can`t handle it, then, well...fix it....
Flight physics....Absolute, level 10 flight physics?....This is going to be a shock to some "old timers" here but, Not everyone who fly`s in AH can be a A+++ flyer....Many are only average or even mediocre....The attitude apparently is, "AH is ONLY for Top Guns"....And another secret, people don`t like being shot down all the time...There is nothing wrong with reducing the physics down a couple of notches....Some people here have already mentioned the length of time it takes to even fly properly, never mind shooting someone down....I once before talked about reducing the flight physics slightly and or having full screen views instead of cockpit views...But was greeted with howls of, "you want an arcade game!", and, "what`s next, unlimited ammo and fuel!?"....When people get frustrated, they leave....
ENY and perk points...See above....Not everyone is a fighter ace like Eric Hartmann, or a tanker like Micheal Wittmann...And not everyone plays 24/7 to get "perk points" to take out the better planes/tanks....Some people struggle to get the points to get a certain tank/plane, then get quickly destroyed....Now they have regain all those points lost...That quickly tires, and hence, "steadily shrinking player numbers".....Everyone says, "it`s the pilot, not the plane", so who cares if a newbie takes out a Tempest without needing points?....And the, "everyone will just fly Tempests and use Tigers", does not hold water...FA had not such limitation, and people were flying a wide variety of planes...And ENY?...Good Grief....On one hand, people want a game as close to WW2 realism as possible, then they want ENY to, "balance the game"...Hint: Not everything in life is fair...
BTW...FA went under due to the failure to adapt, to make changes...The same thing AH seems to be doing....That`s "strategic" enough for now...
Now, flame away....
There are good reasons WHY things they are in the game.
Personally I think the graphics in FA were too garish, and far too bright. It was done that way only to set it apart from other games.
Arena caps were about business. With out them the subscriptions became stagnate, with the split and caps the subscription rate went up. Seeing its a business the split and caps where a good idea. With today economy, maybe it's time to go back to a single arena, but it's not MY business.
Flight model, I'm here to flight the closest thing I can get to in a WWII bird without spending a fortune, or getting killed. I'm 53 years old and my eye site isn't the best nor are my reflexes, but this game while challenging is more fun for being difficult. If I want to play something easier I'd get an Xbox.
ENY and Perk points are two different things. ENY is in place to make things fair. Seeing this is NOT A WAR but a game it is suppose to be fair for all sides giving everyone an equal....or as close to equal... chance to win. Perks are to limit certain equipment. When the F4u-1c was introduced it was THE plane to fly everyone was flying it and it dominated the arena. Adding a perk price to it slowed it's use and brought balance to the game again.
Aces High HAS adapted, and changed very much over the years. By adding new equipment, updating graphics engines and sound systems, reworking towns, factories and HQ, as well as terrain tiles and water effect graphics. Game play has changed from almost pure fighter to srtategic landgrab, to win the war hordes. Ground vehicles have been added as well as CV groups for sea battles. The arenas are now set-up to allow decent game play number not only at prime US time but as well as Prime Europe time.
What we have, has been added to continue the growth of the game, which is still here to grow (which means someone is doing something right), as apposed to Air warrior, Warbirds, and Fighter Aces. While some of the changes haven't been popular, they seem to have been in the right direction....seeing we are still here :D Going back or doing away with those changes will only put us in the same boat as those other games.... 6 feet under.
-
Oh and taking a town aint hard... all it takes is two P47s and a C47...
I'd like to see that. I'd be willing to wager $50 says that two of the best ground-pounder players in the game would be very hard pressed to get %75 of the town down fully loaded with ordnance (slightly more than 4000 lbs each with the 2/1k, 1/500lb, and 10/5in rockets) and another 2800lbs in .50 cal damage. If they were able to do it, it'd be by the hair on their chinny-chin-chin. So "aint hard" would not be the description I'd use. ;)
I'm liking the idea of restricting the heavy bombers, or strategic bombers to certain bases a few sectors back from the front. If the coding allows for the Me163 to be restricted to certain fields, then why not the B29, Lancaster, B24, B17, Ju88, B26, etc to designated fields off the front? As mentioned, it should be the A20, B25's, Mossi's, 110's, etc. This has been discussed before.
-
i think alot of it has to do with the player base mentality, not as many true flight/fight purists in the game anymore, it was more about air combat and less about smash and grab like we see now
-
I think we need more "goals" The game has been taken over by the "xbox generation", and there play revolves around a goal. For a vast majority it's "win the war". This generates they drive to win the war at all cost type of play that has I think anyway dropped game play. While I have no problem at all with the win the war part of the game I have a HUGE problem with how it's done.
Back when I was active with a squad, the biggest proponents of base taking and the biggest source of complaining that (non-squad) people weren't helping enough to win the war were also the "oldest" voices on vox. I can't really say they were the oldest, but by the sound of their voice they coulda been. Anyways I just don't see it as an X-Box Generation thing. There is some demand for the goal oriented style of gameplay that comes from everyone.
I would like to see the creators of Aces High tamper with their formula a bit more. The oft-complained-about two LW arenas is actually the best place to do it. Put the experimental rules on the second arena in the list, and if that arena becomes more popular than the first arena in the list, you know you have a winner. Otherwise, scrap it and try something else. The first arena in the list is always naturally more popular based on human nature, if posts on these forums in the past are accurate.
As for what to try first, I'd say something like: Strat targets being destroyed increase the amount of town (slightly) that can be up to still get a white flag for the towns affected by that strat. As I recall factories and means of regening strat already naturally fit into such a system.
ENY and perk points...See above....Not everyone is a fighter ace like Eric Hartmann, or a tanker like Micheal Wittmann...And not everyone plays 24/7 to get "perk points" to take out the better planes/tanks....Some people struggle to get the points to get a certain tank/plane, then get quickly destroyed....Now they have regain all those points lost...That quickly tires, and hence, "steadily shrinking player numbers".....Everyone says, "it`s the pilot, not the plane", so who cares if a newbie takes out a Tempest without needing points?....And the, "everyone will just fly Tempests and use Tigers", does not hold water...FA had not such limitation, and people were flying a wide variety of planes...And ENY?...Good Grief....On one hand, people want a game as close to WW2 realism as possible, then they want ENY to, "balance the game"...
I think if perked aircraft weren't perked, they would be all you would see. But you do have a good point about the new players. So here's how I would do it: Make increasing Perk points for taking out an aircraft. When an account is first opened the perk points are very low for all perked aircraft. The perks increase steadily for every kill and thousand pounds of damage inflicted with perked aircraft on that account until the perks are normal level. I would go with 10 kills or 10,000 damage to get to full perk value (only while flying perked aircraft).
-
I think more needs to be added to the capture feature of a town other than killing all buildings and letting auto-troops run, if they could incorporate a town capture method similar to what WWII online has to where it takes player controlled troops (First person Shooter) to hold/occupy a certain percentage of buildings for a set time to capture the town, of course he has to avoid enemy ground and air along with enemy ground troops i think a system like this would really add the Fun factor.
Another idea is to limit the amounts of planes or gv's you can up from one Field, so many planes of each model are allotted, instead of the endless supply. once planes become depleted it takes a certain amount of time (transport time) for them to reappear in the hanger, either you can wait for it to resupply or grab another type of plane or launch from a rear base in the plane you wanted. of course this would not apply if you land and tower out then you still have your plane at that AF even though it could be depleted and waiting for resupply, eh just a few thoughts
-
What we have, has been added to continue the growth of the game, which is still here to grow (which means someone is doing something right), as apposed to Air warrior, Warbirds, and Fighter Aces. While some of the changes haven't been popular, they seem to have been in the right direction....seeing we are still here :D Going back or doing away with those changes will only put us in the same boat as those other games.... 6 feet under.
Unfair comparison to include AW in that list. Airwarrior had more stuff in the works. And it didnt die. It was murdered by EA.
-
Back when I was active with a squad, the biggest proponents of base taking and the biggest source of complaining that (non-squad) people weren't helping enough to win the war were also the "oldest" voices on vox. I can't really say they were the oldest, but by the sound of their voice they coulda been. Anyways I just don't see it as an X-Box Generation thing. There is some demand for the goal oriented style of gameplay that comes from everyone.
I would like to see the creators of Aces High tamper with their formula a bit more. The oft-complained-about two LW arenas is actually the best place to do it. Put the experimental rules on the second arena in the list, and if that arena becomes more popular than the first arena in the list, you know you have a winner. Otherwise, scrap it and try something else. The first arena in the list is always naturally more popular based on human nature, if posts on these forums in the past are accurate.
As for what to try first, I'd say something like: Strat targets being destroyed increase the amount of town (slightly) that can be up to still get a white flag for the towns affected by that strat. As I recall factories and means of regening strat already naturally fit into such a system.
There is a difference between the "older" players goals and the "gamers/Xbox" players goal only in how they go about it.
Personally as an "older" player I would love to join mission after mission being responsible for a certain segment of the plan to accomplish with "skill and daring" as they say instead of pure numbers/brute strength. I think to an older player the "doing" is as much fun as the end game.
From what I've seen of the Xbox/gamer generation while they seem to have fun doing what they are doing, they don't care about it, they just want to get it done. Smash one place and move on to the next.
Same end game, but a big difference on how they get there.
I think more needs to be added to the capture feature of a town other than killing all buildings and letting auto-troops run, if they could incorporate a town capture method similar to what WWII online has to where it takes player controlled troops (First person Shooter) to hold/occupy a certain percentage of buildings for a set time to capture the town, of course he has to avoid enemy ground and air along with enemy ground troops i think a system like this would really add the Fun factor.
Another idea is to limit the amounts of planes or gv's you can up from one Field, so many planes of each model are allotted, instead of the endless supply. once planes become depleted it takes a certain amount of time (transport time) for them to reappear in the hanger, either you can wait for it to resupply or grab another type of plane or launch from a rear base in the plane you wanted. of course this would not apply if you land and tower out then you still have your plane at that AF even though it could be depleted and waiting for resupply, eh just a few thoughts
I think HTC said that "someday" they would like to add a FPS element to the town captures. I think there are a number of things they could do with out going thru huge rewrites of the code, which a FPS portion to work with in the game would be. Making the attacking team responsible for capping and maintaining a defense on a base for 15 minutes would for the capture to stick would make a big difference in base capture.
Unfair comparison to include AW in that list. Airwarrior had more stuff in the works. And it didnt die. It was murdered by EA.
Poor management killed AW. while I'll give you they were trying to make changes for the better in the game they got snookered by EA and it killed the game. Had EA NOT been only after the code, and had they really wanted to continue the game, it may still be around. We will never know. To this day I won"t buy anything that says EA on the box.
-
change the location of the fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,314059.msg4071213.html#msg4071213)
I think this post by Snuggie in th wishlist forum (as well as by others who have made similar proposals) has a lot of merit: To change the location of the fight. Change the basic landgrab system by changing the objectives.
A new map design could feature several larger towns/ cities as the actually capturable objectives, each one being supported by a small number of (small) air fields and vehicle bases (and, in coastal areas, by ports). Those fields are part of that cities "zone", and when the city get's captured, the bases will change ownership too. GV spawns are located at those cities.
I will flesh pout this concept later this evening, as there are still some flaws and a lot of open questions. But if it can be made workable, it may indeed shift the kind of fight from a standard "smash-cap-vulch" profile to a battle over a remote location.
As some of the Gv guys know, some of the best battles in the true sense do happen at locations like V135-136 on Ozkansas, where two bases hostile to each other spawn to a different location (without the spawns being just on top of each other), so that neither side has a significant "home turf" advantage, unlike in standard base attack situations when the attacker drives 5 minutes just to get killed by a Panther sitting on base (which can easily "land" if things get tough). Let's take this to a higher level!
I like all of that..I would also bring back strat bombing to support this type of game play..
-
Talking with my son and his "gamer" friends I asked what would draw them to AH, and what do they look for in a game. The answers were simple, but how to incorporate them....... well here are a few thoughts.
Gamers look for competition, achievements, and side quests along with the main quest of "Win the War".
Add a training arena like Lusche said. Create half a dozen missions that the trainee MUST complete before they can enter the MA or other arenas. Nothing too horrible but things that push them toward "learning".
1st mission Chalkboard on the wall of the Training HQ gives you the basics of the mission, Take off, fly to next sector going to Angels 5 (5K in altitude) dive in on target at a 45 degree angle and strafe target down with guns, return to base and land successfully.
Candidate takes off (auto take off enabled, later missions it's not), grab to 5k fly to next sector and strafe down a building with guns (building hardness is set so that it takes 80% of the trainers planes ammo to take out), return and land for a completed mission.
Completed mission gives them an atta-bot and a plaque on the wall and access to the next mission. First mission gets them in the air for some basic flying, strafing of target teaches aim, angels for dives, compression for those who go too high, and how to pull out of a dive as well as landing, all basic skills needed to play the game.
Each mission successfully completed gives them a "award" (plaque on the wall) and teaches them some aspect of the game. missions can include bomber runs, dropping the last few buildings to get the "white flag" to pop, obstacle courses for a GV run to target and so on. Teaching the basics of the game getting a player use to the controls and giving them awards for succeeding. Once all 6 missions are complete the MAs open up for a taste of the real thing.
The MA's
The competition is there, but for many they KNOW they can't compete. This is what drives the hordes. In most cases it could take 8 months to a year to be an average fighter in this game. So while they are learning give them something else easier to strive for. This is where the Achievements and side quest come in. Add a new column in the score sheet called achievement points. Like all scores it's reset each month. Some achievements that earn points...
1 point for their first kill in each plane type they fly. With 83 planes to fly and get a kill in max is 83. If you get all 83, it gets rounded up to 100 as a bonus. Many have tried to get a kill in each plane, not many have succeeded, but as something to do as a "side quest" and you can add to your achievement points it something people have an option to do for themselves or by themselves.
1 point for a resupply run for a damaged base.
1 point for dropping supplies to GV (must have GVs in the area to use them)
1 point for RTBin in any vehicle or plane
1 point for bombing a strat
For side quests a number of missions could be added. to be used over and over again in the mission planner.
Mission 1, HQ bombing mission max 10 players 8 buffs, 2 fighters. Mission launches from a rearward base flies to enemy HQ bombs and returns. Successful landing is 10 achievement points for each that makes it.
Mission 2-6 assign a forward base as launch point, 20 guys max attack mission for next base. These missions won't come into play until the front opens the attack base to an attack mission. Again 10 achievement point to each who make it back.
Missions 7-15, pork run missions to enemy bases, max 5 people again either they are long mission behind enemy lines, or you wait until they become front line bases to shorten the trip. 5 achievement points for a successful landing.
Any player made mission using the mission editor with 20 or less slots available, 5 achievement points on a successful landing.
These are just a few things I can think of. These side quests, and I'm sure MANY more could be thought up and added will give people more options of game play, more options to achieve something and be successful, and be able to compete with other players even tho they have more experience. While the "hot sticks" may get the 83 points for a kill in each plane a rookie could do the same by porking ord and dropping supplies. The "achievement points" would give a reason to do these other things and bring more stratiegyinto the game at the same time still having the win the war as the big prize!
wow HTC should read this these are some VERY good idea's :aok
-
wow HTC should read this these are some VERY good idea's :aok
I'm sure they are. More than likely this tread might give them a couple of ideas for later if they haven't though about it prior. Of course they can't implement all of it in one single shot but they got the wisdom and smartness to come up with innovative ideas and features from here, with our help if necessary.
-
Definitely would like using one of the Late War arenas as sort of a beta testing area for new ideas.
-
The underlying reality that makes universally accepted evolution in this game so difficult, is that the games "war" structure, scoring and perk system drive different behaviors, based upon different priorities for many players. This can be a good thing, if each of these behaviors compliment one another, whereby accomplishing one priority also yields success in the lesser priorities for each player. On the other hand, this can be a bad thing if choosing one priority requires virtually forsaking success in another. This game can't be all things to all people all the time, but opportunities to make it more things to more people more of the time certainly exist.
Consider: (these examples are in my no means meant to be all-inclusive of either types or reasons)
If you're measurement for success is rank, then the game's ranking system discourages high risk behaviors that are critical to winning the "war".
Why up Buffs to sink a heavily defended CV that is attacking your base, when you can milk run a few towns for 10 times the damage points? After all, even if you get attacked by 100 guys and shoot every one of them down from your tail gun, those kills won't count towards your rank, yet dying in the puffy ack counts against it.
As a fighter, why would you engage in any fight in which you didn't have a significant advantage? Upping that field under heavy attack is high risk behavior that offers no advantages to your rank, it's much safer to just let that field go, and grab 20k and look for the next unsuspecting and often irrelevant kill to the "war".
Why would you run supplies, man a field gun? No rank improvements there.
On the other hand, if you're objective is to win the "war", the game encourages you to avoid the fight.
Why let your opponent see you coming on a base take? After all, if you sneak in NOE and smash and grab the town your chances of taking the base are much improved, and the only shots fired are likely to be against AI ack.
Why stay up to fight the leftover and late defenders after you take a base? They're unlikely to post any threat to recapturing the field, so it's best to just ignore them and look for the next undefended base.
Why turn and fight that LA7 defending his field? He'll just re-up and offer more resistance to your capture if you shoot him down, it's better to just drag him away for as long as possible and draw out as much of his ammo to give your troops time to sneak in.
And then of course, there's the pure "thrill of the fight player", looking for that co-E, co-Alt, may the best man win fight, who is frustrated by the won't engage me w/o a huge advantage "Rank" player, and the "avoid unnecessary conflict" player intent on winning the war.
AH needs to focus it's evolution on giving these fundamentally different types of players a reason to engage one another. The "Rank" driven players enjoy a good fight and winning the war too, the "War Winners" would certainly enjoy a higher rank and a good fight, and the "Thrill Seeker" would enjoy both winning the war and earning rank. The problem isn't about the things we all love about the game. The problem is that many of the things we love about the game require us to give up a little of something else we love to obtain it.
I believe that one way (In addition to many of the above great ideas) to bring these priorities closer together is to better align the priorities of winning the war and earning score/rank closer together. This seems to me to be a rather simple first step.
-
FWIW...maybe if HTC gave people 30 days instead of 14 to try it out could go a long way in giving people an incentive to want to subscribe..just a thought.. :salute I realize it is a bit off-topic,but hey,maybe it would work..
-
maybe a mehanism that gives a small amount of intelligence to missions that are being formed, so counter missions could be generated.
I think Grizz is correct the game as it is now is all about the individual "me me me me" there is nothing that brings folks to focus on a single goal or opposing that goal. A mission is formed <-- good for that, then you get the "skintags" clinging to the mission but for very different reasons. I actually think missions should have a risk and a reward. So too counter mission goers should have risk and reward.
I really don't know what could improve the game but it is getting very old and dull very quickly. I think it is the gameplay, not some change in the way I percieve the gaming experience.
JUGgler
-
The bottom line, the game has become lame in many ways and something to bring more realism and players together for a single objective other base taking needs to be implemented..and this my 2 cent input..
-
If recent game history has taught us anything it is that HTC is usually quite responsive to the player base. Im sure that some changes will be coming forth that address this issue on some level. Oh to be a fly on the wall at HTC.
-
The bottom line, the game has become lame in many ways and something to bring more realism and players together for a single objective other base taking needs to be implemented..and this my 2 cent input..
LOL go back and read the thread I posted with my 2003 comments on AH after two weeks. Not sure much has really changed, as what was lame then is lame now or something like that :)
-
But since the LW MA does make up 99.9xx% of the spent Aces High time flying, it is ultimately the most important, and improving the quality of play in this environment should be weighted accordingly.
Yes but who ever mentioned that? :headscratch:
Kinda made the next step if the game doesnt rule you, the players may. Thats if you are talking a game where it takes coordination...enforced coordination if any real strat stuff was to work right.Forced to patrol a sector to protect a city etc. As it is now, it doesnt seem that HTC wants any strat to affect a players enjoyment of the game.
Still kinda dim? Yeah well Im having a hard time explaining it.
-
I think if perked aircraft weren't perked, they would be all you would see.
I have already pointed out the fallacy of that belief...It`s the pilot, not the plane...
-
In the end, what it comes down to is somehow raising the stakes for the longer time players so it doesn't go stale and not making it so hard the new folks quit before they figure it out.
I'm not advocating the following, but it made me think of the RR and FR arenas in Airwarrior. Most folks stayed in the RR arenas, but there was a group of folks who 'took it up a notch' in FR. It was never as full, but it was a different challenge.
Again I'm not advocating the same system in terms of flight modeling, but it sounds like that's what folks are trying to figure out. FSO's offer it to some degree. AvA does. Scenarios do.
But they're not the MA in terms of the full plane set and player numbers. So how do you incorporate as system that challenges the longer term players without discouraging the new players?
-
In the end, what it comes down to is somehow raising the stakes for the longer time players so it doesn't go stale and not making it so hard the new folks quit before they figure it out.
I'm not advocating the following, but it made me think of the RR and FR arenas in Airwarrior. Most folks stayed in the RR arenas, but there was a group of folks who 'took it up a notch' in FR. It was never as full, but it was a different challenge.
Again I'm not advocating the same system in terms of flight modeling, but it sounds like that's what folks are trying to figure out. FSO's offer it to some degree. AvA does. Scenarios do.
But they're not the MA in terms of the full plane set and player numbers. So how do you incorporate as system that challenges the longer term players without discouraging the new players?
Hope this doesn't come across as a hijack...just a thought on this out loud
Training squads.....Who would CO/XO them ???? but if there was a training squad...so to speak....new players get allocated a chess piece (as they do now) but also a squad.....they then get shown some of the in's and out's...these squads could have nights/days just like any other and carry out set operations which over time will give a grounding knowledge of AH before moving on...or perhaps they will stay on and help with the next lot of newer guys...As I say who would do this??? I'm sure there may be some who would...but would there be enough that would be willing to as you would require a few others with some knowledge of the game to carry this off...
I don't know?? I haven't been here long enough to really see how things would work...but my nephew has watched me play this game and is now a member..he however does have a hard time accepting the phyisics of flight as many new comers do...he thinks you see a con ...point at him and fly to him and fight...whether he is co alt or 5K above hahaha....I have tried to keep him away from Head ons...but when it happens to him...by named players what do I say....I do tell him he asked for it by his style of attack but hey....anyway...the reason I thought of the above is because he got on with chewie (<S> sir for your time ) and learn't a lot from the guys...chewie mostly about certain things whilst being part of (yes it was a lot of people in the missions) a functioning group...he took away from that some valuable knowledge on some of the smaller...but no less helpful parts of AH....yes he still has to spend the time in his fighter to gain the knowledge and skill...however a couple of hours with chewie, and he learn't more about AH than I did in a month.
-
In the end, what it comes down to is somehow raising the stakes for the longer time players so it doesn't go stale and not making it so hard the new folks quit before they figure it out.
I'm not advocating the following, but it made me think of the RR and FR arenas in Airwarrior. Most folks stayed in the RR arenas, but there was a group of folks who 'took it up a notch' in FR. It was never as full, but it was a different challenge.
Again I'm not advocating the same system in terms of flight modeling, but it sounds like that's what folks are trying to figure out. FSO's offer it to some degree. AvA does. Scenarios do.
But they're not the MA in terms of the full plane set and player numbers. So how do you incorporate as system that challenges the longer term players without discouraging the new players?
We do that on our own when we feel the need. I've spent this weekend flying the P-40B. It's actually gotten me pumped up a little. I had a four kill mission landed tonight for 21 perks. Granted three were B-24's but hey, it was fun. In fact more fun than I've had in the game in a while.
-
We do that on our own when we feel the need. I've spent this weekend flying the P-40B. It's actually gotten me pumped up a little. I had a four kill mission landed tonight for 21 perks. Granted three were B-24's but hey, it was fun. In fact more fun than I've had in the game in a while.
No disagreement. I'm still having fun after a lot of years. I'm just trying to address the questions raised.
-
In the end you need to be able to play a diverse game to have longevity. Tanks, ships, bombers, taking down towns, airfields, CVs.....being able to attack with torps, rockets........and defend against! Those that play one single aspect of the game, especially single ride players, will "usually" burn out fastest. Having multi-layered strat is great but be careful not to place too many limits on peoples choices.
-
But how to include that? Reads like a great & simple idea, but the actual implementation could be quite a challenge, not onyl from a technical/resource point of view (I havn't that much knowledge about that), but also from a gameplay / balance one. In RL, there were thousands of ground combatants for each plane / tank. In here, where everyone can fly & drive what and when he likes, what could a foot soldier do? 10 players on foot in a town compared to 20 or more in Lancasters carpet bombing the hell out of 'em? ;)
Thats an easy one, and could be done a number of different ways. Ground combat only accounts at $2 per month. Tanks only at $11. All access at $15. Oh and ground combatants have access to stationary AA pieces, for the "20 carpet bombing lancs."
The hard part is beating sense... NM
-
We have been looking for a way to run a different kind of strategic game in AvA, being the only 24/7 arena where we can use something different than base capture for victory parameters.
Of course it all has to be done manually, so we had to simplify it a lot.
We are hoping get some decent attendance with this experiment so we can see how a different dynamic plays out.
If you want to help, come on in and choose a side and attack or defend.
Maybe we can learn how to run a different kind of win the war scenario.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,314093.0.html
-
Allow the troops to do damage....I have never seen battle in which troops do not do damage. The damage model wouldn't be that tough and how cool would it be to have mass air drops? How fun would it be to defend against 10 incoming C47s with bombers on top and fighters capping them.
-
To bring in Player controlled Infantry (FPS) would be an instant win.
-
To bring in Player controlled Infantry (FPS) would be an instant win.
pffft what do you call this then?
http://www.4shared.com/file/_YvfrkxB/betty_kermit_45_.html
:t
-
A couple of suggestions to improve game play as I agree the whole base capture thing is getting kind of stale.
One day a week (other than TT) make it axis vs allies in the MA. One side U.S., Brits & USSR, the other side German, Japs and Italians. You can only use the planes & vehicles of your country. Or make it a 3 way, Japs on one side, Germans on another and U.S. on the third side. Rotate countries every week so everyone gets a chance to be a Jap, a Kraut or a Yank. And like TT, have only 1 main arena for that day.
Here's another suggestion. Recreate actual battles in the MA rather than in Special Events. How about a Battle of the Bulge in the MA with 400 participants? I'm not an avid GV'er, but 400 guys in a massive tank battle would definitely interest me. Or recreate the Battle of Midway in the MA. Again, pick one day of the week for this event, say Thursdays, and run the event on this day.
It doesn't have to be a permanent thing. We can try this stuff out for a couple of weeks and see if everyone likes it. Personally, I look forward to Titanic Tuesday but other than that most nights in the MA are kind of boring.
-
A couple of suggestions to improve game play as I agree the whole base capture thing is getting kind of stale.
One day a week (other than TT) make it axis vs allies in the MA. One side U.S., Brits & USSR, the other side German, Japs and Italians. You can only use the planes & vehicles of your country. Or make it a 3 way, Japs on one side, Germans on another and U.S. on the third side. Rotate countries every week so everyone gets a chance to be a Jap, a Kraut or a Yank. And like TT, have only 1 main arena for that day.
Already have this, it's call the AvA arena. Open 24 hours a day and 7 days aweek.
Here's another suggestion. Recreate actual battles in the MA rather than in Special Events. How about a Battle of the Bulge in the MA with 400 participants? I'm not an avid GV'er, but 400 guys in a massive tank battle would definitely interest me. Or recreate the Battle of Midway in the MA. Again, pick one day of the week for this event, say Thursdays, and run the event on this day.
Again, they already have this. There is a team of dedicated players that spend hours upon hours setting up and organizing these events. They are not something they can "throw up" once a week.
It doesn't have to be a permanent thing. We can try this stuff out for a couple of weeks and see if everyone likes it. Personally, I look forward to Titanic Tuesday but other than that most nights in the MA are kind of boring.
They can't do this kind of stuff in the MAs. The reason is a large population of the players don't like to play the game that way. You like TT, personally I haven't tried it for months because I hate it so bad. Not everyone is the same, so there have to be as many option/styles of game play available as there can be to keep the majority of the player coming back and PAYING their monthly fees.
-
that kind of sounds really dumb lol
-
Anybody have any?
The strategy is mundane and static. Shoot town, take base, rinse repeat, win war, boot to desktop. To use an analogy, I would equate it to playing a game of monopoly, except instead of a board with real estate, draws, go to jails, cool game pieces, fake money etc., it's just a blank board with nothing. Roll the dice first one to get around the board wins. The game needs more strategy. Strats that have impact, factories and cities that actually matter, objects that when destroyed unlock other things that can now be destroyed. Incentive to plan missions, incentive to defend against missions, incentive to get involved in the war! The game has all the pieces it needs to actually be very fun. 100+ fully modeled aircraft, tanks, and carrier fleets. Yet no dynamic strategy?
This is why I just fly around shooting bad guys. I have no incentive to get involved in the war, because I find it incredibly dull.
Feel'in your pain Grizz. If this game had a real strat element I'd be like totally :joystick: every chance I got and likely NOT canx my sub every 3-4 months.
I now shamelessly promote my own ideas on the subject: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,314024.0.html :bolt:
-
Already have this, it's call the AvA arena. Open 24 hours a day and 7 days aweek.
The problem with current A vs A is that the planeset always seems to feature some micro slice of the war in that I see each side only having 2 or 3 fighters to choose from............or I find WWI planes in there again with a 2 or 3 plane choice.
How long has it been since they had a rolling planeset based on service dates using a 2 or 3 week war in there?
-
Ask the AVA guys, they even have their own area to post questions about the AVA. The point is that those things don't belong in the MAs because the MAs are must cover a wider audience. It is how HTC makes money.
-
I have already pointed out the fallacy of that belief...It`s the pilot, not the plane...
Interesting theory. I maintain that arguement only goes so far. Put the best of the best in a P40B and an average guy in a Spit16. My money is with the average guy in the Spit 16.
Also, if that statement were true, we'd see far more players scootin' around in higher ENY aircraft and we dont.
-
Forcing an AvA planeset on the community at large just isn't going to happen.
There is no way to have parity that way.
The AvA appeals to those who don't necessarily mind that the performance capabilities aren't always equal just as they weren't always equal in RL.
-
To bring in Player controlled Infantry (FPS) would be an instant win.
I read a quote from
http://ecommerceprnews.com/e-commerce_articles/2011/02/hitech-creations-introduces-new-version-of-aces-high-198326.htm (http://ecommerceprnews.com/e-commerce_articles/2011/02/hitech-creations-introduces-new-version-of-aces-high-198326.htm)
"This is the first step towards a vision of integrating AI infantry and paratroopers into a more pronounced role in the game," says company CEO Dale Addink. "Aces High is about player- to- player combat in planes and vehicles and it will continue to be that. AI personnel will add a new layer to the immersion level of the game environment. Whether it is infantry fighting for territory or support personnel manning guns or refueling planes, it will add a lot to the online experience."
-
wow I can't wait to vulch the runway with a panzerfaust or bazooka.
maybe a flame thrower or is that a bit much?
-
I would like to see AH evolve into a sim where it is more realistic and have realistic strategy and tactics.The first thing is to get rid of the third country so we could have it like it really was Axis verse Allies.You could fly or GV for the U.S.A. the Brits,Aussies,Russia,and you get the picture.One could chose to fight with the Axis,Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania,etc.The idea being similar to WWII online,where you have a front line and the battle ebbs and flows like it would in real life.The fronts would be in Europe or the Pacific.I know this is asking a lot,but I think the game would take a positive turn for enjoying the sim a great deal more.
You could have the same early,mid,and late war arenas.This would be a mix of War Birds,WWII Online,and Fighter Ace.Now comes the part that will bring some negative comments.Right now we have a great flight sim,but the vehicles usage is lacking.More tanks,artillery,infantry etc. would be needed.With only two opponents the bickering over two picking on one chess piece would end.Well planed attacks could be accomplished and we wouldn't have the same old hoards,gang banging,and sneaking bases.I don't see how any one can take pride in taking a base that is not defended.
All this will probably never even come close to being accomplished.I think High Tech likes the three country thing because it brings whining,and negative comments on 200.I have never liked flying a Axis plane against another Axis plane or vice verse for the Allies.War Birds had the right idea,but it failed in a lot of ways.No one wanted to fly for the Allies early,as the early Axis planes kicked but.Later in the month,now the players switch to the allies because they have the better rides now!WWII has the GV'ing down pat,but the air war isn't very good.I say mix them all together,and give us a game that is realistic,and has realistic objectives with all the needed weapons.
I can only play this game as it is for a few weeks,and then I need time off,as it gets annoying doing the same thing over and over.Lets make some good changes are make it a pure flight sim.
The well meaning Dawg
-
Interesting theory. I maintain that arguement only goes so far. Put the best of the best in a P40B and an average guy in a Spit16. My money is with the average guy in the Spit 16.
Also, if that statement were true, we'd see far more players scootin' around in higher ENY aircraft and we dont.
Well, it's not just me that believe's that...I hear many other people making the same claim....
-
I would like to see AH evolve into a sim where it is more realistic and have realistic strategy and tactics.The first thing is to get rid of the third country so we could have it like it really was Axis verse Allies.You could fly or GV for the U.S.A. the Brits,Aussies,Russia,and you get the picture.One could chose to fight with the Axis,Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania,etc.The idea being similar to WWII online,where you have a front line and the battle ebbs and flows like it would in real life.The fronts would be in Europe or the Pacific.I know this is asking a lot,but I think the game would take a positive turn for enjoying the sim a great deal more.
While the concept is cool, it would never work. Most people want to fly for the "good guys" who also conveniently have easier planes to fly and shoot in general. So from the get go the Axis would be severely outnumbered. If you brought this down to only 2 countries, it would be even worse. Game would be dead in 6 months. This would be a case where more realism would not warrant the slaughtering of the game.
I think High Tech likes the three country thing because it brings whining,and negative comments on 200.
:huh
No, there are three countries so one country cannot mercilessly gang the other, fights are more dispersed across the map, and there are more player choices.
Lets make some good changes are make it a pure flight sim.
I don't think the realism side of things is the issue. The core issue is the actual "war" game play. It is just beyond dull. If it was spiced up or radically changed, it would be a lot more fun to partake in missions and in the war. Country loyalties might actually make sense to me personally if I started to feel like the war was actually fun to get involved in. I know Lusche is working on a new strategic idea right now for the wishlist, hopefully I can offer my 2 cents when he gets a draft finished. But back to the original point, no I don't think we need historical plane match ups to have more fun. Even if it was historical, it's still the same dull war blowing up towns and taking bases, ground hoggian day style.
Btw, mildly insulting request, but could you please use one space after commas and one/two spaces after periods? That's the sentence spacing standard and it's difficult to read without. :lol
-
Players have the ability to organize missions in the MA now. But it doesn't force people to organize a response because losing a base in no big deal.
The changes being proposed would force folks to respond because there is a penalty for losing ground to the enemy. But the player who logs on at 9pm to discover his side is 'losing' is now victimised by circumstances from the prior two hours that he had nothing to do with. This would create a lot of frustration. Now that frustration might motivate some to get more organized in their response, which is what you're hoping, and some will, but many will simply whine about the unfairness of all.
I think these ideas appeal to the more serious players looking for the next level of challenge, but would frustrate many who just want to logon and get in a few good dog fights.
The community is bi-modal in what type of game play it likes. I have no feel for the populations of those two groups, or which group is, currently, the unhappiest.
-
there should be a realistic arena like AvA(full blown war IE COMBAT TOUR), a full realism arena like the MA's now(anything goes), a relaxed realism arena (non existent now), and training arena with AI and mission based sorties only.
-
there should be a realistic arena like AvA(full blown war IE COMBAT TOUR), a full realism arena like the MA's now(anything goes), a relaxed realism arena (non existent now), and training arena with AI and mission based sorties only.
I quite like that idea Ink, given I fly where/when in what I feel like doing at that time.
Wurz
-
I quite like that idea Ink, given I fly where/when in what I feel like doing at that time.
Wurz
I really do think it would give every one what they want, at any time they want.
me I would be in the MA mostly, but may join in the Combat Tour as a fighter.
the Relaxed realism would get the kids out of the MA.
-
been following this thread since started ive seen some excellent suggestions esp a redo of the strat sys. but i think what may be the simplest to do is to alter the score sys a little. first i think that all stats to do with time should be eleminated this would discourage vulching and spawn camping and second encourage ppl to take up longer range missions needed to hit strats. second change the way hits are weighted if in fighter escorting buffs deep in ene territory a .5% bonus or something (esp to perks) and same for buffs a bonus of somesort to give incentive to takeing longer range missions. with the strats make it a requirement to win war to damage the srtats you need 20% of bases in lw add on 10% dmg to strats as well.
-
. but i think what may be the simplest to do is to alter the score sys a little. first i think that all stats to do with time should be eleminated this would discourage vulching and spawn camping
I think this is one example of a good intended idea with not all consequences being considered :)
Yes, vulching gives you a high k/h and thus is good for score. But on the other hand, getting completely rid of a time based scoring stat also promotes extreme timidness. Someone packing full fuel in his pony and flying for 60 minutes, engaging only from a position of absolute safety will currently have a high k/D, but an absolute lousy k/h, and thus a bad rank (many player really overestimate k/d in the current system).
If you eliminate the time aspect, there is no "need" to rush anything, ever. Get one kill on a helpless victim, fly home, refuel, look for another "perfect" victim...
I am one of those "safety" fliers, with my worst scoring category always being K/H. I can never get a fighter top rank because I'm generally not aggressive and reckless enough, too much combat avoiding. If your proposal would be implemented, my rank would improve a lot, I could even think of getting #1 in fighters for the first time ever.
Do you really want that? ;)
-
I wonder if there is a way for HTC to assign further ID tags to the aircraft programming?
It is too bad we dont see scoring based on a similar system like the perk point system: if a player does nothing but fly a Spit16, La7, Tempest, or other such easy-mode aircraft they should earn a lower score as compared to a player that flies the P40E, P38G, 109F-4, or even the F6F, Ki-61, or Spit 9.
-
Maybe, aircraft factories, with 20 finished planes sitting on the tarmac in the strat area. It takes 1 minute to build, supply each plane. Fly over these in a buff, destroy the aircraft, it will be 1 minute for your enemy to get that plane type to fly, 20 minutes for all 20 to be available. Maybe this could also be tied in where you wanna take 30 P51, s on a strike?, nope 20 at a time, then 1 minute per plane rebuild. If this was for each and every plane it would provide alot of ground targets for the buffs, give the fighters something to defend and make it more fun. If you love that spit or that P38, or whatever, you would not want to just let the buffs come take em.
I think fighter pilots have plenty to do, it is the buff pilots that I think could use a little more than just bombing bases
-
Strategic evolution of the game:
1. Scoring: Only list the ranking of the top 100. Otherwise you are unranked, you only track your statistics. That way the few guys who actually care can know where they stand, the rest of the folks who just like to play don't have to have guys looking at their rank as a measurement of AH prowess.
2. Develop a truly strategic setting to encourage a country identity. Have factory and distribution systems which are more responsive to damage. That damage can restrict play for a side. Not remove it, such as the old spitfire factory, but say reduce your fuel/ord/ammo options.
3. Make the towns smaller or reduce the % of damage (yes poor HTC has been through the ringer on this one). Base taking encourages the fight. Making towns harder just gets people to mass on one field instead of several smaller engagements across the map.
4. The perk system. Leave ENY in place, get rid of the perk bonus system. I would modify the perk system by having you absorb the perks paid for a perk ride if you shoot it down. Perk planes already get ganged and nothing more could keep people out of them than some traffic on 200 saying thanks for the 187 perkies for you 262.
5. Place thicker clouds at 10k. This would cut down on the picking and encourage fighting. This would have to be balanced with what the bomber guys want/need/
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. The major reasons for the drastic drop in the amount of time I play are tied to some of these things.
--Crusader
-
Maybe, instead of all 3 chess pieces having all the aircraft available, one has axis only, one has allied only, and one has mixed. You want to fight allied with your axis, go attack that country. You want to choose any plane and fly, choose the side that has all aircraft. You want to attack and don't care what the enemy is flying, well, that would be available too.
Just throwing out some ideas mates.
-
Maybe, instead of all 3 chess pieces having all the aircraft available, one has axis only, one has allied only, and one has mixed. You want to fight allied with your axis, go attack that country.
Unfortunately this would be as unbalanced as it can get. The huge majority will end up on the mixed side, only a tiny minority of furballers may end up on the axis side (being massively at a disadvantage in standard MA gameplay on the buff side)
-
I think this is one example of a good intended idea with not all consequences being considered :)
Yes, vulching gives you a high k/h and thus is good for score. But on the other hand, getting completely rid of a time based scoring stat also promotes extreme timidness. Someone packing full fuel in his pony and flying for 60 minutes, engaging only from a position of absolute safety will currently have a high k/D, but an absolute lousy k/h, and thus a bad rank (many player really overestimate k/d in the current system).
If you eliminate the time aspect, there is no "need" to rush anything, ever. Get one kill on a helpless victim, fly home, refuel, look for another "perfect" victim...
I am one of those "safety" fliers, with my worst scoring category always being K/H. I can never get a fighter top rank because I'm generally not aggressive and reckless enough, too much combat avoiding. If your proposal would be implemented, my rank would improve a lot, I could even think of getting #1 in fighters for the first time ever.
Do you really want that? ;)
maybe i do luche ;) my point was more aimed at encouraging long range missions to strats and for the fighters to perform escort duty with the k/h in the score many ppl would not want to becouse of the derogatory effects on rank(all who play atleast give a cursory look @ thier stats) but i really believe that a change in the ranking sys will give the effect that we are looking for with adavanceing the strategic aspects of the game
-
I wonder if there is a way for HTC to assign further ID tags to the aircraft programming?
It is too bad we dont see scoring based on a similar system like the perk point system: if a player does nothing but fly a Spit16, La7, Tempest, or other such easy-mode aircraft they should earn a lower score as compared to a player that flies the P40E, P38G, 109F-4, or even the F6F, Ki-61, or Spit 9.
This is a great thought.
Potential fix: Perks per hour getting incorporated into the scoring formulas.
I'd love to see an aggressive P-40 driver with a 4:1 K/D come out ahead of some Temp dweeb with a 8:1 K/D.
-
maybe i do luche ;) my point was more aimed at encouraging long range missions to strats and for the fighters to perform escort duty with the k/h in the score many ppl would not want to becouse of the derogatory effects on rank(all who play atleast give a cursory look @ thier stats) but i really believe that a change in the ranking sys will give the effect that we are looking for with adavanceing the strategic aspects of the game
The best way to accomplish exactly that is to:
1) Put a very high value on the strats in questions making the trip well worth it.
2) Require that if you do damage to the strat you must land for it to count
That way you have missions going to strats because it IS worth it, and you also have lots of combat, and it is realistic, with players trying to get back to base.
-
The best way to accomplish exactly that is to:
1) Put a very high value on the strats in questions making the trip well worth it.
2) Require that if you do damage to the strat you must land for it to count
That way you have missions going to strats because it IS worth it, and you also have lots of combat, and it is realistic, with players trying to get back to base.
If the damage is applied when the mission lands, say 15 minutes after the actual attack I could see some epic comments on 200 when the port suddenly blows up with no one around.
-
If the damage is applied when the mission lands, say 15 minutes after the actual attack I could see some epic comments on 200 when the port suddenly blows up with no one around.
Nah that would affect something like downtimes. I'd say that whatever object you blew up would explode as you killed it but then of two things could occur:
1) You land, as soon as you end sortie that damage becomes official and applied to corresponding fields
2) You die after you did the damage, damage immediately results back to undamaged. So this would be the goofiest part, but if you destroyed 10 buildings, as soon as you were dead, the 10 buildings would immediately appear back, similarly to when buildings "pop" in the towns and bases.
-
that kind of sounds really dumb lol
like 103 of your posts :lol
-
Nah that would affect something like downtimes. I'd say that whatever object you blew up would explode as you killed it but then of two things could occur:
1) You land, as soon as you end sortie that damage becomes official and applied to corresponding fields
2) You die after you did the damage, damage immediately results back to undamaged. So this would be the goofiest part, but if you destroyed 10 buildings, as soon as you were dead, the 10 buildings would immediately appear back, similarly to when buildings "pop" in the towns and bases.
Wha... :headscratch: DOES NOT COMPUTE.
-
Pretty sure Grizz means the damage is applied "when it happens", but if you dont go back and land your set of buff's - the buildings pop back up. This would stop the bomb and bailers right in their tracks - no reward for bailing out once damage done kinda thing.
Gets my vote. Also agree that strats should have more bearing on the rest of the game, make them worthwhile attacking.
Wurz
-
Leave the score system in place. Tweaking it to factor in ENY as previously discussed in this thread for the sake of evening the scoring field is a good idea. If you don't like score/rank, ignore it. If some idiot dweeb thinks he's better than you because of his score, go all DA on his derriere or better yet, don't care what he thinks. If you think the scoring system is responsible for dweebish flying I disagree. People kill you because that is what they're there for and they will kill you any way they can because defeating futile attempts at survival is what we find amusing. :devil
Leave the perks alone, it basically serves its purpose. Go a week seeing a 262 for every Pony and you'll be happy for a couple days because you'll have a free 262 as well. Then what do you think will happen? You will start missing your sentimental newly uber uncompetitive plane X and get frustrated. Variety is the spice of life.
When I drop a bomb on something I want it to go boom. No spontaneous structural regeneration crap if I die.
If we want to see strategy we should have incentive to fight a war. The basic incentive to fight a war is the ability to win it. Map changes every several hours do not permit this. Is there a point to capturing bases right now that someone isn't telling me about? A vulch is fun but does nothing except pad stats.
Change towns so they do not regenerate (but allow AAA to regen post-capture), let a team leave a satisfying wake of destruction in the scarce few hours of fighting on a given map. Front lines will take battle damage, change faster and no bomb runs will be wasted. "Porking" a town will have meaning for bombers instead of simply being a dweebish waste of time 90% of the time.
When it is time for the map to change, the game should flash some stats from the campaign and declare a winner for the engagement (taking relative player levels into account) instead of just kicking everyone.
The game should track map wins by for each country over the course of an entire tour to give country loyalty some vague form of meaning. To give players a little vested interest in helping the greater cause, give them some general use perks for base captures to use as they see fit. (IE I don't fly buffs but find the B-29 is appealing) Said perks could be used in any category and transferable to players who care about perks. For those who really care about winning the war but understandably see goon resupply runs as boring, let them spend these general use perks strategically to regenerate the damaged towns that would not regen otherwise.
As far as stopping the "bomb and bail" crowd, I don't think this is a huge issue, it happens a minority of the time. Also, while I've never done it I can understand the temptation. Buff sorties get shot down a majority of the time, take mucho time and there is little incentive to wasting your day driving your virtual buff a half hour home after you've gotten your perks. Most of the time these folks just provide easy kills for the rest of us. That said, there are more "realistic" options to control this dweeb behavior. IE: If they bail from a perfectly good aircraft, throw a modest perk fine at them instead of rewarding the sortie with additional perks. If someone still does this despite the perk penalty I say let them- if they aren't doing it for themselves they are doing it for their country's war effort with the limited time they have online.
-
Leave the score system in place. Tweaking it to factor in ENY as previously discussed in this thread for the sake of evening the scoring field is a good idea. If you don't like score/rank, ignore it. If some idiot dweeb thinks he's better than you because of his score, go all DA on his derriere or better yet, don't care what he thinks. If you think the scoring system is responsible for dweebish flying I disagree. People kill you because that is what they're there for and they will kill you any way they can because defeating futile attempts at survival is what we find amusing. :devil
Leave the perks alone, it basically serves its purpose. Go a week seeing a 262 for every Pony and you'll be happy for a couple days because you'll have a free 262 as well. Then what do you think will happen? You will start missing your sentimental newly uber uncompetitive plane X and get frustrated. Variety is the spice of life.
When I drop a bomb on something I want it to go boom. No spontaneous structural regeneration crap if I die.
If we want to see strategy we should have incentive to fight a war. The basic incentive to fight a war is the ability to win it. Map changes every several hours do not permit this. Is there a point to capturing bases right now that someone isn't telling me about? A vulch is fun but does nothing except pad stats.
Change towns so they do not regenerate (but allow AAA to regen post-capture), let a team leave a satisfying wake of destruction in the scarce few hours of fighting on a given map. Front lines will take battle damage, front lines will move faster and no bomb runs will be wasted. "Porking" a town will have meaning for bombers instead of simply being a dweebish waste of time 90% of the time.
When it is time for the map to change, the game should flash some stats from the campaign and declare a winner for the engagement (taking relative player levels into account) instead of just kicking everyone.
The game should track map wins by for each country over the course of an entire tour to give country loyalty some vague form of meaning. To give players a little vested interest in helping the greater cause, give them some general use perks for base captures to use as they see fit. (IE I don't fly buffs but find the B-29 is appealing) Said perks could be used in any category and transferable to players who care about perks. For those who really care about winning the war but understandably see goon resupply runs as boring, let them spend these general use perks strategically to regenerate the damaged towns that would not regen otherwise.
As far as stopping the "bomb and bail" crowd, I don't think this is a huge issue, it happens a minority of the time. Also, while I've never done it I can understand the temptation. Buff sorties get shot down a majority of the time, take mucho time and there is little incentive to wasting your day driving your virtual buff a half hour home after you've gotten your perks. Most of the time these folks just provide easy kills for the rest of us. That said, there are more "realistic" options to control this dweeb behavior. IE: If they bail from a perfectly good aircraft, throw a modest perk fine at them instead of rewarding the sortie with additional perks. If someone still does this despite the perk penalty I say let them- if they aren't doing it for themselves they are doing it for their country's war effort with the limited time they have online.
-
I didn't read through all the posts so sorry if I am repeating an idea.
WWII was fought over gaining real estate. So my idea is to make strats very important and have their strength determine how well country can
-build tanks and planes
-the mobility of supplies
-the mobility of assets
Instead of placing a fight at or for a base, place the fight at a major city/strat arrangement like what is currently in game, that when captured would allow the victor to have faster supply rate than the loosing side.
You would be required to capture the City and Strats (old strats like Radar, Aircraft, AA, Vehicles and Refinery) in order to acquire the bases in that zone. They would be captured in a specific order. This order is only known to your country. Once the zone assets are captured in the specific order the zone bases of your enemy are acquired. Bases are still able to take damage as it is currently in game but are only captured when the zone is defeated. The capture criteria are the same as a town currently in the game.
A base will be able to service all strats in a zone and other bases will only service assets closest to them. Your country is the only one that knows which base services which assets. A dead VH at a base is the same as it is in game. I would recommend making it harder to knock out than it is currently in game. I would also recommend killing channel 200 and pm’s from country to country (this is probably the biggest improvement in the game) to prevent cheating.
The assets of your country are hidden to the opposing countries. They must be found and identified (low level aircraft observation or GV). All of your countries assets are interlinked buy multiple railways to each asset. All spawns coincide with the train system. The spawn from bases to assets are movable waypoints like the CV’s are currently in game. They can be placed by a high ranking member of your country. That individual can only control the spawn for one base or asset at a time. They may only control the spawn for 30 minutes. This spawn point may be placed anywhere along the rail system but no further away than 1.5K from the rail itself and or asset. You can’t spawn to the far side of an asset only to the closest side to your base. If a spawn is moved rearward by a 1.5K increment then the spawn can not be moved forward again until the area is cleared of enemy GV’s up to the previous spawn spot.
GV fights would be amazing.
Air support would be required.
Air superiority would be ideal.
Strategy really would become a critical factor.
It’s a rough draft.
-
Love the idea of adding a logistics/economic element to the game, but every time I think about asking for this myself I think of the times I only have a half hour to play and just wanna shoot something. Scarcity is part of war and economics. Logging in to discover a favorite ride is not in supply or can't be outfitted the way you want might put off some while adding little for the rest. Personally I like it.
Killing 200 AND PMs is pretty extreme. Perhaps a "boot" function in the msn creator would help cull the ranks of spies.
V-base difficulty is good as is imho. Grabs would be much more difficult if more players cared about defending them. As it is, there is no incentive to defend and most players trend toward aircraft for fun. Fix the other factors and the V-base gets tough.
Fighting battles in order of specific objectives would make for some awesome battles but would hurt the FPS for some players, kill the elements of surprise and maneuver and feel very canned after playing the map several times. The presence of a deep strategic system still is not necessarily incentive for the player to participate, hence ^^ the general perks idea above.
The spawn idea you threw out is pretty good, the current map architecture makes it hard to implement though :cry I've started building new maps but :bhead prefer flying. If I had it my way GVs could spawn ANYWHERE with the following restrictions:
1. Outside a given radius of an enemy base
2. Aft of the FLOT a given distance. The FLOT would be defined as a series of lines drawn between adjacent friendly bases. This measure would prevent magical spawns to the enemy's rear. If an enemy base is surrounded, spawns can happen 360 deg outside the specified radius.
3. Outside a specified radius of enemy GVs.
GV missions could be built with specific spawn coordinates for different groups as determined by the creating player, allowing for mass flanking maneuvers instead of simply getting spawn-camped en-masse.
GVs would be able to "land" anywhere they would be allowed to spawn in as defined above.
:salute
-
Love the idea of adding a logistics/economic element to the game, but every time I think about asking for this myself I think of the times I only have a half hour to play and just wanna shoot something. Scarcity is part of war and economics. Logging in to discover a favorite ride is not in supply or can't be outfitted the way you want might put off some while adding little for the rest. Personally I like it.
No limit to ride just resupply rate or rebuild time
Killing 200 AND PMs is pretty extreme. Perhaps a "boot" function in the msn creator would help cull the ranks of spies.
Joking, but would help over all for the reputation of the game
V-base difficulty is good as is imho. Grabs would be much more difficult if more players cared about defending them. As it is, there is no incentive to defend and most players trend toward aircraft for fun. Fix the other factors and the V-base gets tough.
No "V" bases. Only "A" bases with vehicle capability.
Fighting battles in order of specific objectives would make for some awesome battles but would hurt the FPS for some players, kill the elements of surprise and maneuver and feel very canned after playing the map several times. The presence of a deep strategic system still is not necessarily incentive for the player to participate, hence ^^ the general perks idea above.
With my proposed sytem suprise is about strategy or deception. I have not laid out everything I'm seeing. As the current game sits there is no suprise factor anyway. Unless NOE is your game.
The spawn idea you threw out is pretty good (TY) ,the current map architecture makes it hard to implement though :cry I've started building new maps but :bhead prefer flying. If I had it my way GVs could spawn ANYWHERE with the following restrictions:
1. Outside a given radius of an enemy base
2. Aft of the FLOT a given distance. The FLOT would be defined as a series of lines drawn between adjacent friendly bases. This measure would prevent magical spawns to the enemy's rear. If an enemy base is surrounded, spawns can happen 360 deg outside the specified radius.
3. Outside a specified radius of enemy GVs.
GV missions could be built with specific spawn coordinates for different groups as determined by the creating player, allowing for mass flanking maneuvers instead of simply getting spawn-camped en-masse. I likey this
It is pretty much what I had in mind with spawning 1.5K from any of the three rail lines entering a target. Pretty much the same thing. Essentialy killing Spawn camping
GVs would be able to "land" anywhere they would be allowed to spawn in as defined above.
I think 1.5K from spawn towards a friendly base regardless of aircraft. Make them work for it.
:salute
-
I don't think you need to make such big changes.
GV battle would really pick up and be a lot of fun if the spawn points all had that "pitch fork" look to them. Spawn NE, and it spawns you at one of three spawn points located a mile or so apart. For more fun make them 5 miles apart to give you time for flanking maneuvers. Add numbers to the three points so you can choose which of the three you want to spawn at.
The biggest problem is getting defenders up. I thought when HTC increased the dar circle it made things a lot more fun. You could see where they were coming from and launch to intercept. Make the dar a double station, both towers up we get the big circle, knock one down and it drops back to the smaller circle, knock the second tower down and dar is out. With the bigger circles it takes more planning and co-ordination to take out the dars to help you get to target. Once dars start dropping out you'll have people cruising the skies looking for the attacks.
They just have to make it worth while to have a fight so that less people look for more ways to avoid them.
-
I don't think you need to make such big changes.
GV battle would really pick up and be a lot of fun if the spawn points all had that "pitch fork" look to them. Spawn NE, and it spawns you at one of three spawn points located a mile or so apart. For more fun make them 5 miles apart to give you time for flanking maneuvers. Add numbers to the three points so you can choose which of the three you want to spawn at.
I've often wondered why each and every one of the spawn point direction tabs in the hanger are not used. How difficult or time consuming can it be to simply add in all the available options? Sounds like a good thing for an intern to do. ;)
-
I don't think you need to make such big changes.
GV battle would really pick up and be a lot of fun if the spawn points all had that "pitch fork" look to them. Spawn NE, and it spawns you at one of three spawn points located a mile or so apart. For more fun make them 5 miles apart to give you time for flanking maneuvers. Add numbers to the three points so you can choose which of the three you want to spawn at.
The biggest problem is getting defenders up. I thought when HTC increased the dar circle it made things a lot more fun. You could see where they were coming from and launch to intercept. Make the dar a double station, both towers up we get the big circle, knock one down and it drops back to the smaller circle, knock the second tower down and dar is out. With the bigger circles it takes more planning and co-ordination to take out the dars to help you get to target. Once dars start dropping out you'll have people cruising the skies looking for the attacks.
They just have to make it worth while to have a fight so that less people look for more ways to avoid them.
i think they should increase radar to sections not indvidual bases and have these radar stations well defended simialr to the strats, or have radar stations for groups of 5-6 bases or less.
-
Well with current competition amongst other games they need to do something to compete. Funneling gv action into large battle scenarios in a town or locale, would make the GV aspect competitive with other player stealing formats. Good for business. If you then add Aircraft, which the others do not have or are not done to the same standards, you are the pinnacle in your environment. Let’s face it that’s why they are here, to be the best overall gaming experience. Take existing code and apply it to different looking bases. It will take work but that’s what a job is all about. With this proposal your funneling gv battles to 10 points vs. the current 75 points. This equates to bigger better gv fights. Then add the current aircraft support role (bigger better), fighter role (bigger better) and then bombing (now more relevant) you now have a game that offers a similar gv game with much more. Considering the current changes to the GV interface it seems to me they are trying to be competitive.
-
Well with current competition amongst other games they need to do something to compete. Funneling gv action into large battle scenarios in a town or locale, would make the GV aspect competitive with other player stealing formats. Good for business. If you then add Aircraft, which the others do not have or are not done to the same standards, you are the pinnacle in your environment. Let’s face it that’s why they are here, to be the best overall gaming experience. Take existing code and apply it to different looking bases. It will take work but that’s what a job is all about. With this proposal your funneling gv battles to 10 points vs. the current 75 points. This equates to bigger better gv fights. Then add the current aircraft support role (bigger better), fighter role (bigger better) and then bombing (now more relevant) you now have a game that offers a similar gv game with much more. Considering the current changes to the GV interface it seems to me they are trying to be competitive.
Your counting on defense, whats the pull that's going to make players WANT to defend? Most fighter guy coundn't care less if the resupplies take twice as long (because they lost a city/factory). As long as they have a plane to up they are good.
The horde groups complain about ENY when they out number the enemy 2 and 3 to 1 now and can't use their preferred uber machine, they don't care for resupply either, they are too busy laying waste to bases as they take them like a horde of locust.
GVers complain about getting bomber now, you want to centralize them to make it easier to wipe out large groups with a few dive bombing lancs.
GVers only game now is spawn camping, instead of spreading them out with the 75 spawns now you again want to close things up to have only 10.... might be a bit easier to find a spawn to camp there don't cha think?
Someone suggested to take the ack back out of town. I think this would be a big step in bringing GVs back into a capture set-up. Tank battles in that huge town use to be the rage, maybe getting a few going in the small towns would light that spark again.
-
OK this is what I want.
While WW2 took years to fight, for the sake of game play lets break it down into weeks. First week is 1939-40. Early war planes. This will be the time that two of the countries can overwhelm the third with numbers. Near the end of the first week the single country will still be backpedaling on one front, but will make a heroic stand on the other front.
2nd week is 1941-42. Still early war planes but a small amount of midwar planes join the fray. Things start to get stagnant on both fronts for the single country. The other two countries despite their best efforts just can't keep the momentum up.
3rd week is 43-44 and the tide starts to turn. The single country gets a lot more planes and pilots and starts to pound the other two with heavy bombers. It begins to roll one of the other two countries and by midweek it's starting to make gains in the other.
4th week is 45. The single country pounds one of the other two into oblivion by the first half of the week and in a surprise move HTC gives it a nuke which finishes off the other country by about Friday.
Rotate who the single country is every four weeks. That way each chess piece knows it will win the war every four weeks.
And yes I'm kidding
-
Just a thought. Why not introduce supply lines that are less effective the further you drive into enemy territory. Instead of strategic resources (field ack, ords, radar etc.) taking 45 minutes to regenerate, maybe they should take longer to come back proportionally to how close they are to the original owner's HQ.
I'd also like to have more trains to shoot at. I think the locobusters would agree with me. Since we should add more trains, I'd also like to have a sapper platoon available for the half tracks to be used on sabotage missions.
-
Your counting on defense, whats the pull that's going to make players WANT to defend? Most fighter guy coundn't care less if the resupplies take twice as long (because they lost a city/factory). As long as they have a plane to up they are good.
They might want to defend Troops, Vehicle hangers, Fighter hangers, ords and so on. Other wise they wont have any thing to fight with. If they are the fighter type they will want full tanks of fuel instead of 50%
The horde groups complain about ENY when they out number the enemy 2 and 3 to 1 now and can't use their preferred uber machine, they don't care for resupply either, they are too busy laying waste to bases as they take them like a horde of locust.
I don't think there is a defense to this type of game play
GVers complain about getting bomber now, you want to centralize them to make it easier to wipe out large groups with a few dive bombing lancs.
Strats would be massive in size. I think Icons should be eliminated for gv's
GVers only game now is spawn camping, instead of spreading them out with the 75 spawns now you again want to close things up to have only 10.... might be a bit easier to find a spawn to camp there don't cha think?
My idea would allow you to move your V spawn anywhere along a rail line. It would be nearly imposible to camp. Re read that part.
Someone suggested to take the ack back out of town. I think this would be a big step in bringing GVs back into a capture set-up. Tank battles in that huge town use to be the rage, maybe getting a few going in the small towns would light that spark again.
-
Your counting on defense, whats the pull that's going to make players WANT to defend? Most fighter guy coundn't care less if the resupplies take twice as long (because they lost a city/factory). As long as they have a plane to up they are good.
They might want to defend Troops, Vehicle hangers, Fighter hangers, ords and so on. Other wise they wont have any thing to fight with. If they are the fighter type they will want full tanks of fuel instead of 50%
Not at all. Fighter fight. As soon as the FHs are down some may up at the next base over to continue the fight IF it looks like it will still be a fight, but most just look for the next fight and go there.
The horde groups complain about ENY when they out number the enemy 2 and 3 to 1 now and can't use their preferred uber machine, they don't care for resupply either, they are too busy laying waste to bases as they take them like a horde of locust.
I don't think there is a defense to this type of game play
I agree with you here. The only way is if HTC puts some mechanism into the game that automatically increases the hardness/difficulty of taking the base in a direct ratio with the attacking force. The bigger the force, the harder/more work it takes to get the base. Once these guys figure out that 5 groups of 10 guys have a better chance of capturing 2-3 bases at the same time than 1 group of 50 has of getting 1 base the game play will pick up.
GVers complain about getting bomber now, you want to centralize them to make it easier to wipe out large groups with a few dive bombing lancs.
Strats would be massive in size. I think Icons should be eliminated for gv's
Picture the island map we have now with the tank town in the middle of the center island. You have a bunch of GVs spawning in and moving around, this generates the dive bombing buffs, which generates the picking fighters. Is that what your shooting for?
GVers only game now is spawn camping, instead of spreading them out with the 75 spawns now you again want to close things up to have only 10.... might be a bit easier to find a spawn to camp there don't cha think?
My idea would allow you to move your V spawn anywhere along a rail line. It would be nearly imposible to camp. Re read that part.
I read that part, I just think the coding for a movable spawn point would be a nightmare. The guys at HTC are much smarter than I am so maybe they could do it with ease, or maybe they could have multiple spawn points along your tracks but only open them when certain conditions are met. Even so I just don't think centralising your GV ground is a good idea.
Icons on, or off I don't think makes that big a deal. The dots are not that hard to spot for an old guy like me and if they are fighting the gun fire surely marks themas well as sending up a flare.
-
All the ideas being brought forth all pretty good and have their own strengths and weakness. Problems arise from that old fart Murphy. Or if you prefer The law of unintended consequences. What one group thinks is the perfect style of game play completely turns off another group.
The problem as I see it is HTC can't reliably predict what one change may do to something seemingly entirely separate, let alone massive changes as described by some in this thread. I haven't been in AH very long, but I did witness the slow motion destruction of WB many moons ago when new ownership flew by the seat of their pants and changed stuff because it sounded cool. Any change has to come with some assurance of staying profitable.
The only idea that pops in my head is to develop an AH game simulation. Where all the different ideas can be tried out. You could play as a tool shedder, furballer, bomb dropper, boat driver, tank driver, infantry troop or whatever.
A one minute Google search brought up this link:
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec670/boardgame/BoardGameDesign1.html
I fully realize that to create this board game would probably be just as long and arduous a task as creating AH itself. :)
-
I think this idea could be produced without a lot of new codeing. Just add spawns in increments along the rail to simulate a moveable spawn. Change the town object to a larger one and seperate it from the airbase. Oh yea and add the Strats and TRAINS!