Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 4Prop on November 28, 2011, 10:25:55 PM
-
I know its crazy but think of it..
-no more "winz teh war" hordes.
-promotes more fighting (it is called Aces High right? not Horders High)
-bring a more strategic battle rather then clobbering bases over and over.
+keep the so called "strats"
+ keeps "war win" perks
why get rid of "winz teh war"?
because we wont have so many hordes at 10k to keep pushing people away. instead of having to constantly defend something virtually undefenable we would defend our own bases from enemy fighter patrols.
how does it promote more fighting?
because no one would be worried about clobbering the other 2 countrys base's. people would focus more on what I would call "WWII" style fights where 1 group of people up planes and go search out enemies over their territory. With capturable bases the only time enemies are over your base is to pork it or shut it down and/or deack to vulch. If theres no reason to take bases then why else would you shut a base down? Ok well, say you shut that base down and they cant up fighters any more. Gives you more of an advantage to get kills. then you can deack to vulch the dumbtards that up. But then theres the threat of fighters being upped from a different base and coming to kill the vulchers.
how is it more of a strategic battle?
because its concentrated on air superiority rather then clobbering all the bases and suddenly the "war" is over. the goal would be transformed to air superiority rather then rape the town and hangars.
wait..how do we keep "winz teh war" perks?
after a certain period of time (3-4 days?) the country with the most kills and bomber damage is awarded the 25 each in the 3 catagories.
keeping the "strats" that no one really cares about in the game wouldnt do anything that it already doesnt do.
flame on
-
Actually, it would be quite difficult to remove that aspect of the game. Instead, I'd like to see HTC encourage some type of neutral battle ground between the bases. How or what I dont know.
But as long as players base their fun meter on how many bases they horde, there isnt anything we can do.
That atmosphere doesnt lend too much towards the "sim" feel of things, that is for sure. Take a look at a map of the Ost Front and there are vast wide open areas where there were no air bases. In the MA, they are within 25 miles of each other and the only thing to fight over are the fields themselves. I know HTC has to balance things out for game play, hence the 2X burn rate, close proximity of bases, etc, but it'd be nice to see something other than a horde over a base.
-
Yeah I know that it would be hard to take that aspect out of the game. and the vTards would quit, but who needs em
-
Yeah I know that it would be hard to take that aspect out of the game. and the vTards would quit, but who needs em
well... they are fun to shoot down. :D
-
-100000000000 to the INFINITY power...
Doing this will undo 10 years+ of why people even play this game...
You want vTards to quit? They're not the only people in the game with this sort of behaviour!
In one way or another every player in the game does this... Even the rouge individualists...
You want people to leave? Then get ready to enjoy your subscription to increase when the number of people playing decrease... Including so, don't expect the game to be updated as often as it is since there wouldn't be as much money to back it...
You want action? Go to the Dueling Arena...
-
If I ever saw a "ruin HTC in 30 days" proposal, it is this. :lol
You are effectively killing almost any kind of gameplay and combat variety AH has to offer. No more tanks, no more tactical air support, next to none naval air action, nothing. Even the variety in airplanes encountered would be drop to a very low level. As much as I like high altitude combat and big bomber missions, this is a most horrible suggestion.
-
-100000000000 to the INFINITY power...
Doing this will undo 10 years+ of why people even play this game...
You want vTards to quit? They're not the only people in the game with this sort of behaviour!
In one way or another every player in the game does this... Even the rouge individualists...
You want people to leave? Then get ready to enjoy your subscription to increase when the number of people playing decrease... Including so, don't expect the game to be updated as often as it is since there wouldn't be as much money to back it...
You want action? Go to the Dueling Arena...
I dont want anyone to quit or I would've wished for that directly. I want a different mindset to how the game is played. whats the difference between anything i suggested and what really goes on..well they bomb the town and get a goon. rinse and repeat. Do people really play this game for 10+ years to horde? maybe 3?4?
most of all...the DA isnt for action,its for a mess of 15 year olds (mostly) that whine,call BS, and trash talk all day long thinking they are a better human being because they BnZ u with a tempest. its a total cluster fuss.
the way the game is played needs to be called hordes low rather then aces high. I almost pee my pants laugher when people call it a WW2 flight sim
-
If I ever saw a "ruin HTC in 30 days" proposal, it is this. :lol
You are effectively killing almost any kind of gameplay and combat variety AH has to offer. No more tanks, no more tactical air support, next to none naval air action, nothing. Even the variety in airplanes encountered would be drop to a very low level. As much as I like high altitude combat and big bomber missions, this is a most horrible suggestion.
tanks still in the game. so do cvs and CAS.( close air support) the only differences are those 75 perks people work so hard for is earned differently. tanks stay in the game and people still camp spawns, CVs stay in to sneak up to bases and provide CAP. I dont see how this would bring on high alt combat and big bomber missions anyless then it is today. if you wanna get talkin about how WW2 was fought lets talk. sure bases were taken but the avg dogfight wasnt at 2k
-
tanks still in the game. so do cvs and CAS.( close air support) the only differences are those 75 perks people work so hard for is earned differently. tanks stay in the game and people still camp spawns, CVs stay in to sneak up to bases and provide CAP. I dont see how this would bring on high alt combat and big bomber missions anyless then it is today. if you wanna get talkin about how WW2 was fought lets talk. sure bases were taken but the avg dogfight wasnt at 2k
No base captures = static frontline
With a totally static front line, there is no reason to use tanks or CVs at all. With no reason / incentive to spawn to a base, hardly anyone will ever do it, And this isn't just theoretical stuff, we have been there and done that years ago.
And that's how almost every facet of gameplay would die. And instead of an arena largely dominated by a specific play style/mission type, you try to install an even stricter monoculture. Killing off all what's effectively fun for thousands of players just to meet your own idea of WW2 aerial combat, which is actually a quite limited one. Just remember on which front the majority of WW2 air combat did actually happen....
-
No base captures = static frontline
With a totally static front line, there is no reason to use tanks or CVs at all. With no reason / incentive to spawn to a base, hardly anyone will ever do it, And this isn't just theoretical stuff, we have been there and done that years ago.
And that's how almost every facet of gameplay would die. And instead of an arena largely dominated by a specific play style/mission type, you try to install an even stricter monoculture. Killing off all what's effectively fun for thousands of players just to meet your own idea of WW2 aerial combat, which is actually a quite limited one. Just remember on which front the majority of WW2 air combat did actually happen....
isnt most gving in the game at spawn camps? people go there to get kills not take a base. the game is fun but its a bunch of shameless hordes.my own idea of WW2 aerial combat is way beyond what AH would ever be anyways so we'll keep it at that. instead of blanket a base with bombs/rockets/fighters until the map changes and people get there oh-so-holy 75 perks,why not add some more combat by taking that away. shutting down bases and clobbering them does the opposite of promote air combat. on large maps (of the 3 or 4 we have) its not as bad. but as the rest of it goes..its like every kid is fighting for a corner in the sandbox.
-
isnt most gving in the game at spawn camps? people go there to get kills not take a base. the game is fun but its a bunch of shameless hordes.my own idea of WW2 aerial combat is way beyond what AH would ever be anyways so we'll keep it at that. instead of blanket a base with bombs/rockets/fighters until the map changes and people get there oh-so-holy 75 perks,why not add some more combat by taking that away. shutting down bases and clobbering them does the opposite of promote air combat. on large maps (of the 3 or 4 we have) its not as bad. but as the rest of it goes..its like every kid is fighting for a corner in the sandbox.
look on the bright side, you upped your post count to 11. keep your thinking cap on.
semp
-
isnt most gving in the game at spawn camps? people go there to get kills not take a base.
As I wrote earlier, it's not just theory: We had been at this point before when almost every base on the map had made uncapturable. The effect was that there was no action at all of those bases, because the majority of players had no reason to spawn in, and on the other sides the defenders... had no reason to defend. Pure spawn battles just for the fun of it are actually very rare. But you should know that already for a long time ;)
We can still see the mechanism today: As soon as the players noticed the strats aren't worth the effort, both defense of as well as attacks on them vanished quickly.
If you wan't to increase the "strategic" part of AH, you may be better of proposing ways to do so by making it more attractive, bringing more importance to it. Taking all toys away from everybody until the only thing left is to play your way ain't going to work :)
-
Is this idea real?
-
Is this idea real?
If he is in fact new, then at least he picked up on something right away: overwhelming numbers and absolute advantage being used to capture bases is not fun. I see where he is coming from, but I think it went a too far and didnt think a bit more before posting. He probably wants the same thing a lot of us want: more game play and less horde.
-
If he is in fact new,
Isn't :)
He probably wants the same thing a lot of us want: more game play and less horde.
Personally, I want more gameplay (and indeed much more "strategic", high altitude stuff, so I'm very much on his side actually)... but not necessarily "less horde" (a quite charged expression btw) ;) /hijack off
-
I know its crazy but think of it..
-no more "winz teh war" hordes.
-promotes more fighting (it is called Aces High right? not Horders High)
-bring a more strategic battle rather then clobbering bases over and over.
+keep the so called "strats"
+ keeps "war win" perks
why get rid of "winz teh war"?
because we wont have so many hordes at 10k to keep pushing people away. instead of having to constantly defend something virtually undefenable we would defend our own bases from enemy fighter patrols.
how does it promote more fighting?
because no one would be worried about clobbering the other 2 countrys base's. people would focus more on what I would call "WWII" style fights where 1 group of people up planes and go search out enemies over their territory. With capturable bases the only time enemies are over your base is to pork it or shut it down and/or deack to vulch. If theres no reason to take bases then why else would you shut a base down? Ok well, say you shut that base down and they cant up fighters any more. Gives you more of an advantage to get kills. then you can deack to vulch the dumbtards that up. But then theres the threat of fighters being upped from a different base and coming to kill the vulchers.
how is it more of a strategic battle?
because its concentrated on air superiority rather then clobbering all the bases and suddenly the "war" is over. the goal would be transformed to air superiority rather then rape the town and hangars.
wait..how do we keep "winz teh war" perks?
after a certain period of time (3-4 days?) the country with the most kills and bomber damage is awarded the 25 each in the 3 catagories.
keeping the "strats" that no one really cares about in the game wouldnt do anything that it already doesnt do.
flame on
-100000000000000
-
I know its crazy but think of it..
-no more "winz teh war" hordes.
-promotes more fighting (it is called Aces High right? not Horders High)
-bring a more strategic battle rather then clobbering bases over and over.
+keep the so called "strats"
+ keeps "war win" perks
why get rid of "winz teh war"?
because we wont have so many hordes at 10k to keep pushing people away. instead of having to constantly defend something virtually undefenable we would defend our own bases from enemy fighter patrols.
how does it promote more fighting?
because no one would be worried about clobbering the other 2 countrys base's. people would focus more on what I would call "WWII" style fights where 1 group of people up planes and go search out enemies over their territory. With capturable bases the only time enemies are over your base is to pork it or shut it down and/or deack to vulch. If theres no reason to take bases then why else would you shut a base down? Ok well, say you shut that base down and they cant up fighters any more. Gives you more of an advantage to get kills. then you can deack to vulch the dumbtards that up. But then theres the threat of fighters being upped from a different base and coming to kill the vulchers.
how is it more of a strategic battle?
because its concentrated on air superiority rather then clobbering all the bases and suddenly the "war" is over. the goal would be transformed to air superiority rather then rape the town and hangars.
wait..how do we keep "winz teh war" perks?
after a certain period of time (3-4 days?) the country with the most kills and bomber damage is awarded the 25 each in the 3 catagories.
keeping the "strats" that no one really cares about in the game wouldnt do anything that it already doesnt do.
flame on
:headscratch: :rofl
-
moin
i doesnt get it.
is air superiority not need to take a base?
do we not knew were the hordes came from??
do we not knew were the goone came from?
from my point of view its always a hard fight until we get air superiority.
if thhere is an enemy horde it is the most fun to flank this hord get some easy kills. sure it is not easy to get in an good taktikal position against a hord but that is the most fun.
dont whish for thinks you dont realy want... :old:
cu
-
I could almost live with the horde if there was some way to have some sort of defensive structure in place. It's fun to defend IF you have a chance to.do.so. getting rolled by 10 to 1 odds is only padding the horders score.
-
wow is this guy stupid? uncapturable bases? wow what was he thinking.
guess it was a little to crazy. It was worth some ideas though
-
Isn't :)
Personally, I want more gameplay (and indeed much more "strategic", high altitude stuff, so I'm very much on his side actually)... but not necessarily "less horde" (a quite charged expression btw) ;) /hijack off
The hordes giveth and they taketh.
wow is this guy stupid? uncapturable bases? wow what was he thinking.
guess it was a little to crazy. It was worth some ideas though
You've never even logged into all the arenas/environments offered and you're striding in with grandios ideas of change, change, change.
Buck up Chuck(ie).
I see the good intention of the OP in this thread too, but they didn't think the idea fully through before presenting it to our community of thorough thinkers (enjoy that laugh for the week HT :aok ). At least, this is not a new idea. It has been agreed and implemented to a degree (greater than others on various maps currently in circulation on the MAs) that some bases (a select minority) should be uncapturable to facilitate productive (and ungrieved) gameplay.
Since obviously you're not pitching something already in existence/implementation, it comes across that you must be proposing that all bases be uncapturable, then? For a more strategic battle?
Please, elaborate to us, how would making no bases capturable either maintain or increase the current strategic gameplay environment? Resolve the issue of hording?
And now, if you want us to be REALLY mean to you, I'll tell you the single-most little mean truth here nobody else has in your thread, yet.
WE ALREADY DO have an arena where your EXACT idea is already implemented and you can go RIGHT NOW and see for yourself the increased and prosperous battle of strategy. The Dueling Arena and Furball Lake awaits you... be sure to let us all know tomorrow how close to Valhalla things get in there for you tonight.
Welcome to Aces High! Despite our old, gnarly and surly nature, we're usually a friendly community and available to answer any questions you might have.
-
I could almost live with the horde if there was some way to have some sort of defensive structure in place. It's fun to defend IF you have a chance to.do.so. getting rolled by 10 to 1 odds is only padding the horders score.
It's a very fine line for HiTech to tinker with but, you are right. Back when he first dropped the NOE minimum to 65ft and overlapped the DAR circles, the first 2 weeks were a blast for the defenders. Then the defenders lost interest, the hoard hid above 15k and the whining here in the Forum was epic. Then gradualy the hoard adapted and overcame the change while HiTech tinkered the DAR back closer to it's original state. As long as I can remember the paying majority likes joining a hoard(Organised Group) to take bases with very littel personal risk in their evening.
And a minority of adrenalin jocky's have made the same complaint about the fudgy lame cautious game play since I can remember.
I have wondered why with the 3 sizes of air feilds and thier towns, the location of the feilds didn't have something more to do with their size being directly important to winning the war. So proportionately increased defences, manned and other, could be added to the size of the feild beyond the current formula to make winning the war hing on that last LARGE FEILD. Depending on the size of the map make holding 1-3 large airfeilds part of the winning the war requirement. Tangable realestate needed to win the war above the 90/20 rule. Maybe now 75/20 including 1-3 Large Airfeilds. At least you will know they are coming some time tonight to a large feild near you........
Any undefended feild of all 3 sizes can be carpet bombed by 12 boxes of bombers into oblivion in a single pass. I've been on the receiving end and watched the single M3 or C47 follow in on the explosions and take the town. POTW is guilty of doing that to capture a Large airfeild once. It's a fantastic feeling the first time the whole coordinated effort work's like clockwork. But, it's over in under five minutes when the first bombs drop. The time to organise it and get the assets in place can take up to an hour. Then it's over in a moment. I understand for some in the hoard they are chasing that version of the adrenalin rush. The big buildup, and if everything goes as planned, 30 seconds of a mega emotional fix, and it's over.
And just like the adrenalin jocky's they want that emotional high again and move on to another field to get it their way.
Some kind of tweek to DAR so you can see the hoard coming from farther away would spice things up for awhile. You notice the adrenalin jocky whining abates as long as they can get at the hoards long enough to be immersed in personal combat through out the evening while successfully collecting scalps during their time online. It only picks up like now when the hoards are successfully evading the adrenalin jocky's and taking their feilds from them.
You cannot advocate for any change to this environment that favors control of the arena out come by a minority or unduely penalises the less accomplished for their state while ruining the FUN time of the majority. Thats how you will find yourself alone down the road with a small number of like minded adrenalin junkies on oversized maps going "Piu, Piu, Piu" to an empty arena.
-
I loved the bigger dar circles. It made "hiding" so much harder. I didn't mind the fight getting higher, it would be a bit more "immerse" if it was.
I'd also like to see the towns white flag percentage reflect the base size. A small base is 50% for a white flag, a medium 70% for white flag, and large 90% for a white flag. I think it would add some strategy tot he whole "win da waz" thing.
-
I loved the bigger dar circles. It made "hiding" so much harder. I didn't mind the fight getting higher, it would be a bit more "immerse" if it was.
The bigger dar circles significantly benefited what is called "the horde" - If you are on dar all the time from takeoff to target, and can be spotted anywhere as lone con even when trying to get home on the deck, people will even more stick to each other.
Also it meant that the attacker had full dar coverage of the enemy base (and most of the times even a good area beyond it), which was in practice a huge advantage to any horde piling on it, especially vs lone, brave , desperate goon hunters.
I'd also like to see the towns white flag percentage reflect the base size. A small base is 50% for a white flag, a medium 70% for white flag, and large 90% for a white flag. I think it would add some strategy tot he whole "win da waz" thing.
I would welcome any such or similar attempt to increase gameplay depth! :rock
-
it's not my idea, but a new perk point formula, taking into account # of friendly vs. # of enemy in range (more perks for killing while outnumbered locally) might encourage defense and (possibly) discourage horde zombies.
another idea that is not mine is instead of # of kills landed, show perk points landed.
would be interesting!
-
it's not my idea, but a new perk point formula, taking into account # of friendly vs. # of enemy in range (more perks for killing while outnumbered locally) might encourage defense and (possibly) discourage horde zombies.
another idea that is not mine is instead of # of kills landed, show perk points landed.
would be interesting!
just show the people that got killed.
semp