Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Karnak on December 24, 2011, 12:20:47 PM
-
I was talking to a friend and one of the things he didn't like about Aces High (he subscribed for about three months back in 2001) was the difficulty in finding a fight. I was thinking about another MMO we play, World of Warcraft (sue me, but that is the one my RL friends play), and I thought that perhaps the daily quest idea could be transposed to Aces High. They would not be structured like a player generated mission, but rather free form, bring your own tools and meet the requirement to get the reward. The reward could be some score bonus, perk bonus or both, but nothing so high as to require participation by those disinclined.
The way I envision this would be system generated "quest" missions every one or two hours, whatever is balanced. There would be a equal number of missions for each nation. For example:
Bishops: Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A2 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A2 for an hour)
Bishops: Take A3 (Take field A3 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A4 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A4 for an hour)
Bishops: Attack Rook City (Bomb Rook city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Bishops: Defend Bishop City (Prevent the Knights from reducing Bishop City below 25% for an hour)
Knights: Take A5 (Take field A5 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A6 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A6 for an hour)
Knights: Take A4 (Take field A4 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A3 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A3 for an hour)
Knights: Attack Bishop City (Bomb Bishop City to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Knights: Defend Knight City (Prevent the Rooks from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
Rooks: Take A2 (Take field A2 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A1 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A1 for an hour)
Rooks: Take A6 (Take field A6 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A5 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A5 for an hour)
Rooks: Attack Knight City (Bomb Knight city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Rooks: Defend Rook City (Prevent the Bishops from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
As you can see, these mission quests are all pointed at another mission quest to encourage combat.
How would it work in gameplay? While in the tower you would accept the mission you wanted to do, for example as a Bishop you could take "Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)". Once the Mission Quest timer began (there might be a clock counting down to the mission start and then counting up until the time ran out) you would launch as normal, selecting your airplane or vehicle, and heading off for A1 to participate in the Bishop attempt to take it. There would be no mass launching by the computer as in a player generated mission. To determine if you were eligible for completing the Mission Quest and getting the score/perk reward the program would need to do a few spot checks to make sure you were participating in A1's sector and inflicting damage on A1 or A1's defenders.
The goal of this idea is not to mandate new behavior for all players, but rather to encourage a meeting of opposing forces to fight it out for something. Players would be free to participate or not even without accepting the Mission Quest. They would be free to use whatever airplane, vehicle or boat they wanted in order to participate, though a tank might well fail to score a City defense mission due to not damaging the attackers. There should not be too many Mission Quests per iteration as it wouldn't be good to dilute the players interested in participating too much.
Concern:
A mechanism needs to be in place to discourage hordes. This could be done via the ENY system reducing the rewards based on side balance, enough of an imbalance and the rewards would be zeroed out.
-
Very good idea +1 :aok
-
I thought that perhaps the daily quest idea could be transposed to Aces High. They would not be structured like a player generated mission, but rather free form, bring your own tools and meet the requirement to get the reward.
I'd given a little thought to this kind of thing, since you brought it up, what would you think of an "Assignment" option? The Player could simply ASK for an assignment and the game would provide one. Like -Destroy Ordanance Bunkers at A15- (any forward Base) or -defend V22 (any base currently under attack) from GV attack". The successfull completion of the assignment would be rewarded with EXTRA points/perks AND a statistical notation of -Completed Assignments- . ??? :cool:
-
I like the idea!
To discourage hording, what if only a particular set of airplanes were available to use each time?
-
Definitively a good idea.... :aok
-
This would be pretty awesome.... would kill some of the late night time especially when its hard to find a fight, and instead you can just get something assigned vital to country success.....I APPROVE!!!!! :rock
-
I give this one a two thumbs up. :aok :aok
-
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
Dueling Arena - and you want to do something in under a hour? FSO!! And a certain plane set? AvA!!
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
Dueling Arena - and you want to do something in under a hour? FSO!! And a certain plane set? AvA!!
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
What has any of this to do with the suggestion? It appears that it has no bearing at all.
-
I like this idea,
participation optional, the chance for a little bit of teamwork if you aren't already in a squad and the defenders have a chance to get up.
-
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
Dueling Arena - and you want to do something in under a hour? FSO!! And a certain plane set? AvA!!
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
I think someone either has a difficult time with change or anger issues? Combination? likely...
-
I'd given a little thought to this kind of thing, since you brought it up, what would you think of an "Assignment" option? The Player could simply ASK for an assignment and the game would provide one. Like -Destroy Ordanance Bunkers at A15- (any forward Base) or -defend V22 (any base currently under attack) from GV attack". The successfull completion of the assignment would be rewarded with EXTRA points/perks AND a statistical notation of -Completed Assignments- . ??? :cool:
I'm not too keen on the "Assignment Request" idea. It would require more AI strength and it wouldn't be as easy to have the opposing forces slam head on into each other.
-
Discourage hording, sorry it won't ever happen. The game is the way it is and over the years it has rarely changed.
-
Discourage hording, sorry it won't ever happen. The game is the way it is and over the years it has rarely changed.
Perhaps you misunderstand. I mean to discourage hording being encouraged by the proposed system. I have no ambitions about affecting the existing style of hording.
-
dont we have at least 1 player in each country that generate this quests at least once every hour? how do you think we get the hordes rolling :).
semp
-
I'm not too keen on the "Assignment Request" idea. It would require more AI strength and it wouldn't be as easy to have the opposing forces slam head on into each other.
It would require a bot, but a fairly simple one would suffice ... The same bot could also handle -REQUESTS- for assistance. In LW, with big numbers of pilots active, an attacker could call for assets and have that relayed thru the -ASSIGNMENT- system to pilots looking for something interesting to do. It might help Defenders EFFECTIVELY attract assets when heavily outnumbered. Tankers could request supplies when necessary. CVs could make their needs for gunners or uppers known without repetitious appeals in the text buffer.
I wasn't really intending to SLAM forces into each other, I'm not sure how you would achieve the timing necessary for that with a Quest type mission? I was thinking more of providing a directed focus for players who don't have one of their own, and of maybe introducing loner types to joint operations where they might become involved in a team effort and meet new people.
:cheers:
-
I wasn't really intending to SLAM forces into each other, I'm not sure how you would achieve the timing necessary for that with a Quest type mission?
Both the attack and defend missions would initiate at the same time. Bishops have a mission to take A1 and Rooks have a mission to defend it.
-
Both the attack and defend missions would initiate at the same time. Bishops have a mission to take A1 and Rooks have a mission to defend it.
Yeah ... But ... It's not going to grab a bunch of participants immediately is it? It'll be dribs and drabs filtering into it casually? With Ack, Towns, and Assets, popping back up over the specified timespan and no one in autority directing a coordinated effort ?
Or do you (?) intend using the existing mission system and ANNOUNCING it's availablility thru the text buffer, then launching it just like a horde does?
If -THAT- is what you had in mind? And what you meant by SLAMMING forces together? I begin to understand the reference that was posted saying just go to the dueling arena.
:eek:
-
Iv'e always wanted to see something like this.
My vision for something similar would be in a new or existing CM run arena where a series of scripted missions and counter missions would automatically kick off at selected times throughout the day, but I suppose such a system could be modified to be used in any arena.
My envisioned version would require improved AI because the slots would first be filled with AI but AI would be replaced one by one as players joined, and the missions would always launch on time with AI claiming the unclaimed slots.
As fighter escort and interceptors would likely fill first, the bomber and cargo slots would be the ones most augmented by AI and that would be more palatable than AI fighters.
Here is what such a mission creator might look like: Perhaps with an option to choose which slots could be filled with AI and a "sub" option where AI would only launch in unclaimed slots.
(http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll149/jimsom88/CMmissioneditor.jpg)
Of course it might be also be cool if players could take over AI planes in flight and choose to join a mission in progress or wait for the next.
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa358/JG3Udet/missionlogin-1.png)
-
Sounds like risk missions kind of I like it.
-
Yeah ... But ... It's not going to grab a bunch of participants immediately is it? It'll be dribs and drabs filtering into it casually? With Ack, Towns, and Assets, popping back up over the specified timespan and no one in autority directing a coordinated effort ?
The way I envision it is that there would be a place to go, say a briefing room, on a base that would show the clock on the missions that were available. It could be counting down to the next start or it could be counting up to the ending time. To be eligible for mission participation you'd have to launch after the mission timer switched to positive numbers. Lets say, hypothetically, that base capture and defense missions run each hour on the hour and give the attackers 30 minutes to accomplish the task. That means from 7:30 to 8:00 the clock for those missions would be counting down and from 8:00 to 8:30 it would be counting up. Once the count up started people would launch in their aircraft or vehicle of choice and begin the attempt to complete their mission. Throughout the mission period, until it concludes by a capture or by the timer running out, people could up and participate. There would likely be a burst of launches at the very start of the mission timer as well as "dribs and drabs" as the timer progressed. To avoid "pre-softening" of the target base the mission would probably not announce the target until the timer went positive.
Or do you (?) intend using the existing mission system and ANNOUNCING it's availablility thru the text buffer, then launching it just like a horde does?
If -THAT- is what you had in mind? And what you meant by SLAMMING forces together? I begin to understand the reference that was posted saying just go to the dueling arena.
:eek:
I don't think that more text spam is needed. I would suggest just using a room to go sign up for the mission. If you were signed up for a mission the server could send you a direct chat saying what the target to be attacked or defended is for the mission you signed up for. That way once signed up you'd be able to do other things while waiting for it to start.
jimson,
That is a lot more structured than what I was thinking of. That tool could be a great one for events and such, but for the MA it wouldn't appeal to a lot of people. The example mission you have there, for example, I wouldn't have any interest in participating in. What I was imagining was, at its core, basically a tool to nudge people into combat with each other by using some moderate perk or score rewards as a carrot. For my part the biggest reward my proposed system would have is an increase in combat.
-
jimson,
That is a lot more structured than what I was thinking of. That tool could be a great one for events and such, but for the MA it wouldn't appeal to a lot of people.
I think mine would have more application for a separate coop mission arena, something like pre loaded auto launched snapshots that could be historically based or not.
I'm not entirely sure how yours would work with limited structure and infinite participation slots, but I think it has some merit.
From what I've read, I gather auto generated prompts that suggest a basic course of action where if you click on accept, your player is tagged. Then you decide how to proceed, and when to launch (within a given time period) and points are awarded based on if your tagged player is operating within the location specified?
-
Now, its interesting.
A couple thoughts:
-there should be a reward if the mission succeeds, lets say, 15 perks for everyone, or a +50% to the country-wide perk bonus for a while, etc etc. Otherwise it has no weight and gives no motivation.
-if this thing is about to discourage hordes... usually hordes appear when a large majority of a country is "working" on one airfield. There should always be 2-3-4 from theese type of missions, what can spread out the horde. 20 people are more than enough to capture a base, they will very soon realize its more effective to have 3*20 capturing 3 bases than 60 shutting down one. This can create smaller fights.
-it has its downsides too. It may be common (can it be even more common??) to just flatten the hangars then horde it down. Consider it carefully plz, that wont encourage fights, more vTARDism is the last thing we want to see, right? (only one goal in front of them, you know what im talking about... zombyism)
-and one more thing, if theese missions are announced on both sides in the same time, by the time the attacking mission gets there, there will be 25K tempests waiting for them... not fun either.
As for the AI pilots.. NO, NO, NEVER!
Not a bad idea, just needs some tweaking. Keep in sight, youre paying for this, no friggen one has the rights to tell you which base you have to attack.
Also it can create a(n even more) mission-orientated game instead of a furball-orientated one, so be very careful with theese ideas, please.
-
As for the AI pilots.. NO, NO, NEVER!
AI is not what the OP was talking about. I was just mentioning something I had envisioned as to how such missions would be structured and launched but I'm learning just how different his vision is.
-
Merry Christmas All :cheers:
What we are asking for is wingman operations. This is what the game absolutely needs to promote in order to remain competitive.
Solo versus wingman tactics
- solo flights leave the pilot with individual choices VS. Wingman flights carry responsible choices
- solo engagements require above average skill VS. Wingman engagements better odds for beginner and novice skill
- solo objectives may conflict with or spoil others' objectives VS. Wingman objectives are better communicated and generally others are more mindful
- solo rewards end with the end of the sortie VS. Wingman rewards include successful completion of group's tasks
For the above reasons, I would rather see the AI* utilized in at least one online arena. This allows the players who wish to fly solo to continue, as well as gives a less popular or newer player the option to fly with a wingman or group, without having to look for the nearest horde.
* The only restriction that I would like to add to Jimson's mission planner, would be a finite total number like 5 AI slots. << The AI would occupy those 5 slots until taken up by an actual player, meaning that a mission can be planned for more than 6 total slots but no more than 5 AI would ever be assigned to a mission.
-
jimson,
yes, yours is more a mission arena idea. Mine is tailored for the MA. Basically, you have the gist of my idea there from the player's perspective. There would need to be some tracking to verify participation. That could range from damage inflicted on targets or players to simply being in the area, whatever is determined to be valid.
The key thing to this is that the attack missions all point at defense missions and defense missions all point at attack missions. The goal is to build combat situations instead of sneaking bases.
Debrody,
I would want at least six missions on the hour, an attack mission to take a base from each opposing country, a defense mission to defend against each opposing nation's capture missions directed at the player's nation, alternating through a rotation of three, an attack on an opposing city followed an hour later by an attack on a random strat, an hour later by another attack on a strat and then a city again and lastly a defense mission of the player's city or strat. There would be no AI involvement beyond the AI to identify, probably based on proximity to each other, valid capture targets for the mission. This would be 100% an "opt in" gameplay mechanism. I do not want to force anybody to play any differently than they do now if they don't want to. The length of the mission times would need to be set for gameplay reasons. An hour to capture a base and you can simply kamikaze it down with P-51s and Typhoons until the defenders can't do anything to save it, so maybe 30 minutes for a capture. A strategic target being hit by heavies might need an hour or so on its timer.
Players participating would be entirely responsible for choosing the way that they want to participate. What vehicle or airplane to take, what loadout to take, what base to launch from. None of that would be specified by the mission. There would be no "mass launching" like on player missions. It would be completely free form with only the knowledge that the base you were told to defend has an opposing mission that was told to take it so there will be combat.
-
I was talking to a friend and one of the things he didn't like about Aces High (he subscribed for about three months back in 2001) was the difficulty in finding a fight. I was thinking about another MMO we play, World of Warcraft (sue me, but that is the one my RL friends play), and I thought that perhaps the daily quest idea could be transposed to Aces High. They would not be structured like a player generated mission, but rather free form, bring your own tools and meet the requirement to get the reward. The reward could be some score bonus, perk bonus or both, but nothing so high as to require participation by those disinclined.
The way I envision this would be system generated "quest" missions every one or two hours, whatever is balanced. There would be a equal number of missions for each nation. For example:
Bishops: Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A2 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A2 for an hour)
Bishops: Take A3 (Take field A3 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A4 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A4 for an hour)
Bishops: Attack Rook City (Bomb Rook city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Bishops: Defend Bishop City (Prevent the Knights from reducing Bishop City below 25% for an hour)
Knights: Take A5 (Take field A5 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A6 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A6 for an hour)
Knights: Take A4 (Take field A4 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A3 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A3 for an hour)
Knights: Attack Bishop City (Bomb Bishop City to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Knights: Defend Knight City (Prevent the Rooks from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
Rooks: Take A2 (Take field A2 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A1 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A1 for an hour)
Rooks: Take A6 (Take field A6 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A5 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A5 for an hour)
Rooks: Attack Knight City (Bomb Knight city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Rooks: Defend Rook City (Prevent the Bishops from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
As you can see, these mission quests are all pointed at another mission quest to encourage combat.
How would it work in gameplay? While in the tower you would accept the mission you wanted to do, for example as a Bishop you could take "Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)". Once the Mission Quest timer began (there might be a clock counting down to the mission start and then counting up until the time ran out) you would launch as normal, selecting your airplane or vehicle, and heading off for A1 to participate in the Bishop attempt to take it. There would be no mass launching by the computer as in a player generated mission. To determine if you were eligible for completing the Mission Quest and getting the score/perk reward the program would need to do a few spot checks to make sure you were participating in A1's sector and inflicting damage on A1 or A1's defenders.
The goal of this idea is not to mandate new behavior for all players, but rather to encourage a meeting of opposing forces to fight it out for something. Players would be free to participate or not even without accepting the Mission Quest. They would be free to use whatever airplane, vehicle or boat they wanted in order to participate, though a tank might well fail to score a City defense mission due to not damaging the attackers. There should not be too many Mission Quests per iteration as it wouldn't be good to dilute the players interested in participating too much.
Concern:
A mechanism needs to be in place to discourage hordes. This could be done via the ENY system reducing the rewards based on side balance, enough of an imbalance and the rewards would be zeroed out.
:aok
-
Debrody,
I would want at least six missions on the hour, an attack mission to take a base from each opposing country, a defense mission to defend against each opposing nation's capture missions directed at the player's nation, alternating through a rotation of three, an attack on an opposing city followed an hour later by an attack on a random strat, an hour later by another attack on a strat and then a city again and lastly a defense mission of the player's city or strat.
c, got it, interesting stuff
-
The way I envision it is that there would be a place to go, say a briefing room, - There would likely be a burst of launches at the very start of the mission timer as well as "dribs and drabs" as the timer progressed. To avoid "pre-softening" of the target base the mission would probably not announce the target until the timer went positive.
OK ... This sounds like a good idea ... You could use the O-Club Room (I think) and just add your "General Orders" Mission to the existing menu, or feature it as an option on an -assignment / assistance- menu. The mission screen could show the status and specific targets of strikes pending, inbound, or completed, and post the results / losses so as to avoid duplicate efforts and keep defenders informed. It might make the O-club a more popular spot and encorage conversation ... Now if they would just learn to make a decent martini ...
I wouldn't favor ANYTHING that added AI pilots to an arena ... Encouraging Wingmen pairings would be a VERY GOOD thing IMHO ... I do think that the availability of this option would effect the existing Horde Operations, especially if there is an assignment completed reward system that the horde cannot provide. 1st positive step in that direction I think I've seen ?
:D
-
Because my thoughts were so much different than the op's. I started a new thread, so that this one could stay on topic.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325839.0.html
-
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
Dueling Arena - and you want to do something in under a hour? FSO!! And a certain plane set? AvA!!
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
If the AVA had a setup like all allied planes availiable vs all axis i'd be in there. Not a week to week thing either. OOOOH wait there's no axis troop transport for the air so there's a hole in that set up. Nevermind.
-
If the AVA had a setup like all allied planes availiable vs all axis i'd be in there. Not a week to week thing either. OOOOH wait there's no axis troop transport for the air so there's a hole in that set up. Nevermind.
No, the C-47 works for that. The Japanese built hundreds of L2D 'Tabby' transport aircraft.
-
I'm FOR anything that promotes combat. The only problem I see with this is would enough people join up to make the missions achievable? If only a few people try for the "Capture A1" mission they can pound on it for an hour and never get everything together enough to make a capture, so the "defend A1" mission would be an easy success.
-
I'm FOR anything that promotes combat. The only problem I see with this is would enough people join up to make the missions achievable? If only a few people try for the "Capture A1" mission they can pound on it for an hour and never get everything together enough to make a capture, so the "defend A1" mission would be an easy success.
That would be something to use the carrot to encourage, if players persistently don't participate in adequate numbers, then the rewards can be raised, and the reward for the harder task can be larger. Obviously, participation is not always assured. World of Warcraft has a much, much larger player base even on a per server basis, and I can recall times in Wintersgrasp where the Horde just didn't show up. Nothing can be done about such things as they fall to the players.
-
Even if it's successful only some of the time, it might still be worthwhile.
-
+10 this would also make a very good "cut your teeth" training tool in alot of ways.
-
I was talking to a friend and one of the things he didn't like about Aces High (he subscribed for about three months back in 2001) was the difficulty in finding a fight. I was thinking about another MMO we play, World of Warcraft (sue me, but that is the one my RL friends play), and I thought that perhaps the daily quest idea could be transposed to Aces High. They would not be structured like a player generated mission, but rather free form, bring your own tools and meet the requirement to get the reward. The reward could be some score bonus, perk bonus or both, but nothing so high as to require participation by those disinclined.
The way I envision this would be system generated "quest" missions every one or two hours, whatever is balanced. There would be a equal number of missions for each nation. For example:
Bishops: Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A2 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A2 for an hour)
Bishops: Take A3 (Take field A3 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A4 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A4 for an hour)
Bishops: Attack Rook City (Bomb Rook city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Bishops: Defend Bishop City (Prevent the Knights from reducing Bishop City below 25% for an hour)
Knights: Take A5 (Take field A5 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A6 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A6 for an hour)
Knights: Take A4 (Take field A4 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A3 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A3 for an hour)
Knights: Attack Bishop City (Bomb Bishop City to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Knights: Defend Knight City (Prevent the Rooks from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
Rooks: Take A2 (Take field A2 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A1 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A1 for an hour)
Rooks: Take A6 (Take field A6 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A5 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A5 for an hour)
Rooks: Attack Knight City (Bomb Knight city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Rooks: Defend Rook City (Prevent the Bishops from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
As you can see, these mission quests are all pointed at another mission quest to encourage combat.
How would it work in gameplay? While in the tower you would accept the mission you wanted to do, for example as a Bishop you could take "Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)". Once the Mission Quest timer began (there might be a clock counting down to the mission start and then counting up until the time ran out) you would launch as normal, selecting your airplane or vehicle, and heading off for A1 to participate in the Bishop attempt to take it. There would be no mass launching by the computer as in a player generated mission. To determine if you were eligible for completing the Mission Quest and getting the score/perk reward the program would need to do a few spot checks to make sure you were participating in A1's sector and inflicting damage on A1 or A1's defenders.
The goal of this idea is not to mandate new behavior for all players, but rather to encourage a meeting of opposing forces to fight it out for something. Players would be free to participate or not even without accepting the Mission Quest. They would be free to use whatever airplane, vehicle or boat they wanted in order to participate, though a tank might well fail to score a City defense mission due to not damaging the attackers. There should not be too many Mission Quests per iteration as it wouldn't be good to dilute the players interested in participating too much.
Concern:
A mechanism needs to be in place to discourage hordes. This could be done via the ENY system reducing the rewards based on side balance, enough of an imbalance and the rewards would be zeroed out.
+1 A nice idea, but not sure how a player could be confirmed to be helping towards the objective.
-
+1 A nice idea, but not sure how a player could be confirmed to be helping towards the objective.
Damaging a building of the appropriate type or player within the mission area. Defenders could hot troop or ordnance bunkers at bases near the target base for example, or just shoot down attackers or the reward could simply be a percentage of the perks you earned within the mission area while the mission was active.
-
Perhaps there could be a dynamic fill mechanism to prevent either the attack or defense mission from having a large difference in participation. Maybe each starts at 5 people, for example, and doesn't increase until the opposing mission fills up to a certain point.
-
Perhaps there could be a dynamic fill mechanism to prevent either the attack or defense mission from having a large difference in participation. Maybe each starts at 5 people, for example, and doesn't increase until the opposing mission fills up to a certain point.
That could be done by only having it selectable when doing so would not throw the balance off. The free form aspect is important though, so I strongly wouldn't want to see it go to something like player generated missions where you have to just sit in the tower and wait until you all spawn on the runway.
I think I prefer having it governed by simply reducing the reward more and more for the side with numbers as their numbers grow.
-
+1 A nice idea, but not sure how a player could be confirmed to be helping towards the objective.
The player would have to "join" the mission, and then have some "damage" at the site of the mission
adding a .5 multiplier to the points/perks a person earns for the Mission flight might be enough of a "carrot" to get people to participate even if the mission isn't completed. Say double the multiplier for a completed mission.
That could be done by only having it selectable when doing so would not throw the balance off. The free form aspect is important though, so I strongly wouldn't want to see it go to something like player generated missions where you have to just sit in the tower and wait until you all spawn on the runway.
I think I prefer having it governed by simply reducing the reward more and more for the side with numbers as their numbers grow.
The sound suspiciously like your "taking something away" if they don't play it the way you want there Karnak :noid
-
The sound suspiciously like your "taking something away" if they don't play it the way you want there Karnak :noid
What would it be taking away? When I said that in your thread you were talking about taking away existing things, such as the ability for bombers to drop bombs below a certain altitude, or at least their ability to get score or perks for bombs dropped below a certain altitude.
When discussing the mechanics of a new feature adjustments to it will happen and that is not at all the same thing.
-
What would it be taking away? When I said that in your thread you were talking about taking away existing things, such as the ability for bombers to drop bombs below a certain altitude, or at least their ability to get score or perks for bombs dropped below a certain altitude.
When discussing the mechanics of a new feature adjustments to it will happen and that is not at all the same thing.
I'm just teasing you, thats why the little "noid" was in there. :aok
-
+1. Seems interesting and worthwhile to explore. It would be nice to have some better country level coordination. Large combat engagement with air, naval, and GV's are really fun but only if a coordinated defense is brought to bear...and that just doesn't happen most times, but when it does I really enjoy the fights!! Salute all. :aok :airplane:
-
What would it be taking away?
It wouldn't be taking anything away ... I'd suggest a fixed # of reward points to be divided between all participants and a Target reward to be added for killing specific targets. That way the reward would diminsh as participants increased, but attack motivation would be maintained.
:salute
-
No, if only because you used the word "quest."
:noid
-
No, if only because you used the word "quest."
:noid
The opinion of the person who coined the term "slobber donkey" is duly noted.