Still im curious about the horders opinion about themselves.
I would love to see some of the dedicated horders try and 1v1. I wonder just how severe a deficency we'd be looking at.
I faced Chuwie enough times, without 40+ behind him there is a reason for the hording.:rofl
Hard to get an answer on that, because almost nobody is thinking of himself as a horder. So when you call "Horders, step forward!"... ;)
And I have another theory on top of that: I'd guess that most players making up the core of those 'hordes' you are thinking of aren't even on this BBS...
wouldn't last but a few minutes without a giant horde around
sometimes I find myself in a horde to capture a base I think is important. . .but for the most part I relish the 1v1 2v1. . .
Everyone goes through the same roughly 1 to 3 year cycle with this game when they start.
Of 100 new players 80% who stay with the game through the first year will choose to play with a larger group of friends and countrymen for the rest of their career in the game with changing priorities as their skill sets improve over time. Many will not have the spare time to seek training or be interested in anything but logging on and shooting at things while interacting with their freinds. In varying degrees the social "belonging" is the attraction while the uniquness of this game creates a fun gathering location to enjoy a shared experience.
The remaining 20% will exhibit varying degrees of inate talent, agressiveness and EGO need to excell at all costs with an extreme intollerance of anyone not like themselves. Predictably they tend to spend time in the DA jousting with the like minded 20% still active from past generations and their current generation. A common theme over the generations of this 20% is a visceral disguste for how many of the other 80% choose to play this game and an ongoing misguided campaign that with enough negative peer preassure, the other 80% will be humiliated into to becomeing like themselves or even leave the game.
Predictably the 20% are some of the first to burn out by :bolt: third year and leave this game out of bordom or blaming the other 80% for creating an environment of lousy game play. Other than the eyecandy and new players, this game dosen't change very much. A nearly unrestriced sandbox to express your imagination in.
This is a game that cannot be won. You can only play it in the face of your current perceptions of yourself and what you feel you need from it. Everything else is a reflection of how you view and react to other people's choice of game play. Respecting HTC's few rules, there is no right or wrong way to play this game. Just the illusion that other player's opinions about you matter.
I faced Chuwie enough times, without 40+ behind him there is a reason for the hording.all HAIL butcher kinG of AH :headscratch::aok :rolleyes:
Everyone goes through the same roughly 1 to 3 year cycle with this game when they start.:salute
Of 100 new players 80% who stay with the game through the first year will choose to play with a larger group of friends and countrymen for the rest of their career in the game with changing priorities as their skill sets improve over time. Many will not have the spare time to seek training or be interested in anything but logging on and shooting at things while interacting with their freinds. In varying degrees the social "belonging" is the attraction while the uniquness of this game creates a fun gathering location to enjoy a shared experience.
The remaining 20% will exhibit varying degrees of inate talent, agressiveness and EGO need to excell at all costs with an extreme intollerance of anyone not like themselves. Predictably they tend to spend time in the DA jousting with the like minded 20% still active from past generations and their current generation. A common theme over the generations of this 20% is a visceral disguste for how many of the other 80% choose to play this game and an ongoing misguided campaign that with enough negative peer preassure, the other 80% will be humiliated into to becomeing like themselves or even leave the game.
Predictably the 20% are some of the first to burn out by the third year and leave this game out of bordom or blaming the other 80% for creating an environment of lousy game play. Other than the eyecandy and new players, this game dosen't change very much. A nearly unrestriced sandbox to express your imagination in.
This is a game that cannot be won. You can only play it in the face of your current perceptions of yourself and what you feel you need from it. Everything else is a reflection of how you view and react to other people's choice of game play. Respecting HTC's few rules, there is no right or wrong way to play this game. Just the illusion that other player's opinions about you matter.
You can't win this game.
I find it mildly amusing that a guy who I hear accused of cheating a lot of time, complains of hoarding. Is that why you cheat, your hatred of hoarding missions? I don't know you from a hole in the ground nor do I have any proof, I just hear people saying, "Debrody is spying again and such"
You oughtta be more careful of spreadin' crap like that about, Bender. Especially in your first (under that handle) post.
I've had my share of pissin' contests with Debrody in the past, but I've -never-, repeat, -never-, seen or heard
anything about him being either a "cheat" or a "spy". You'd better go find another ankle to hump, cuz I
can guarantee you that nobody in here who's flown with or against Debrody is buyin' into that load
of malarkey you just posted.
Oddball
Still im curious about the horders opinion about themselves.
I I'm not sure if it is a direct reaction to outside pressure or just a group of guys gaining experience and wanting to move to the next phase.
Haters gonna hate
.
Playas ‘gon play.
I have absolutely no idea what that means. I’m not even convinced it’s English.
V Crew are frustrating at times, but they seem to pay their subscription and, to that end, can do what they like. And I think they enjoy what they do. If they enjoy it more than anyone else, they win. And to the rest of us, I like it when they’re coming to a base near me. It’s a good chance to beat back the foe and kill some pixelated planes in the process.
V-guys posts are cool – they dig the game, like we all do. The Musketeers lack of anything resembling “having a go” annoys me – same deal. The Fishing, Ho’ing, Running, score mongering, English is my third language crew annoy me – same deal. The last two groups annoy me for probably the same reason they annoy DeBrody – lack of respect for the fight – total respect for the score.
And whilst mentioning DeBrody, I wouldn’t be using his handle and the word cheat in the same sentence, post or internet page. From my viewpoint, he is one of the shining lights in a game peppered with mediocrity. He flies well, is a great stick to fight against or fight with and takes his wins and losses with equal grace.
In short, a good guy.
Public retraction in order Champ.
Thanks Threeup,
still, i never meant to offend anyone with this topic.
I know two vguys who are jerks, i cant stand him, but the others arent bad folks at all. To be honest, i would rather play with them than the "im in a spixteen/pony/4hog/tempy, im at 20k, i BnZed you to death, die beyotch, my score is better than yours muwhaha" ones. Thats why i wanted to understand why they do what they do. Its better for my little soul if i can accept it.
As for being a good one... you decide, i found myself to be horrible. I give back exactly what i got: if a good fight, then a salute, if crap, then the same crap. Anyway, im inactive right now, trying to forget the boring/annoying stuff and remember the niceties. Couse all i need now is just a little peace...
Pure luck Midway is ignored and i dont have to see the scum he is trying to throw at me... or its just my wicked mind?
I'd see that more like following the standard AH evolutionary pattern of squads. AT some point almost everybody is getting bored by the 10th quick, unopposed base capture during a night. But don't worry, if that really happens to the V's now, the next basegrabbin megasquad will surely show up soon. they always do ;):aok :aok
Generally speaking, peer pressure rarely works, particularly not when being thrown out in a very negative way, i.e. insulting people, calling out their "lamery" and so on. That only tends to reinforce such habits ("Everybody is calling us tards, so let's show them how tardy we really can be!"). Pressure induces counter-pressure.
Set an example, guide players, train them, help them and accept when they don't follow your way all the time. That's the way of changing things, but of course that's laborious, slow and doesn't give the instant 1337 feeling as throwing out insults on CH200 ;)
:aok :aoksee vBobo, vJazzi or (v)Woody. Its working. :salute
Why horde? Because it's fun, it's effective, and it works. And as Lusche's data show in another thread, new players see pretty significant improvement over their first year in terms of game stats (K/D, K/S, etc). I have to assume that this includes players flying in hordes as much as anyone else, so even in the horde they manage to demonstrably improve their performance.
The short version: AH rewards and encourages hording, so we see hording.
What if, for example, the initial map state had random but equal field ownership all over the map, instead of starting with a large contiguous area for each country?
Behavior can be altered though, especially in a game like AH where conditions can be controlled. What if, for example, the initial map state had random but equal field ownership all over the map, instead of starting with a large contiguous area for each country? Sortof like the random start in Risk. There would be dozens of fronts, and fights would be theoretically be smaller, shorter distance to get to, etc. I imagine it would be quite an active map while countries tried to consolidate contiguous zones of control.
Why horde? Because it's fun, it's effective, and it works. And as Lusche's data show in another thread, new players see pretty significant improvement over their first year in terms of game stats (K/D, K/S, etc). I have to assume that this includes players flying in hordes as much as anyone else, so even in the horde they manage to demonstrably improve their performance.
The short version: AH rewards and encourages hording, so we see hording.
The bottom line is this: a successfully coordinated combined arms assault bringing together 20-30 guys and gals from across the planet is an actual accomplishment.
Tunnelrat, that was the largest amount of unsubstantiated generalizations I have seen on the forums in a long time.
So you go and spill your sewer's worth of your own personal opinions/unsubstantiated generalizations?
Way to go? :headscratch:
Also because that's the entire point of the Main Arena...
I don't think that's true. The current sandbox structure of the MA encourages and rewards hording, and thus we see lots of hording. This goes back to the days of Air Warrior, mind you, and not just AH. To say that hording is the "point" though is a stretch. One could reasonably argue that winning the map is the "point," and hording facilitates that, but that's a far cry from saying that hording is the point.
There are those who just don't get it. You are a prime example.
No, the POINT is to be able to play a war game with a LOT of other people. As soon as you get too many other people together, you're called a horde. If you don't want a "horde", there are literally a dozen other arenas people can go to... or, instead, whine.
When we up a "horde" mission, we coordinate 10-20 people on private VOX and (now and again) various other squads or trusted "pick-ups".
This includes someone taking a goon and most likely an M3. Depending on the base, we may have a ground roll of AFVs and SPAAGS. A flight of heavy bombers will lift from base A, along with a high alt escort. Once the bombers are at altitude, an NOE strike package lifts from base B.
Sometimes we win, sometimes we don't, but we have a great time. To then hear the tired b/s from people like Derpbrody 24/7 gets tedious. Of course, this is the same crowd that will bleat non-stop if you fight using the advantages of a P-51 or P-47.
Teamwork =/= Horde.
As far as what the POINT is of the main arena.... well, that's the war. People can argue this all they want, at the end of the day... you can call it a sandbox all you want... just because you can do whatever you want, that doesn't mean that is the point.
The day they come out with an arena called the "War Arena" or the "Base Capture" arena, that argument will have some merit.
Whats the difference between this kind of gameplay and, lets say, Diablo or WoW (havent played either, just curious)? What makes people follow orders in a computer game?
They derive satisfaction simply from having real people to talk to as they perform some sort of task.
- oldman
If there was one thing I wish I could snap my fingers and magically make happen, it would be a call of, 'Hey guys, there's a giant bardar a sector out headed into our field. Let's go stop them.' would produce something other than 4 or 5 guys grumbling about nobody being at the field to help them when the 20 enemy planes get there.
Nobody organizes defense because it takes forces away from the unopposed hording your side is doing 2 sectors over and slows it down.
I like this game. I have alot of fun playing it. I like interacting with foes and friends. Sometimes when I am playing I don't get what I want. Sometimes my plans have to change while I am flying. I never fly in a horde but I do fly in a plane and sometimes there are alot of friendly planes around. Sometimes there are alot of enemy planes around. If I do not like what I am doing I change what I am doing, I don't try to make others do what I want so what someone else is doing, is just fine. I'm nice to my fellow players.
While I generally agree with you (defense is more unpopular than the attack), there is one inherent difficulty even if there were enough players inclined to defend more: The time factor.
A smash'n'grab mission is easier to organize, because you can set a time in advance and wait until the necessary number of players finally has assembled on the launch base. The defenders have to react, and depending on the type of mission being inbound, the hardly have time to. Most players are in a sortie at the time the alert is triggered, and it takes a lot of time for them to finish their sortie and get to the base under attack.
Only very few players are probably willing to spend their time in the tower, watching the map for any incoming missions while everybody else is 'out there' and having fun.
You AH sociologists can theorize and debate all you want... you can graciously put lipstick on a pig and politely define "hording" as the AH equivalent of little baby fish schooling up to survive. The bottom line is this: a successfully coordinated combined arms assault bringing together 20-30 guys and gals from across the planet is an actual accomplishment.
If you have all 20-30 of them diving on the same FH then its a horde. If you have them porking/setting up 2 other fields while the main force uses bombers and fighters both heavy and light to attack a third field at the same time, then yes it's a coordinated mission.
Most games have objectives, using rules to guide the game so that both/all sides have a chance to best the other players. Unfortunately, this game has a loop hole in it and the use of that hole takes away that chance and so we get hordes running around trying to capture enough bases for the "win" before the other teams. There is no defense against a good horde, other than a half dozen people spending the night porking ords or troops along the front. Even that won't stop it, but it will slow it.
The horde has taken a lot of the fight out of the game. The horde attacks and if they don't grab the base, they disappear to attack NOE some place else. They need to avoid the fight either due to poor skill, or it gets in the way of capturing the base. SO now we have a large population ( because all side do it) of players just running from fights.
These "horders" believe they are skilled. I'd like to see how skilled. Like Lusche said, getting a defense together is tough because players being in the air and occupied so don't have the time to get organized. My proposal, when the "horders" are loading up the mission and as Del said "YOU MUST USE CAPS FOR EVERYTHING ON CHANNEL 2!" in stead type everything out on channel 200. This way the defenders will have time to get organized and maybe mount a defense.
Of course, the horders being what they are won't go for this as they go out of their way to avoid a fight. On the other hand, if they are so good they shouldn't have any problem capturing the base any way right? So which is it?
Also because that's the entire point of the Main Arena...
Playing this game to exclusively circle-jerk furball with a dozen other people is akin to buying a Pagani Zonda so you can sit in it and listen to the radio. It's still a great sound system, but there are plenty of other ways to listen to music. Crying when your neighbors actually DRIVE their Sports Cars, well that's too absurd for an analogy.
Calling any group of more than 4 people with a defined "mission" a horde is the method by which those without friends (or too cool for friends) soothe their butthurt after they are trounced by "pick and run tards" who happen to be flying finger four. (You'll notice that the people who cry the most about "hording" are the first to crow when they win a lopsided fight... which the "horde" provided them with in the first place)
I had a lot of fun flying in the DA... really not sure why those who hate "hordes" as they call them don't simply stay there... but I suspect it is because the audience is not quite large enough for their ego stroking and .200 smack talk...
You AH sociologists can theorize and debate all you want... you can graciously put lipstick on a pig and politely define "hording" as the AH equivalent of little baby fish schooling up to survive. The bottom line is this: a successfully coordinated combined arms assault bringing together 20-30 guys and gals from across the planet is an actual accomplishment.
wrong...the point to the MA is Virtual COMBAT using WW2 equipment, whether it be land, sea, or AIR..... :aok
attacking 1 con with 10 guys is NOT COMBAT except for the 1 guy
I always find COMBAT in the MA :rofl
Close. The point of the MA is sides-based virtual combat. 10v1 is combat. 1 guy shouldn't dive into a crowd of 10 and expect them to break out one at a time and fight him like he's Chuck Norris in a movie. The one should've brought friends if he wanted to take on 10.
Wiley.
sorry but 10vs1 is NOT combat for the 10
it don't take 10 guys to kill one con.....3 or 4 is sufficient..... the others should stay high and watch for incoming baddies.... at the least give the 1 con a fighting chance...it is after all a game....
but with the mentality of the majority of the MA pop, they don't want combat the just want a kill or a base...and they don't care how the achieve it.
honestly I don't care ether way, just want to point out that he is wrong in his assessment of the point of the MA.
I try to remember to ask before engaging a 1 vs 1. Not always though. Remember this, whether you engage a 1 vs. 1 or not you've changed the fight just by your icon.
yup..... true....
sorry but 10vs1 is NOT combat for the 10
it don't take 10 guys to kill one con.
....3 or 4 is sufficient..... the others should stay high and watch for incoming baddies.... at the least give the 1 con a fighting chance...it is after all a game....
Why tunnelrat has to try to offend me with his every second post?
<tired sigh> <moving away disappointed>
Generally most grow out of the Alchemist horde everything mentality, most seek training eventually getting better and off to do their own thing with a different squad.anyone else notice that this quote used to be Clam Humpers and then VTards? now its the Alchemists :lol
I would love to see some of the dedicated horders try and 1v1. I wonder just how severe a deficency we'd be looking at.
Brody, DA tonight, then we have beers, then we can be friends again.
I'm glad we have one of these threads every week so ink can remind us all that he has the biggest balls of anyone in AH, is the most honourable pilot ever seen, and always fights heroically alone against the hordesAnd you're a dick everytime your open your mouth. In case you forgot.
My memory is pretty bad and I would probably forget if he didn't repeat the same things in every other post :old:
I'm glad we have one of these threads every week so ink can remind us all that he has the biggest balls of anyone in AH, is the most honourable pilot ever seen, and always fights heroically alone against the hordes
My memory is pretty bad and I would probably forget if he didn't repeat the same things in every other post :old:
just wish more flew like that, the MA would be a much more fun sandbox :aok
And you're a dick everytime your open your mouth. In case you forgot.
anyone else notice that this quote used to be Clam Humpers and then VTards? now its the Alchemists :lol
Im not playing for 10 days and wasnt drinking any alcohol for a week.
I respect Ink. If that means something.
Me too :rock
You back Debrody?
couldn't agree more!hottest... TV show out there.... hottest i swear.... :banana:
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1qbap9jVV1qbuypqo1_500.gif)
Close. The point of the MA is sides-based virtual combat. 10v1 is combat. 1 guy shouldn't dive into a crowd of 10 and expect them to break out one at a time and fight him like he's Chuck Norris in a movie. The one should've brought friends if he wanted to take on 10.
Wiley.
You mean one guy should not take off where 30 are vulching.
If the 10 that are on the one call it combat then they need some time in the TA
INK,
Life takes place between the ears no matter how much you want something else to be the answer. That is where we all live our lives.
The recent phenomenon of the Online or server based multiplayer computer games is exposing you to that. If when you were a child you played orginaised sports or pickup sandlot versions of them you were exposed to only those children who wanted to be on that feild risking their ego and limbs becasue consiquences HURT versus delayed hard won rewards are the best. You can see the same phenomenon in how few in our population volinteer for the ARMY or Marines. With the advent of multiplayer online games you are being exposed to the far greater numbers who were never at the sandlot or Basic Camps exposing themselves to pain and risk.
Even though a computer game with unlimited lives is risk free at face value. Two conflicting genetic factors interfere with the simplicity of the risk free reality of unlimited lives in a fantasy.
1. - The majority of humans are not privleged by natural aptitiude or training with the ability to divorce their subconcious responces to conflict and personal danger from the action on the computer monitor. Also it is a genetic subset of males who's natural response to conflict and danger is to rush towards it's source versus self preservation. You can through intensive training like the ARMY and Marines condition those adverse to the danger to at least control the response by the virtue of the repetitius training regiments imposed in basic training and beyond.
2. - Loosing for the majority of the population is a negative and painful experience. Once in the moment of the action, most people's ability to calculate the future tense abstract of, this moment does not matter becasue I have unlimited opportunities to repeat it and ultimatly win is not online in their noggin. Very often in real life it is not well developed becasue you are describing risk aversion or risk tollerence which can be measuered these days vsia standardised testing and MRI imaging. Competition and conflict are siamese siblings in the mind. Each loss or potential of loss in each moment is independant of time and space to the subconcious. For most players in the game this potential loss now is "The only Loss" in the universe at that moment. It has to be lived through once the action is taken to step out into the arena. It is also colored by the player's intimate personal assesment of their ability to win in the current environment during each "The only Loss" moment.
It's a species of narcasism calling them a coward to assert they can spend the same time you chose to invest learning ACM and improve their chances of winning everytime. You do not live the same lives and the statement just pats you on the back for your fortune of having the time or genetic gift.
Once you know how something works where humans are concerned. Then you keep acting like it dosent. One could begin describing how "intollerance","narcasism", "sadism" and "dopamine addiction" are siblings of the same mother neruobilogicly. Recently the gene associated with tribalism and the human trait of treating outsiders as less human than insiders has been mapped. It's one of those core survival things that define us subconciously and powerfuly. You can extrapolate this to squads and how badly we treat each other in the game.
But, it do feel dopamine wise soo good to be able to justify: "I'm better than you becasue you are a coward neener, neener, neener" in an unlimited life cartoon game." Ultimately it's all about the dopamine self reward function of the brain. And it's 100% pure for just a meesly $14.95 a month.
Oh the thing called burning out on the game is realy reaching your personal tollerance for being able to produce dopamine in response to stimulation in the game. Often why those hottest sticks get bored and leave sooner than less talented players. And why they had very limited tollerances for the percieved short comings of other players. Not all that different from speed and cocain users profiles.
Thats a paper for another time titled: Adrenalin and Dopamine Addiction Motivation versus Imagination Fulfilment and Dopamine Self Reward in Online Gaming Communities.
Man's gotta have a hobby to temper his worst instincts so as not to become their slave.
You mean one guy should not take off where 30 are vulching.
No. I mean if you are alone in the MA and wind up within engagement distance of 10 bandits by whatever means, be it taking off under their CAP, happening along them co-alt and co-E, or whatever, you should not expect them to come at you individually, and you shouldn't get mad when they don't.
To me, you guys are the ones that are leaning more towards the 'everybody's a winner' mentality, because you're demanding everybody give you a fair fight when you put or find yourself in a disadvantageous position.
Wiley.
No. I mean if you are alone in the MA and wind up within engagement distance of 10 bandits by whatever means, be it taking off under their CAP, happening along them co-alt and co-E, or whatever, you should not expect them to come at you individually, and you shouldn't get mad when they don't.
never said only come at me 1vs1.....show me where I said that :headscratch:
and I don't get "mad" when they attack 10 or more.....I just fight harder wishing I could shoot better :rofl
I agree, Wiley. The question is, though: why would the ten want to pile onto the one? Why would they not let two, even three, of their number head for him while the others went about their business? I think that's what he's wondering; not the mind set of the attacker, but the mind set of the attacked.
- oldman
Maybe I'm just high. But right now I see hording as analogous to street gangs. Everyone wants to make their odds of survival better.
But when the mismatch becomes too lop-sided there just aren't enough kills to be had and it changes from advantageous to boring.
Sometimes it's fun to post a mission that not only looks stupid, but will also need a lot of participation for any chance of success. I love putting together the occasional mission that looks so stupid that my own squad is skeptical it could possibly work but these missions have an uncanny track record of actually working against undefended based
Oh the thing called burning out on the game is realy reaching your personal tollerance for being able to produce dopamine in response to stimulation in the game. Often why those hottest sticks get bored and leave sooner than less talented players. And why they had very limited tollerances for the percieved short comings of other players. Not all that different from speed and cocain users profiles.
"Hot sticks" get bored and leave sooner? Some of the best sticks in this game have played for decades in Aces High and other games. I would also argue that they have no more limited tolerance for the shortcomings of others than any other players. The rest of this is just silly... speed and cocaine user profiles? Really?
Bustr, i think you've read too far into the situation. Explaining the biological and neurological reasons for a tendency is one thing. But then you've gone and tried to use it to explain, and to some extent justify, why people do things in game.
And really, it sounds a lot like the "everybodys a winner!" mentality thats been attacking society like a tumor in recent years. I mean you've essentially said "Its ok, you're just geneticaly and neruologically pusthed towards a tendency to horde. Don't bother trying to improve, its not your fault! :aok".
And really, we (as in society) should under no circumstances and in no situation be forwarding that idiotic idea. If they are physically incapable of improving, then, and only then, should we stop pushing them to improve. If someone is underpreforming, they should not be told "its ok, just try your best". Rather, they should be told "Its ok, you're just starting out with a disadvantage. If you really want to do better, you can do XYZ to help you improve".
As to the coward/squad-bashing thing, I think thats only true to an extent. Theres rarely a squad that doesn't get along with at least ONE other squad in the game.
I understand DeBrody's position on this and why it's popular with those who can expect to win 1v1 dogfights against most of the players, but the bottom line is that everybody pays to play and they get to play the way they want to. There is no absolute right or wrong way to play within the rules. What is wrong is telling somebody else how they should play and insulting them for having different preferences. I'm not pointing at anyone in particular here but if you want to talk about honor in a game, which we've seen a lot of in similar discussions, it's not whether you fly in a group or if you reverse or extend, it's about how you treat other players.
"Hot sticks" get bored and leave sooner? Some of the best sticks in this game have played for decades in Aces High and other games. I would also argue that they have no more limited tolerance for the shortcomings of others than any other players. The rest of this is just silly... speed and cocaine user profiles? Really?:rofl oh my gut.
:rofl oh my gut.
Who could these "Top Sticks" be I wonder.
Actually Bustr hit this on the head, get's quite boring when you can win your share of 1vs1's in the main arena, but to be ganged 10vs1 every single day? I've been struggling to stay interested in the game since january, its either horde or be horded there is no middle line.
But that's not what Bustr said. He stated that you build up a tolerance to stimulation - that is, winning a lot and excelling at the game - and that eventually beating the crap out of everything isn't enough. Thus there's a lot of turnover in "top sticks" because the game just doesn't do it for them anymore. No amount of gameplay-fueled dopamine gives them that high.
Which is, of course, silly. Guys like Citabria, kappa, Drex (who played since the early 1990s), Delirium, Blukitty/ManeTMP, Bruv (who played in Fighter Ace prior to joining AH if I'm not mistaken), Shane, Widewing, Bighorn and others have years upon years of experience. Certainly there are other folks who became very good in a short period of time and then left, but in my experience that's less a result of Dopamine tolerance and more due to frustrations stemming from a disconnection between self-identity and the way others in the arena viewed them. Ego rather than physiology in other words.
to FLS:
i think you totally missed my point.
I am too simple minded to understand why some people (the very large majority here) is acting the same way. I only brought this topic alive to get an answer, and maybe that might help my little soul to accept this kind of in-game behaviour.
I have a little problem with the base takers, but i think i can solve it in a short way. If the hordes are pretty bad, let them take the base, i still have an Me-262 to collect the horde tax, and everyone can be happy that way. In the other hand, i cant stand the score-chasers, cowards, and yes, i did and will insult the "i was in a tempest/pony/190, with 10k alt and 10 buddies, you died beyotch, you suck muwhaha" ones. Nope score just cant interest me, i rather prefer to fly against better sticks than me, at least i can learn something. When someone is giving me something worthy, i will try to give it back, but when someone is just throwing crap on me, seriously, should i play the "good-boy"? In that case if you dont like it, well i never asked anyone to like me or try to make me better. Guessing i was straight enough.
Best wishes,
Debrődy
I understand the "everybody pays to play and they get to play the way they want to", but to the detriment of other players?
I think I understood you perfectly DeBrody. The short answer to your question is that everyone will naturally play the way that suits them and let's them have fun rather than playing to suit someone else. If you need to insult people at this time in your development as an adult I can live with that. It's between you and HTC how much of that you will get away with. I may be wrong but I like to think that you will eventually rise above that sort of behavior. :aok
I see your point. Everyone should stop shooting down other players immediately. :lol
More seriously, the main arenas are designed to promote teamwork in offense and defense.
Not it's only offense, defense is individual. There are no rewards to defend like there is for offense. That's why I'm NOT asking to remove the hordes, I'm just looking for something to be put in to help combat <---- notice the word? .... the horde. People want to group up and horde, that's fine, give the defenders a way to be able to have a fighting <----- notice the word?.... chance against them.
and ask how many defenders will be there so they don't bring too many attackers?
:lol
Of course all the guys that havent answered because they not tuned to 200 (like myself) will not go to that base... :noid
Not it's only offense, defense is individual. There are no rewards to defend like there is for offense. That's why I'm NOT asking to remove the hordes, I'm just looking for something to be put in to help combat <---- notice the word? .... the horde. People want to group up and horde, that's fine, give the defenders a way to be able to have a fighting <----- notice the word?.... chance against them.This thread detailed my idea on how to get defense to smash into the offense at least some of the time rather than having unopposed hordes running around capturing bases:
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.
I'm still all for my own idea of making certain points on the map much more important for the war victory than others. It should be a definite improvement in terms of actual combat particularly during the 'endgame' - because it's greatly reducing the value of surprise NOE's against random, remote bases at that point, while not being too restrictive on the players at all other times.I wouldn't object to both to be honest. I think the game needs to provide a few nudges to get players to go in certain directions. It shouldn't force players to go in those directions so that they don't have to if they don't want to.
And it should be much simpler to implement :)
This thread detailed my idea on how to get defense to smash into the offense at least some of the time rather than having unopposed hordes running around capturing bases:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325800.0.html
I'm still all for my own idea of making certain points on the map much more important for the war victory than others. It should be a definite improvement in terms of actual combat particularly during the 'endgame' - because it's greatly reducing the value of surprise NOE's against random, remote bases at that point, while not being too restrictive on the players at all other times.
And it should be much simpler to implement :)
I wouldn't object to both to be honest. I think the game needs to provide a few nudges to get players to go in certain directions. It shouldn't force players to go in those directions so that they don't have to if they don't want to.
I agree, and the "zone bases" use to do this. On the other hand todays player isn't after "strategic" targets, nor do they plan their missions with any objectives other than "grab the next base". We use to take a V base because it spawned in the area of the field we were really after. That type of consideration isn't even brought up any more. If your going to make a base more important it's going to REALLY have to be important to catch these players attention.
I think "quest" type missions would be too restrictive, along the lines of the "field capture line" that was tried out. Pointing people toward a base to draw the fight there removes ALL elements of surprise or strategy.How so? Sure, for the purpose of that mission it is and that is kinda the point, to generate combat, but players would still be free to sneak bases just as they are now. The way I envisioned it was not like player generated missions at all. It would be up to each player to up as normal.
I agree, but if your not going to force people to play certain ways, you still have to make room for those that want to play their way as well. FLS jokingly said "How about if the base takers announce on 200 which field they want to take and ask how many defenders will be there so they don't bring too many attackers?". How about they simulate spies/coastal watchers/underground? If a large amount of players up from a field you start getting system messages. 15-20 players up or cross a sector line you get a system message stating something along the lines of "Heavy troop movement detected in the north." With 21+ players you get more precise information like "Heavy troop movement in sector 12,8". This way players who like to horde can still play their game, and defenders can have half a chance to organize some sort of defense.Indeed and, barring absurdly small maps, I can't think of any way that my suggestion would block anybody from playing how they want to. In fact that was one of the central criteria I had when creating the suggestion. Players would still be absolutely free to horde and sneak bases and such.
Everyone should be able to play the game the way they want, but not so much so that others....who are paying as well can't.
How so? Sure, for the purpose of that mission it is and that is kinda the point, to generate combat, but players would still be free to sneak bases just as they are now. The way I envisioned it was not like player generated missions at all. It would be up to each player to up as normal.
Indeed and, barring absurdly small maps, I can't think of any way that my suggestion would block anybody from playing how they want to. In fact that was one of the central criteria I had when creating the suggestion. Players would still be absolutely free to horde and sneak bases and such.
That's what I mean, for the most part players would stay with the horde and continue as they are. There isn't any incentive to use the "quest" plans so they wouldn't.The reward was a number of perk points for the participants in a successful mission. Other posters in that thread suggested other rewards as well. Take a look at the full thread, not just my OP.
A point system might just setup more NOE's. Teams looking to sneak just enough bases to get the total points needed by picking a base here and there until the total is reached. Whats needed is a reason to defend. A reason to organize a defense. The only way to stop a horde attack is by having numbers in place to defend with.
Why not just be happy with what we have... hordes for those that want them... small fights for those that want them... 1 v 1s... 1 v2s... & 1 v3s, etc.. for those that want them... GVing for those that want it... bombing for those that want it... FPS for those that want that (have to bail first)... :banana:Because what you describe is not what we have. Lusche and I both critique our ideas with an eye towards maintaining all the options that currently exist while trying to think of additions that could make the game better.
AH has it all... maybe quit complaining about one or two of these and use SA to seek what you want... plenty of choices allways available. :rolleyes:
:)
Because what you describe is not what we have. Lusche and I both critique our ideas with an eye towards maintaining all the options that currently exist while trying to think of additions that could make the game better.
I can find any/all of these just about any time of day or night. :aokI can't. The overwhelming activity in the AM is hording now.
I can't. The overwhelming activity in the AM is hording now.
Spending lots of time flying around looking for combat with little combat in it is not very fun. I know people who I have gotten to try the game who left it for that reason.
Let me turn this around on you. Why do you object to more activities if they don't block the activities that you already participate in?
I will admit when I see a single P-51D, P-38L or Fw190 come into a undefended base from 20k diving at 550 mph and drops on the radar or some other target I usually groan a bit and ask myself "this again, really?" but its their 15 bucks <shrug>.
Do not fear the hordes. They're hauling bombs and or flying low. This should give the advantage to anyone who wishes to fight them.
The reward was a number of perk points for the participants in a successful mission. Other posters in that thread suggested other rewards as well. Take a look at the full thread, not just my OP.
There definitely have to be rewards or there isn't a nudge, but the rewards can't be so large that players feel they have to participate if they don't want to.
We already have a point system in place. It's 1 base - 1 point. And that is the ultimate incentive for random base NOE's, as every base is worth the same. There is literally no reason to attack a defended place when you can grab an undefended one.
What my proposal would change is probabilities. If the attacker just needs 6 points from the defender's side to win, he might go for the large airbase that's worth exactly those 6 points - or he may smash'n'grab 6 Vbases worth 1 points each. So we have a high value target, and both sides know it - it's a great target for a last decisive attack, but the defender knows that and prepare himself. Or the attacker can go the 'easy', but longer road and continue to grab random small bases.
In the end, having higher value targets increases the probability they actually get attacked. And with that icnreased probability, the defender can better prepare himself and a battle can happen. If that battle really stalls, there is still a way to get enough 'point's by going for more smaller bases.
Nobody has to go for the big target, but it's worth trying. I don't want to change the very basic way of winnign the war, I just hope to see more 'fronts' and sustained thrusts towards a certain high-value location. (But without making things overly complicated, no intention to trun this into a real strategy game)
Do not fear the hordes. They're hauling bombs and or flying low. This should give the advantage to anyone who wishes to fight them.
If the horde is one with the intention to fight - yes. ;)
Unfortunately quite often the main trick is to strike in a way to absolutely minimize resistance - hit at one place, then hit a totally different one. I don't blame the players for that, they want to maximize their efficiency in winning the war.
It's a matter of game mechanics to channel and if necessary to limit this phenomenom.
and this all that would happen. It has been proven time and again that the quickest and easiest way is the ONLY way to play. All of the other options are available now and nobody uses them. I doubt very much anyone would look at grabbing one more "big points" base to win with even minor defense over 6 little grabs with out defense.
But it's not always that simple. 6 "easy" grabs in a row can fail because the time runs out. Hordes can't always sustain their numbers for that long. So it's not as easy to decide which way is actually the quickest and easiest one. And most importantly, it's giving players a choice.
In the worst case, it's just the same as it is today (because we already have the point system in place ;)), but given the uncertainties and different constellations it won't always be as it is today.
I play this game for the fighting. I am totally opposed to gameplay mechanisms that make avoiding a fight the most desirable thing to do. Aces High is, at its core, a PvP game.
Couse 70 vs the ack is only a minor fun (if any), 1 vs 1 is fun, but 70 vs a fighter sweep of 10-15 is the best fun.
'WOOHOO WE WIN THE WAR'.........they should be allowed to have that fun.
this is the main reason why 60 players are needed by the bishops. film is about 6 min long but you get the point. they had about 30 players all concentrating on dropping bombs and augering. about 4 or 5 of us actually were able to take off and defend the field. they never took it. as I got shot down the cv got sunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj_uHQS-OqQ
semp
So true, semp and his comrades tried to stop the horde so they had a chance to stop the horde and they stopped the horde. The horde can only be stopped if you try.
The teamwork isnt the problem. We need more of it.
The OBJECTIVE is the problem. The targets should be leveling strats that do something even if its a tally of ord dropped on an enemy's strats at the end of a campaign.
Base capture is the only game in town unfortunately, and the gander will flock to whatever is available.