Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chilli on February 04, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
-
Damage to Refinery Strats, currently are very low priority, considering the effect it has compared to other Country and Field Strats. I believe the following idea would not only add to the importance of attacking / protecting All Strats, but also counter certain advantages by the new resupply features.
Dear HiTech,
I wish that destroyed Fuel Bunkers on any field would DISABLE the field supplies in the hangars. :angel:
Thank you,
ChiLLi
Discussion: - With the implementation of resupply for town buildings and ack, some base defenders (including myself) find it fairly easy to quickly resupply towns before the enemy troops can land.
- I like that this is an additional option for strategic play, but there is no current parity in counter action.
- Some fields have closer town spawns from supporting bases as well as multiple bases.
- The number of barracks along with the difficulties in acquiring them as targets, makes them a timely and risky target with potentially short downtimes.
- The maximum downtime for any Vehicle Hangar is 15 minutes (multiplied by the number of fields that spawn in, and the 4 hangars at one Vehicle Base with a spawn).
- Currently, increasing downtime of Fuel Bunkers ONLY effects the ability to launch with Drop Tanks (not a game changer)
- Realistically, damage to fuel would impede that amount of traffic from that base (running manpower and supplies to reconstruct defenses would suffer).
- By disabling the Field Supplies along with the Drop Tanks, the Refinery now becomes an important feature for each country
* Personal Note: My dad who is still with us, spent the last months of WW2 guarding such structures. In his recollections to us, after landing in Normandy, German contact was less and less, although they were still under threat of strafing aircraft and flying bombs that he described vividly the emotional response of hearing them buzzing overhead, become quiet and then that was your clue one was either about to drop or continue to some other destination.
-
Damage to Refinery Strats, currently are very low priority, considering the effect it has compared to other Country and Field Strats. I believe the following idea would not only add to the importance of attacking / protecting All Strats, but also counter certain advantages by the new resupply features.
Dear HiTech,
I wish that destroyed Fuel Bunkers on any field would DISABLE the field supplies in the hangars. :angel:
Thank you,
ChiLLi
Discussion: - With the implementation of resupply for town buildings and ack, some base defenders (including myself) find it fairly easy to quickly resupply towns before the enemy troops can land.
- I like that this is an additional option for strategic play, but there is no current parity in counter action.
- Some fields have closer town spawns from supporting bases as well as multiple bases.
- The number of barracks along with the difficulties in acquiring them as targets, makes them a timely and risky target with potentially short downtimes.
- The maximum downtime for any Vehicle Hangar is 15 minutes (multiplied by the number of fields that spawn in, and the 4 hangars at one Vehicle Base with a spawn).
- Currently, increasing downtime of Fuel Bunkers ONLY effects the ability to launch with Drop Tanks (not a game changer)
- Realistically, damage to fuel would impede that amount of traffic from that base (running manpower and supplies to reconstruct defenses would suffer).
- By disabling the Field Supplies along with the Drop Tanks, the Refinery now becomes an important feature for each country
* Personal Note: My dad who is still with us, spent the last months of WW2 guarding such structures. In his recollections to us, after landing in Normandy, German contact was less and less, although they were still under threat of strafing aircraft and flying bombs that he described vividly the emotional response of hearing them buzzing overhead, become quiet and then that was your clue one was either about to drop or continue to some other destination.
first.......MA does not replicate WW2......(thankfully..... it would be very boring if it did)
second -1
-
Don't knocking out barracks disable field sups as well? I honestly do not remember... :headscratch:
-
Don't knocking out barracks disable field sups as well? I honestly do not remember... :headscratch:
Yes.
No barracks = no troops, no gv supplies, no field supplies, and iirc I think no smoke for the Storch.
-
Killing the fuel bunkers used to bring the fuel down to 75% then 50% then 25% max fuel for planes launching from the field.. That's a feature I wish they would bring back. Made more sense than having them on the field as nearly pointless targets. I think fuel loadout for GVs should also be a feature that matters, instead of 25% taking you as far as you choose to go.
-
Ah! Thank you Smokin.
The op's idea of adding more value to the fuel tanks on bases and the fuel refinery in the Capital has merit. From the few times I've been on, that is generally the one strat that is fairly well untouched.
Although, if we added railyards, THOSE could affect field supplies, now that I think about it. :headscratch: It would finally give us railyards to blow up, and they would have at least a marginal reason for being there. With them there, any other changes may be added onto them. Example: Like how HiTech changed it to where hitting the Industrial Center of the Capital affected town down times. It would mean that we would need to add another object to hit on bases though. Or, if depot's are brought back, have the railyards affect those?
Either way, the idea overall has some merit. As Ranger pointed out, they are fairly pointless right now. Could've sworn that hitting all fuel at a base would force a max of 75% fuel though. Was that changed recently? :headscratch: Haven't bothered to hit fuel with intent of affecting the base in some time now. Usually I hit them just for the hell of it, and that's not very often.
-
Killing the fuel bunkers used to bring the fuel down to 75% then 50% then 25% max fuel for planes launching from the field.. That's a feature I wish they would bring back. Made more sense than having them on the field as nearly pointless targets. I think fuel loadout for GVs should also be a feature that matters, instead of 25% taking you as far as you choose to go.
Now when a small airfield is attacked (4 fuel tanks total), on the 3rd fuel tank destroyed drop tanks become disabled. On the 4th being destroyed the max fuel is %75. Ultimately, this has no bearing on anything. I used to think that it restricted La7's from upping. Nope. If HTC started with fuel tank #2 being destroyed = disabling DT's, #3 = %75 fuel, and #4 = %50 fuel THEN we may have something. As it is now it is an *empty* feature, it restricts nothing.
I strongly encourage HTC to re-evaluate their settings of "on site" fuel damage ramifications. I suggest to take the maximum damage down to %50.
-
Now when a small airfield is attacked (4 fuel tanks total), on the 3rd fuel tank destroyed drop tanks become disabled. On the 4th being destroyed the max fuel is %75. Ultimately, this has no bearing on anything. I used to think that it restricted La7's from upping. Nope. If HTC started with fuel tank #2 being destroyed = disabling DT's, #3 = %75 fuel, and #4 = %50 fuel THEN we may have something. As it is now it is an *empty* feature, it restricts nothing.
I strongly encourage HTC to re-evaluate their settings of "on site" fuel damage ramifications. I suggest to take the maximum damage down to %50.
*cough* I agree with this but on a side note...
Fighter hangers and bomber hangers should mean something too.. Right now you have to take ALL of them down before nothing ups. That's wrong.
1 FH down, no 5 ENY planes, sorry spit 16s, p51s etc.
2 fh down, no 5-15 ENY planes
3+ fh down, no more fighters, except maybe the storch :devil
Bomber hangers I'm not sure of. Perhaps separate manuverable from non-manuverable planes but how would that work out :headscratch:. Either way something needs to be done, from fuel, to ords to Fh/Bh balance.
As for ords, if 1 ord bunker is down.. no 1000lb-4000lb bombs at that base, if 2+ bunkers are dead.. no ord :).
I know this would count as a "hi-jack", however this said "better game play" in title. So I think it relates, at least a little bit.
I think the above should be implemented immediately :P. Simply because, it is a "no brainer". Because "all or nothing" in terms of disabling a base, is very... stupid, in my opinion.
Just my thoughts.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
P.S. Got mah flak suit on :rock
-
1 FH down, no 5 ENY planes, sorry spit 16s, p51s etc.
2 fh down, no 5-15 ENY planes
3+ fh down, no more fighters, except maybe the storch :devil
To continue the hijacking drama.
100% predictable outcomes like this contribute to gaming the game. So what if the certainties are eliminated and make random airplanes unavailable for each fighter hanger destroyed.
Now a pirate counter-boarding of the hijacking.
What if other results were less predictable. A random fuel bunker had the drop tanks, or random number of fuel tanks have the 100/125 octane fuel and anti-freeze supply eliminating WEP on those aircraft that used that rating fuel or water injection.
This could even be extended into random effects of dropping troops barracks like limiting the number of resupplied objects, number of gv supplies carried in an M3, or even *gasp* number of troops available to be stuffed in a vehicle.
Ords could also be randomized so rockets, various bombs, even a/c gun and ammo load outs would be affected by the random contents of the destroyed bunkers.
Wouldn't it be fun if one random building in town housed a defense garrison of troops. Troops would be kicked out of the building when enemy troops are in the area, and sprint to the map room to defend (or do the macarena around the flag pole). Destroy that particular building the defense troops are dead. Drop buildings to get a white flag, but miss that random building and well things get interesting on local channel.
Time for the negotiations.
I would really like to see less of the all or nothing rule of field structures, and less hard coded down times to discourage porking for porking's sake. I'm sure this could all be whipped out in an afternoon of coding and no debugging or play balancing would be required (dang lack of sarcasm font). But inserting some of the fog of war aspects could help gameplay and allow more flexible play balancing schemes.
Hostages set free? Ransom paid? Or thread lock?
-
Ink,
Having strictly, only WW2 aircraft and not having the game relate to WW2?? That would be like requiring all the NASCAR specs for race cars and then have them do the Baja Circuit :headscratch:
Anyhow, some of you seem to understand as I do the futility of striking Refinery or Fuel Tanks. (A note to HiTech, both of these were high value targets, not Churches, not Barracks, and not Village homes).
The one point that no one has seemed to discuss here, (but there is another thread dedicated to) is the EASY BUTTON field defense. "Oh no! Our town is white flagged (mercilessly bombed, strafed and pillaged)!" :uhoh "Don't worry, I have my mighty truck on the way. I will be there in 2 minutes!" :rolleyes:
Yes, Troops and supplies may now be disabled by destroying all (however many) barracks there are on a single field. At which point they only stay down as long as the first barrack that was downed, has not been rebuilt (which also can be repaired by bringing in supplies). :neener:
Figure in the difficulty in acquiring barracks as a target. Go ahead and fess up! Most of you have no clue where they are and what they look like, especially above 10k feet. :headscratch: I have played this game at least 10 years, and I can't tell you if some are still tents or not, but there is no mistaking fuel tanks, for anything else. Add to that, there are at least one more set of barracks for each base than fuel bunkers.
Bonus: Currently destroying fuel tanks at a vehicle base or port does absolutely nothing. Leave the troops and vehicle supplies ability attached to barracks, and move the ability of field supplies to attach it to fuel bunkers as well as current abilities . (Note to status quo: How often have you seen a message in the MA that you may not take 100% fuel?)
If the town resupply was an attempt at thwarting the horde, it has some merit, and I DO like the added strategy, but without parity, it only reinforces the horde mentality. Now, I need to have enough players involved in a SINGLE base capture attempt, that can cover as many fields that spawn into that base's town.
-
Killing the fuel bunkers used to bring the fuel down to 75% then 50% then 25% max fuel for planes launching from the field.. That's a feature I wish they would bring back. Made more sense than having them on the field as nearly pointless targets. I think fuel loadout for GVs should also be a feature that matters, instead of 25% taking you as far as you choose to go.
+1 on this as well - taking out the fuel bunkers should matter again. I like the progressive nature of destroyed fuel bunkers taking the fuel down by a percentage as each bunker is destroyed. I also wouldn't mind it if taking out the fuel bunkers increased the wait time necessary on the re-arm / re-fuel pads.
-
+1 on this as well - taking out the fuel bunkers should matter again. I like the progressive nature of destroyed fuel bunkers taking the fuel down by a percentage as each bunker is destroyed. I also wouldn't mind it if taking out the fuel bunkers increased the wait time necessary on the re-arm / re-fuel pads.
I really like the added re-arm also.
-
Ink,
Having strictly, only WW2 aircraft and not having the game relate to WW2?? That would be like requiring all the NASCAR specs for race cars and then have them do the Baja Circuit :headscratch:
Anyhow, some of you seem to understand as I do the futility of striking Refinery or Fuel Tanks. (A note to HiTech, both of these were high value targets, not Churches, not Barracks, and not Village homes).
The one point that no one has seemed to discuss here, (but there is another thread dedicated to) is the EASY BUTTON field defense. "Oh no! Our town is white flagged (mercilessly bombed, strafed and pillaged)!" :uhoh "Don't worry, I have my mighty truck on the way. I will be there in 2 minutes!" :rolleyes:
Yes, Troops and supplies may now be disabled by destroying all (however many) barracks there are on a single field. At which point they only stay down as long as the first barrack that was downed, has not been rebuilt (which also can be repaired by bringing in supplies). :neener:
Figure in the difficulty in acquiring barracks as a target. Go ahead and fess up! Most of you have no clue where they are and what they look like, especially above 10k feet. :headscratch: I have played this game at least 10 years, and I can't tell you if some are still tents or not, but there is no mistaking fuel tanks, for anything else. Add to that, there are at least one more set of barracks for each base than fuel bunkers.
Bonus: Currently destroying fuel tanks at a vehicle base or port does absolutely nothing. Leave the troops and vehicle supplies ability attached to barracks, and move the ability of field supplies to attach it to fuel bunkers as well as current abilities . (Note to status quo: How often have you seen a message in the MA that you may not take 100% fuel?)
If the town resupply was an attempt at thwarting the horde, it has some merit, and I DO like the added strategy, but without parity, it only reinforces the horde mentality. Now, I need to have enough players involved in a SINGLE base capture attempt, that can cover as many fields that spawn into that base's town.
once again...........ill type slow t h e M A d o e s n o t h a v e a n y t h i n g t o d o w i t h W W 2...................e x c e p t..........T H E T O O L S..............
it is a giant COMBAT sandbox using WW2 equipment.........COMBAT being the main goal, hurting the fuel will hurt COMBAT........
how difficult is that to understand :headscratch:
-
I would tend to agree... in as much as barracks should be reserved for troops only...............
Supplies (and re arm pads for that matter) should reflect the health of the origin field IMO........... if the ammo dumps are down then you get no ammo, if the fuel dumps are all down you get 75% fuel, if the VH is down then there is no GV repair...................
-
once again...........ill type slow t h e M A d o e s n o t h a v e a n y t h i n g t o d o w i t h W W 2...................e x c e p t..........T H E T O O L S..............
it is a giant COMBAT sandbox using WW2 equipment.........COMBAT being the main goal, hurting the fuel will hurt COMBAT........
how difficult is that to understand :headscratch:
With all due respect Ink, I agree with you but I disagree.
I think that the tools we have are nice (planes, vehicles etc). However, what is the "main" objective of Aces High?
I say the main objective for Aces High is Combat using these World War 2 "tools" to use for combat, as you said.
The #2 thing I would say for objective purposes in Aces High is (for some, and I dare say a majority.. even if it's 51%), winning the war.
I think #2 is definitely true because of the fact that wars are being won fast nearly each day there is a new map (until we get to the bigger maps). Even if the goal is to change the map, the key to that is winning the war.
But lack of fuel doesn't mean much. You can normally fly 2 sectors with MOST planes at 25-50% fuel. Some planes much further. So does fuel REALLY have that much of an effect if you only have 25% of your fuel? Do you need drop tanks to go 1-2 sectors? If your fuel's were hit then there is a good chance that your base is under attack. So why do you need 75%-100% fuel for defensive purposes? Again, no disrespect.. I am trying to understand it from your viewpoint. But try to understand it from ours. Negotiating. Compromise. We ALL need to work on this on the BBS, that is why half of these wishes turn out to be long, drawn-out arguments of one minor factor that was barely significant (not saying that fuel has no relevance here). But would it be so bad if you were limited to 25-50% fuel for 30 mins? That's if you're waiting in the tower for 30 mins.
So adding these effects to the game gives it a SENSE of realism. Sure, it's a game... we have established this. But every game has their "realistic" points and their "gamey" aspects. So, what of it? The point of Aces High is to give you a realistic WW2 combat experience in the planes/vehicles that the real men did themselves. It has it's flaws and drawbacks, but in my opnion; it is our responsibility with this wishlist forum to give our ideas on what we think would be best for the game.
As of now, I think that this wish is valid, and should be implemented, along with what I and a few others said.
Again, no disrespect. :salute
Just my thoughts.
Respectfully,
Tinkles
:salute
-
Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.
I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.
And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.
HiTech
-
The old fuel settings were a serious issue. It didn't just shut down Bf109s, La-7s and Spitfires, it pretty much shut down all fighters. A P-47N, P-51D or Mosquito Mk VI can't do very much on 25% fuel either. I remember sometimes logging in to find that every airfield on the Rook-Bish and/or Rook-Knight front had been bombed/straffed/rocketed down to 25% fuel and being unable to really play at all. It was way, way too powerful a tool to close down enemy operations.
-
[start rant] -1 to another reason for porkers to fly their lame suicide missions instead of even trying to defend themselves or fighting and making game play worse. "Protect the strats..." no, come dog fight... I can honestly say I have noticed a seriously dramatic decrease in the ability to have a pleasant fight anymore. If not being hoarded then its a choice of kamikaze porkers or astronautical manifestations. Win the war types want everyone to fly cap at 35K to protect their strats or risk not being able to defend their map. It is getting ridiculous how many strat clowns have been born. And the number of porkikazes is crazy as well. Used to be someone porked to start a nice little fight, but now it is simply pork until shot down, rinse and repeat until the base is as defenseless as possible for the 30 guys to come swarm. Come on, the happy medium has been passed and it is far too lopsided towards the "win the war" zealots. As annoying as runners are, these are worse in my opinion. [end rant]
:headscratch:
-
Win the war types want everyone to fly cap at 35K to protect their strats or risk not being able to defend their map. It is getting ridiculous how many strat clowns have been born.
My experience & sentiments very much differ from yours.
First, the "win the war types", i.e. the big basegrab leaders are those that are among least involved in the new strat play. Neither I do see defending the factories, nor do i see them asking for it, as they usually totally ignore anything beyond the smash& grab horizon, and any kind of defense in particular. Actually a big share of complains about the whole strat system came from them (see "resupply town" threads)
Second: Yes, the strats are now much more attacked than ever before, which is nothing but a good thing. The gameplay and combat opportunities really broadened. I was on the verge of canceling my account of sheer boredom, the improved strat game and the resulting high altitude combat kept me from doing it. Not only I have made more than 200 strat runs myself since then, I also have gotten literally hundreds of kills by defending the strats since them (occasionally getting up to about 70% of my kills in fighters per tour up there). And from that position of someone really fighting there I can say that the number of extreme high ("35k") altitude bombers is actually very low. While indeed the majority is flying 20-27k, the number of bombers raising above 30K is relatively low.
The new strats had a very positive effect in terms of giving us more diverse combat opportunities. They gave bomber jocks a true strategic target and a reason to do long range bomber runs instead of the ever same "drop hangars & town" tactical bombing at the frontline. And with escorted bomber missions, you could now find also more real high altitude fighter combat without any of the participants immediately dropping down to the deck for lack of any reason to stay up there.
-
The old fuel settings were a serious issue. It didn't just shut down Bf109s, La-7s and Spitfires, it pretty much shut down all fighters. A P-47N, P-51D or Mosquito Mk VI can't do very much on 25% fuel either. I remember sometimes logging in to find that every airfield on the Rook-Bish and/or Rook-Knight front had been bombed/straffed/rocketed down to 25% fuel and being unable to really play at all. It was way, way too powerful a tool to close down enemy operations.
Perhaps a sliding scale of fuel scarcity? 25% fuel in a box of B-24s is a whole lot more fuel from the base supply dump than is 25% of an Me-109 tank. We have data on how much fuel everything holds at 100% internal fuel - it should be possible to come up with a chart of how much fuel each plane gets when the fuel at the base is at 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and base it on a number of gallons of fuel. So what happens then is when a base is porked to 25%, fighters that only hold a small amount of fuel (like a 109) might get 50 or 75% of a full internal load, but a P-47N might only get 50% as a max.
Other option would have full fuel porkage limit all planes to 50% and no drop tanks - that gets you good ways if you aren't running full out all the time.
-
The Snail nailed it.
With the few times I get to log in, I've yet to see any of the base take/win the war mission leaders even remotely HINT at attacking strats on Rook (not sure about Bish/Nit, but am figuring the same). Commonly, the response by most of them are, "Waste of time/Too much time (which it does take a lot of time to do, roughly 2 1/2hrs depending)...", and/or "Can use those folks to take bases...". Mind you, I said MOST of them, not ALL. :) As a raider, the only time I climb to 30k+ is when I take a B-29, and NEVER a formation of them since I always lose 2 to the puffy. :bhead Get's pricey... :joystick: It use to be that I would VERY rarely be intercepted if raiding a Capital. Now, it's much different. There are more folks willing to protect them, which makes it more interesting. Don't know how many times I was falling asleep on the way to a Capital. :o Now, it is different. :x Still a pain in the arse to get folks together for a raid, but at least there are more that will do it now. :banana:
What pains me the most is, I just don't have the time to log in as often as I want. Finally, strats have been given their due, and I really can't take full advantage of it. :cry
-
Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.
I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.
And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.
HiTech
hmmmm....too damn long to quote......but Thank you........ Thank you.......... :salute
BTW you have done what you set out to do, exceptionally well I might add.
-
Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.
I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.
And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.
HiTech
I see your point, and how it could be abused as well. Just wish it would be implemented is all. :salute
hmmmm....too damn long to quote......but Thank you........ Thank you.......... :salute
BTW you have done what you set out to do, exceptionally well I might add.
Dearest apologizes, appears I was in the wrong. :bolt:
But I would really like to see the fuel have more value that what it has now. What Karnak said (2 posts above) imo would be acceptable. Giving enough fuel to be effective in defense, but not as much as usual.
Just my thoughts.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
-
I see your point, and how it could be abused as well. Just wish it would be implemented is all. :salute
Dearest apologizes, appears I was in the wrong. :bolt:
But I would really like to see the fuel have more value that what it has now. What Karnak said (2 posts above) imo would be acceptable. Giving enough fuel to be effective in defense, but not as much as usual.
Just my thoughts.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
no need for that :salute
many start flying and try to make the MA all about the war and what not....if you are into that I suggest FSO 3 Friday's in a row every month a bunch of guys get together and do play out some battles that actually happened.....very fun....gotta be in a squad but well worth it, to find some to fly there.....MA like that would get old though
scenarios are also played...a bit different then the FSO's but I believe walk ins are welcome.
-
My experience & sentiments very much differ from yours.
First, the "win the war types", i.e. the big basegrab leaders are those that are among least involved in the new strat play. Neither I do see defending the factories, nor do i see them asking for it, as they usually totally ignore anything beyond the smash& grab horizon, and any kind of defense in particular. Actually a big share of complains about the whole strat system came from them (see "resupply town" threads)
Second: Yes, the strats are now much more attacked than ever before, which is nothing but a good thing. The gameplay and combat opportunities really broadened. I was on the verge of canceling my account of sheer boredom, the improved strat game and the resulting high altitude combat kept me from doing it. Not only I have made more than 200 strat runs myself since then, I also have gotten literally hundreds of kills by defending the strats since them (occasionally getting up to about 70% of my kills in fighters per tour up there). And from that position of someone really fighting there I can say that the number of extreme high ("35k") altitude bombers is actually very low. While indeed the majority is flying 20-27k, the number of bombers raising above 30K is relatively low.
The new strats had a very positive effect in terms of giving us more diverse combat opportunities. They gave bomber jocks a true strategic target and a reason to do long range bomber runs instead of the ever same "drop hangars & town" tactical bombing at the frontline. And with escorted bomber missions, you could now find also more real high altitude fighter combat without any of the participants immediately dropping down to the deck for lack of any reason to stay up there.
Yes, I used faulty generalizations and include more than just the armchair generals out there. You are correct that your enjoyment is different, as different as someone who is skilled and bored because they don't find anything challenging anymore. I am not skilled, nor bored fighting the average pilot as my skill level is not on par with yours or even most. Everyone is challenging for me, especially annoying is when they refuse to even try by either running or porkikazeing. I enjoy 2 or 3 guys trying to take a base while I try to thwart them by myself or maybe with someone else. Other than the map with all the islands in the middle, it is hard to find this anymore. Most of what I find are 2 or 3 guys porking field after field in front of and on the sides of the horde so they can roll bases with little chance of being forced to fight for it. they don't try to take me out, they just fly their typhies and 190s in cuban 8s until I can close with them or the ack gets them then they come back and repeat. It used to be a good enjoyable fight where they would try to take me out, now they care less, just pork mindlessly.
High alt fighting suits your preferred plane types and skills. It is more challenging I agree. The number of escorted buff runs are not all that many proportionally. When I watch for flashing bases away from the furballs it is usually a lone bomber flying 30 K who just flies over 3 or 4 bases to drop radars, hangers or hit strats. Buff hunting is another of your enjoyments, I don't care for it since they don't help me improve acm, so the increase for you is a decrease for me. Not everyone likes that, and if it was not as prevalent, I wouldn't whine about it. I am being selfish the same as everyone else. I do not support anything that makes people less likely to fight it out with the enemy than it already is, that's all. I am getting bored by how infrequent it is to get someone to fight it out. That's my mileage and perception based on my experiences the last half a year or so. I see it going downhill. By fighting it out I don't mean furballing, they are not that fun due to my poor skill level. Getting picked off or picking someone else in a large swirling group is not the same as being bested or besting someone using intellect and experience. That is much more stimulating in my opinion.
-
Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.
I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.
And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.
HiTech
HiTech,
No doubt this game of war has EVOLVED from your original launch. I as well as many others have been on board from almost its onset, and some even beyond that to another title that you were inspired to help create. If you follow my original post and not my answer to ink (who ONLY seems to want to consider that I mentioned WW2 and none of the idea's merits on game play) then you should understand that what I am asking for is parity, when it comes to the features that "promote different forms of combat".
With this in mind, you might consider that a large RED dar bar does NOT necessarily promote "combat". I believe that resupplying towns has its merits and does open up another dimension, but at some point it becomes ridiculous; just as ridiculous as the instant lvt resupply was at ports (that I must add - was somewhere along this path of evolution).
Please forget that I mentioned WW2 and consider the number of other points that I wanted to make in my original post, summarized by the following: Two things happen with the one change that I wished for that should help to "promote" this parity and more balanced combat. Disable Field Supplies when Fuel Bunkers are down and field capture can be balanced again. Also, striking Refineries as well as Fuel Tanks on individual fields will actually have a strategic goal. !! Note: Troops will NOT be affected!!
I don't get those that think that winning the war shouldn't be significant to any who play the game. There are many players that are no longer just waiting for the next piece of eye candy or next aircraft (things that I do appreciate just as much), but also anxiously awaiting the next big change that places more FSO "like" action in the Main Arena (by the way not everyone who pays $15 a month is available during that time slot).
I think Lusche has the proper analysis of the situation.
-
HiTech,
No doubt this game of war has EVOLVED from your original launch. I as well as many others have been on board from almost its onset, and some even beyond that to another title that you were inspired to help create. If you follow my original post and not my answer to ink (who ONLY seems to want to consider that I mentioned WW2 and none of the idea's merits on game play) then you should understand that what I am asking for is parity, when it comes to the features that "promote different forms of combat".
With this in mind, you might consider that a large RED dar bar does NOT necessarily promote "combat". I believe that resupplying towns has its merits and does open up another dimension, but at some point it becomes ridiculous; just as ridiculous as the instant lvt resupply was at ports (that I must add - was somewhere along this path of evolution).
Please forget that I mentioned WW2 and consider the number of other points that I wanted to make in my original post, summarized by the following: Two things happen with the one change that I wished for that should help to "promote" this parity and more balanced combat. Disable Field Supplies when Fuel Bunkers are down and field capture can be balanced again. Also, striking Refineries as well as Fuel Tanks on individual fields will actually have a strategic goal. !! Note: Troops will NOT be affected!!
I don't get those that think that winning the war shouldn't be significant to any who play the game. There are many players that are no longer just waiting for the next piece of eye candy or next aircraft (things that I do appreciate just as much), but also anxiously awaiting the next big change that places more FSO "like" action in the Main Arena (by the way not everyone who pays $15 a month is available during that time slot).
I think Lusche has the proper analysis of the situation.
thats because all the ideas you posted are to turn the MA into WW2 online......
simply put...... NO THANK YOU
winning the "war" is significant already to many, and that is fine I have no problem with how others enjoy the game... personally I pay zero attention to the war....yes I know it is going on around me, but at this point the "war" does NOT effect how I play..(for the most part.... it still does because some players feel it is ALL about the war and actual aerial combat is secondary and they do NOT engage in COMBAT BUT that is the players NOT the game itself)..with the ideas you talk about.....it most certainly WOULD effect how I play and many others that don't care about the "war"
not sure if you will understand this or not......
I think if you are intelligent you will see the difference between a "WAR game" and a "COMBAT Game"
WW2online= War Game(played it.....it sux arse)
Aces High= Combat Game(been playing since 04 plan on being here till I cant hold the stick or they make cash money outlawed)
anyways :salute
-
hmmmm....too damn long to quote......but Thank you........ Thank you.......... :salute
BTW you have done what you set out to do, exceptionally well I might add.
HT's point re game play being the primary concern is (IMO) well made but many seem to take this as a prompt to ignore all historical reference when considering game play mechanisms....... Some will quote or ignore historical reference to suit their own agendas.
My view is that a preference should be to develop and improve game play by invoking RL historical mechanisms where ever possible and not add in silly board game type mechanisms that work to remove historical immersion. Some times it may not be possible...... But IMO it should be the guiding light.
Regarding RL mechanisms used to solve gameplay challenges reminds me of one mentioned above...... This was the near denial of access to some rides by fuel attrition. In the end fuel attrition was just dumbed down and the solution worked by effectively removing the bulk of the effect of fuel attrition from the game. Actually the model was originally in error IMO. Fuel is and was never rationed by %'s historically, it was rationed by gallons and litres by applying this modelling the gas guzzlers would be the air craft to suffer range penalty via fuel attrition. Strategic bombers and heavy long range fighters were penalised via fuel attrition not light tactical strike aircraft such as the bf109,Yak,La5/7 etc.
Yet the argument in support of % attrition was one of historical reference. Even if inaccurate (when did any USAAF aircraft suffer from lack of fuel logistics?).
-
HT's point re game play being the primary concern is (IMO) well made but many seem to take this as a prompt to ignore all historical reference when considering game play mechanisms....... Some will quote or ignore historical reference to suit their own agendas.
My view is that a preference should be to develop and improve game play by invoking RL historical mechanisms where ever possible and add in silly board game type mechanisms that work to remove historical immersion. Some times it may not be possible...... But IMO it should be the guiding light.
Regarding RL mechanisms used to solve gameplay challenges reminds me of one mentioned above...... This was the near denial of access to some rides by fuel attrition. In the end fuel attrition was just dumbed down and the solution worked by effectively removing the bulk of the effect of fuel attrition from the game. Actually the model was originally in error IMO. Fuel is and was never rationed by %'s historically, it was rationed by gallons and litres by applying this modelling the gas guzzlers would be the air craft to suffer range penalty via fuel attrition. Strategic bombers and heavy long range fighters were penalised via fuel attrition not light tactical strike aircraft such as the bf109,Yak,La5/7 etc.
Yet the argument in support of % attrition was one of historical reference. Even if inaccurate (when did any USAAF aircraft suffer from lack of fuel logistics?).
i'm down for anything that promotes COMBAT.....
not at all if it restricts it.
you guys are completely missing the whole point of it.....
WW2=GANGS(we have MORE then enough of them)....HO's.........90% of those that died NEVER saw the one that killed them.....
51's didn't fight 51's......ECT ECT
The MA has absolutely nothing to do with WW2(what countries do BISH-ROOK-KNIGHT represent?).......using.......what...how ...why.....it was done in the war should never be considered when it comes to logistics for the MA.
now the Flight model.......the Bullet coad......the graphics.....ECT ECT......those should be as close to realistic as HTC can get.....
I do love the fact that HTC will never implement something that restricts what.... how..... when....... we fly :aok
not that I know them personally but from everything I read on the subject that he has spoken......tells me this.
-
I do love the fact that HTC will never implement something that restricts what.... how..... when....... we fly :aok
Yet when hangers are down, cv's destroyed, fields captured, ammo porked, the very what, how, when, are so restricted in the MA.
Quite clearly this is intrinsic to game play.... We do not discuss whether such restrictions are in play ( or not) for they clearly are so....... We discuss the degree and the technique of their implementation.
-
Yet when hangers are down, cv's destroyed, fields captured, ammo porked, the very what, how, when, are so restricted in the MA.
Quite clearly this is intrinsic to game play.... We do not discuss whether such restrictions are in play ( or not) for they clearly are so....... We discuss the degree and the technique of their implementation.
exactly right....that's why we need no more :D
I am thinking anything that restricts plane type....is the biggest issue for me.....
personally
I think HTC should implement a strict WW2 arena........ based on the war................ :uhoh
-
I've been playing AH2 for 5 months (I played many years ago) and I've seen questions arise regarding strats too many times to count, and often from players that have been around much longer. Idk the reason for which players don't inquire further for their own knowledge about the ramifications of bombing the strats complex.
I like the way it is with the exception of the refineries and fuel depots. I agree with the sentiment that there should be some effect on aircraft for such attacks, as it is now it doesn't even stop the most fuel inefficient aircraft from playing offense. Not really sure about the gv suggestions here, it's not like we have something comparable to driving through Poland or France (distance wise.) The one thing I would note for players that don't like having their strats bombarded so much is, having a reason to drop on the refinery strat would take pressure off the other strat factories.
Overall, however, outstanding & fantastic game! :aok
:salute
Rot
-
Chilli and INK understand that the war if there is one, takes place at 200 or so individual places around the sand lot by individuals using WW2 toys. Chiili is asking for a localised change to the individual dynamic in hopes of solving a localised issue he feels needs adjustment.
There is no war in the MA. There are only unlimited opportunities to fight against other players. War by definition in real life or in a game format requires the ability to achive strangle holds and knockout blows towards crippling an enemies ability to wage war. The only strangle holds and knockout blows in the game are confined to each feild object that can be captured. Granted there is a secondary sphere of influence and support visa the closest few feilds inside of a four sector space. But, that limits the activities of small numbers to the localised combat at hand.
Combat is the goal. Not allowing a single player or players to strategicly cripple a whole country impacting the expected "fun" of hundreds of paying customers.
If you want to spend the personal time by yourself trying to cripple fuel, ord and vehical hangers across a wide front of enemy feilds, by all means if that juices up your goat. But, time will be against you creating a crippling choke point to deny the ability to play the game in response to your actions. If instead you have a following of passionate admirers who want to make your every dream come true. Yes, then you can organise them into an airforce for a short duration and create a resource area denial visa hoard.
All strategic based war games by definition require an option for a master stroke or strokes that quickly and difinitvely removes the other sides ability to wage war and conceed defeat. Thats not the MA unless you have the personal ability to organise a hoard to do your bidding.
INK,
Some years back when the CT's name was first changed to the AvA. The CM staff held WW2 in the ETO from BoB to 1945 over about 6 weeks. One would have thought a two sided war with icons and everything else we love in the MA would have been a gas. It turned into a greifer fest and ch200 nearly got half of some squads banned when their emotions ran high. Until then I had never known how many moderators lurked in any arena or that they used blue text. War requires chains of command to do more than just play chess with willing sacrafices. Even my own squad mates were getting testy with each other when our CO had to perform his leadership duties on them to keep them from getting banned by the Mods. Combat creates freindly rivalries opposed to war creates enemies who loose respect for each other reflected in the way they then play the game.
You think after all these years Hitech might know something about game play dynamics that tilt and many in consensus with him don't? Or are there players whos only happyness derives from the most greif(strategy) they can inflict to the many with the least amount of effort? War by definition has to have strategic choke points to force the enemy(s) to submit to the winner with the least amount of loss of life or resources to the winner. There is no other purpose for ww2 historicly modeled strategic constructs. You see the greif taking out the HQ does to the majority of players in a country who expected to have a fun filled evening of combat.
-
Chilli and INK understand that the war if there is one, takes place at 200 or so individual places around the sand lot by individuals using WW2 toys. Chiili is asking for a localised change to the individual dynamic in hopes of solving a localised issue he feels needs adjustment.
There is no war in the MA. There are only unlimited opportunities to fight against other players. War by definition in real life or in a game format requires the ability to achive strangle holds and knockout blows towards crippling an enemies ability to wage war. The only strangle holds and knockout blows in the game are confined to each feild object that can be captured. Granted there is a secondary sphere of influence and support visa the closest few feilds inside of a four sector space. But, that limits the activities of small numbers to the localised combat at hand.
Combat is the goal. Not allowing a single player or players to strategicly cripple a whole country impacting the expected "fun" of hundreds of paying customers.
If you want to spend the personal time by yourself trying to cripple fuel, ord and vehical hangers across a wide front of enemy feilds, by all means if that juices up your goat. But, time will be against you creating a crippling choke point to deny the ability to play the game in response to your actions. If instead you have a following of passionate admirers who want to make your every dream come true. Yes, then you can organise them into an airforce for a short duration and create a resource area denial visa hoard.
All strategic based war games by definition require an option for a master stroke or strokes that quickly and difinitvely removes the other sides ability to wage war and conceed defeat. Thats not the MA unless you have the personal ability to organise a hoard to do your bidding.
INK,
Some years back when the CT's name was first changed to the AvA. The CM staff held WW2 in the ETO from BoB to 1945 over about 6 weeks. One would have thought a two sided war with icons and everything else we love in the MA would have been a gas. It turned into a greifer fest and ch200 nearly got half of some squads banned when their emotions ran high. Until then I had never known how many moderators lurked in any arena or that they used blue text. War requires chains of command to do more than just play chess with willing sacrafices. Even my own squad mates were getting testy with each other when our CO had to perform his leadership duties on them to keep them from getting banned by the Mods. Combat creates freindly rivalries opposed to war creates enemies who loose respect for each other reflected in the way they then play the game.
You think after all these years Hitech might know something about game play dynamics that tilt and many in consensus with him don't? Or are there players whos only happyness derives from the most greif(strategy) they can inflict to the many with the least amount of effort? War by definition has to have strategic choke points to force the enemy(s) to submit to the winner with the least amount of loss of life or resources to the winner. There is no other purpose for ww2 historicly modeled strategic constructs. You see the greif taking out the HQ does to the majority of players in a country who expected to have a fun filled evening of combat.
I agree.....
you list many reasons why a war game in the MA would not be fun....I played WW2 online.(barf for so many reasons but The War was the biggest)...basically thats what people are asking for in the MA.......makes me cringe thinking about it.
fun for 3 days a month..... :D
my comment was a dig for the AVA :devil
we already have a WW2 arena(for the most part;-)
-
I think the fuel tanks should be able to be dropped to 50% fuel loadout in hangar because as it stands now hitting the fuel tanks is just so impractical because even a 163 on 75% gas can still climb to well over 40k and land without fuel at a base 4 sectors away
-
I think the fuel tanks should be able to be dropped to 50% fuel loadout in hangar because as it stands now hitting the fuel tanks is just so impractical because even a 163 on 75% gas can still climb to well over 40k and land without fuel at a base 4 sectors away
Brilliant, man that's a such a great idea, never thought about porking the fuel at 163 fields. Now that would really change the strat situation. There a handful of guys that I only see if 163's are allowed.
That's +1 more reason to make the refineries more important.
Rot
-
It seems to me that the ability to pork fuel down to 25% or 50% just enables the porker to prevent combat. Why would anyone want to that in a combat game? It would certainly assist base taking I guess but where is the fun in base taking with no combat? I seem to recall being able to knock fuel down to those levels years ago. It resulted in porkers dropping fuel on the front or even one base back much like they do with radar now. It did hurt the fight and was at times done for no other reason but griefing. I don't think a game mechanic that allows one person to have that much effect on so many others with one mission is a good thing.
If you want to take bases with no combat load up offline and go for it...if you want to talk with your friends while doing it call em up on the phone before you load up offline. That way you can tell 'em how awesome you are as you roll the map while getting kills on the drones like a boss!
This isn't a dig at those whose goal is base taking/war winning. (Attempting to take a base or defending a base is a good way to find a fight). It's a question of why anyone would want to do so with no combat against other players while playing an online combat game.
Zaphod
-
It seems to me that the ability to pork fuel down to 25% or 50% just enables the porker to prevent combat. Why would anyone want to that in a combat game? It would certainly assist base taking I guess but where is the fun in base taking with no combat? I seem to recall being able to knock fuel down to those levels years ago. It resulted in porkers dropping fuel on the front or even one base back much like they do with radar now. It did hurt the fight and was at times done for no other reason but griefing. I don't think a game mechanic that allows one person to have that much effect on so many others with one mission is a good thing.
If you want to take bases with no combat load up offline and go for it...if you want to talk with your friends while doing it call em up on the phone before you load up offline. That way you can tell 'em how awesome you are as you roll the map while getting kills on the drones like a boss!
This isn't a dig at those whose goal is base taking/war winning. (Attempting to take a base or defending a base is a good way to find a fight). It's a question of why anyone would want to do so with no combat against other players while playing an online combat game.
Zaphod
:O
well said :aok
:D
-
It seems to me that the ability to pork fuel down to 25% or 50% just enables the porker to prevent combat. Why would anyone want to that in a combat game? It would certainly assist base taking I guess but where is the fun in base taking with no combat? I seem to recall being able to knock fuel down to those levels years ago. It resulted in porkers dropping fuel on the front or even one base back much like they do with radar now. It did hurt the fight and was at times done for no other reason but griefing. I don't think a game mechanic that allows one person to have that much effect on so many others with one mission is a good thing.
If you want to take bases with no combat load up offline and go for it...if you want to talk with your friends while doing it call em up on the phone before you load up offline. That way you can tell 'em how awesome you are as you roll the map while getting kills on the drones like a boss!
This isn't a dig at those whose goal is base taking/war winning. (Attempting to take a base or defending a base is a good way to find a fight). It's a question of why anyone would want to do so with no combat against other players while playing an online combat game.
Zaphod
I'm in favor of fuel porkage dropping fuel availability to 50%. IMHO it is FAR more likely to be used by a defending country trying to stop or at least slow down the base taking horde than it is by some anonymous porker trying to stop your furballing fun. Just exactly how much fuel do you take need to take to a nearby furball? Or for base defense? 50% is plenty and if you need more we now have a perfectly find resupply and strat system you can use.
This is no different from the ammo porkers we see every single nite.
-
I'm new to AH, but pretty quickly found myself wanting more strategic play after about a month. The combat folks don't seem to care where they are fighting from or what's going on on the map, so how would it hurt to enhance strategic play also. Let the furballs fly (and sometimes they are a lot of fun) but how would it hurt anything if the strategic oriented had more incentive also. So one side wins, then the map changes and the furballs start again. The combat guys would never know the difference and the strategic guys would have won (or lost) their war. Seems like you could have the best of both worlds :aok
Add permanent achievements and recognition to give the strategic players something more to play for. I think this would end up with more missions and more organized play opportunities. Create goals for strategic play and the players will come. I think it would ruin the fun of the combat players if you started to take away their toys, so not lobbying for that. I think the strategic play should focus on taking ground, and permanent recognition to do so.
The other night I was part of a battle for two bases, with both sides hitting the nearest 4 bases that could resupply and spawn vehicles to the battle. After about 3 hours we finally took the two bases in contention and it was the most fun I've had here. Both sides were playing smart and it drew in about 40 players. Some were there just for the furball, but many others were there for the bigger picture and it became very organized for those who were interested. I'm sure the furballers had a blast also, as it was going on in the air and on the ground simultaneously. It was a blast!
-
I'm in favor of fuel porkage dropping fuel availability to 50%. IMHO it is FAR more likely to be used by a defending country trying to stop or at least slow down the base taking horde than it is by some anonymous porker trying to stop your furballing fun. Just exactly how much fuel do you take need to take to a nearby furball? Or for base defense? 50% is plenty and if you need more we now have a perfectly find resupply and strat system you can use.
This is no different from the ammo porkers we see every single nite.
Respectully, I'm not in favor of it. I agree that both sides would use it. Several years ago it was possible to drop fuel to those levels and it hindered the fight a great deal. 50% is not enough fuel for some fighters unless you want to up a vulched field (109s, ki-84s, F4U's to name a few). It limits players to certain planes. It's worse for the attackers as they have no choice but to fly to the field being attacked. Either side can be effectively shut down which shuts down the fight.
It is vastly different from ammo porking in that ammo porking nearby bases doesn't effect the ability to up and fly a fighter. The only effect porking ammo has is that bombers and jabos have to up from bases further away to attack carriers or gv's in the area. That is a double edged sword especially in regard to attacking carriers as it results in higher alt bombers and jabos inbound to the cv which arguably are harder to defend against. This is especially true if the attackers are down low dealing with uppers from the field. The other big difference is that defending fighters can still be up defending while ammo is being resupplied by the players that want to bomb (more strategic players). The attackers can still fly to the the field and supress it while the players on that side are resupplying ammo to restart the base attack. Ammo porking in no way restricts the fight for furballers as all figher types are available regardless of ammo status. It affects base taking/defense players only because they need the ords for both jobs and must resupply if they are down. It's a pretty good deal for both sides as it is in the realm of strategic play with almost no effect of the tactical or furballing aspect.
With regards to the strat system. I agree that we have a workable system for resupply. However why force players who don't want to play the strategic game use it in order to play the tactical game? The fact that the strategic system includes a mechanism to repair damage caused using the same system ignores the fact that the tactical players want to minimize their involvement in the strategic game as much as possible.
Again none of this is a dig at base taking or furballing. I am in a squad that does a little of both with maybe more emphasis on base taking/base defending and some strat runs. All I'm saying is that a balance is required in order to keep both sides happy. When we are trying a base take I see furballing as helpful. I like the fight no matter what we are doing. Friendly furballers keep the defenders busy or dead. Enemy furballers means that there will be fun (combat) involved in the base take. If I'm in a furballing mood then the first thing I look for is a base under attack (ours or theirs).
The ability to pork fuel to the levels in the OP was possible years ago. It resulted in stopping the ability to fight for one side or another. This was done many times for strategic reasons and at other times just to cause trouble and was possible to accomplish by one or at most two players. I don't see the ability to shut down combat for any purpose as a good thing. Especially if just one or two players have that kind of power.
Both camps of players rely on each other more than they realize I think. Base takers cause the fight that furballers want to find and can still take the base with our current system with regards to fuel. Furballers provide the offensive or defensive component necessary to be successful in offense or defense and can still fly to and fight at the base with our current system. I think we have to be careful about hindering either camp's ability to fight to the extent that they are unable to fight or totally ineffective. In all honesty it's just as easy to go hit an undefended base if the presence of furballing defenders is too great to overcome at the original target. In fact this is done with some frequency under those circumstances.
As an aside....arguements regarding war practices of shutting down the opposing side's ability to fight don't really apply here. This is a combat sim....vs a war sim. To me it's a one sided request that benefits base takers over furballers in the extreme. It would be akin to furballers requesting that base taking be eliminated. Both of which would result in very limited or no combat.
Respecfully,
Zaphod (sorry for the long post)
-
I agree.....
you list many reasons why a war game in the MA would not be fun....I played WW2 online.(barf for so many reasons but The War was the biggest)...basically thats what people are asking for in the MA.......makes me cringe thinking about it.
fun for 3 days a month..... :D
my comment was a dig for the AVA :devil
we already have a WW2 arena(for the most part;-)
The AvA over the years has had the potential to be the WW2 Strategic War arena that many of this audience want HiTech to change the MA into. The CM staff and their MA freinds with squads could easily fill the arena a few nights a week. Then with the admin power of the CM's, arrange strategic choke holds and knock out blow strategic objects to be fought for to win the war. As usual, none of the regular complainers over the lack of WW2 style strategic choke holdery in the MA ever get off their collective whines and approch the AvA staff about creating their personal chokery dreams in the AvA. They prefer to whine in here and tell Hitech how inept he is at his choice for a game offering when he gave them an arena to strategicly choke themselves into a Carradine utopia.
In retrospect thats too much work by volunteers so idle individuals and greifers can pass through from time to time in the hopes they might become regulars. I'm not sure how many in this audience have been taking part in that arena from time to time since it originaly was called the CT Arena. Rolling plane sets. Different WW2 era setups. Strategic bomber missions announced days ahead in this forum to be defended against. Even a few hard core dedicated squads before it was changed to the AvA. When it was the CT something worked right since it kept several squads in there most nights. Wonder what it was........... :headscratch:
In the end just like the MA it all devolved each night into furballing amongst freinds. Even in the SEA in the last 15 or so minutes before the end. The fighter escorts are tearing it up mid alt to the deck furballing with freinds on the enemy side when the bombers release them.
The more strategic objects incorporated into the overall health and fighting ability of a country in the MA. The more dedicated griefers who don't want to fight in person for anything will focus on whizzing down the backs of paying customers because they can get away with it. And worse, they will expect to be patted on the back for it as heros becasue they can use the BS cover word of "strategy" to describe personal risk avoidance. At least they will be in good company with a few pilots who use the word "altitiude" to make people belive they are ACM geniuses while they pick and vulch their way to a single digit number in their score.
Anyone firgured out yet that the accomplishments are like awarding you a trophy for remembering your password each night? I wish the derned thing had a check box to turn it off for the individual player. I don't need a trophy for showing up.
-
I'm not suggesting changing anything about the MA rules, just adding achievements and rankings for Pickup Mission Planners, Pickup Missions Flown, and Troops Taking Towns/ Bases. Leave everything else alone, but with those types of achievements added some players will start to focus on them leading to more mission and squad orchestrated action. Furballers would be unaffected. Nothing more fun than organized squads and missions marching across the map fighing the furballers! Without the furballers, it wouldn't be any fun :)
-
Been around this game long Shores??
Over the years HiTech gave players the TA, DA, SEA, AvA, WW1, EWMA, MWMA, and custom arenas aside form the primary game in the LWMA or simply "The Main Arena". He gave players control over all arenas except WW1 and the MA's which pay the rent and his companies debts and salaries. With this wealth of player controled arenas the only arena the players want to change is the one their inexperience will kill if they were realy able to monkey with the business success formula.
Do you even know why the MA has been so successful for 13 years the way it is? HiTech has changed some of the toys, the background operations and eyecandy. But, the principle by which the three sided sand box operates has remained the same and the doors have stayed open for 13 years.
Can you even define that principle before you get bored, then decide HiTech has no clue what he is doing as a result of your personal experience with the game? How can you presume to say something needs to be changed when you cannot even start your complaint with defining how the game works? The changes you want are not defining any problem with the game. But, reveiling an expectation you want to impose on HiTech to make you personaly happy after you found his operational vision of the game is different from yours.
This is like a group of passengers on a starship deciding the engineer dosen't know how to get the best performance from his warp engines while they are on their way to a sushi chef convention to chop cucumbers for the chefs. Yes captain just trust us. Cucumbers will make the warp drive run twice as fast. We are professional cucumber choppers.
-
Been around this game long Shores??
Over the years HiTech gave players the TA, DA, SEA, AvA, WW1, EWMA, MWMA, and custom arenas aside form the primary game in the LWMA or simply "The Main Arena". He gave players control over all arenas except WW1 and the MA's which pay the rent and his companies debts and salaries. With this wealth of player controled arenas the only arena the players want to change is the one their inexperience will kill if they were realy able to monkey with the business success formula.
Do you even know why the MA has been so successful for 13 years the way it is? HiTech has changed some of the toys, the background operations and eyecandy. But, the principle by which the three sided sand box operates has remained the same and the doors have stayed open for 13 years.
Can you even define that principle before you get bored, then decide HiTech has no clue what he is doing as a result of your personal experience with the game? How can you presume to say something needs to be changed when you cannot even start your complaint with defining how the game works? The changes you want are not defining any problem with the game. But, reveiling an expectation you want to impose on HiTech to make you personaly happy after you found his operational vision of the game is different from yours.
This is like a group of passengers on a starship deciding the engineer dosen't know how to get the best performance from his warp engines while they are on their way to a sushi chef convention to chop cucumbers for the chefs. Yes captain just trust us. Cucumbers will make the warp drive run twice as fast. We are professional cucumber choppers.
But I thought this was the "Wishlist" section :D
I love joining "Pickup Missions" and taking territory :rock
Just wish there were more of them and thought HiTech would like feedback from new players :aok
-
We are professional cucumber choppers.
:aok