Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ToeTag on May 15, 2013, 05:39:33 PM
-
A two country game?
Would it help the further development of the game?
Would it help future additions to be more easily implemented?
Would it help make maps easier to be introduced?
Would it make game play better?
Answer but please leave a reason.
-
A two country game?
Would it help the further development of the game?
Would it help future additions to be more easily implemented?
Would it help make maps easier to be introduced?
Would it make game play better?
Yup
Nope
Nope
Nope
Nope
-
Yup
Nope
Nope
Nope
Nope
AvA
-
Yup
Nope
Nope
Nope
Nope
Leave a reason lol.
-
look at the way the three individual sides play the game. All three are totally different, and IMHO, it would damage the game by limiting the styles that the three individual sides have gravitated to. This has occurred because like minds tend to congregate, and if sides were limited, it would lessen the fun of the game;
-
look at the way the three individual sides play the game. All three are totally different
:lol no, they're not
I like the idea of a change to two countries (although I don't think it'll happen)
My reasoning would be that for people like me who can only play in off-peak type hours when there are less than 100 players on (or even less than 50 :( ) it would probably make it a bit easier to get a fight (as opposed to completely impossible, as it is now)
-
3 sides create an effective balance in numbers. even if side A has more numbers at a given time, by the time your extra numbers have helped push the Bs front, Side B or C will have gained numbers or A will have lost some. This keeps the fronts fluid.
With 2 sides the side with the numbers will quickly roll the other. there is no third side to help keep them in check or draw numbers away from the horde front. There could be a balancing mechanics, but this would annoy some and keep the front stale.
The only way to move the front would be via a group of skilled players being placed against lesser ones. This would frustrate many newer players and drive them out before they learnt the game.
-
3 sides create an effective balance in numbers. even if side A has more numbers at a given time, by the time your extra numbers have helped push the Bs front, Side B or C will have gained numbers or A will have lost some. This keeps the fronts fluid.
With 2 sides the side with the numbers will quickly roll the other. there is no third side to help keep them in check or draw numbers away from the horde front. There could be a balancing mechanics, but this would annoy some and keep the front stale.
The only way to move the front would be via a group of skilled players being placed against lesser ones. This would frustrate many newer players and drive them out before they learnt the game.
This is the correct answer. I'm not positive, but I think Hitech post they tried 2 and found that 3 works better.
-
This is the correct answer. I'm not positive, but I think Hitech post they tried 2 and found that 3 works better.
yep, he sure did, a couple of times since i've been here...probably a few before that.
-
I don't remember a two country game, I do remember two arenas. Your squad would be in the second arena while you are stuck joining the first arena due to population cap. Where in the first arena you have no squad members in your arena, and your country was probably being horded in the process so you spent hours flying alone until both arenas opened up or another unlucky squadmate logged on (if he didnt get lucky and get in the main arena first).
This was one of the main reasons I hopped countries and ignored squads for a very long time, i assumed it was never going to change - you had no use for a squad since you never got to fly with them unless it was FSO or something.
-
I don't remember two countries,other than in the AvA, but I've only been here since 2001.
-
I don't remember two countries,other than in the AvA, but I've only been here since 2001.
I think it was done in his last game... mind blank on that games name, but it was in/before the early 90s
-
Warbirds
-
Warbirds
And AW. HTC has been studying this for quite a long while.
- oldman
-
And AW. HTC has been studying this for quite a long while.
- oldman
I don't remember AW being two countries either, but I didn't join AW until it went free on AOL. ('95-'96, somewhere in there).
-
The game has reached another period of comfortable steady state where waiting for the enemy to make the first large move has settled in. Milling around and avoiding each other in less than multi versus few is the normative. Casual observation shows a polarization of one group has air to its back while the other has auto defenses to it's. Meeting as equal groups between fields other than by caprice is the exception to the rule unless more often it's many chasing the few. Altitude is now a safety buffer rather than a group wing strategy to save hoarded capped fields.
The almost every night vTard hoard was the height of the last disruptive period. It's self definitive by how the words and concepts of "NOE" and "hoard" has now been relegated to a similar social evil as "cheater" visa community peer pressure. And to some degree synonymous for how effective a tactic they are. Who wants to be lame now by upping large scale anything to stomp on anyone in sneaky secrecy? Yes we still do it some because for most, how else will you ever capture territory. But, a social stigma is attached to it like being a conservative christian. The whining was legion for a few years in here up to and after the vTards achieved the pinnacle of their era. Yes we now have comfortable little fights where the field and town gets de-acked three or four full times over several hours while the town going white flag is ignored like gentlemen not looking when a lady has a ward robe malfunction.
Now we have tanks that can main gun wing shoot air attackers and be their own air defense. So GVers are off hiding in the trees plinking at each other instead of playing WoT. At least they are in our game hiding in the bushes plinking at each other and racking up amazing single shot main gun kills against fighters. It's almost not worth trying to get close enough to tanks with an IL2 or Ju87G2 so the rounds can penetrate tank armor. When you are close enough for penetration and pull the trigger, there's a loud boom and you're back in the tower. Or when you jabo them, their mobile ack battery mows you down. I didn't know that all german tanks were each issued 3 wirbel winds to protect them from fighters in WW2. I didn't know that many were produced.
We are in the middle of a comfortable boring steady state period of gamey counter point bliss. No one or group is doing anything outrageous or greify in a large scale ongoing manner to make us angry. Piss us off so we saddle up in righteous ire to go stomp them or inspire us to emulate their naughty success. Look how fast we righteously turned "NOE" and "hoard" into the worst evil since Barney's theme song and Anita Hill.
We have absolutely no definition for when it's a good acceptable action in this game to launch a hoard, fly it NOE to a target, and capture it. And look at how many less missions are run now opposed to 2002-2009 when NOE and hoards were S.O.P. if you wanted to get anything accomplished. FBDred on the knights has been reduced to begging while 02 to even 09 his missions were packed thrillers.
I hope Hitech throws a monkey wrench into this soon and shakes things up so we have something more to accomplish every night besides maintain our current game's status quo. Or the next irritating bunch of greifers begins assaulting our staid established boring state and kicks us in the collective rear. Gotta admit no matter how irritating the vTards were. At least they were little energizer bunnies about it and we responded to it with energy. We need our collective batteries charged or kicked.
-
ok who mashed Bustr's twinkies?
take it easy Bustr, sounds like you have entered a phase of "complacent frustration". maybe it's time for you to step back a bit, go outside for some fresh air and find some different perspectives.
-
What brand of weed were you smokin, Bustr? Sounds like it was some good chit. :lol
-
What brand of weed were you smokin, Bustr? Sounds like it was some good chit. :lol
Still it is incapable of getting him to spell horde correctly.
-
What we have is people flying down the barrel of a tank gun that can only elevate 20 degrees or less.
-
I think what Bustr is saying is since 02 (when I started playing) the only thing that has changed is better terrain / graphics and more metal to maneuver in. What has not changed is the game concept ( how old is it now). My only wish is that some semblance of strategy be implemented into the game. Other than Up, get Altitude fly to base and join horde or defend against horde. If GVing then its a similar scenario; spawn get shot rinse and repeat. I would like something else to shoot at besides someone at a spawn or someone low defending a base in the ack. Like a strat that actually matters to the flow of travel in the game that is either capturable or destroyable or both. Not just tossed in the back and only susceptible to bombers. Make the ground worth fighting for. Who really cares if a base is lost when you can just up from the next base and do it again. The same could be said for gv spawns.
I think it would be cool if there was one very large city in the center of the map that had several capture points. The object being that air ground would have to work together to capture the points in the city.
Make the strats really count. A country must destroy a percentage of the strats in order to win. NOt just capture "X" amount of points on the map.
Once your country captured a percentage of the capture points and destroyed the strats you win the city and the battle.
All countries would then move to the next battle ( maybe a historic battle) in the war and your country would need to win multiple battles to win the war. Each win gives perks to those attending.
I think it would be fast paced, really make all aspects of the game come together and make it a whole lot of fun. Even if it was just tried in a separate arena.
I enjoy all the improvements made to the vehicles and aircraft I just wish that the game play improved with them.
-
1. - How many of you don't use the words NOE and hoard as synonyms for dirty words and descriptions of personal character defects in other players? Or have seen any large scale nightly vTard style NOE hoards lately?
2. - How many of you don't fly with groups picking on smaller numbers because it makes your next 15 minutes less stressful and fun?
3. - How many of you wish someone else would post a mega whopper incredible mission you can tag along and cherry pick your outcomes?
4. - How many of don't tag low hanging fighters with your tank's main gun now?
5. - How many of you wish some other group would show up with a new groove and slant on the game to give you something to focus your energies on to beat them? Them vTards for 2 years were not the best as individuals but they kept coming back at you in a hoard like undying energizer zombies.
The game is in the middle of another boring steady state period with everyone comfy in their tin cans hiding in the bushes playing push button war or hiding inside of groups of their countrymen waiting for others to bring the game to them. It needs a kick in the rear to uncomfy it.
-
I stand with ToeTag. Realistic battle scenario should be a game changer! I wonder how long the game would be down while they tooled that one up?
-
I think what Bustr is saying is since 02 (when I started playing) the only thing that has changed is better terrain / graphics and more metal to maneuver in. What has not changed is the game concept ( how old is it now). My only wish is that some semblance of strategy be implemented into the game. Other than Up, get Altitude fly to base and join horde or defend against horde. If GVing then its a similar scenario; spawn get shot rinse and repeat. I would like something else to shoot at besides someone at a spawn or someone low defending a base in the ack. Like a strat that actually matters to the flow of travel in the game that is either capturable or destroyable or both. Not just tossed in the back and only susceptible to bombers. Make the ground worth fighting for. Who really cares if a base is lost when you can just up from the next base and do it again. The same could be said for gv spawns.
I think it would be cool if there was one very large city in the center of the map that had several capture points. The object being that air ground would have to work together to capture the points in the city.
Make the strats really count. A country must destroy a percentage of the strats in order to win. NOt just capture "X" amount of points on the map.
Once your country captured a percentage of the capture points and destroyed the strats you win the city and the battle.
All countries would then move to the next battle ( maybe a historic battle) in the war and your country would need to win multiple battles to win the war. Each win gives perks to those attending.
I think it would be fast paced, really make all aspects of the game come together and make it a whole lot of fun. Even if it was just tried in a separate arena.
I enjoy all the improvements made to the vehicles and aircraft I just wish that the game play improved with them.
How does any of that impact the gameplay of 'Up, get Altitude fly to base and join horde or defend against horde.'? It's still a ground target you drop bombs/fire tank cannons at and then if it's capturable, drop troops.
As to the scenario/battle stuff you're mentioning there, why do you want to be told what to do all the time?
Wiley.
-
wiley,
I'm not suggesting a full re write of the game or what makes it popular. I am suggesting a change of perspective on the game play. Smaller scenarios linked to a bigger picture. The small scenarios are more focused for our ADD current play style. Not just up and then die die die. For example the maps that have one raging spawn battle for gv's and once it's lost there goes the gv fun. The map I propose would be an on going gv battle with out camping and add an air war over head. Everyone working in unison to get the win. Where as now nobody really cares if they loose the map..I don't. Not to mention since the GV optics change battle scenarios are beyond capabilities of the EW MW tanks from the current spawns.
I wish Lusche had a Hot spot map showing my point. Specific areas on a map where most of the action is. Then design the new maps that I propose around what makes those areas hot. You get condensed AH and massive fun.
-
wiley,
I'm not suggesting a full re write of the game or what makes it popular. I am suggesting a change of perspective on the game play. Smaller scenarios linked to a bigger picture. The small scenarios are more focused for our ADD current play style. Not just up and then die die die. For example the maps that have one raging spawn battle for gv's and once it's lost there goes the gv fun. The map I propose would be an on going gv battle with out camping and add an air war over head. Everyone working in unison to get the win. Where as now nobody really cares if they loose the map..I don't. Not to mention since the GV optics change battle scenarios are beyond capabilities of the EW MW tanks from the current spawns.
What about any of that makes you care if you win the map though? It's still the same gameplay, dogfight, bomb, GV.
I can't speak to the GV stuff because frankly they detract from the game for me by taking people away from air combat.
The way I read it, it's pretty much a limited round-based type system you're proposing, almost like Counterstrike or WT. I don't see it doing anything other than removing options for people and basically giving them a role they have to fill.
Wiley.
-
ok so ToeTag wants "meaningful" wars with someone or something dictating the war, and increase the capacity of hordes winning the battles.
Bustr wants to give hordes reasons to run noe mishunz so that...what? he has someone to horde with? having trouble figuring out the line of thought.
-
wiley,
I'm not suggesting a full re write of the game or what makes it popular. I am suggesting a change of perspective on the game play. Smaller scenarios linked to a bigger picture. The small scenarios are more focused for our ADD current play style. Not just up and then die die die. For example the maps that have one raging spawn battle for gv's and once it's lost there goes the gv fun. The map I propose would be an on going gv battle with out camping and add an air war over head. Everyone working in unison to get the win. Where as now nobody really cares if they loose the map..I don't. Not to mention since the GV optics change battle scenarios are beyond capabilities of the EW MW tanks from the current spawns.
I wish Lusche had a Hot spot map showing my point. Specific areas on a map where most of the action is. Then design the new maps that I propose around what makes those areas hot. You get condensed AH and massive fun.
What ... with a bigger map with players focusing on regional battles and being rewarded perks for each individual capture they participate in (traceable via kills on planes and vehicles upped from that field, damage done to that town/field and drunks dropped to capture that field)?
That's just madness, I tell ya! Madness!
:D
-
What ... with a bigger map with players focusing on regional battles and being rewarded perks for each individual capture they participate in (traceable via kills on planes and vehicles upped from that filed, damage done to that town/field and drunks dropped to capture that field)?
That's just madness, I tell ya! Madness!
:D
ok so how would you get people to fight on a "bigger" map? lock them into small regions so they have no choice? there is enough whining going on now about maps being too big or too small, bases being too close together or too far apart...blah blah blah. for those who don't like hordes, it would force players to do nothing but horde in order to win the "battles", not to mention the armchair generals without a clue that would pop up.
for every person who plays there is a different perspective on how the game should be played for the most fun...for that person. the only suggestion that has been tossed on the table, that would really make any difference is the role the strats play in "winning de warz". right now they're mostly ignored, except for those few who enjoy an hour long flight to get some bomber points.
-
ok so how would you get people to fight on a "bigger" map? lock them into small regions so they have no choice? there is enough whining going on now about maps being too big or too small, bases being too close together or too far apart...blah blah blah. for those who don't like hordes, it would force players to do nothing but horde in order to win the "battles", not to mention the armchair generals without a clue that would pop up.
for every person who plays there is a different perspective on how the game should be played for the most fun...for that person. the only suggestion that has been tossed on the table, that would really make any difference is the role the strats play in "winning de warz". right now they're mostly ignored, except for those few who enjoy an hour long flight to get some bomber points.
Lock? It's just one big map. Capturepalooza. Hordes? Since 1997 I haven't seen a control variable designed that could dissuade such.
-
Lock? It's just one big map. Capturepalooza. Hordes? Since 1997 I haven't seen a control variable designed that could dissuade such.
oh i get it, you just want the points for capturing bases...doesn't matter if there is a fight or not. you can do that now...
-
oh i get it, you just want the points for capturing bases...doesn't matter if there is a fight or not. you can do that now...
I've already been in one thread (recently) where someone claimed to know
the 'desires of my heart' based on an erroneous extrapolation of what I posted.
As Yul Brynner said in The Magnificent Seven - "Harry, please don't understand me so fast."
:D
-
Nothing would be limited beyond what we have now. Up what you want when you want. I quick sketched a map with basic principals.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img580/9276/mapyr.jpg)
The focus would be on the large city and large strat vs. airfields or gv bases. The scale of this is not any where near big enough. This would be considered a battle map then when this is won you move to another historic battle map and when you win "as a country" several battle maps you win the war. Winning battle maps gives each player "X" perks and winning Wars gives each player "X" more perks as a multiplier for time played. I mean who cares about a star next to your name? I don't.
-
Nothing would be limited beyond what we have now. Up what you want when you want. I quick sketched a map with basic principals.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img594/4081/maplw.jpg)
The focus would be on the large city and large strat vs. airfields or gv bases. The scale of this is not any where near big enough. This would be considered a battle map then when this is won you move to another historic battle map and when you win "as a country" several battle maps you win the war. Winning battle maps gives each player "X" perks and winning Wars gives each player "X" more perks as a multiplier for time played. I mean who cares about a star next to your name? I don't.
so, from what i see there...make the cities and strats worth something to attack, more of the focus for winning the war. i can tell you that the "campaign" style of map rotation you're suggesting has been suggested before and...i can't remember why it was said it would not work <damn>. i personally enjoy campaign style warfare but, i'm just one in a couple of thousand people, getting even 50% buy in would be tough unless you get a lot more detailed in the mechanics of it.
-
So... People will care about winning the battle map because when you win a bunch of battle maps, you get to win the 'war'?
Wiley.
-
So... People will care about winning the battle map because when you win a bunch of battle maps, you get to win the 'war'?
Wiley.
I wonder what happens if the Rooks win the first one, the Bish win the second one, the Knights the third, etc.?
-
I wonder what happens if the Rooks win the first one, the Bish win the second one, the Knights the third, etc.?
depends on how many spyiez switch sides from map to map... :lol
-
So... People will care about winning the battle map because when you win a bunch of battle maps, you get to win the 'war'?
Wiley.
yup....and can you imagine the epic battles street to street?....wuuuf.
-
I wonder what happens if the Rooks win the first one, the Bish win the second one, the Knights the third, etc.?
Hows 7 for starters before a win....7 map changes in 7 days. Could be very addictive! Maybe get more players over to our world!
-
ok so ToeTag wants "meaningful" wars with someone or something dictating the war, and increase the capacity of hordes winning the battles.
Bustr wants to give hordes reasons to run noe mishunz so that...what? he has someone to horde with? having trouble figuring out the line of thought.
Not really. It's become obvious if you don't feel free to sneek(use strategy) around the map with your attack group to surprise your target. And we all know it will be undefended. Then everyone retreats into a polite self censoring community politically correct defensive posture(steady state). Now we attack fields openly while hiding in a cloud of birds milling about generally getting nothing accomplished while we avoid being called dirty names like NOEer and hoardling. We are very polite and boring at the moment.
We have reduced ourselves to being afraid of peer pressure after a few years of constantly being called bad names for NOE hoard tactics so people could find sportsman gentil fights to jump into. Thank you vTards for nothing you useless tardlings even if it was fun playing whack-A-mole with you guys for the last 2 years. In retrospect I miss your constant grief and the action you generated for everyone trying to stomp you out of their collective miseries. Political correctness resulted from the pendulum swing whining for the vBoys and all NOE hoards to launch openly then gentiliee stand and fight. Boring....only a very small percentage of the human race is emotionally constituted to run to the sound of cannons. The rest will only face danger if they can sneek up behind it with a club.
So now we hide in the clouds as groups or hide in the ack as groups in polite capitulation to our long suffering fair gentil play crying brethren. We is becoming tame and arcadish due to not wanting to be labeled and stigmatized by our previously crying peers. In so we are doing a disservice to new younger players by making them think hiding in hoards and stomping on smaller numbers of players is normative rather than a cyclic swing in competing game play philosophies. At least the vTards kept dusting themselves off after each defeat and kept coming back at us generating more combat by their refusal to be beaten down no matter how lame many were as individual fighters.
Until this current politically correct borg period is over, we might as well call the DA our LWMA and all log into there each night. Then everyone line up for polite knights of the sky dueling ladder beat downs dominated by the muppets and a hand full of their peers. In retrospect we would all probably up at furball lake in late war monsters and shoot each other in the back at very high speed until the current MA tides changes. Free the NOE Evil Hoards. At least they generated uncertainty and action to saddle up and fight against.
-
Nothing would be limited beyond what we have now. Up what you want when you want. I quick sketched a map with basic principals.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img580/9276/mapyr.jpg)
The focus would be on the large city and large strat vs. airfields or gv bases. The scale of this is not any where near big enough. This would be considered a battle map then when this is won you move to another historic battle map and when you win "as a country" several battle maps you win the war. Winning battle maps gives each player "X" perks and winning Wars gives each player "X" more perks as a multiplier for time played. I mean who cares about a star next to your name? I don't.
One problem I can see is everyone would be at the same place (capture points). A good idea to keep the fight over a city or strat, though. :aok
We need more refineries, factories and some shipyards and railyards too. Have them spread out between all the bases and maybe even put a maproom in the center of every one - all made to be captured. :banana:
-
depends on how many spyiez switch sides from map to map... :lol
To be honest, I'm of the mind that those who think there's never been changes made to how AH is designed
either haven't payed attention or haven't been here to see them. Seriously, did they miss HTs strat changes?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338562.0.html
This game has seen years of refinement. There comes a point where change is being requested for change
sake, completely ignoring the human/player factor. The tempo and fun of this game is very much in the player's
hands. It's quite a good design with plenty of thought put into it. The mains are set up for three nationality
neutral 'chess piece' countries where players can fly any model aircraft (thereby discouraging one side being
more popular than another based on a specific plane model popularity), perk cost is affected by whether a
side is an underdog or not, furballers can furball, boom and zoomers can boom and zoom, Pattons and Rommels
can tank to their heart's content, fleet admirals can beach a fleet for the more 'important' invasions, PT boats
are available for McHale's navy, B-29s can fly high alt, long range strat runs and German rocket planes can
intercept.
I'm guessing some are getting bored and have forgotten how to address that within the game as it is. :)
-
yup....and can you imagine the epic battles street to street?....wuuuf.
... :huh
...Alright then. I am sure this idea will get every bit of consideration it deserves.
:aok
Wiley.
-
Not really. It's become obvious if you don't feel free to sneek(use strategy) around the map with your attack group to surprise your target. And we all know it will be undefended. Then everyone retreats into a polite self censoring community politically correct defensive posture(steady state). Now we attack fields openly while hiding in a cloud of birds milling about generally getting nothing accomplished while we avoid being called dirty names like NOEer and hoardling. We are very polite and boring at the moment.
We have reduced ourselves to being afraid of peer pressure after a few years of constantly being called bad names for NOE hoard tactics so people could find sportsman gentil fights to jump into. Thank you vTards for nothing you useless tardlings even if it was fun playing whack-A-mole with you guys for the last 2 years. In retrospect I miss your constant grief and the action you generated for everyone trying to stomp you out of their collective miseries. Political correctness resulted from the pendulum swing whining for the vBoys and all NOE hoards to launch openly then gentiliee stand and fight. Boring....only a very small percentage of the human race is emotionally constituted to run to the sound of cannons. The rest will only face danger if they can sneek up behind it with a club.
So now we hide in the clouds as groups or hide in the ack as groups in polite capitulation to our long suffering fair gentil play crying brethren. We is becoming tame and arcadish due to not wanting to be labeled and stigmatized by our previously crying peers. In so we are doing a disservice to new younger players by making them think hiding in hoards and stomping on smaller numbers of players is normative rather than a cyclic swing in competing game play philosophies. At least the vTards kept dusting themselves off after each defeat and kept coming back at us generating more combat by their refusal to be beaten down no matter how lame many were as individual fighters.
Until this current politically correct borg period is over, we might as well call the DA our LWMA and all log into there each night. Then everyone line up for polite knights of the sky dueling ladder beat downs dominated by the muppets and a hand full of their peers. In retrospect we would all probably up at furball lake in late war monsters and shoot each other in the back at very high speed until the current MA tides changes. Free the NOE Evil Hoards. At least they generated uncertainty and action to saddle up and fight against.
geez Bustr, go outside and get some fresh air...sunlight will do you some good. you're spouting the same stuff you been spouting for at least 3 years. sounds like ah is your life and someone is pooping in your livelyhood.
sitting in your chair at home grieving about the way things used to be or how nobody wants to play your way, is useless. come up with some ideas, see how many people you can motivate, post some mishunz and go for it. nothing is stopping you from getting a gang together and hitting undefended bases...doesn't have to be an "noe raid", 20k is a good alt to run a raid at. to hell with anyone who says it's "lame horde" behavior, they can sit in the corner and twirl their beenies. but you have to understand one thing, you can't control how everyone else wants to "fight the war".
-
One problem I can see is everyone would be at the same place (capture points). A good idea to keep the fight over a city or strat, though. :aok
We need more refineries, factories and some shipyards and railyards too. Have them spread out between all the bases and maybe even put a maproom in the center of every one - all made to be captured. :banana:
the map drawn is just for visual..imagine the capture points spread at the same distance as a spawn to spawn in game as we have it. The city would be sectors wide with capture points in between. The strats would be just as big as the modeled ones now with multiple manable flak towers maybe more spread out or randomly placed on the map. Yes train yards should be there as well.
Then next map is a midway inspired map that is only cv based. This would be fun to isolate and mix up the games assets.
-
the map drawn is just for visual..imagine the capture points spread at the same distance as a spawn to spawn in game as we have it. The city would be sectors wide with capture points in between. The strats would be just as big as the modeled ones now with multiple manable flak towers maybe more spread out or randomly placed on the map. Yes train yards should be there as well.
Then next map is a midway inspired map that is only cv based. This would be fun to isolate and mix up the games assets.
All of this is in the game, the problem is people don't want to play that way. You said you don't care about a star next to your name, neither do I and frankly I don't care if we win a war either. All I want is a fight, defend or attack doesn't matter.
You can bomb strats and make it hurt, but most people don't want to do that. (takes too much time)
You can run GV groups to attack bases, but most people don't want to do that (rather spawn camp)
You can use both GV and Air to attack a base but most people don't want to do that, (they are too busy spawn camping)
The problem isn't the game, it's the players. You said you want battles that mean something. Most players don't, they just want to roll the bases as fast as they can so they can win the map. Your a "simmer", they are "gamers". Totally different worlds.
-
Well I don't know enough about simmer and gamer to agree or dis agree.
To your points that people don't want to do the things you listed...we totally agree.
What I'm suggesting is putting the fights at the strats so they are important.
They are fighting for and trying to capture potions within the strats.
-
How do you propose flogging 100 cats in each country into doing what you want in the MA to achieve your dream outcome every night of the week?
Game play in the MA is like a room full of cats with toys strewn all over the place for the personal enjoyment of each individual cat. How do you propose to force them into your ideal vision of how the MA play should be structured? Incentives like your map or even perk bribes will be ignored within one tour and the cats will wander off to find their personal fun. So how do you propose to "Force" them if you could convince Hitech to be your enforcer? Personal fun is the common coin of the realm. How it's spent is an ocean of personal choices as different as snowflakes.
Right now the game has shifted into a steady state. Either Hitech will throw a wrench into it to shake it up. Or a new vTard entity will emerge or a new game play fad will emerge. Steady boring states loose customers to other games like overall badly designed game play. Aces High is fortunately a well designed game play product.
And I find it entertaining that gyrene thinks I spent very long knocking out my last response. When you produce online opinion articles you better be able to grind out something that short by the dozens in a day before you finish your first cup of coffee. I've seen better insults gyrene. You need more practice. Maybe one of those mental stimulation games being advertised on the cable channels for 50-70 somethings to juice up their mental processes.
-
And I find it entertaining that gyrene thinks I spent very long knocking out my last response. When you produce online opinion articles you better be able to grind out something that short by the dozens in a day before you finish your first cup of coffee. I've seen better insults gyrene. You need more practice. Maybe one of those mental stimulation games being advertised on the cable channels for 50-70 somethings to juice up their mental processes.
:old: hey now old man, it wasn't my intent to insult you. i was simply suggesting that your rhetoric appeared to be that of someone whose rose colored glasses got fogged over and scratched. if that's not the case then please accept my apology...and a new package of twinkies (to go with your coffee). honestly if you have a viable idea of how to "shake things up" to bring back some shine in the toonwarz, i'm all ear lobes and belly buttons.
-
How do you propose flogging 100 cats in each country into doing what you want in the MA to achieve your dream outcome every night of the week?
Game play in the MA is like a room full of cats with toys strewn all over the place for the personal enjoyment of each individual cat. How do you propose to force them into your ideal vision of how the MA play should be structured? Incentives like your map or even perk bribes will be ignored within one tour and the cats will wander off to find their personal fun. So how do you propose to "Force" them if you could convince Hitech to be your enforcer? Personal fun is the common coin of the realm. How it's spent is an ocean of personal choices as different as snowflakes.
Right now the game has shifted into a steady state. Either Hitech will throw a wrench into it to shake it up. Or a new vTard entity will emerge or a new game play fad will emerge. Steady boring states loose customers to other games like overall badly designed game play. Aces High is fortunately a well designed game play product.
And I find it entertaining that gyrene thinks I spent very long knocking out my last response. When you produce online opinion articles you better be able to grind out something that short by the dozens in a day before you finish your first cup of coffee. I've seen better insults gyrene. You need more practice. Maybe one of those mental stimulation games being advertised on the cable channels for 50-70 somethings to juice up their mental processes.
Bustr we are saying the same thing. Imagine all the cats with toys strewn about. Now put all the toys in one area. The cats are goung from toys to prey.
-
I don't remember two countries,other than in the AvA, but I've only been here since 2001.
same here...never 2 sides
-
Are you talking about a 2 sided scenario with Main arena style, any plane from any country at any time, or historical opponents?
This sort of scenario could be done if we had the tools to change the criteria for a game win, had a way to automate it so a win the war would rotate to the next scenario in the timeline etc.
We have tried similar things in AvA, but it requires an extreme amount of manpower to tabulate objectives and to accomplish the changeovers manually, basically staffers present 24/7.
Of course then you also have the problem of people not wanting to fly a limited plane set.
-
It would have the full plane set.
Mid and Early war would be the same
-
I think gameplay was better overall when we had a zone based system.
You had certain bases that were more important then others and thus more of a reason to either attack or defend them.
These big cities are nice. But I think would be better use would be made of them if attached somehow to HQ or rear areas of the country such as HQ is. Perhaps surrounding HQ might be an idea.
From a strat standpoint HQ has always been the ultimate prize to attack. If you loosely surrounded HQ with the big cities and strat targets missions to HQ would run a gauntlet of ack to get there and out again. Course you could always bomb the strats on the perimeter. Anyway. It would give a lot of reason to do those big missions deep into enemy territory