Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: mechanic on September 26, 2013, 05:55:06 AM
-
It is becoming more and more clear to me that the biggest factor in the lack of equal sided furballs is that one side always pushes in to the other's field and then invariably the team on the back foot loses numbers quite fast. Half the fighters may remain for a while defending the vulch but after a short period of getting dogpiled and shot on the runway leaves the defending team down to one or two players while the attackers may have upwards of twenty players fighting each other for the easy scalps.
The disillusioned defenders then move off to another base and start their own vulch fest. So now we have 50 players all avoiding each other and whining about ack hugging and manned ack dweebs.
The old days did not actually have that many more players who 'wanted the good fight' in my view. It was the base puffy ack that held off the attackers from furballing so close to the field unless they really intended to push in for the capture.
At the moment we have land grabbers AND furballers pushing right into the enemy's field and creating poor gameplay in general.
There are two solutions I can see. One of them involves us policing our own behaviour. We could, as furballers and fighter type pilots, hold back and wait for the enemy in the middle ground. This I see as quite an unlikely event to occur as we, as well as humanity in general, have proved throughout all time that monitoring our own behaviour seems nearly impossible against human nature.
The other solution I could see is to bring back the puffy ack at the fields. We don't see vulching going on in the WW1 arena for this very reason. Yes, I know, that arena is nearly empty most of the time. But when I have seen reasonable numbers in there, there was little to no vulching due to the puffy ack.
Yes I also remember the puffy ack whines. But really was it so much worse than the stale vulchfest gameplay we often see now even during peak hours?
The only way we can make this change is to convince Hitech that we would like puffy ack back on at fields.
We can start to make a difference now by NOT pushing in to the fields unless we want to attempt the capture.
I am sure this will receive a plethora of negative responses from most of us. So be it. But I truly believe the single biggest factor in the gameplay nose dive over the last years is due to the fights being orientated around the bases and not in the no-man's land where the legendary furballs frequently used to and now rarely still do occur.
-
Yes I also remember the puffy ack whines. But really was it so much worse than the stale vulchfest gameplay we often see now even during peak hours?
Yes. :)
-
It is bizarre when the runway vulchers complain about bombers or heavy fighters come through and takes out the fighter hangers of the reds field where they killing spawn'ers. As you noted it is equally bizarre the vox complaints from some of the fighter cap about those that hug the ack.
It is the game part of the simulation showing through.
-
It is becoming more and more clear to me that the biggest factor in the lack of equal sided furballs is that one side always pushes in to the other's field and then invariably the team on the back foot loses numbers quite fast. Half the fighters may remain for a while defending the vulch but after a short period of getting dogpiled and shot on the runway leaves the defending team down to one or two players while the attackers may have upwards of twenty players fighting each other for the easy scalps.
The disillusioned defenders then move off to another base and start their own vulch fest. So now we have 50 players all avoiding each other and whining about ack hugging and manned ack dweebs.
The old days did not actually have that many more players who 'wanted the good fight' in my view. It was the base puffy ack that held off the attackers from furballing so close to the field unless they really intended to push in for the capture.
At the moment we have land grabbers AND furballers pushing right into the enemy's field and creating poor gameplay in general.
There are two solutions I can see. One of them involves us policing our own behaviour. We could, as furballers and fighter type pilots, hold back and wait for the enemy in the middle ground. This I see as quite an unlikely event to occur as we, as well as humanity in general, have proved throughout all time that monitoring our own behaviour seems nearly impossible against human nature.
The other solution I could see is to bring back the puffy ack at the fields. We don't see vulching going on in the WW1 arena for this very reason. Yes, I know, that arena is nearly empty most of the time. But when I have seen reasonable numbers in there, there was little to no vulching due to the puffy ack.
Yes I also remember the puffy ack whines. But really was it so much worse than the stale vulchfest gameplay we often see now even during peak hours?
The only way we can make this change is to convince Hitech that we would like puffy ack back on at fields.
We can start to make a difference now by NOT pushing in to the fields unless we want to attempt the capture.
I am sure this will receive a plethora of negative responses from most of us. So be it. But I truly believe the single biggest factor in the gameplay nose dive over the last years is due to the fights being orientated around the bases and not in the no-man's land where the legendary furballs frequently used to and now rarely still do occur.
While I agree with what you said. I don't think the system "death star laser" puffy ack would do anything beneficiary for ANY party involved. From the enemies getting gunned down and 'no one getting credit for the kill" to the Friendly coming in to land his perky plane and have the puffy ack hit him (like cv ack).
Right now combat is centralized around a few areas. Bases and towns being #1, no mans land (meet between two bases and fight it out like civilized people) and finally in an extreme distant 3rd, strats and HQ.
Personally, I think we need more areas of combat *cough* like railyards, steelmills factories.. etc. Not so far out from each other that you get the perk farmers out. But not so close where you can level everything in one pass either. I think having a system similar to the old system (Where the facilities instead of being singular and spread waaay out, are instead still singular, yet within a sector), with an airfield in the middle of that sector for defense. Add a gv spawn or two and wala! Combat...
Not fool-proof but right now all the combat is funneled into different areas. Like Bustr has said many times before, many players don't want to take the time and fly out to have combat, they want it in the 'arcade style' of 'insta-gratification'. So they go to the enemy base to pick 'HO', and even vulch. Even though it's a sandbox game, it seems we keep getting funneled combat.
While I know 90% fact that this is a PLAYER issue. It's quite hard to argue with someone with the mentality of "it's my 15 dollars and I can play how I see fit".
Not really sure what HTC could do to diversify combat. Instead of the usual Base/Town/Strats routine.
Respectively,
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
Here is what I see.
As a member of JG11, when we hold squad nights we will roll to the biggest enemy darbar available. Although we do roll with substantial numbers, (16 last squad night), it is more our teamwork and tactics that beats the enemy down. We clear the area from the top down with the final result that those that have been killed stop trying to take off from the base we now have capped, do not have the patience to come at us with numbers and teamwork from the nearest base, and the simply roll GV's in large numbers. The dar bar does not show these GV's so it looks like the numbers have shifted when in actuality they have only "disappeared into GV's.
We aren't interested in taking the base per say, but our numbers and actions many times inspire the base takers to make an effort for the capture. We then normally land as a group, evaluate the current situation and will roll again to the biggest enemy darbar available, most likely in a different area of the map.
-
More often than not lately when I answer the call to help at a base being swarmed by the Bishop horde I'll jump in a wirb and position myself in line with a runway and swat down the vultures. Good fun. If just several guys/gals did this instead of upping fighters there would be a sort of reverse cap allowing for upping defenders to protect both the field and the town. Alas, everyone wants to be John Wayne in a fighter in the Knight Kingdom though. I've saved a great many Knight squadron mates without them being aware of it by knocking down Bishop hoarders diving in for the easy kill. And I've also met my demise at the hands of many others when I've employed the same tactic during one of our rare base take attempts.
-
Zoney you and your squad use strategy to counter the enemy's actions. :aok Too few will do the heavy lifting to prevent their country from getting rolled. Just taking the front line ord down will deter these massive smash and grabs. Along with getting the ord strat % down to increase down time.
Perhaps incentives would work without changing much. Most want fighter perks and maybe give significant fighter points for killing ords. Then you would have even the fighter jocks affecting the infrastructure of the enemy instead of just furballing. This too may get some gvs off the ground (we've all heard the whines of pilots lamenting half the players are in GVs) as they may feel they have a better chance in some perk rides.
Give a Dog a Bone. (http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa417/TeresaB63/dog-with-bone-emoticon.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/TeresaB63/media/dog-with-bone-emoticon.gif.html)
-
I understand your point Mechanic, but folks who do not want to directly confront an equal enemy number can find any number of other avoidance strategies to stay away from the other sides horde. Like JG11 the Pigs are large dar bar hunters. It is not unusual for us to pummel them off of a friendly field and push them all the way back to their field. Usually they just disappear only to re-up two sectors away where there is little or no resistance. Adding puffy ack (shivers) to artificially even the odds in these situations is not the best option.
-
dear god man... bat has lost his mind! someone restrain him quick!
-
dear god man... bat has lost his mind! someone restrain him quick!
:rofl
I can see his reasoning though. Our air battles usually do end up being flying tug-o-war matches, so when one side gets pushed back to a certain point, people start to just find somewhere else to go and the fight dies. That makes me sad. :(
What must be addressed before we go any further, is wtf would those poor souls who do nothing but sit in field guns do if we implement this? Should we allow a machine to take their jerbs? :uhoh
-
Yes on the puffy ack at bases or put the 88s in batteries of 3 and make them turn the correct speed our 88s turn way to slow. Go to You Tube and type in 88mm flack gun and you will see more than a few videos of them being turned. There was a two speed gear on them and they turn pretty fast.
-
The main point is not even about the tool shedders. It is about the fighters who only really want to fight but don't seem to realise that if we sat in the middle ground and waited a better fight would ensue. There are still quite a lot of us that only want to dogfight, so why are we doing it in the enemy's base ack when the playing field is 25 miles wide?
kappa :lol
-
Here is what I see.
As a member of JG11, when we hold squad nights we will roll to the biggest enemy darbar available. Although we do roll with substantial numbers, (16 last squad night), it is more our teamwork and tactics that beats the enemy down. We clear the area from the top down with the final result that those that have been killed stop trying to take off from the base we now have capped, do not have the patience to come at us with numbers and teamwork from the nearest base, and the simply roll GV's in large numbers. The dar bar does not show these GV's so it looks like the numbers have shifted when in actuality they have only "disappeared into GV's.
We aren't interested in taking the base per say, but our numbers and actions many times inspire the base takers to make an effort for the capture. We then normally land as a group, evaluate the current situation and will roll again to the biggest enemy darbar available, most likely in a different area of the map.
Silly question, but why cap a base you have no interest in taking? :confused:
-
Silly question, but why cap a base you have no interest in taking? :confused:
We simply stay until it's time to rtb for fuel or ammo. There's rarely another fight close enough to get to on a single sortie. Our next sortie is usually to a different dar-bar.
Regards,
Hammer
-
The main point is not even about the tool shedders. It is about the fighters who only really want to fight but don't seem to realise that if we sat in the middle ground and waited a better fight would ensue. There are still quite a lot of us that only want to dogfight, so why are we doing it in the enemy's base ack when the playing field is 25 miles wide?
kappa :lol
One of the problems is that no matter where a good fight develops, somebody will decide that's the place for the next base capture. The first set of buffs heading to the base drags the fight that direction.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if there were a true "furball island" where the bases were not capturable. I'm curious how many people would fight there vs how many would continue capturing bases.
Regards,
Hammer
-
. . .We aren't interested in taking the base per say, . . .
Then what is the point of raiding another base with a large squadron? Is it just easy kills?
-
Instead of capping a base, we should stay loitering in the middle of the playing field and wait for the next wave to come and dogfight us again.
-
I like getting A-20's up from swarmed bases. Floor it right out of the hangar and see if I can kill anyone before I go down, hoping that some folks get in Wirbs and more A-20's. It is great fun. Sometimes it works out as more and more people come in on defense to do the same. Sometimes it doesn't, and I just get shot down again and again until the base is taken. But there is no lack of action. :aok
-
Instead of capping a base, we should stay loitering in the middle of the playing field and wait for the next wave to come and dogfight us again.
What Bat said. Pull back a little and let them get off the ground. I ll fight like that all day no problem. Just let me get gear up first.
-
It may be time for HTC to scale down the maps to about half the size we get lost in today and we accept with fewer fields every group of 5 or 6 planes will seem like a hoard showing up at an empty base. In the AvA because numbers are not expected to be very high, the staff scales to that expectation. Everyone finds each other even if they don't want to be found. On the few occasions numbers have been unexpectedly high, everywhere was a fight from the ground to as high as anyone wanted to waste their time.
If NDisles ocean was filled in and a few bases dropped into each sector where once was ocean. That would be a good starting size for the average number of players we see today. Something like the scale of the mini pizza map. The really good furballs are often due to a geographic feature inhibiting GV attacks and ease of capture. Or the altitudes of the two fields make it faster for everyone to get back into the fight, very often halfway between the bases.
Smaller maps would promote war winning base rolling efforts again due to the simple fact of fewer fields to take. The current maps are not impossible to roll with our normal hoard size if you have all night. But, they have become boring like having to eat a double extra large pizza to get a tiny free beer after you have eaten yourself sick of pizza. What's the point?? Our maps are out of scale to our population and the effort anyone is willing to put into involving themselves with looking for something to do. Smaller maps will remove worrying about that because the scale will place everyone in each others face.
As for classic two base furballs. Go back to all of the maps you have enjoyed furballs on. Remember, almost every time that map was up, that furball very often happened. Furballs are accidents of a terrain feature and the relationship of two fields on each side of it that made it convenient for the pilots to go at each other. That's why fester spent so much time asking us what we looked for in maps so he could redesign his newest map to promote combat where ever you go on it.
-
It may be time for HTC to scale down the maps ...
Agree :aok
-
Map sizes are perfect now in my opinion. Who would up bombers if they're always shot down climbing out? Also, I like upping my pony with drop tanks and cruising around like a shark looking for prey at altitude. Drop down, close to a hundred, and kaboom! I enjoy all the aspects of this game, shrinking maps will make it more predictable and less interesting.
-
Map sizes are perfect now in my opinion. Who would up bombers if they're always shot down climbing out? Also, I like upping my pony with drop tanks and cruising around like a shark looking for prey at altitude. Drop down, close to a hundred, and kaboom! I enjoy all the aspects of this game, shrinking maps will make it more predictable and less interesting.
During the off hours (with ~60 on), it is hard to run into each other. Plus, it makes combat difficult with so few on a large map.
-
It may be time for HTC to scale down the maps
I think best would be some sort of dynamic scaling. When there are a lot of people, larger areas to fight in are fun; but when there are few people, larger areas contribute to not much fighting going on.
If there were something that funneled people into a smaller area as number of players decreased, that would work wonders, I think.
I'm not sure what that would be. Increasing numbers of outlying bases having no aircraft available and toggling to uncapturable and unbombable as player numbers go down?
-
I think best would be some sort of dynamic scaling. When there are a lot of people, larger areas to fight in are fun; but when there are few people, larger areas contribute to not much fighting going on.
If there were something that funneled people into a smaller area as number of players decreased, that would work wonders, I think.
I'm not sure what that would be. Increasing numbers of outlying bases having no aircraft available and toggling to uncapturable and unbombable as player numbers go down?
I turn your attention to this thread. :)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354404.0.html
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
What sometimes tend to be forgotten (by myself as well) is that, at least during the week, we have actually more players fighting in the LW arena than 3 years ago. While having overall higher attendance, this was split over 2 LW arenas...
-
Map sizes are perfect now in my opinion. Who would up bombers if they're always shot down climbing out? Also, I like upping my pony with drop tanks and cruising around like a shark looking for prey at altitude. Drop down, close to a hundred, and kaboom! I enjoy all the aspects of this game, shrinking maps will make it more predictable and less interesting.
Please goto the DA and ask the muppets along with anyone else dueling to teach you ACM. Everyone in this game can do what you are doing with a poni by the beginning of their second tour. Or goto the TA and see my friend Morfiend for ACM lessons. There are more players in the AH world than yourself and the game always has to evolve out of it's periodic stagnations. And many more players like myself who have played tours non-stop for 11-13 years now who try to help the community hash this out each time bad or good. In the end Hitech seems to heed some of this and makes subtle changes.
We got these giant maps as a past response to 500-600 players in the arena and out of control hoards avoiding each other with no combat across 3 country fronts rolling bases. The size was supposed to eat up their energy. Now we average core playing 250-300 for a few hours on week nights and the size of the maps hide us from each other along with our willingness to avoid risk like flying a poni in the stratosphere using altitude to hide from the consequences of poor ACM. We reach stagnation when risk avoidance is held up as combat, and lack of motivation to accomplish much more than spawn camping then becomes a community malaise.
Bombers have always found a way to get off the ground. But, we have eventually needed Hitech to step in and push our noses into combat by overnight changing our world. And the results have ever been, no one got hurt, we all responded to the new novel stimulus figuring out how to game it, and everyone has fun for awhile fighting each other until we get bored and go back to avoiding risk. And the big risk avoidance this time around is everyone one and his buddy flying 20-30k into furballs.
In a bad economy like we are in, many people lucky to have jobs don't have the time to climb to 20k then go looking for a fight they feel comfortable vulching people in. They have a limited amount of time to invest each time they logon to get their monies worth. Smaller maps tend to have 2-3 fronts for each country with one a furball, the other a base defence, and an active capture attempt. The larger maps tend towards two countries attacking the third while avoiding each other because they need 500-600 to achieve the same scale of three fronts. Boring risk avoidance results.
-
Map sizes are perfect now in my opinion. Who would up bombers if they're always shot down climbing out? Also, I like upping my pony with drop tanks and cruising around like a shark looking for prey at altitude. Drop down, close to a hundred, and kaboom! I enjoy all the aspects of this game, shrinking maps will make it more predictable and less interesting.
Maybe they are perfect for typical evening US times, but map sizes are not perfect for 2 am Eastern time and later. Then it is too frequently a ghost town, with a couple of guys here milling around trying to find each other, 50 miles away from another guy doing a milk run, 50 miles away from another couple of people, etc.; and that is not fun by the standards of most players. A lot of players see that, and they just log out, and there is thus a negative-feedback loop promoting lower player numbers.
-
I turn your attention to this thread. :)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354404.0.html
Tinkles
<<S>>
Good topic -- thanks!
-
I would maybe add take us back to when porking a bases fuel meant something :aok
:cheers: Oz
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if there were a true "furball island" where the bases were not capturable. I'm curious how many people would fight there vs how many would continue capturing bases.
Regards,
Hammer
There is, it's called the DA and it usually has about 35 people in it.
-
Canyon fight!!!!!
-
There is, it's called the DA and it usually has about 35 people in it.
Not at 1-2 am Eastern and later, but yes, your point is valid that we do have furball island already (or rather furball lake).
-
I think your post is right on the money batfink...
I just wish I could think of a different way to combat the problem you have identified, rather than by adding more ack into the equation :uhoh
-
I think it's a generational thing to appreciate the old school, meet in the middle and furball, respecting each others field as the source of the fun, if left alone. I don't know how to get you back there. I see them more often later in the evening on smaller maps these days. Between 8pm and 10pm PST just after the peak numbers start to go to bed.
Large maps seem to be every kind of game player is looking for some action and the two fields that started out furballing, become the unlucky go to place for the late night. Like that after the party, party bar. On a large map that becomes the fun drain for the third country stuck with nothing to do but milk run.
Fester's new map has 3 uncapturable GV bases in the center. A sector away from the nearest airfield with a capturable airfield in the center of them. There are no GV spawns to them. A modification of that would be those capturable with 3 uncapturable airbases 3\4 of a sector away from them out removing the single airfield between them. Or place a mote between those airfields and the GV bases allowing PT\LVT4 battles with long overlapping spawns to get near each other. Late nights this would be all the bases needed for the low numbers hours. Milk running optional on the rest of the map.
It would be dumb and entertaining. But, a late night gathering place depending on the map with reliable home bases to keep re-upping from. A bomber could flatten one of the uncapterable GV bases while his squad mates storm it with tigerII and hold it down all night as it regenerates. You would get some jabo in that you could have wirbels waiting for. Dumb stuff that only happens on maps with a few fields really close together.
We have too much map room and distance from fights now for too few people. Who will hide from each other while they spend 10 minutes getting into the perfect perch to protect themselves. Stick'em closer together. Distance just gives them more time to have nightmares over getting clobbered by a random muppet. The HOers will spoil their fun long before a muppet scalps them.
-
Hello Bustr, I do enjoy dogfighting and work at getting better at it every time I'm on. I'll visit the training area after I've reached a point where I'm not improving through self study and practice. I'm often in the thick of the Knight fur balls in a plane most don't like to dogfight in and getting better at holding my own all the time. I just like to do different things as well. Sorry but cruising around catching napping fighters and bombers is fun to do as well sometimes and in reality how a great many engagements in WWII actually went down. For me the game is a blast for the variety. I believe that shrinking the maps would make it more predictable. Just my opinion based on my limited experience here. The idea of distances being driven by participation is interesting. As one who plays at all hours when I'm on I can appreciate that there are slow times. I only play every couple of weeks for several days in a row when I'm home from the job and am so smitten I'll usually spend a whole day messing around on AH with breaks for exercise and food. Great game and a great bunch of people, with the exception of a few knuckleheads who are always on 200.
-
the MA gameplay is so great at euro time that I deleted my account :banana:
ho wait.. :bhead
-
Well this game is quite Euro centric, and the bases in game are quite substantial installations..
Bases like in this game, ALWAYS had heavy ack cover.. :cry
If they Don't??? Sorry, but that is unrealistic..
-
the MA gameplay is so great at euro time that I deleted my account :banana:
ho wait.. :bhead
Don't give up! oh wait you're from France. :uhoh
JK :D
-
Perhaps the real issue should be addressed or as they say the elephant in the room. The lack of subscribers in EU is the issue and the general lack of subscribers in the US as well. Numbers are down. Is it a marketing issue? a general lack of interest in this type of simulation? I don't know, I've never seen the numbers. What is the average length of stay for a subscriber? There is a lack of fights because there is a lack of subscribers. The lack of an economy doesn’t help either. Bringing back puffy ack or not will not improve the number of subscribers. I do agree with the idea of puffy ack at the airfield, don't know why they took it away in the first place.
-
I disagree, it is not anything wrong with the game itself. It is how we choose to play it.
Stop pushing in to the bases and the fight will improve dramatically.
-
I would maybe add take us back to when porking a bases fuel meant something :aok
:cheers: Oz
:rock :rock :rock
-
I disagree, it is not anything wrong with the game itself. It is how we choose to play it.
Stop pushing in to the bases and the fight will improve dramatically.
Stop trying to capture bases and start furballing? :headscratch:
-
Half the people 'capping' a base are not trying to capture it. If they were they would be taking down the ack not complaining at being shot by it or the enemy running to it.
-
Stop trying to capture bases and start furballing? :headscratch:
no, you are twisting it. Not what he said at all. If you are going to take the base then take it and move on. If you dont want to take the base then dont cap it.
Simple, no?
-
It is how I and the Pigs approach it. Fighter sweep, press them back to their field, if they do not up or hide in ack, then switch to attack on field and take it from them. I have little interest in dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting. It is always more interesting when there is something to be fought over (base defense or base capture attempt). It adds multiple dimensions to game play.
-
I enjoy all the aspects of this game, shrinking maps will make it more predictable and less interesting.
+1 :aok
My three favorite maps are Ozkansas, Tagma, and Compello. I like to furball...a couple of days a week. But then I also like to run bombers to the Strats and I don't want to have to climb back and forth to get to altitude on a small map, or sneak around just trying to find a safe route for the climb out. I think the furball is not the end-all for many players and what I'm reading in this thread is "we need to force furballs." Why can't they be voluntary. Put out a call on 200 and all those who want to furball will be there in a heartbeat.
-
It is how I and the Pigs approach it. Fighter sweep, press them back to their field, if they do not up or hide in ack, then switch to attack on field and take it from them. I have little interest in dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting. It is always more interesting when there is something to be fought over (base defense or base capture attempt). It adds multiple dimensions to game play.
So winning against a human is less exciting than winning against a building. :headscratch:
-
So winning against a human is less exciting than winning against a building. :headscratch:
Loaded question. Of course not. Let me clarify: dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting is just that and grows quickly stale for me. Breaking buildings repeatedly without a resulting fight nets the same thing for me as dogfighting endlessly with no real result. Total Boredom.
Dogfighting to push an enemy horde off of a field, or to attack their field is exciting as there are stakes involved. If there is no base defense/capture attempts going on, then there is no involvement of the ground aspect of the game, there is no use of the peripheral operations of the game (supply, field and ship guns, observation aircraft for GV's, GV fights, bombers, degradation of enemy abilities, running troops, protecting heavies, carrier operations, etc.) I enjoy the chaos of a full blown fight and find it more satisfying when everything is in play. More complex, more variables, never no what is going to happen type fun. Again this is just my take on what is enjoyable for me. I'll be the first to pull off of a Knight horde and go do my own thing as sharing red guys is no fun.
I have never been a furballer or base take, more of a hybrid type player that prefers the base taking aspect of the game to create a great fight. Think of me as a fur-taker. LOL
-
. . .It is always more interesting when there is something to be fought over (base defense or base capture attempt). It adds multiple dimensions to game play.
Hear, hear . . . hear, hear
-
allow air spawns at 3k high combat speed
-
All of you guys talking about how smaller maps aren't needed or how all that is needed is a change in behavior, etc. -- you obviously don't fly at, say, 2 am Eastern time or later.
At 2 am Eastern or later, there can be times with almost nothing going on. 1 person over there milk running bases all by himself (who might as well be playing off line); 2 people over there milling around trying to find each other for a dogfight; 1 person over here who took off when the sector counters showed maybe a couple of people up, but those couple of people were returning to base, so once he's spent the time to get up and get away from his base, there is no longer anyone around him.
And it's not because the number of players is too low -- it is because the *density* of players is too low.
Air Warrior had 1/10th the players of AH, but even with about 6 people up, it was fun to fly because its maps were tiny.
We don't need smaller playing area when there are 300 people up. We do need a smaller playing area when there are 50 people up.
-
I fly in Euro timezone often, I don't think smaller maps are the answer. Just a reason or the desire to fight away from the bases for those who do like dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting. The reason I thought this game was all about. Not sure how dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting could ever be boring.
-
To reply to the OP. The best way to stop vulching at your field is to fly to the enemy field. It is amazing how quickly the conga line of red stops. Just 2 or 3 fighters at 12-15 k over the enemy field stops or significantly slows the enemy attack. When it comes to the Bish horde, puffy ack will be meaningless. Puffy ack sucks even more than bomber laser 50s that have a 1.5k range.
-
I doin't want to stop being vulched, I want to stop having no option but to vulch myself because all the fights are at the enemy field
-
It is becoming more and more clear to me that the biggest factor in the lack of equal sided furballs is that one side always pushes in to the other's field and then invariably the team on the back foot loses numbers quite fast...vulch fest.
Hey batfink I just submitted a film for the topic "Films Needed" that shows you upping at a vulched field in a situation you describe here. Maybe you'll be in one of HiTechs promo films. :D
I remember having the puffy ack at fields. I like what you're asking but maybe ack not quite as strong as the current cv ack.
-
If they wana add a few more manable puffy ak guns fine, but I don't much care for going back to getting killed by the computer's dead shot accuracy.
-
I like getting A-20's up from swarmed bases. Floor it right out of the hangar and see if I can kill anyone before I go down, hoping that some folks get in Wirbs and more A-20's. It is great fun. Sometimes it works out as more and more people come in on defense to do the same. Sometimes it doesn't, and I just get shot down again and again until the base is taken. But there is no lack of action. :aok
Il2 in f3 was better than A20 for this job and more fun
-
I prefer to fight in the same manner as Batfink/Mechanic, and agree with his idea. I think that a combination of the puffy ack/better defenses at the bases, combined with a scaling back of the size of the maps a little as well as the number of bases will promote better gameplay. It would take a MUCH more deliberate effort to take a base, and bring back a lot of the fights "in the middle" that the game used to be about long ago.
I think if it was instituted by HTC, even as a trial for a week or in a separate "trial MA", it would be accepted in short order by a large majority of the players. Everyone seems to have a complaint about something, and when this happens in any community, ANY change is usually a good thing.
I think that's what I would like to see - a "trial MA" with smaller maps with less bases, and much better defenses for the bases in close. The adding of the guns at VH bases was one thing, but nothing was done to bolster the AA systems at the regular fields. More auto ack in the 37mm range, and more auto puffy 88mm and 5" type guns, and even some more manned guns, would push the fights where there are say less than a dozen players just hovering near the capped base picking guys off easily as they up. I've done it, we've all done it, even those of us who prefer to fight in the middle zone away from bases. This way, guys on the deck will have more room to get up to fighting alt, get a bit of equalization E wise with the guys hovering over the bases, and generally make things a little more fair. I realize it isn't "realistic", but who cares, I'd rather have a game with some change in the dynamic now and then and less consideration regarding how WW2 went.
-
I prefer to fight in the same manner as Batfink/Mechanic, and agree with his idea. I think that a combination of the puffy ack/better defenses at the bases, combined with a scaling back of the size of the maps a little as well as the number of bases will promote better gameplay. It would take a MUCH more deliberate effort to take a base, and bring back a lot of the fights "in the middle" that the game used to be about long ago.
Much better defenses at the bases = greater difficulty to capture = bigger hordes, more 'surprise raids', more grab'n'smash. It's a very delictate balance.
I really doubt that you can 'force' the majority of players to change their very basic gameplay by such a measure.
-
the lack of equal sided furballs
This never enters into my thinking while playing or pondering Aces High.
-
Hey batfink I just submitted a film for the topic "Films Needed" that shows you upping at a vulched field in a situation you describe here. Maybe you'll be in one of HiTechs promo films. :D
I remember having the puffy ack at fields. I like what you're asking but maybe ack not quite as strong as the current cv ack.
That wasn't me, that was batwing. Nice choice of plane btw :D
-
Il2 in f3 was better than A20 for this job and more fun
I like the Il-2 as well, and have used it that for the role, as you say (except that I like in-cockpit view over f3). It is great fun to blast a hoing vulcher in the face with those cannons! :D I love the A-20, though. Somehow, the A-20 and I are a good fit.
-
With 50 people in the arena, the center 6x6 sectors of OZkansas would be ideal for them to accomplish everything from tank commander camping matches, furballing, milk running, and getting bombers around the map to do whatever. It's the design of the space and structures in it that matters as you shrink the space. Not a lot different than insuring novelty when designing wild animal enclosures for predators.
The AvA has had over the years magical nights on very tiny maps with 6 players doing everything from furballing to trying base sneeks with GV. The small scale of distance and ability to get at each other made the action for 6 willing to keep upping in planes and GV's as fun as a larger number in the MA. Perspective about this game takes time, like over a decade playing the game non-stop watching it's cycles. Many of the complaints against reducing the scale or forcing people closer at each other is short sighted and self serving to a comfort zone perspective. Not to addressing answers for everyone. Hitech in the past has simply dropped the hammer on us and changed everything over night.
Many don't just want to get at each other and fight or we would be up to our kesters in SOB's scalping each other like rabid muppets. (Pareto principle of 80\20)
They want a long setup period to look for the right moment to strike and get home to tower their success. What we call dweebish behavior, sneeking around, even strategy in the MA is really wanting to survive to claim success. Change hurts that and forces many to expend the effort to adjust and find a new comfort strategy to their success. That means time outside of their comfort zone adapting, when they would rather be spending their limited playing time making themselves happy visa their well oiled happiness formulas.
Untill the economy changes and or Hitech and Co. discover the secret to advertisements that hypnotize new customers into handing over their credit card numbers. We have an issue of player density to universe scale unless this game is really about hiding from each other. Hoarding a field and vulching people has a high probability of not getting you scalped by a rabid muppet. The Pareto principle of 80\20 predicts it ain't going away any time soon no matter how many ack you place on a field. The unintended consequence is the 80% will adapt and find an even dweebier way to institute it to make themselves feel safe and land kills. Then the 20% will be back in this forum complaining about them and trying to talk Hitech into adding one more function to the game to control their behavior regardless of the unintended consequences.
The 20% always wants to control the 80% by limiting their actions visa an external force while justifying it from their superior perspective of the same universe.
-
-1 to the return of base puffy ACK please.
-
Same here, -1 on puffy ack.