Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Traveler on December 22, 2013, 09:23:38 AM
-
I saw this in another thread, I thought it warrants discussion:
YES.
And it would only take one simple game mechanic to do that: Aircraft Basing Limits. Once the number of aircraft in flight from a base hits the limit, additional aircraft can't launch from that field.
It could be scale-able based on arena pop, so that it isn't quite as limiting when large numbers are in the arena. It could vary by the size of the field, making large airfields more valuable/useful (something that doesn't matter strategically now). It could have a timer before the loss of a plane is deducted from the "in flight number", meaning the first lemmings to die can't just re-up immediately. This might make survival more important and give an incentive to defenders to try to attack attackers. (Make this exclusive of bails without damage, to avoid abuse.)
There are lots of advantages to this as I see it: spreading out the fight, giving defenders a viable chance at defense, and most importantly placing importance on staying alive instead of augering into a hanger, as losing an aircraft has an impact on your operations.
Implementing something like this would spread out the fights some and incentivize surviving vs. suicide/kamikaze/bombnbail type play.
<S>
I like this idea and would love to see it in play. I’ve always thought strange that one could up any type of aircraft from any side field with very few restrictions, The 163 is the only aircraft that has such restrictions and is limited to certain bases. But even with that restriction, an endless number of 163’s cold be upped from those fields.
I had always wanted to see field limits. How many aircraft and type of aircraft could be upped at a time from a field based on field size.
Small airfields should be limited to fighters, medium fields a mix of fighters and medium bombers. Large airfields would have fighters, medium bombers and the big stuff, B24, Lancaster, B29 and B17’s.
The airfield runway lengths would have one small runway on a Small airfield, perhaps dirt, no more than 1800 feet of runways, Medium would have 2500 foot runways and the large fields 4000 feet of runway.
A limit on the number of aircraft that can originate from any one airfield and perhaps this could be tied to the strats.
I know this needs more work , but I think it’s an idea that should be discussed. I can see where it would add a new game dynamic and should increase the number of fights it doesn’t eliminate the horde, but it does require them to spread out and take a new approach to rolling fields.
It also adds a more historic limit to game play.
-
HTC has never been about limiting anything. If it restricts game play they seem to have a hard time messing with it. I agree that something along these lines may help with the hordes. Calling it "historical" wouldn't be enough to push it through. This has always been a game that uses WWII equipment and was never meant to replicate history or WWII.
-
HTC has never been about limiting anything. If it restricts game play they seem to have a hard time messing with it. I agree that something along these lines may help with the hordes. Calling it "historical" wouldn't be enough to push it through. This has always been a game that uses WWII equipment and was never meant to replicate history or WWII.
I disagree, HTC made major changes to game play, a few years back, they wanted to set an order to how fields could be captured. Or don't you remember that? I was just trying to be accurate and it is historical fact. Only certain aircraft operated out of certain fields. While I would think that any field could refuel an aircraft that could take off out of it once refueled. That Bomber operations operated out of fields that were close to ammo depots that fighters operated out of small airfields with very short runways that bombers could never have operated out of. That is just historical fact and may be a nice game improvement/change . I just think it's a wish that merits discussion with or without your endorsement.
-
I just think it's a wish that merits discussion with or without your endorsement.
Fugi is discussing this. As would I be if I mentioned the potential problem it could
cause for days/nights that had high populations in the arena (something I think most
of us would like to see more of/an increase in). Imagine logging on to find an arena full
of players and, due to plane limitation/restriction, all that was left for you to fly were
Storches from a rear field.
-
When you say "A limit on the number of aircraft that can originate from any one airfield" are you thinking in terms of how many aircraft can lift from that field per time unit or how many aircraft can be spawned and active from that airfield at a given moment?
In the first you could say a small airfield can only launch 24 fighters per hour.
In the second you could say that a small airfield can only support 12 fighters in the air at a time, but the moment one of those is destroyed it can launch a new one.
Which direction did you envision?
-
I disagree, HTC made major changes to game play, a few years back, they wanted to set an order to how fields could be captured. Or don't you remember that? I was just trying to be accurate and it is historical fact. Only certain aircraft operated out of certain fields. While I would think that any field could refuel an aircraft that could take off out of it once refueled. That Bomber operations operated out of fields that were close to ammo depots that fighters operated out of small airfields with very short runways that bombers could never have operated out of. That is just historical fact and may be a nice game improvement/change . I just think it's a wish that merits discussion with or without your endorsement.
Yes I do remember that move and it lasted what a month, maybe two? The reason was it was too restrictive and made game play predictable. Everyone knew where the next attack would be.
If you don't want people to discuss.... or share their opinion.... like I did why bother posting it here? Send an email to HTC and be done with it. Don't take everything so personally. You'll never get any good discussions going with that attitude. For every "pro" to your idea, people are going to come up with a half dozen "cons", but that is what a discussion is. Learn to live with it.
-
There is no honest solution to the horde. This Idea wont work for several reasons.
-
I like the idea of limiting how many planes a field can support. Once a plane is down an opening is created for someone to launch.
Furthermore I like the idea of that number differing for different types of fields (i.e. small, medium and large with each supporting respectively higher numbers of aircraft) and limiting aircraft types at different size fields (i.e. fighter/attack and light bombers available at all fields, medium bombers at medium and large firlds and heavy bombers only avaialble at large airfields).
Finally, I'd like to see the addition of grass airstrips with only pure fighters available and with an infrastructure of a single fuel truck and a pilot/crew barracks and nothing else.
-
Yes I do remember that move and it lasted what a month, maybe two? The reason was it was too restrictive and made game play predictable. Everyone knew where the next attack would be.
If you don't want people to discuss.... or share their opinion.... like I did why bother posting it here? Send an email to HTC and be done with it. Don't take everything so personally. You'll never get any good discussions going with that attitude. For every "pro" to your idea, people are going to come up with a half dozen "cons", but that is what a discussion is. Learn to live with it.
I didn't read anything in your first response that encouraged discussion.
-
I didn't read anything in your first response that encouraged discussion.
Sometimes discussion doesn't involve agreement nor appeasement. People may
disagree with an idea in the midst of discussing it, even at the start.
Funny how that works.
-
Fugi is discussing this. As would I be if I mentioned the potential problem it could
cause for days/nights that had high populations in the arena (something I think most
of us would like to see more of/an increase in). Imagine logging on to find an arena full
of players and, due to plane limitation/restriction, all that was left for you to fly were
Storches from a rear field.
I may not have described the concept correctly, here is an example: Saturday evening prime time 500 gamers in the late war arena, it's a small map with just 26 airfields on each side, lets say that only 30 aircraft were allowed to up from any one field 26X30 = 780 available aircraft per side. for a total of 160 pilots per side. I'm just saying that all 780 can't take off from the same field. get it?
-
Sometimes discussion doesn't involve agreement nor appeasement. People may
disagree with an idea in the midst of discussing it, even at the start.
Funny how that works.
I didn't see where he was discussing the subject of airfield limitations.
-
I may not have described the concept correctly, here is an example: Saturday evening prime time 500 gamers in the late war arena, it's a small map with just 26 airfields on each side, lets say that only 30 aircraft were allowed to up from any one field 26X30 = 780 available aircraft per side. for a total of 160 pilots per side. I'm just saying that all 780 can't take off from the same field. get it?
Oh, I get the concept. When you log on as the 780th player and you have to up from the furthest field to the rear of the fight in a Storch then the idea appears to lose some merit. Get it? :) :cheers:
I didn't see where he was discussing the subject of airfield limitations.
You didn't see him hopping aboard the yes-train. He certainly discussed whether the idea held merit, in his opinion.
Wish discussion isn't all about how great the idea is. It can well be why it's not that great an idea.
HTC has never been about limiting anything. If it restricts game play they seem to have a hard time messing with it. I agree that something along these lines may help with the hordes. Calling it "historical" wouldn't be enough to push it through. This has always been a game that uses WWII equipment and was never meant to replicate history or WWII.
-
I would like to add that if you are looking for more of an historical feel then events may be more to your liking. :salute :cheers:
-
Oh, I get the concept. When you log on as the 780th player and you have to up from the furthest field to the rear of the fight in a Storch then the idea appears to lose some merit. Get it? :) :cheers:
You didn't see him hopping aboard the yes-train. He certainly discussed whether the idea held merit, in his opinion.
Wish discussion isn't all about how great the idea is. It can well be why it's not that great an idea.
No, it appears that you don't get it. any player can select any aircraft the same way they do now and right now, each side is limited for the three sides to 600 in the arena, Not sure why you are locked in on 780, what I said was that for a small map if each field was limited to 30 aircraft being able to launch from that field, with 26 fields on a small map that would b 780 aircraft, they could all be 262's if the players wanted all to select 262. why you think they are limited to a storch tells me that you don't understand. and I still don't see in his first reply where he discussed the concept. Yes, it's new, it's different then the way it's been, perhaps that might help, because clearly for many the way it is , isn't working. We are losing players. Just trying to help, buy suggesting something new.
-
I would like to add that if you are looking for more of an historical feel then events may be more to your liking. :salute :cheers:
no I prefer to fly with my squad and we fly in the MA.
-
no...Aces High is NOT WW2...Aces High is not trying replicate WW2....
seems pretty simple...
I got on idea....you want to play a WW2 game....go play WW2 online....stop trying to change Aces High into a WW2 game.
THAT'S a reply that isn't open for discussion.
-
No, it appears that you don't get it. any player can select any aircraft the same way they do now and right now, each side is limited for the three sides to 600 in the arena, Not sure why you are locked in on 780, what I said was that for a small map if each field was limited to 30 aircraft being able to launch from that field, with 26 fields on a small map that would b 780 aircraft, they could all be 262's if the players wanted all to select 262. why you think they are limited to a storch tells me that you don't understand. and I still don't see in his first reply where he discussed the concept. Yes, it's new, it's different then the way it's been, perhaps that might help, because clearly for many the way it is , isn't working. We are losing players. Just trying to help, buy suggesting something new.
780 was your estimate of player limitation. Regarding the Storch ... whether it's that or a 262 ...
all the other fields are at capacity. Player 780 is now stuck at the rear-most field. Player 200 is
stuck at a field closer but still out of the fight. Both players (and possibly all between) are not
happy (and it's due to a game programming limitation). My opinion (as well as some others, it
seems) is that any idea that involves limiting players (short of perks to keep over-population
of uber-rides down) is not really a good one. Even with airfield 'wait-listing' you are basically
keeping a player (or several players) out of the fight until their number comes up (and by then,
well, the fight's probably over).
If your idea is to keep player population down to 60 per side or less ... then it would accomplish
exactly that.
-
no I prefer to fly with my squad and we fly in the MA.
Then I suggest not fixating on history or limitations.
P.S. There are squads that do both. ;)
-
Not a good idea even though i the idea it will only cause problems
-
Arlo,
Seems more like the limitations of WT and IL2 to create that ww2 style immersion between co equal matched sides. Problem is, how we fight is closer to the real war than WT or IL2, which are really giving you ww2 props and stages on which to perform 32 max a side squad duels. HTC provides that opportunity freely if the OP and supporters want to go to the DA, custom arena, AvA or FSO, Snap Shots and Special Events.
Hitech has given them everything short of his social security number to keep them happy.
The first time HTC looks like they are trying to duplicate the game play mechanics of either WT or IL2 in their signature arena the MA, HTC will become a laughing stock and go out of business. HTC's unique position in the industry is it's no rules, unlimited game play, 24x7 Main Arena. The current low MA numbers is more related to subsequent world economic events from the housing bubble crash than anything else.
Everyone is always free to talk to the AvA CM's about ideas like this to try and add to the WW2 style immersion value of the AvA. And makes a good beta test for how players might respond if it were ported to the MA. I think over the last decade Hitech has ported a few of the CT\AvA ideas to the MA. Who da thunk it no one at HTC ever thought: If you limit access to rides, you could force players to queue up around the map. And gratefully up from other bases farther away and have lots of gentile little fights all over the map. How IL2 and WT ish of a concept.
Every body with a goose down pillow thinks that qualifies them to tell Hitech how to care for his golden goose, when he's the only goose farmer in the discussion. But, hey, they slept on a goose down pillow last night. Or flew IL2 or WT and came back here thinking AH would become The flight simm utopia of simms if Hitech would just......................... ...
Arlo how long have you and I been watching this repeat itself now??
-
Bustr is right. One of the important things that makes AH unique is that there is nothing to speak of between players and all resources of the game. I think it is a mistake to monkey with it more than the eny thing. There are several other arenas that are not as popular as LW and I think if you put up a LW restricted aircraft per field alongside the LW as is you would see a marked preference for the latter.
-
I still like my idea of a method to add combat to the game without taking anything away from players who want to keep doing what they are doing.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325800.0.html
I was talking to a friend and one of the things he didn't like about Aces High (he subscribed for about three months back in 2001) was the difficulty in finding a fight. I was thinking about another MMO we play, World of Warcraft (sue me, but that is the one my RL friends play), and I thought that perhaps the daily quest idea could be transposed to Aces High. They would not be structured like a player generated mission, but rather free form, bring your own tools and meet the requirement to get the reward. The reward could be some score bonus, perk bonus or both, but nothing so high as to require participation by those disinclined.
The way I envision this would be system generated "quest" missions every one or two hours, whatever is balanced. There would be a equal number of missions for each nation. For example:
Bishops: Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A2 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A2 for an hour)
Bishops: Take A3 (Take field A3 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Bishops: Defend A4 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A4 for an hour)
Bishops: Attack Rook City (Bomb Rook city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Bishops: Defend Bishop City (Prevent the Knights from reducing Bishop City below 25% for an hour)
Knights: Take A5 (Take field A5 from the Rooks within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A6 (Prevent the Rooks from taking field A6 for an hour)
Knights: Take A4 (Take field A4 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Knights: Defend A3 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A3 for an hour)
Knights: Attack Bishop City (Bomb Bishop City to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Knights: Defend Knight City (Prevent the Rooks from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
Rooks: Take A2 (Take field A2 from the Bishops within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A1 (Prevent the Bishops from taking field A1 for an hour)
Rooks: Take A6 (Take field A6 from the Knights within 1 hour)
Rooks: Defend A5 (Prevent the Knights from taking field A5 for an hour)
Rooks: Attack Knight City (Bomb Knight city to below 25% within one hour {could even stipulate that the bombs had to be dropped from above 15,000ft or so})
Rooks: Defend Rook City (Prevent the Bishops from reducing Knight City below 25% for an hour)
As you can see, these mission quests are all pointed at another mission quest to encourage combat.
How would it work in gameplay? While in the tower you would accept the mission you wanted to do, for example as a Bishop you could take "Take A1 (Take field A1 from the Rooks within 1 hour)". Once the Mission Quest timer began (there might be a clock counting down to the mission start and then counting up until the time ran out) you would launch as normal, selecting your airplane or vehicle, and heading off for A1 to participate in the Bishop attempt to take it. There would be no mass launching by the computer as in a player generated mission. To determine if you were eligible for completing the Mission Quest and getting the score/perk reward the program would need to do a few spot checks to make sure you were participating in A1's sector and inflicting damage on A1 or A1's defenders.
The goal of this idea is not to mandate new behavior for all players, but rather to encourage a meeting of opposing forces to fight it out for something. Players would be free to participate or not even without accepting the Mission Quest. They would be free to use whatever airplane, vehicle or boat they wanted in order to participate, though a tank might well fail to score a City defense mission due to not damaging the attackers. There should not be too many Mission Quests per iteration as it wouldn't be good to dilute the players interested in participating too much.
Concern:
A mechanism needs to be in place to discourage hordes. This could be done via the ENY system reducing the rewards based on side balance, enough of an imbalance and the rewards would be zeroed out.
-
Arlo how long have you and I been watching this repeat itself now??
Ask me again in another 10 years. :D
-
780 was your estimate of player limitation. Regarding the Storch ... whether it's that or a 262 ...
all the other fields are at capacity. Player 780 is now stuck at the rear-most field. Player 200 is
stuck at a field closer but still out of the fight. Both players (and possibly all between) are not
happy (and it's due to a game programming limitation). My opinion (as well as some others, it
seems) is that any idea that involves limiting players (short of perks to keep over-population
of uber-rides down) is not really a good one. Even with airfield 'wait-listing' you are basically
keeping a player (or several players) out of the fight until their number comes up (and by then,
well, the fight's probably over).
If your idea is to keep player population down to 60 per side or less ... then it would accomplish
exactly that.
no, you still don't get it, You keep talking about player 780, HTC already has a limitation , player 600 through 780 never get into the game. right now there is a limitation of a total of 600 players that could be 599 Bish and one rook with no knights or how ever you want to break it down. My example demonstrates that even at max that there are enough aircraft for the players choice available, No limitations on aircraft. There would be no one that couldn't fly their ride. My only wish is and it's a wish that this World War II combat flight sim be more true to actual WWII combat. And yes, if there are field departure limitations some people would have to fly from rear area fields. Just like they did in WWII. I never played WT or IL2 my only experience is AW and from AW to AH.
-
And yes, if there are field departure limitations some people would have to fly from rear area fields.
You are free to add 10 minutes to your time to reach the fight if you like, but forcing others to do so isn't acceptable. Most of us are here for the fight, not the flight to the fight and making us spend more getting to the fight is just making us waste our time.
-
no...Aces High is NOT WW2...Aces High is not trying replicate WW2....
seems pretty simple...
I got on idea....you want to play a WW2 game....go play WW2 online....stop trying to change Aces High into a WW2 game.
THAT'S a reply that isn't open for discussion.
HTC would disagree with you, look at their welcome page, according to them, Aces High is "the best WWII and WWI combat experience on line."
-
No, it appears that you don't get it. any player can select any aircraft the same way they do now and right now, each side is limited for the three sides to 600 in the arena, Not sure why you are locked in on 780, what I said was that for a small map if each field was limited to 30 aircraft being able to launch from that field, with 26 fields on a small map that would b 780 aircraft, they could all be 262's if the players wanted all to select 262. why you think they are limited to a storch tells me that you don't understand. and I still don't see in his first reply where he discussed the concept. Yes, it's new, it's different then the way it's been, perhaps that might help, because clearly for many the way it is , isn't working. We are losing players. Just trying to help, buy suggesting something new.
Appreciate the suggest, but traveler you keep stating what you "WISH" with out thinking of all the moving parts of what you wish. You stated a simple example, what happens when the country started with 26 fields but now is down to 13. What happens when one side ups from 3 fields with 78 planes to go attack another, but now the field being attacked can only up 26 planes. Your goal is to "Reduce" the horde, but you have not shown in any way that it would really do that. What happens when I plane a mission for 26 planes from a field, and just before we launch 2 planers take off from the field. How much knashing of teach to fellow country men will there be when 10 players are driving a long tank mission for a suprise attack and another squad wants to fly from the same field.
Traveler, you are doing a very natural thing, you view your idea from what you want to happen. But you have not stated or given a lot of thought to how you would react to the system when you can not fly from a field your friends are flying from. You are telling the story/idea only from a perspective how it will effect /limit everyone else, and not the way it could detrimentally effect you. You are thinking all tactics will stay as they currently are, and that people will not find ways to work around your limitations.
There are a few know strategies about battle, first if your goal is to win, it is best to hit them where they aint.
2nd if you can't hit them where they ain't have over whelming superiority.
While these ideas win battles they do not always produce the most fun in a game. But when ever one try to limit the stated strategies ,one must put a lot of thought into how the posted strategies will be used in the new system. Because the strategies will not go away, they will merely adapt to the new system
also
no...Aces High is NOT WW2...Aces High is not trying replicate WW2....
is exactly what aces high main arena play does, it tries to accurately produce a simulation of WWII equipment. And does not try to simulate wwii. WWII was already been fought. We simply make a game that use wwii equipment.
As I have stated many times. A game is meant to be fun and fair, war is neither.
HiTech
-
Appreciate the suggest, but traveler you keep stating what you "WISH" with out thinking of all the moving parts of what you wish. You stated a simple example, what happens when the country started with 26 fields but now is down to 13. What happens when one side ups from 3 fields with 78 planes to go attack another, but now the field being attacked can only up 26 planes. Your goal is to "Reduce" the horde, but you have not shown in any way that it would really do that. What happens when I plane a mission for 26 planes from a field, and just before we launch 2 planers take off from the field. How much knashing of teach to fellow country men will there be when 10 players are driving a long tank mission for a suprise attack and another squad wants to fly from the same field.
Traveler, you are doing a very natural thing, you view your idea from what you want to happen. But you have not stated or given a lot of thought to how you would react to the system when you can not fly from a field your friends are flying from. You are telling the story/idea only from a perspective how it will effect /limit everyone else, and not the way it could detrimentally effect you. You are thinking all tactics will stay as they currently are, and that people will not find ways to work around your limitations.
There are a few know strategies about battle, first if your goal is to win, it is best to hit them where they aint.
2nd if you can't hit them where they ain't have over whelming superiority.
While these ideas win battles they do not always produce the most fun in a game. But when ever one try to limit the stated strategies ,one must put a lot of thought into how the posted strategies will be used in the new system. Because the strategies will not go away, they will merely adapt to the new system
also is exactly what aces high main arena play does, it tries to accurately produce a simulation of WWII equipment. And does not try to simulate wwii. WWII was already been fought. We simply make a game that use wwii equipment.
As I have stated many times. A game is meant to be fun and fair, war is neither.
HiTech
Hitech, you are right, I only made the wish and offered it up for discussions. I didn't realize that I had to be not only the customer making a wish but also a game designer and was responsible for total develop of all aspects of the wish. I haven't see that request stated for any of the wishes that I've ever read on this BBS. If you want me to do a deep dive and complete every detail of the necessary design covering all aspects of my suggestion I'd be happy to do that, I'd also expect to be compensated for any part of that design that HTC chose to use. Let me if you want me to get started.
-
So by forcing players to use fields farther from the fight in order to fly, you improve the player
base how exactly? Other than letting the cosmonauts grab yet a little more alt of course.
-
So by forcing players to use fields farther from the fight in order to fly, you improve the player
base how exactly? Other than letting the cosmonauts grab yet a little more alt of course.
The MA can stay as it is, I'd suggest that these would be in a separate arena. perhaps just two sides not AvA, not DA, but like the MA for plane sets but with historical airfield limitations. With just two sides I'd think that would improve the number of fights.
I think a more historical arena would draw more interest than the WWI arena draws.
-
no, you still don't get it, You keep talking about player 780, HTC already has a limitation , player 600 through 780 never get into the game. right now there is a limitation of a total of 600 players that could be 599 Bish and one rook with no knights or how ever you want to break it down. My example demonstrates that even at max that there are enough aircraft for the players choice available, No limitations on aircraft. There would be no one that couldn't fly their ride. My only wish is and it's a wish that this World War II combat flight sim be more true to actual WWII combat. And yes, if there are field departure limitations some people would have to fly from rear area fields. Just like they did in WWII. I never played WT or IL2 my only experience is AW and from AW to AH.
And you're not getting me. I'm not fixating on the plane types, you are. (That should
have been evident from my posting that it didn't matter if the players had nothing but
Storches or everything up to 262s available). I'm saying your idea pushes players from
the fight. You admit as much. That's the bad in the bad idea I'm talking about.
Now you are saying a separate arena that's not the AvA yet is two-sided and historical but
allows all aircraft to up (how in the world does that work?) is the answer.
My experience is AW and AH primarily, myself. I flew a little WB v.2xxx. I took a look
at WWIIOL and WT. I don't think I ever even asked what your online flight sim experiences
were.
-
If you want me to do a deep dive and complete every detail of the necessary design covering
all aspects of my suggestion I'd be happy to do that, I'd also expect to be compensated for any
part of that design that HTC chose to use. Let me if you want me to get started.
I don't think HT was offering you a job when he posted. :headscratch:
-
I think a more historical arena would draw more interest than the WWI arena draws.
that's not saying much.
-
I think a more historical arena would draw more interest than the WWI arena draws.
The AvA is way more historical than any other main arena in AH, with some setups not only more realistic, but also balanced.
Now look at the AvA attendace compared to WWI arena...(in the current tour, there's 47 kills in AvA vs 1392 kills in WWI so far. Last tour was even worse for the AvA) ;)
-
The MA can stay as it is, I'd suggest that these would be in a separate arena. perhaps just two sides not AvA, not DA, but like the MA for plane sets but with historical airfield limitations. With just two sides I'd think that would improve the number of fights.
I think a more historical arena would draw more interest than the WWI arena draws.
so not the ava but the a new ava, got it. /86 thread.
-
The AvA is way more historical than any other main arena in AH, with some setups not only more realistic, but also balanced.
Now look at the AvA attendace compared to WWI arena...(in the current tour, there's 47 kills in AvA vs 1392 kills in WWI so far. Last tour was even worse for the AvA) ;)
Addendance of the AvA (IIRC it was called combat theater when it launched) has always been much lower than MA of course but the current basically non-existent addendance IMO is hardly only based on historical planesets.
-
Hitech, you are right, I only made the wish and offered it up for discussions. I didn't realize that I had to be not only the customer making a wish but also a game designer and was responsible for total develop of all aspects of the wish. I haven't see that request stated for any of the wishes that I've ever read on this BBS. If you want me to do a deep dive and complete every detail of the necessary design covering all aspects of my suggestion I'd be happy to do that, I'd also expect to be compensated for any part of that design that HTC chose to use. Let me if you want me to get started.
Make up your mind!!!
One minute you want discussion, the next, once people bring up other points INCLUDING Hitech you complain about the comments and drop back into your "sarcastic" mode. :rolleyes:
-
Appreciate the suggest, but traveler you keep stating what you "WISH" with out thinking of all the moving parts of what you wish. You stated a simple example, what happens when the country started with 26 fields but now is down to 13. What happens when one side ups from 3 fields with 78 planes to go attack another, but now the field being attacked can only up 26 planes. Your goal is to "Reduce" the horde, but you have not shown in any way that it would really do that. What happens when I plane a mission for 26 planes from a field, and just before we launch 2 planers take off from the field. How much knashing of teach to fellow country men will there be when 10 players are driving a long tank mission for a suprise attack and another squad wants to fly from the same field.
Traveler, you are doing a very natural thing, you view your idea from what you want to happen. But you have not stated or given a lot of thought to how you would react to the system when you can not fly from a field your friends are flying from. You are telling the story/idea only from a perspective how it will effect /limit everyone else, and not the way it could detrimentally effect you. You are thinking all tactics will stay as they currently are, and that people will not find ways to work around your limitations.
There are a few know strategies about battle, first if your goal is to win, it is best to hit them where they aint.
2nd if you can't hit them where they ain't have over whelming superiority.
While these ideas win battles they do not always produce the most fun in a game. But when ever one try to limit the stated strategies ,one must put a lot of thought into how the posted strategies will be used in the new system. Because the strategies will not go away, they will merely adapt to the new system
also is exactly what aces high main arena play does, it tries to accurately produce a simulation of WWII equipment. And does not try to simulate wwii. WWII was already been fought. We simply make a game that use wwii equipment.
As I have stated many times. A game is meant to be fun and fair, war is neither.
HiTech
personally....yes I have played all the flight/combat sims/WW2 games there are......you guys are head and shoulders above the rest as far as game development/dynamics and implication goes.....
now the only thing that I personally don't like is the 12 hr rule......
I do have faith that you know what you are doing.....but no one is perfect and every now and then we make a boo boo......and damn if that 12 hr rule isn't that. :o
no matter what though Aces High is great I :salute you for your efforts...you and those you have working for you :aok
-
Make up your mind!!!
One minute you want discussion, the next, once people bring up other points INCLUDING Hitech you complain about the comments and drop back into your "sarcastic" mode. :rolleyes:
Some people seem to think "disussion" is supposed to be about how great their idea is and how soon it should be implemented.
Traveler- you may have never seen this wish but it comes up at least monthly. Sorry.
Wiley.
-
no...Aces High is NOT WW2...Aces High is not trying replicate WW2....
seems pretty simple...
I got on idea....you want to play a WW2 game....go play WW2 online....stop trying to change Aces High into a WW2 game.
THAT'S a reply that isn't open for discussion.
Do you really want to suggest to anyone in the player base to leave AH for a different game?
-
Do you really want to suggest to anyone in the player base to leave AH for a different game?
if they continuously try to make AH into WW2 online............yes........ .....there are other games that do that...it is true, they suk compared to Aces High......
usually my first suggestion would be to join a squad and partake in FSO.....or AVA or scenarios......bunch of events that try to mimic WW2 and still be "fair" its quite fun once a week....but everyday in the MA...NO THANK YOU.
-
if they continuously try to make AH into WW2 online............yes........ .....there are other games that do that...it is true, they suk compared to Aces High......
usually my first suggestion would be to join a squad and partake in FSO.....or AVA or scenarios......bunch of events that try to mimic WW2 and still be "fair" its quite fun once a week....but everyday in the MA...NO THANK YOU.
No one ever said that this wish had to be implemented in the MA . Creation in a seperate arena.
-
No one ever said that this wish had to be implemented in the MA . Creation in a seperate arena.
AHII has a lot of arenas. Each one was created to fulfill a function that the original MA could not.
Unless we add something like a 'Korean War arena' or '1946 what-if arena' (odd small both) the
redundancy weighs heavily against the effort.
-
AHII has a lot of arenas. Each one was created to fulfill a function that the original MA could not.
Unless we add something like a 'Korean War arena' or '1946 what-if arena' (odd small both) the
redundancy weighs heavily against the effort.
But that's not your choice now isit?
-
But that's not your choice now isit?
Maybe not, but it IS his opinion.
The AvA arena can do everything you have asked and some of it has been tried. They even had a "war" for one setup with base capture and such being a big part of the setup. Did you and your squad participate?
The problem is like Hitech stated that in the MA you have to look at ALL aspects of an idea. In this case many wouldn't like to play this way. Making it for another arena is all fine and dandy, but if you can't get people in there..... like Axis vs Allies arena (which seems to be the WWII setup your looking for), the idea doesn't get rolling much either.
-
No one ever said that this wish had to be implemented in the MA . Creation in a seperate arena.
So if I got that right (correct me if I'm not) it would be just like the standard MA, but with airfield limitations implemented? How would you make players leave the old MA for a more limited arena? I doubt very much that you would ever get enough participants for that arena to even trigger the field upper # limiter at all... unless you force them to go there with arena caps.
-
Maybe not, but it IS his opinion.
The AvA arena can do everything you have asked and some of it has been tried. They even had a "war" for one setup with base capture and such being a big part of the setup. Did you and your squad participate?
The problem is like Hitech stated that in the MA you have to look at ALL aspects of an idea. In this case many wouldn't like to play this way. Making it for another arena is all fine and dandy, but if you can't get people in there..... like Axis vs Allies arena (which seems to be the WWII setup your looking for), the idea doesn't get rolling much either.
Ava has limitations on plane sets.
-
Ava has limitations on plane sets.
True, but that can be adjusted. The trick will be making the "idea" popular enough to get people in there.
-
Ava has limitations on plane sets.
traveler quit while you are ahead. these guys have been around since aw and the idea that you have proposed has been discussed to death in here every month or so. a new arena will be good for one thing and one thing only, perk farming just like ew and mw is used by most players who go there
semp
-
traveler quit while you are ahead. these guys have been around since aw and the idea that you have proposed has been discussed to death in here every month or so. a new arena will be good for one thing and one thing only, perk farming just like ew and mw is used by most players who go there
semp
I too have been here since AW, it has nothing to do with, and I'm not trying to get ahead or over anybody, I 'm just offering a wish. Would love to see an arena with realistic weather, wind, ceilings and the like. A friend of mine before his passing, viewed the B17, now Walter was a B17 gunner, he laughed at B17 model , he wondered where the turbulence was, he said that he didn, t remember the B17 as a gun platform being that stable. I can even up B17's now and hit target, no calabration needed, they dummed it down so much. It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but today not so much.
-
I too have been here since AW, it has nothing to do with, and I'm not trying to get ahead or over anybody, I 'm just offering a wish. Would love to see an arena with realistic weather, wind, ceilings and the like. A friend of mine before his passing, viewed the B17, now Walter was a B17 gunner, he laughed at B17 model , he wondered where the turbulence was, he said that he didn, t remember the B17 as a gun platform being that stable. I can even up B17's now and hit target, no calabration needed, they dummed it down so much. It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but today not so much.
why not try a custom arena? as for the b17 being dumb down well would you prefer people up several hundred b17's to hit the same target?
would you rather have the lancs up only at night on clear long nights?
have all planes up with 100% fuel plus extra tanks too?
if you get shot down over enemy territory you spend the remaining of the war in a pow camp?
calibrate guns just like it was in ww2? and then every time again with a new airplane.
the list of things that we have that didnt happen in ww2 is endless. it all has been "dumb down" (according to you) for the sake of gameplay. or do you really expected ww2 pilots to up a b17 on their first time at the controls with no training?
semp
-
why not try a custom arena? as for the b17 being dumb down well would you prefer people up several hundred b17's to hit the same target?
Because that is not my wish. But I'd love to see a player base that would have the numbers to support that.
would you rather have the lancs up only at night on clear long nights?
we used to have night but not any more, and again that is not part of my wish
have all planes up with 100% fuel plus extra tanks too?again not part of my wish
if you get shot down over enemy territory you spend the remaining of the war in a pow camp?not part of my wish is it what you would to see?
calibrate guns just like it was in ww2? and then every time again with a new airplane.don't you [ /color]
the list of things that we have that didnt happen in ww2 is endless. it all has been "dumb down" (according to you) for the sake of gameplay. or do you really expected ww2 pilots to up a b17 on their first time at the controls with no training?
semp
-
It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but today not so much.
as for the b17 being too stable.. I flew on one a few years ago.. we never got above 1500 ft or so on a sunny day and it was quite stable, very light chop, people were able to walk around quite easily. it would only have gotten smoother the higher we went.
-
as for the b17 being too stable.. I flew on one a few years ago.. we never got above 1500 ft or so on a sunny day and it was quite stable, very light chop, people were able to walk around quite easily. it would only have gotten smoother the higher we went.
I have no idea, except my friend did his 25 and flew in all the gun positions, my guess would be that there is a big difference between going for a ride and trying to get a bead on a 109 or 190 when your life was on the line. His opinion was based on his experience over Germany, where your experience was based on a 20 minute pleasure flight.
-
I have no idea, except my friend did his 25 and flew in all the gun positions, my guess would be that there is a big difference between going for a ride and trying to get a bead on a 109 or 190 when your life was on the line. His opinion was based on his experience over Germany, where your experience was based on a 20 minute pleasure flight.
why the plane would be bouncing around more at 15,000(?) than at 1500 is beyond me.
-
why the plane would be bouncing around more at 15,000(?) than at 1500 is beyond me.
Perhaps it was just him moving around trying to line up a shot, perhaps in actual combat the pilot is not holding it rock steady, I have no idea, but I'm inclined to take the experience of someone that is basing his opinion on 25 actual combat missions.
-
Perhaps it was just him moving around trying to line up a shot, perhaps in actual combat the pilot is not holding it rock steady, I have no idea, but I'm inclined to take the experience of someone that is basing his opinion on 25 actual combat missions.
I'm not gonna argue with 70 year old second hand anecdotes about b17 ride quality at altitude. all I can say is down low in thermals in the middle of summer it was pretty smooth..
nevertheless.. I don't get it.. you just want b17's to bounce around constantly even at high altitudes? why? to make it harder for them to defend themselves?
-
I would like to see HTC take a second approach and create a "Career" mode completely separate from the MA when you are on the arena selection screen, right under where you choose what arena, have a button that says "Career" ......you pick a country....and a position...IE Fighter Pilot..... Bomber Pilot....from there you go into a bunker that has links to hanger and such as would be needed..from the Bunker you will have training AI missions and Missions that are obviously progressively harder and more rewarding......the better you do in the mission the better the score IE perk points.....
after the tutorial missions you get online AI missions that are filled with live players...if the player count does not reach maximum it rolls using AI.....
similar to the WOWP setup...except for wait time...make it very short....
at any point you can change which country, but you will be like a day one noob and have to fly ALL the training missions over and start from scratch.
Leave the MAs as they are the (perks earned doing the missions in Career mode will be usable in the MA's)....add this type of game play........Aces High would be perfect.
In my Opinion :rofl
-
By 70 years past the actual events, he may have been remembering a composite of what really happened to him in ww2. 50 years ago when I lived in Pakistan, I was circled by two Yak 25 for about 10 minutes. I cannot remember what their markings looked like, if they were grey or sliver, and can only recall their engines sounded like they were cutting in and out rhythmically. I'm almost 60 now. I cannot even remember clearly what it was like as a child to ride in the family 58 Chevy which we had until 64. That was a lot of time riding back seat that I cannot recall clearly anymore except for highlights that had a momentary impact for whatever reason. Like the time my foot went through the rust spot in the back seat floor while we were traveling from San Antonio to Travis.
Hitech may be a tad light on the recoil bounce we experience from free gun positions. As for aircraft bounce during level flight. A lot of his missions, his bomber was probably bouncing around due to flack defenses and prop wash from other bombers. A single B17 or large 4 engine prop plane is pretty stable unless you are hitting clear air turbulence or in bad weather.
So has this now become a wish for realistic prop wash?
-
I'm not gonna argue with 70 year old second hand anecdotes about b17 ride quality at altitude. all I can say is down low in thermals in the middle of summer it was pretty smooth..
nevertheless.. I don't get it.. you just want b17's to bounce around constantly even at high altitudes? why? to make it harder for them to defend themselves?
I didn't say I wanted anything bouncing around, I said that a friend who actually was a B17 gunner remarked that he felt that he didn't remember the bird being as stable a gun platform.
-
Walter was a B17 gunner, he laughed at B17 model , he wondered where the turbulence was, he said that he didn, t remember the B17 as a gun platform being that stable. I can even up B17's now and hit target, no calabration needed, they dummed it down so much. It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but today not so much.
I still don't know what you mean by it being dumbed down or being better back whenever.. bomber gunning in the game has always been the same, as far as I know.. (??)
-
why the plane would be bouncing around more at 15,000(?) than at 1500 is beyond me.
I've been on plenty of commercial airliners that have been bouncing all over at 25-35K or whatever it is they fly at. It sounds like you just caught a calm day.
-
I've been on plenty of commercial airliners that have been bouncing all over at 25-35K or whatever it is they fly at. It sounds like you just caught a calm day.
Don't be silly.. in general, it's smoother up higher.
-
I have no idea, except my friend did his 25 and flew in all the gun positions, my guess would be that there is a big difference between going for a ride and trying to get a bead on a 109 or 190 when your life was on the line. His opinion was based on his experience over Germany, where your experience was based on a 20 minute pleasure flight.
Your guess is right on. I have a little over 300 hours in a B-17. Most of it in one of the pilot seats but also a fair amount of time in the nose, radio room, waist and tail. The B-17, like any airplane, is a smooth ride when the air is calm. Throw in some turbulence and the tail starts wagging around which would make it tuff on the waist gunners. (The wife was in the waist on a long leg and pee'd in a ziplock. As she was sealing the ziplock one of us bumped the rudder just enough to wiggle the tail, knocked her over with her flight suit still around her ankle, dumped the bag of yellow on herself --- interesting debrief after that flight. :rolleyes: Another occasion I was in the radio room as we did a ride for some paying pax. In the radio room with me were two WWII bomber vets and the handsomehunk up front decides to do a wingover. He did it gentle but even so both the old gents went to the floor when we got light over the top.)
Have a nervous pilot trying to maintain a tight formation and the ride is going to be rougher as he jockies the airplane around. Add some turbulence from the bomber groups ahead and it'll be even worse. Doing the Tico airshow we were following the B-24 with a couple B-25s behind us as we made racetracks with bomb bay open passes in front of the crowd, pyrotechnics going off under us as we passed. Mike worked his butt off that day with the climate induced turbulence from thermal activity combined with the wake of the B-24 and the occasional explosion under us. Moved us around quite a bit in the seats.
kvuo75, your ride was done without you having to wear fleece lined flying gear, bulky fleece boots and gloves or any armor. It's easy to do anything in t-shirt, shorts and running shoes. :D
-
colmbo, you are one of the few people I respect the knowledge of on these forums.
all I said was there typically would be less turbulence at higher altitudes.
traveler was saying the game is botched because it's too easy to hit fighters with guns from a B17 which makes no sense at all.
and yes, my 30 minute ride was done in shorts & tshirt weather, i just looked at a pic i took of cockpit we were cruising at 1900rpm and 27" :)
-
(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/7979/wu6n.jpg)
:aok
-
I retract my statement that it was easy to walk around.. it was actually funny to watch people walk around. it's still light-moderate chop tho, 1500 agl in mid summer sun..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcx89bz_8aY
-
I'm going back to the message that caught my attention in the thread.
Would love to see an arena with realistic weather, wind, ceilings and the like.
ceilings would force everything below the ceiling. no bombers would be able to operate above it, so nobody would have to operate above it.
A friend of mine before his passing, viewed the B17, now Walter was a B17 gunner, he laughed at B17 model , he wondered where the turbulence was, he said that he didn, t remember the B17 as a gun platform being that stable. I can even up B17's now and hit target, no calabration needed, they dummed it down so much. It's to bad was a great game in it's day, but today not so much.
yep, you just want easier to kill bombers.
-
colmbo, you are one of the few people I respect the knowledge of on these forums.
all I said was there typically would be less turbulence at higher altitudes.
traveler was saying the game is botched because it's too easy to hit fighters with guns from a B17 which makes no sense at all.
and yes, my 30 minute ride was done in shorts & tshirt weather, i just looked at a pic i took of cockpit we were cruising at 1900rpm and 27" :)
Please show me where I made that statment. What I did was relate what an actual B17 gunner with 25 missions over Germany said were his thoghts on the B17's as a gun platform.
-
I'm going back to the message that caught my attention in the thread.
ceilings would force everything below the ceiling. no bombers would be able to operate above it, so nobody would have to operate above it.
yep, you just want easier to kill bombers.
My wish is for realistic airfields. I'd love realistic weather. I'd rather have that than the realistic shadows we are getting.
-
My wish is for realistic airfields. I'd love realistic weather. I'd rather have that than the realistic shadows we are getting.
Watching a blizzard from the tower would be great fun.
-
Don't be silly.
I'm not being silly. I've logged thousands of hours in commercial airliners as a business passenger. One of the reasons they like you to remain seated with your seat belt on is turbulance, regardless of altitude.
What's silly is thinking that once above a certain altidude all turbulence ends just because one day you took a short, low altitude pleasure ride and it was calm.
-
Watching a blizzard from the tower would be great fun.
[/quotxe]
Than you stay in the MA, I'm asking for an historical arena that offers all plane sets to all sides, with realistic weather and airfield liminations. Do away with hangers for fighters, have thirty or fourty aircraft revetments spread around the field , that could be destroyed. It would be a change to the way the game is played. Make the airfield so it could be captured seperate from any near by towns.
My Dad told me that it was the weather over target that determined flight ops . For AH it would be more like the weather over England and France because our fights are seldom more than fifty miles away. But guys striking the HQ or strates are traveling over 150, or 200 miles to target could expect a different weather system.
-
Than you stay in the MA, I'm asking for an historical arena that offers all plane sets to all sides, with realistic weather and airfield liminations. Do away with hangers for fighters, have thirty or fourty aircraft revetments spread around the field , that could be destroyed. It would be a change to the way the game is played. Make the airfield so it could be captured seperate from any near by towns.
My Dad told me that it was the weather over target that determined flight ops . For AH it would be more like the weather over England and France because our fights are seldom more than fifty miles away. But guys striking the HQ or strates are traveling over 150, or 200 miles to target could expect a different weather system.
All plane sets on all sides is not an 'historical arena.'
-
All plane sets on all sides is not an 'historical arena.'
That's so everyone can fly what they wish.
-
I'm not being silly. I've logged thousands of hours in commercial airliners as a business passenger. One of the reasons they like you to remain seated with your seat belt on is turbulance, regardless of altitude.
What's silly is thinking that once above a certain altidude all turbulence ends just because one day you took a short, low altitude pleasure ride and it was calm.
I said as a rule of thumb the higher you go the smoother it gets. you know this. anyone who's flown more than an hour on an airliner knows this.
-
I said as a rule of thumb the higher you go the smoother it gets. you know this. anyone who's flown more than an hour on an airliner knows this.
I spent a number of years in the front office of a 727 for Eastern Airlines prior to it going bust, I flew the shuttle between kewr and kiad and kewr to kbos and you are just so wrong.
-
That's so everyone can fly what they wish.
Which .... is not historical. :aok
-
Which .... is not historical. :aok
But its in keeping with HTC not setting limits on anyone.
-
But its in keeping with HTC not setting limits on anyone.
Which is what you want to do.
(What do we call this dance, anyhow?)
-
Which is what you want to do.
(What do we call this dance, anyhow?)
Airfield limitions not aircraft limitions, you really don't get it.
-
Airfield limitions not aircraft limitions, you really don't get it.
No, I get it. You want an 'historical limitation' in a non-historical environment that is
not really an improvement to the game.
-
No, I get it. You want an 'historical limitation' in a non-historical environment that is
not really an improvement to the game.
You don't know if it would be an improvement or not.
-
You don't know if it would be an improvement or not.
:rofl
-
I had always wanted to see field limits. How many aircraft and type of aircraft could be upped at a time from a field based on field size.
Small airfields should be limited to fighters, medium fields a mix of fighters and medium bombers. Large airfields would have fighters, medium bombers and the big stuff, B24, Lancaster, B29 and B17’s.
(http://data2.whicdn.com/images/34546461/funny-gif-man-jump-out-the-window_large.gif)
-
(http://data2.whicdn.com/images/34546461/funny-gif-man-jump-out-the-window_large.gif)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Unfortunately not the first time I've had to use that gif :rolleyes:
-
I said as a rule of thumb the higher you go the smoother it gets. you know this. anyone who's flown more than an hour on an airliner knows this.
i know quite a few real pilots that would argue that rule of thumb!
-
Why in the hell is there ALWAYS SOMEONE trying to change this game to their own liking--people talk about players leaving--if you start putting restrictions on this game people will leave...when i come into this game,i want to fly what i want,where i want,when i want...if the base i'm at is capped and down--i want to go somewhere else..same for gv'ing--putting restriction's on what i can fly or when i can fly or drive and where to do so is A BAD IDEA.PURE AND SIMPLE...so leave it to hell alone...don't you think hitech creations know's all this..they already shown that they are working on a new map...and i'm sure they are working on numerous other things..but i serously doubt they will put and restriction's on gameplay--more than they already have. :airplane: :joystick:
-
no...Aces High is NOT WW2...Aces High is not trying replicate WW2....
seems pretty simple...
I got on idea....you want to play a WW2 game....go play WW2 online....stop trying to change Aces High into a WW2 game.
THAT'S a reply that isn't open for discussion.
and to help ink in his message -check it out-->Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WW1 and WW2 air combat and sets it in a high intensity online multiplayer environment. Hundreds of players simultaneously battle it out against each other in massive aerial dogfights and bomber raids.
High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High but it doesn't end there. A war rages on the ground and at sea. Engage enemy armor in tank combat. Protect your fleet as a gunner or make a torpedo run in a PT boat. Lead an assault in an amphibious vehicle. With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available, you have access to a vast virtual arsenal.
Take part in special events such as historical scenarios where famous battles are recreated and reimagined or try your hand at air racing at tree top level against skilled competitors.
In the air, on land, and at sea, the battle rages 24 hours a day with participants from around the world. Take our free two week trial and find out why Aces High is the online game for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
and to help ink in his message -check it out-->Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WW1 and WW2 air combat and sets it in a high intensity online multiplayer environment. Hundreds of players simultaneously battle it out against each other in massive aerial dogfights and bomber raids.
High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High but it doesn't end there. A war rages on the ground and at sea. Engage enemy armor in tank combat. Protect your fleet as a gunner or make a torpedo run in a PT boat. Lead an assault in an amphibious vehicle. With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available, you have access to a vast virtual arsenal.
Take part in special events such as historical scenarios where famous battles are recreated and reimagined or try your hand at air racing at tree top level against skilled competitors.
In the air, on land, and at sea, the battle rages 24 hours a day with participants from around the world. Take our free two week trial and find out why Aces High is the online game for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quoted...for the reading impaired
:D