Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TW9 on November 20, 2014, 07:44:07 PM
-
I think the game within the game of AH has gone pretty stale over the years and no matter what is done the same issues are still here or new ones arise. If you scroll the forums all the way back 10 years earlier you'll see a lot of the same complaints even though much has changed. But the focus of the game has not. It's still capture bases, win the war.
I think the focus of this game should not be just capturing as many of your opponents bases as possible. In my opinion to "WIN THE WAR" you should be required to be successful in all phases of the game. Not just one. So instead I think there should be a point system in place. The goal should be for each country to reach an established amount of points. Whichever country reaches whatever the set number of points is wins the war.
You get points by killing people (planes, gv's ect) bombing stuff, and well, capturing bases. Pretty much you can get points by doing whatever it is you like to do in this game. Whichever country does it the most and fastest wins the war.
The point system would be balanced so that you'd get more points for attacking a larger country than you would attacking the smaller one. I think this would make players more inclined to find a front more equal or even one where they are disadvantaged.
Also, I think there should be clear fronts that are determined by the amount of players on at any given time (i think there is something similar to this already in game). Only frontal bases would be active. They would be double layered. The front of the front and rear of the front. Only these bases and the strats tied to them will be active. Meaning only these bases can be attacked or captured. All CVs would be active but their ports would be only if they're part of the active front. Deactivated bases and their strats cannot be attacked nor can they be upped from. They will receive no damage and will not give any points even if they were.
HQ and the main strats tied to HQ will always be active and give points for damage done to them. Bases immediately around HQ will also be active but cannot be captured. I think these zones should give bonus points whether attacking or defending them.
Strats should be returned back to early AHII and late AH1. Where you could completely demolish a strat and directly effect the capabilities of a base (remember the 25% fuel days?). When bases are captured, instead of it switching over to the other country, there would be a set down time (10 mins?) which would allow the victors to land, rearm, and what not. During this time, they can even ransack and pillage the base which in turn would replenish whichever strat damage has been done to their bases on the same front. IE if your bases are currently at 50% fuel you'll get boosted up 25% or 50% whichever is determined.
I think this would consolidate the players online into generally the same zones instead of scattered across large maps. Maps would reset more often which is always good. People could do whatever it is they enjoy doing in this game and still help their country WIN.
I've been playing off and on since 99 or 2000. I've stopped playing many times. Eventually, I come back to see my old friends and fly the old birds. Once that initial excitement wears off I realize it's still the same old game I quit many times over. It's still take off fly for 10-15mins, MAYBE get into a fight, run out of gas and land. I feel the game was a lot more fun when we had 200-300 players on and each country had maybe 30 fields each. Now I am not asking to back to that but it would be nice to get into similar action where I'm pretty much guaranteed to run into someone each and every sortie. And I can still help my team win by doing what I like and not be called a furballer or strat dweeb or whatever. Pretty much everyone's style of playing would help their team win.
On a separate note. I've referenced as much as possible and I cannot find any instance in WWII where a long range bomber way out in the Pacific carpet bombed a CV from a high alt bomber. If I am wrong then please by all means correct me, but I think CV's were only ever sunk in WWII via dive bombers or torpedo. That being said I think any bomber's that can only be upped with the "bomber" mode checked should have their bombs set that they can only effect strats and hangars.
-
Edit: So I've been corrected but my opinion still stands:
(AG, 7AF, 370.24 Battle of Midway)
SIGNAL OFFICER
12 June 1942
Secret Priority
WD CSA (By Cable)
Army part in Midway Battle reurad 185/9 was as follows:
1623/3d-Nine (9) B-17's attacked enemy vessels including 5 BB or CA - with bombs 24x600 lb - 12x500b - five known hits - one probable - one near - altitude 8 to 12,000 ft - observed results: first BB hit, second BB or CA and one larg transport afire. Water line hit amidships on large AP or AK - Own losses none.
0710/4th - Four (4) B-26's attacked enemy group of CV, BB, CA, DD with torpedoes - three hits - one CV hit twice, another CV hit once - intense small calibre AA fire from side of hangar deck - Zeros intercepted - two B-26's lost in attack - another two crash landed at Midway - two Zeros shot down.
1810/4th - Fourteen (14) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 20,000 - 44x500 lb and 72x600 lb bombs - five hits - two probable - eleven near hits - three CV hit and set afire- one Zero shot down - own losses none.
1830/4th - Six (6) B-17's bombed target - altitude 3600 feet - 3x500 lb, 5x600 lb bombs - two hits, two near hits - DD sunk - hit on CV already afire - four Zeros shot down - one Zero damaged - own loss none.
1830/4th - Four (4) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 25,000 - 28x500 lb - one hit, one probable, one near - CA set afire - own losses none.
0830/5th - Eight (8) B-17's bombed two BB or CA altitude 20,000 feet - 39x500 lb bombs - one hit, two probable, seven near - own losses none.
1815/5th - Seven (7) B-17's - 56x500 lb bombs on CA - altitude 15,000 - Three hits, four near hits, own losses none.
1825/5th - Five (5) B-17 - 8x300 lb and 15x600 lb bombs on CA - results not observed - one B-17 missing - one B-17 landed in water off Midway out of gas - one crew lost.
Totals: 9 attacks - 22 hits - 6 probable and 46 near hits - 10 Zeros shot down, 2 Zeros damaged - 1 BB hit, 2 BB or CA, 3 CV, and 1 large AK or AP set afire, 1 large AK hit - 1 DD sunk by bombs - 2 CV hit with 3 torpedoes. These are army plane results and entirely independent of Navy action. Results will show some duplication because at different times same ship was attacked by both Army and Navy. Part two figures given are later and modify those contained in my personal letter of 7 June.
My comments follow:
1. Navy assuemd command of the Army bombers prior to Battle of Midway. All Army units based at Midway came under the direct command of the senior Naval air officer at Midway. This command set up has the disadvantage that Naval air commanders do not know the capabilities of Army equipment and personnel.
2. Some of the lessons learned follow:
We were not reinforced with heavy bombers from the mainland as soon as expected. A special situation existed, but such may always be the case. We should have on hand ample bombers and pursuit planes to meet our tactical requirements.
At our air bases scattered throughout the Pacific we must have an ample supply of fuel, bombs, and ammunition, as well as a supply of fuel, bombs, and ammunition, as well as a supply of spare parts, special equipment, and sufficient maintenance personnel to take care of the equipment likely to be based there until reinforcements can be brought in. There must also be available equipment for clearing and repairing runways rapidly. The supplies and personnel should be sent from mainland as our assets are limited.
Fuel lines, tanks electric pumps, etc., are vulnerable. There must always be an alterate means of rapid re-fueling. We should have ample reserve of bomb and torpedo loading equipment.
The B-25's and B-26's are effective torpedo aircraft. Ample supply of re-inforced torpedoes, however, must be made available, our crews trained in their use, and our ordnance personnel trained and equipped to maintain these torpedoes.
Torpedo attacks against Jap carriers approach suicide unless other forms of attack are made simultaneously in order to diperse the carrier's heavy defensive fire.
More training is badly needed by our gunners. Tow target airplanes and reels for aerial and anti-aircraft gunnery training are badly needed.
Value of near bomb misses has been greatly exaggerated. Effort should be made to hit the ship.
In Army and Navy there is uncertainty as to the correct type of fuze to use against various types of ships. Recommend Chief of Army Air Force make careful study and inform all bombardment units as to fuzes. This matter should be coordinated with the Navy.
Reconnaissance agencies should be used fully. Combat crews at Midway were nearly exhausted when the battle opened because of fruitless sweeps in formation.
All heavy bombers should be provided with two combat and two maintenance crews to get the full value out of the airplane.
Army and Navy must both develop better fighter and pursuit aircraft. Both the P-39 and the P-40 types are deficient in performance at high altitudes.
Much radio deception used by Japs. Authentication of tactical messages is essential.
Jap fighters do not like to attack B-17's while in close formation.
That heavy bombers stationed in Hawaii are not immobilized but can be used effectively in support of the fleet and outlying bases was again proved by this battle.
B-17's are too short ranged for operations in this area. Every effort should be made to produce and deliver the B-29 and B-32 types to this area.
It must be realized that it is no disgrace to have aircraft caught on the ground under certain circumstances. To avoid the stigma commanders are exhausting crews and equipment and may enter combat low on fuel.
There is a tendency to rush attacks on surface vessels at long ranges at the expense of planning and coordination. In many instances a few additional minutes expended for proper preparation may mean the difference between success and failure.
High level bombing is an effective means of destroying warships, but enough airplanes must be used to insure sufficient hits.
In execution the Jap attack on Midway resembled the attack on Oahu.
Jap carriers take lots of punishment. Two experienced American carrier commanders state that one 1,000 lb bomb hit is worth much more than two 500 lb hits.
Vital installations must be well protected against air attacks where dispersion and concealment are impracticable.
Many tires were blown out and damaged by anti-aircraft shell fragments on runway at Midway. Runways must be kept clear of these fragments.
EMMONS.
(Lt. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, CG, Hawaiian Dept., Fort Shafter, T.H.)
A TRUE COPY.
[Signed]
STEWART H. JONES
1st Lt., Air Corps
Source: United States Army Air Corps
-
On a separate note. I've referenced as much as possible and I cannot find any instance in WWII where a long range bomber way out in the Pacific carpet bombed a CV from a high alt bomber. If I am wrong then please by all means correct me, but I think CV's were only ever sunk in WWII via dive bombers or torpedo. That being said I think any bomber's that can only be upped with the "bomber" mode checked should have their bombs set that they can only effect strats and hangars.
Just because no aircraft carrier on either side was sunk by level bombers does not mean they need to be nerfed in game to prevent them from doing it. It would also be unrealistic as the primary anti-maritime aircraft used were level bombers like the B-17 and B-24 by the USAAF until they handed over the duties and level bombers (B-24s) to the USN in 1943. In AIRCRAFT TACTICAL BULLETIN 3-43, the B-17 heavy bomber groups in the 5th AF were praised for their high level bombing work against Japanese shipping during the battle.
ack-ack
-
Just because no aircraft carrier on either side was sunk by level bombers does not mean they need to be nerfed in game to prevent them from doing it. It would also be unrealistic as the primary anti-maritime aircraft used were level bombers like the B-17 and B-24 by the USAAF until they handed over the duties and level bombers (B-24s) to the USN in 1943. In AIRCRAFT TACTICAL BULLETIN 3-43, the B-17 heavy bomber groups in the 5th AF were praised for their high level bombing work against Japanese shipping during the battle.
ack-ack
Good points AKAK and <S> Btw. Ya my fix is probably drastic but what I think is unrealistic is the ability to nail and sink a moving cv at high altitude with 1 set of bombers. Some of the reports show that even with a high amount of bombs, less than a handful actually hit and only 1 time critically.
-
I think the focus of this game should not be just capturing as many of your opponents bases as possible. In my opinion to "WIN THE WAR" you should be required to be successful in all phases of the game. Not just one. So instead I think there should be a point system in place. The goal should be for each country to reach an established amount of points. Whichever country reaches whatever the set number of points is wins the war.
I think that you are on to something here.
+1
:aok
-
Turpitz
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/th_a0f34466ee10b8eb6721e3b6d0bcac74_zpsea297cdd.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/?action=view¤t=a0f34466ee10b8eb6721e3b6d0bcac74_zpsea297cdd.jpg)
I do agree that some game changes would be awesome,, but no reason to take away an aircraft/ GV's abilities to preform missions. There May be some other way!
I think try some different objectives for players
Remove Front line ORD
more perk points for factory resupply and spawn points or airfields better located to do so
more perk points for strategic bombing,IE factories or HQ,, these two together moves the heavy bomber war away from the front lines!
remove base capture from the scoring system,, and lower the bomber perks for killing town buildings
Redo of GV spawn points for defense and more GV hangers on larger airfields ,
, small airfields without ORD close to the front lines, maybe even have the front line bases automatically loose ORD, this promotes fighting instead of bombing,, or an allotment of X amount of ord per base, re supplied by the convoys and perishable,, 50 bombs every ten minutes or so,, ? It seems crazy to think a base would have unlimited ORD if the ammo bunker is up.
These are just rough ideas of mine, anything to help with the game should be brought up IMHO and let me know why not on any of this,, like I said rough ideas off the top of my head
If we get a hundred new ideas,, even if 90 are stupid,, that leaves ten new ways to go with the game!
-
Turpitz
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/th_a0f34466ee10b8eb6721e3b6d0bcac74_zpsea297cdd.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/?action=view¤t=a0f34466ee10b8eb6721e3b6d0bcac74_zpsea297cdd.jpg)
I do agree that some game changes would be awesome,, but no reason to take away an aircraft/ GV's abilities to preform missions. There May be some other way!
I don't think it would take away anyone's abilities to perform missions. Everything would still be the same except for the overall goal of the game which currently is just capture bases to win the war. And when suggesting only activating frontal bases I don't mean squeezing everyone into 4 or 5 bases per front (well maybe if only 30 people are online) but something on the order of 10-15 bases per side per front during prime time. There would still be ample space to get out and climb your bombers, or potentially target a strategic base to sneak. Bases are still capturable but they just wouldn't stay that way. Or maybe to keep the capture bases people interested we can set zones so that instead, if a series of bases are captured they win the zone and get bonus points for that zone then it resets back to the original country after 10 minutes or so downtime. I'm just pondering but the current goal of winning the war just has to go.
-
I'm just pondering but the current goal of winning the war just has to go.
Maybe not go,,, but atleast become a lot less important!
I've argued some of this before and another idea may be to go back to an easier capture system as well so as to reduce the horde to a manageable number that can be defended against by a smaller force ,, I. All for new ideas tho!
-
Maybe not go,,, but atleast become a lot less important!
I'm just not seeing where anything would go or be less important. If you could point it out maybe I can counter.
I'll try to sum up my idea like this.
Lets say for a country to win a war they must earn 50000 points. Just throwing a number out there.
1. A player on Rooks. He enjoys bombing. Just likes blowing things up because he wears a nice set of Beats headphones with the base turned up and likes the sound the bombs make when they hit. So he bombs stuff, strats, hangers, towns, other players, whatever. He earns points for the Rooks helping them win in the process assuming these are active bases and strats. If in it's current format, if he were just out padding his score dropping ords out in the middle of nowhere would he be helping anyways? Im not seeing a loss in importance here.
2. A player for Nits likes GVing. He can park his happy rear in tank town all day spawn camp and kill things or he can sneak into a town or strat base and park an osti on a runway and still earn points for his country doing what he likes to do instead of just focusing on an overall aspect of the game he may or may not be interested in.
3. Another player for the Bish likes capturing bases. Lets just say his is name is Skyrock. He just likes to own things. Well he can still go around and capture bases which will earn points for the Bish towards winning the war. Only difference here is that the base gets returned or if we use a zone format where the base is returned after a country takes an entire zone (bonus points here :D).
4. Another player just likes to attack bases. He's that rare breed that will actually de-ack a base or bomb a town. He always brings a fighter w/ ordinance just incase a pesky gv is parked at the base (see reference 2). He too will earn points for his country for doing what he likes to do.
5. This player just likes to fight. He's that idiot you see on the deck in a tnb plane. Ya he dies a lot but it doesn't take him long to get back into the fight. The players are consolidated now to specific zones so there's no shortage of fights for this dweeb. His k/d is low but he gets a lot of kills per hour which in turn grants points to the country.
6. Alt monkey p38 or p51 or dora player. Whatever these players are flying now a days. They're the one's waiting like hawks above for player in reference 5 to get engaged for an easy kill. They don't get a lot of kills in a short period but have a high k/d so they are not getting killed a lot giving the other team points. Instead they are RTB with no ammo and 10 kills (4 of player 5) earning a lot of points for their country when they land. Again, people doing what they enjoy doing and still helping their country win the war.
From these references, I am just not seeing where anything is lost or less important. If anything everything you can possibly do in the game becomes important.
-
Player under current set up: Logs on and see's that his country is getting hammered on all sides and about to lose the war. He decides to leave and play another game or worse, spend time with his family.
Player under suggested set up: Logs on and see's that his country has reached 98% of the 50,000 point goal. He can't see what the status of the other countries are. Only they can see that. They could say on channel 200 their progress, but are they lying? He plays for Rooks and like the reference above his team is getting hammered on both fronts. Little do they know this is the worst thing they can do. His kid is tugging at his leg for attention. He looks down at his adorable son with a big warming smile and..... gives the kid his iPad. The kid distracted, he focuses on winning the war. He starts spawning IL2 out the hangers mowing down would be vulchers earning triple points in the process. Rooks win the war.
-
what I think is unrealistic is the ability to nail and sink a moving cv at high altitude with 1 set of bombers.
That's because the Norden in game has the accuracy that the actual Norden was reputed to have. In hindsight we know that the Norden wasn't nearly as accurate as thought/hoped.
If the in game Norden was more realistic in accuracy you would see a lot less shipping sunk by level bombers.
-
When I started playing, I never gave a darn about winning the war,, I wanted to fly the planes and drive the tanks and shoot the enemy down,, on occasion even let one go , with the satisfaction that I could have killed him if I wanted to.
Many of the other players had that same mindset I believe,,,,,,, today, not so much.
I never became the greatest fighter ace of them all, most don't ,( there can be only one),, for those that can't fight all the time, there isn't much else to do but be fodder or capture bases,, they need other goals.
Your ideas sound great! I'm just saying, those, along with 90 more and maybe we can come up with a solution or two,
or maybe HT will implement your plan wholesale,, I'm not knocking your plan,, just offering some other ideas!
I had thought about starting a thread for new game play ideas but you already have one!
-
When I started playing, I never gave a darn about winning the war,, I wanted to fly the planes and drive the tanks and shoot the enemy down,, on occasion even let one go , with the satisfaction that I could have killed him if I wanted to.
Many of the other players had that same mindset I believe,,,,,,, today, not so much.
I never became the greatest fighter ace of them all, most don't ,( there can be only one),, for those that can't fight all the time, there isn't much else to do but be fodder or capture bases,, they need other goals.
Your ideas sound great! I'm just saying, those, along with 90 more and maybe we can come up with a solution or two,
or maybe HT will implement your plan wholesale,, I'm not knocking your plan,, just offering some other ideas!
I had thought about starting a thread for new game play ideas but you already have one!
Yes, I understand your mindset. I'm much the same. I'd rather furball all day than focus on the war. But whenever I come back to play theres really no fighting going on. Just a big circle of droves where the big hordes avoid each other in a race to capture as many bases as possible. I just think a combat game is focused way too much on that when there are many aspects to be enjoyed.
I'm just trying to think of something where anyone doing whatever they like to do can be useful towards an overall goal instead of just being focused on 1 single aspect.
-
Good points AKAK and <S> Btw. Ya my fix is probably drastic but what I think is unrealistic is the ability to nail and sink a moving cv at high altitude with 1 set of bombers. Some of the reports show that even with a high amount of bombs, less than a handful actually hit and only 1 time critically.
I have yet to sink a cv from high altitude. well unless you consider 5.5k high altitude. and I will sink a cv from that altitude well over more than a handful of times.
I think you are over exaggerating the sinking of cv's. I knew wildsdog would sink a cv from 1k. and there was even an academy to teach people how to sink a cv at that altitude using jet bombers.
semp
-
Hi Semp,
I based my "over-exaggeration" on an official report which I posted in this thread.
623/3d-Nine (9) B-17's attacked enemy vessels including 5 BB or CA - with bombs 24x600 lb - 12x500b - five known hits - one probable - one near - altitude 8 to 12,000 ft - observed results: first BB hit, second BB or CA and one larg transport afire. Water line hit amidships on large AP or AK - Own losses none.
36 bombs 5 hits + 1 probably and 1 near. None critical.
0710/4th - Four (4) B-26's attacked enemy group of CV, BB, CA, DD with torpedoes - three hits - one CV hit twice, another CV hit once - intense small calibre AA fire from side of hangar deck - Zeros intercepted - two B-26's lost in attack - another two crash landed at Midway - two Zeros shot down.
1810/4th - Fourteen (14) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 20,000 - 44x500 lb and 72x600 lb bombs - five hits - two probable - eleven near hits - three CV hit and set afire- one Zero shot down - own losses none.
116 bombs. 5 hits + 2 probable + 11 near. None critical
1830/4th - Six (6) B-17's bombed target - altitude 3600 feet - 3x500 lb, 5x600 lb bombs - two hits, two near hits - DD sunk - hit on CV already afire - four Zeros shot down - one Zero damaged - own loss none.
This is only instance in the report where a ship was confirmed sunk. And it was done from 3600 feet.
1830/4th - Four (4) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 25,000 - 28x500 lb - one hit, one probable, one near - CA set afire - own losses none.
28 bombs 1 hit + 1 probable + 1 near. None critical
0830/5th - Eight (8) B-17's bombed two BB or CA altitude 20,000 feet - 39x500 lb bombs - one hit, two probable, seven near - own losses none.
39 bombs 1 hit 2 probably 7 near. None critical
1815/5th - Seven (7) B-17's - 56x500 lb bombs on CA - altitude 15,000 - Three hits, four near hits, own losses none.
56 bombs 3 hits + 4 near. Nothing else reported on this one.
1825/5th - Five (5) B-17 - 8x300 lb and 15x600 lb bombs on CA - results not observed - one B-17 missing - one B-17 landed in water off Midway out of gas - one crew lost.
Nothing observed on this one.
-
Aces High is NOT WWII. That is all!
-
Much of this is an old chestnut for me..... But the OP does raise an approach I had not previously considered.
The strategic consequences of aircraft and vehicle losses. These losses are currently only play a part in AH's tactical game model......( kill your enemies so you can capture a base)
It would be neat to also use aircraft and vehicle losses to influence stuff strategically...... Game play will not permit the restriction of any access to rides but it does permit the throttling of other resources. The gameplay mechanism would be one where aircraft and vehicle losses divert resources to replace them
Some maths could be put together such that the material losses affect the out capacity of Cities or indeed some other key "strats" which inturn limit various rebuild times. The maths should only be an "adjusting modifier" (~10%?) not capable of massively influencing gameplay on the scale of wholesale Strat destruction.
In general I have long held the view that the land grab should focus on towns linked to vehicle fields which enable resources to linked airfields. The link between this town/ vehicle field should be the same as that between port and cv , but with the town also functioning as a supply depot. The field property becomes the same as that of a fixed CV. This moves the focus of capture away from the ( now more remote) airfield reducing the Incentive to pork the field until the linked town is captured. Only by capturing the linked town can the airfield be acquired ...... But first it has to be destroyed to a point of inoperability after which it rebuilds to be under the same ownership as the linked town.
The only vehicle spawns relating to airfields would be between the field and it's linked town( which is also a vehicle base)
IMO the net result of this is to move combat away from an airfield and prolong the arial conflict.
-
At one point we had two late war arenas with 300 players in them roughly,,
I'd look at any and all the changes that have taken place between then and now to determine what effect they had on players participation and go from there .
Just a thought!
-
Aces High is NOT WWII. That is all!
True but this is a wish list thread.
-
...
I think the focus of this game should not be just capturing as many of your opponents bases as possible. In my opinion to "WIN THE WAR" you should be required to be successful in all phases of the game. Not just one. So instead I think there should be a point system in place. The goal should be for each country to reach an established amount of points. Whichever country reaches whatever the set number of points is wins the war.
You get points by killing people (planes, gv's ect) bombing stuff, and well, capturing bases. Pretty much you can get points by doing whatever it is you like to do in this game. Whichever country does it the most and fastest wins the war.
...
Doesn`t this also mean that flying for the highest score becomes beneficial for the ones who care about winning. Right now the score does not matter, but if it did then some loudmouth players could start checking their countrimates for low score and then send some nasty private messages to those individuals. This could have the biggest effect on new players.
-
This is not a terrible idea on the surface. It would be a huge change, and need a ton more fleshing out as the devil's in the details.
The way I would want it to be weighted is to reward naked aggression. Make it so if you get in and fight and kill many of them before you die, it helps your team more than if you play conservatively. It might help give people some motivation to fight instead of flee.
Wiley.
-
There is nothing wrong with any of this.
If, the arena is full of players just as talented and motivated by this kind of board game complexity as are yourselves. When you are not in the arena and the average Joe Player logs in and just wants to blow something up and not "think" about his game like you do. How do you keep him coming back, if to play the game he has to understand the complexities of your game influencing mechanisms? How many players actually know the relationship between the city, strats and repair times? And that is relatively simple compared to your dreams.
The game as is allows the least common denominator of player to derive the most bang for his buck in a short period of time without needing a Masters degree in WW2 strategy or Game theory. So how do you keep Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have a master piece of nuance and strategy?
All of this spit balling is a wonderful exercise. None of you ever tackle the nuts and bolts of keeping dumb arse Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have your game. I know, that's HiTech's problem, you are ideas guys.
-
There is nothing wrong with any of this.
If, the arena is full of players just as talented and motivated by this kind of board game complexity as are yourselves. When you are not in the arena and the average Joe Player logs in and just wants to blow something up and not "think" about his game like you do. How do you keep him coming back, if to play the game he has to understand the complexities of your game influencing mechanisms? How many players actually know the relationship between the city, strats and repair times? And that is relatively simple compared to your dreams.
The game as is allows the least common denominator of player to derive the most bang for his buck in a short period of time without needing a Masters degree in WW2 strategy or Game theory. So how do you keep Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have a master piece of nuance and strategy?
All of this spit balling is a wonderful exercise. None of you ever tackle the nuts and bolts of keeping dumb arse Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have your game. I know, that's HiTech's problem, you are ideas guys.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nailed it !
-1 on the OP
-
If you drop the strat change part of it, I think it does help with the least common denominator. If a guy just wants to up and kill planes, or camp a GV spawn he's still helping his side, rather than the only viable method of helping your side win the war being to horde up and occupy territory.
Doing damage to whatever you can on their side would further the war effort. That might be a good thing.
Wiley.
-
There is nothing wrong with any of this.
If, the arena is full of players just as talented and motivated by this kind of board game complexity as are yourselves. When you are not in the arena and the average Joe Player logs in and just wants to blow something up and not "think" about his game like you do. How do you keep him coming back, if to play the game he has to understand the complexities of your game influencing mechanisms? How many players actually know the relationship between the city, strats and repair times? And that is relatively simple compared to your dreams.
The game as is allows the least common denominator of player to derive the most bang for his buck in a short period of time without needing a Masters degree in WW2 strategy or Game theory. So how do you keep Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have a master piece of nuance and strategy?
All of this spit balling is a wonderful exercise. None of you ever tackle the nuts and bolts of keeping dumb arse Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have your game. I know, that's HiTech's problem, you are ideas guys.
Joe player really wouldn't have to think much about anything. He'd be helping the country simply by doing what he likes to do. It's really not all that complicated.
And btw the game is in fact marketed towards the WWII enthusiast types and not toward the average gamer. The only channel theyve ever advertised on is the history channel and maybe the military channel. You can ask across other games if anyone has even heard of AH and the answer would be mostly no. AH intentionly does not tap into those markets. If you ever had to deal with the obnoxiousness of say the WoW community, you would see why.
-
Player under current set up: Logs on and see's that his country is getting hammered on all sides and about to lose the war. He decides to leave and play another game or worse, spend time with his family.
Player under suggested set up: Logs on and see's that his country has reached 98% of the 50,000 point goal. He can't see what the status of the other countries are. Only they can see that. They could say on channel 200 their progress, but are they lying? He plays for Rooks and like the reference above his team is getting hammered on both fronts. Little do they know this is the worst thing they can do. His kid is tugging at his leg for attention. He looks down at his adorable son with a big warming smile and..... gives the kid his iPad. The kid distracted, he focuses on winning the war. He starts spawning IL2 out the hangers mowing down would be vulchers earning triple points in the process. Rooks win the war.
As already mentioned, you are assuming that person actually cares who is winning the war. So many don't. They could care less about points, or rank, or anything that doesn't have to do with a good fight. I honestly feel this is the larger representation of populace in the game. (but I could be wrong).
I do applaud you for looking outside the box. I do however see a few snags. You are presuming that everyone has a "country". My squad rotates each month, some folks rotate once or twice a day for one single reason... to find a fight....
While this isn't WWII, it's loosely based on war during the period. In that time, you didn't win a war by doing damage, you won a war by taking ground.
I guess I am just not seeing your vision... -1
-
Winning the war as a focused group (hoard) satisfies a human emotion worth paying for. Winning a war by point attrition as unassociated individuals. Even Joe Player from bubbaville is going to ignore it illuminating it isn't an emotional fix. There is no emotional attachment or investment. And who wants to win a game by accident doing nothing, other than a looser?
Hoarding happens because humans beings can invest in it emotionally. We are all paying to be here so the only way to influence players to work with you towards a goal is by appealing to their emotions.
Many of the players here in the forum saying the game has to be changed are loners. Their emotional fix is in the nuance of the process as it effects the outcomes of the masses while picking and choosing their activities from that smorgasbord. They all describe the same problem but, miss the answer. In the past the hoards were lead by dynamic individuals who were not loners. Squads lead groups of fans and action seekers towards a common simple goal with immediate satisfying outcomes. The loners worked the periphery of this always finding something to keep them occupied due to the numbers and odds favoring possibilities for them.
Now we don't have the numbers, and fewer dynamic individuals who want to bother. So the loners have almost zilch to occupy themselves unless they roll up their sleeves and cause it to happen. And that is not their personality style. Instead they make the mistake of believing HiTech now needs to impose mechanisms upon his paying customers to force nuance and game play paths that favor their loner needs. Add to this giant landscapes with low population densities.
So Joe Players from bubbavilles who make up about 80% of the community have to be punished by HiTech to act not in their own interests. Joe Players will also not act in the ways the loners want HiTech to push them either. As the unintended consequence of being forced to follow the loners detailed plans for making a new and better game in spite of themselves.
We can coin a new Aces High term now. The "AH Gruber Effect" and Loner Hearts Club.
-
Winning the war as a focused group (hoard) satisfies a human emotion worth paying for. Winning a war by point attrition as unassociated individuals. Even Joe Player from bubbaville is going to ignore it illuminating it isn't an emotional fix. There is no emotional attachment or investment. And who wants to win a game by accident doing nothing, other than a looser?
So you'd prefer that the furballing continue to be 'worthless'? Activity is activity. Killing a bunch of the enemy should have some effect on the war. For gameplay purposes, limiting the losers if they die is a bad idea, but it does make some sense that whatever damage you do to the enemy would move your side closer to victory.
Wiley.
-
So you'd prefer that the furballing continue to be 'worthless'? Activity is activity. Killing a bunch of the enemy should have some effect on the war. For gameplay purposes, limiting the losers if they die is a bad idea, but it does make some sense that whatever damage you do to the enemy would move your side closer to victory.
Wiley.
I in a real world sense. If deaths in game were real, yes, killing a bunch of nme would clearly have an impact just as it does in real war. Real deaths (or the prospect of it) make people surrender even though they still have the numbers to put up a good fight.
This however is a game with options that allow you to participate as you wish. You shouldn't have to be forced to bomb stuff or GV if you don't want to, nor should anyone complain if all you do is furball. There is room for everyone and every style of play in the game. It's not, and really shouldn't 100% be about winning the war. It should be about having fun.
Now, go have fun... That's an order :bolt:
-
I in a real world sense. If deaths in game were real, yes, killing a bunch of nme would clearly have an impact just as it does in real war. Real deaths (or the prospect of it) make people surrender even though they still have the numbers to put up a good fight.
This however is a game with options that allow you to participate as you wish. You shouldn't have to be forced to bomb stuff or GV if you don't want to, nor should anyone complain if all you do is furball. There is room for everyone and every style of play in the game. It's not, and really shouldn't 100% be about winning the war. It should be about having fun.
Exactly right, but some of the stuff he's talking about there would make the furballers and spawn campers kills worth something toward the war effort. That's why I'm saying it would be a good thing.
The strat stuff and 'active front' stuff he mentioned, I'm not really sold on. The main point of the idea though, having everything we do worth something, makes some sense to me.
The losers shouldn't be penalized for dying, but the winners should gain *something* toward the war effort for killing IMO.
If I were setting it up, taking land would still be somewhat the best way to win the war, but it would also be possible to do it by scoring enough points in a system somewhere in the vicinity of what he's talking about.
Now, go have fun... That's an order :bolt:
No problem there, unless there aren't any red planes in the air. :D
Wiley.
-
I in a real world sense. If deaths in game were real, yes, killing a bunch of nme would clearly have an impact just as it does in real war. Real deaths (or the prospect of it) make people surrender even though they still have the numbers to put up a good fight.
This however is a game with options that allow you to participate as you wish. You shouldn't have to be forced to bomb stuff or GV if you don't want to, nor should anyone complain if all you do is furball. There is room for everyone and every style of play in the game. It's not, and really shouldn't 100% be about winning the war. It should be about having fun.
Now, go have fun... That's an order :bolt:
I'm not sure where anyone would be forced to do anything. Could you point to what you're referring to when you say that?
-
Joe player really wouldn't have to think much about anything. He'd be helping the country simply by doing what he likes to do. It's really not all that complicated.
And btw the game is in fact marketed towards the WWII enthusiast types and not toward the average gamer. The only channel theyve ever advertised on is the history channel and maybe the military channel. You can ask across other games if anyone has even heard of AH and the answer would be mostly no. AH intentionly does not tap into those markets. If you ever had to deal with the obnoxiousness of say the WoW community, you would see why.
The game is in fact not marketed towards anyone, nor has it been for a long time. They advertized it a couple times on TV, and I think they pushed for an interview with a "SIM" site, as well as a a "boxed" version they pushed in Europe, but thats is it. The rest has always been word of mouth and the gift of Google. A massive marketing campaign is needed, but can they afford it?
As for the suggestions, you seemed to have added a lot of work the HTC for very little gain if everyone will "continue to do what they like". Whats the point? Game play will stay pretty much the same..... stale.
If your going to make a change it should have some impact on game play, not be just another way to do the same thing. You want a points system, assign point to fields and vehicle bases. Bases easy to reach from the water are worth 1 point, Large field circled by other bases worth 5, with each field around it worth 3, vehicle field 2. Instead of a percentage of fields to "Win the War", you need a number of points. Lots and lots of little fields, or a number of larger fields. Make the bases worth something, maybe defenders will fight better to hold off the attack so as to NOT lose those points.
As already mentioned, you are assuming that person actually cares who is winning the war. So many don't. They could care less about points, or rank, or anything that doesn't have to do with a good fight. I honestly feel this is the larger representation of populace in the game. (but I could be wrong).
I do applaud you for looking outside the box. I do however see a few snags. You are presuming that everyone has a "country". My squad rotates each month, some folks rotate once or twice a day for one single reason... to find a fight....
While this isn't WWII, it's loosely based on war during the period. In that time, you didn't win a war by doing damage, you won a war by taking ground.
I guess I am just not seeing your vision... -1
Sure, not EVERYONE looks to "Winning the War", but if that goal generates more fights isn't that a good thing? As it stand now there is only two real ways to take bases, horde, or NOE from the sea (NOE missions go up big time on "island" maps). If some mechanic was added that brought other ways to capture bases, and win the war it may also generate more battles. While I don't have the time a patience to run missions any more I love seeing them as it becomes a place to find a fight, if you can get there BEFORE they roll the base.
If we had more "action" would it bring in more numbers? Don't know, but I think it might help keep the ones we have.
-
I simply asked for change. Take it with a grain of salt or however you'd like. It's a wish list forum and I made a wish. It's not perfect but its at least a suggestion. Status quo has not worked and has only pushed players away or has not been enticing enough to keep new players around. I think it's pretty obvious that the current format as induced a playing style that's not very attractive in relation to other games.
-
I think it's pretty obvious that the current format as induced a playing style that's not very attractive in relation to other games.
That's a double edged sword though. Some of us (many? most?) are here because of the playstyle. It's the only open world flight game out there. If the other games' playstyle were more attractive to me, I would be playing them.
Wiley.
-
That's a double edged sword though. Some of us (many? most?) are here because of the playstyle. It's the only open world flight game out there. If the other games' playstyle were more attractive to me, I would be playing them.
Wiley.
Exactly it is a double edge sword. Now this is entirely just my opinion but it seems that right around the time AHII came out HTC decided to cater to what was thought to be a majority but was actually just a vocal minority and the game has since teetered a certain way while pushing other players away. Now I think its effects have taken place. I can't say if this was purposely or just a side effect of something else they wanted to implement.
Now its always easy to say that things were better in the past. We naturally think that with everything. But I think in the case of AH it is actually true. Things were better for at least most of us when maps were smaller, fields were smaller, and it didn't take long to find something to do.
-
Exactly it is a double edge sword. Now this is entirely just my opinion but it seems that right around the time AHII came out HTC decided to cater to what was thought to be a majority but was actually just a vocal minority and the game has since teetered a certain way while pushing other players away. Now I think its effects have taken place. I can't say if this was purposely or just a side effect of something else they wanted to implement.
Now its always easy to say that things were better in the past. We naturally think that with everything. But I think in the case of AH it is actually true. Things were better for at least most of us when maps were smaller, fields were smaller, and it didn't take long to find something to do.
I don't know. My pet theory is the reason numbers are down is because open world pure PVP MMO just isn't popular because of some of the gameplay it breeds (hording being the big one). If you look around, the closest thing to this other than WBs is Planetside 2. It started out big, probably has much less than 25% of the players it had in the beginning.
The majority prefer round based and 'fair fights' as opposed to open world. In the backwhen, if you wanted to fly WWII birds online you had this and WBs. People tolerated the open world because it was the only game in town. Games like WT came along and we lost most of the people who were tolerating the open world because there was nothing else that had similar gameplay against decent numbers of enemy until WT came along.
In other words, IMO unless the fundamental core of the gameplay changes, it will never be popular and is doomed to a slow death. And on the other side, if that fundamental core changes to something like WT, I am out of here.
Wiley.
-
I don't know. My pet theory is the reason numbers are down is because open world pure PVP MMO just isn't popular because of some of the gameplay it breeds (hording being the big one). If you look around, the closest thing to this other than WBs is Planetside 2. It started out big, probably has much less than 25% of the players it had in the beginning.
The majority prefer round based and 'fair fights' as opposed to open world. In the backwhen, if you wanted to fly WWII birds online you had this and WBs. People tolerated the open world because it was the only game in town. Games like WT came along and we lost most of the people who were tolerating the open world because there was nothing else that had similar gameplay against decent numbers of enemy until WT came along.
Yet within AH, the most unbalanced, unfair and to a extend horded arena, the Old main / current LW has always been the most popular one. All these years, only a (at least to me) surprisingly small fraction of the players did play the balanced scenarios or did regularly fly in the much better balanced setups of MW or AvA (even when the AvA didn't had shorter icon ranges.)
The arena with the most varied options for gameplay won.
-
The arena with the most varied options for gameplay won.
People think they want that variety when they may or may not actually want it, plus numbers following numbers.
Wiley.
-
People think they want that variety when they may or may not actually want it, plus numbers following numbers.
As for numbers followiing numbers: After arena split, the numbers were much greater for EW & MW for a week or so... then folks gradually slipped back to LW.
-
I don't know. My pet theory is the reason numbers are down is because open world pure PVP MMO just isn't popular because of some of the gameplay it breeds (hording being the big one).
Thats why I suggested deactivating fields based on the amount of players online. This would force players to interact with other players (Why else play an MMO?). And I don't mean horde vs horde or anything that drastic. Just increasing the odds of actually running into someone. The point system was just an idea to deter people from hording and make it more beneficial to actually find a fight that is more evenly matched. If theres another system someone else comes up with that can achieve the same thing then of course I am all for it.
-
(Apologies for the wall of text, but this idea had enough merit to flesh out, IMO.)
Getting back to the original topic, or a portion thereof, I'd love to see a game mechanic where killing the enemy (or losing assets) affected the "big picture" of winning the war.
I like the idea of making it a "reward" for the opposing side/sides though, as opposed to a "penalty" to your own, but in simple terms, if you lose an aircraft/vehicle you hurt your own side by helping the enemy. This could be as simple as reducing the downtime on all enemy objects a little for the "rewarded" side(s). What this could represent, if you wanted to justify it in realistic terms, is the relative production impact of loss of war materiel. In other words, when you lose units, the enemy's downtime decreases, because their relative production (or "excess production capacity" if you want to call it that) went up.
For example, Bishop Player loses a set of Lancasters while bombing a town. All 3 Lancs are lost, so the opposing sides (Rook and Knight) BOTH get a relative "production boost". Dowtimes for all objects on their side goes down by "x" number of seconds. The number of seconds applied to enemy downtime could be relative to a number of things: like 1) arena population (less impact when more players are fighting/dying) 2) asset value, i.e. losing a Tiger tank rewards the enemy more than losing a Panzer, losing a B17 helps the enemy more than losing a Brewster, etc.
I think this mechanic alone potentially addresses several gripes about the game, as follow:
1) Furballing would now contribute to your side's war effort, as killing enemy planes helps as long as you are destroying more enemy assets than you are losing.No more complaints from the war winners that "furballing is pointless".
2) Bomb-augering/kamikaze style play is less helpful to your side as losing a plane just reduces the effectiveness of your attack. Diving a low ENY plane into a target helps the enemy.
3) Defending against the horde can actually be effective. Instead of just resupping or M3/goon hunting, "making the enemy pay" by attritting ANY of their assets actually helps in defense. As it is now, if you up against the horde, kill 5 of them and land, you've had a nice sortie, but if they still take the base, you really did nothing for your side. Instead, killing the enemy, ANY enemy units, actually helps your side and maybe helps you HOLD the base simply by reducing downtime for your side.
4) "Bomb-and-bail" becomes a less attractive solution for those who do it to inflict as much damage as they can in the least amount of time. Bail your bombers, and you've just helped BOTH enemy sides reduce the damage you just did (per bomber lost!).
5) Lastly, attrition had a significant impact on the war (and air war particularly) in WWII, whereas in Aces High, losing units means nothing in the grand scale of things. If anything, with this mechanic alone, you are adding an element of realism by attrition having an impact on the game without actually limiting anyone's game-play.
The cool thing about this game mechanic, is only the "war winners" would really care about affecting enemy production/down-time and most of the issues above are a by-product of the "war winner" crowd. Even better, this mechanic doesn't "take away" anything from anyone or "prevent" anyone from doing anything they do now. It's really a clever game mechanic to encourage fighting and surviving contact with the enemy over some of the "gamey" approaches mentioned above.
It is really an intriguing idea for the game, IMO and should be seriously looked at by HTC.
<S>
Ryno
-
1) Furballing would now contribute to your side's war effort, as killing enemy planes helps as long as you are destroying more enemy assets than you are losing.No more complaints from the war winners that "furballing is pointless".
One problem I see that players deliberately flying 'crappy' planes and putting themselves to a disadvantage would now hurt their sides' war game. If you would up your P-40C against the horde just to see how long you can last, the 'war' players actually would have a point with their claim "you are wasting our resources". Everybody would now be a part of the war, and I see players being much more attacked for doing the wrong thing (= losing) or for plainly "sucking".
As for now, if you are just going to furball senselessly you are hardly going to hurt your side - apart from tying up other enemy forces, it's as if you weren't there.
-
I do applaud you for looking outside the box. I do however see a few snags. You are presuming that everyone has a "country". My squad rotates each month, some folks rotate once or twice a day for one single reason... to find a fight....
I don't see how this would be an issue since there would be multiple resets within a month.
-
Getting back to the original topic, or a portion thereof, I'd love to see a game mechanic where killing the enemy (or losing assets) affected the "big picture" of winning the war.
I like the idea of making it a "reward" for the opposing side/sides though, as opposed to a "penalty" to your own, but in simple terms, if you lose an aircraft/vehicle you hurt your own side by helping the enemy. This could be as simple as reducing the downtime on all enemy objects a little for the "rewarded" side(s). What this could represent, if you wanted to justify it in realistic terms, is the relative production impact of loss of war materiel. In other words, when you lose units, the enemy's downtime decreases, because their relative production (or "excess production capacity" if you want to call it that) went up.
For example, Bishop Player loses a set of Lancasters while bombing a town. All 3 Lancs are lost, so the opposing sides (Rook and Knight) BOTH get a relative "production boost". Dowtimes for all objects on their side goes down by "x" number of seconds. The number of seconds applied to enemy downtime could be relative to a number of things: like 1) arena population (less impact when more players are fighting/dying) 2) asset value, i.e. losing a Tiger tank rewards the enemy more than losing a Panzer, losing a B17 helps the enemy more than losing a Brewster, etc.
I think this mechanic alone potentially addresses several gripes about the game, as follow:
1) Furballing would now contribute to your side's war effort, as killing enemy planes helps as long as you are destroying more enemy assets than you are losing.No more complaints from the war winners that "furballing is pointless".
2) Bomb-augering/kamikaze style play is less helpful to your side as losing a plane just reduces the effectiveness of your attack. Diving a low ENY plane into a target helps the enemy.
3) Defending against the horde can actually be effective. Instead of just resupping or M3/goon hunting, "making the enemy pay" by attritting ANY of their assets actually helps in defense. As it is now, if you up against the horde, kill 5 of them and land, you've had a nice sortie, but if they still take the base, you really did nothing for your side. Instead, killing the enemy, ANY enemy units, actually helps your side and maybe helps you HOLD the base simply by reducing downtime for your side.
4) "Bomb-and-bail" becomes a less attractive solution for those who do it to inflict as much damage as they can in the least amount of time. Bail your bombers, and you've just helped BOTH enemy sides reduce the damage you just did (per bomber lost!).
The cool thing about this game mechanic, is only the "war winners" would really care about affecting enemy production/down-time and most of the issues above are a by-product of the "war winner" crowd. Even better, this mechanic doesn't "take away" anything from anyone or "prevent" anyone from doing anything they do now. It's really a clever game mechanic to encourage fighting and surviving contact with the enemy over some of the "gamey" approaches mentioned above.
It is really an intriguing idea for the game, IMO and should be seriously looked at by HTC.
<S>
Ryno
Good points, along the lines of what I was thinking. Hadn't even considered it deterring jabocide. Definitely make your plane worth more than the dar tower and ammo bunkers. :D
Although to be honest it wouldn't deter people from doing it. Jabocide/bomb and bailers aren't thinking strategic, they're thinking porking the field is all that matters. I really, really want to like the idea of punishing jabocides and bomb and bailers for doing it (pet peeve), but it wouldn't affect them personally only their side as a whole.
Lusche- That's an excellent point too. Although if it were tied to the ENY values similar to the perk bonus, me upping my 35 ENY bird and getting a couple 10 or less ENY kills could handily negate losing it to a pony.
Wiley.
-
If you would up your P-40C against the horde just to see how long you can last, the 'war' players actually would have a point with their claim "you are wasting our resources".
Not if you killed at least one enemy plane with your P-40C before you went down. If anything, flying higher ENY birds would potentially help your side more than hurt it. The guys who furball in La-7's or Ponies (for example) would potentially be hurting their side (or helping the enemy, as the case may be) more than the guy in the P40.
This of course raises the issue of people gaming it by bailing low ENY planes on the runway. There could be a timer on it, for this case, so losing a plane within 30 seconds of rolling doesn't count -- which also conveniently covers getting vulched repeatedly as well, so vulch-fests don't have a "war winning" effect.
Everybody would now be a part of the war, and I see players being much more attacked for doing the wrong thing (= losing) or for plainly "sucking".
I felt the impact of one individual losing a single plane would be relatively minor. I'm looking at things on a larger scale in terms of hording, mass kamikaze attacks and other larger numbers of kills in a group.
That said, perhaps rank could be tied into it. A player with a very high (read: bad) Fighter Rank who loses a fighter could have less effect on the downtime seconds number than a well-ranked player. This lessens the "noob effect" you are suggesting and means the "experten" who lose planes have a bigger strategic impact (like losing veteran pilots would).
Another positive way to look at it though, is this becomes a larger incentive for players to help new players on your side instead of just ignoring or writing them off as noobs.
<S>
Ryno
-
Jabocide/bomb and bailers aren't thinking strategic, they're thinking porking the field is all that matters. I really, really want to like the idea of punishing jabocides and bomb and bailers for doing it (pet peeve), but it wouldn't affect them personally only their side as a whole.
Most of the dar/ord jabo-cide guys I encounter are part of the "war winning" crowd, and lowering the downtime of the enemy DOES affect them to some extent. By jabo-ciding, not only would they lower the downtime on what they just porked, but EVERY object on the opposing sides.
Carrying a bomb (heavy vs. light fighters) could definitely be a factor in the downtime value of the lost plane as well.
<S>
Ryno
-
Thanks guys for all the valid pros and cons. I think its good to have open discussions about how to make a game better and keeping it sane rather than going at each others throats over simple disagreements.
:salute
-
Thanks guys for all the valid pros and cons. I think its good to have open discussions about how to make a game better and keeping it sane rather than going at each others throats over simple disagreements.
:salute
I don't think there's a lot of point in arguing over the details of the idea, tbh I disagreed with quite a few of them, but I really like the general spirit of it and would be thinking hard on it if it were up to me.
It's got some thought behind the possible downsides, which puts it head and shoulders above 90% of what comes in here.
Wiley.
-
I only need to read the title of this thread to give it my support.
HTC needs to work out the specific pro/cons and implement the changes, not us.
-
This is one of the best wishlist threads I've ever read. I like the merits presented by the OP (though I am one to consider such in light of the coding it may require). This is a true discussion of changing the actual environment and feel of the game without going overboard (except for maybe the bomber nerfing bit that seems to have gone by the wayside :P). I am truly forced to digest this slowly. I may not have anything to add, at all, in the long run and just remain an appreciative reader of both the pros and cons of this discussion. I simply felt moved to thank you all. The wishlist is seldom blessed like this.
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
I may not have anything to add, at all
All right, twerp, what have you done with Arlo?
- oldman
-
All right, twerp, what have you done with Arlo?
- oldman
We are holding him for ransom. We want a tootsie roll, a bunch of bananas, a spur and a confederate dollar bill. If we don't get all that by midnight tomorrow we'll give him back.
-
We will pay you to keep him......
-
I like the merits presented by the OP (though I am one to consider such in light of the coding it may require).
I don't think it would require much more work though I know nothing about coding. But the game already has a point system and there were specific zones and strats tied to them in the past.
-
So ..... let's see. If the current system was left in place but another element was added, would that do the trick? In other words, if 'simulated attrition' was factored in as an alternate method of 'winning the war' then would that suffice? Not a lot of change, coding wise (an obvious presumption on my part, however). Having seen the point suggestions, let's see if I have a rough hold on this:
Using a system already in place to base the point factor on, ENY/perk, all perk points earned per sortie would also go toward a team's tally. That would cover everything, right? Well, everything but gun ship/field, right? Gun emplacements have no ENY, currently. But that should be code-able. Anything a player can shoot from and be shot in could have an ENY factor applied to it (I would think). So if an ENY 40 fighter shoots down an ENY 2 B-29 it would yield 38 points toward an attrition victory.
Now .... attrition is an act of subtraction. Usually a theater involved 2 opposing forces. Subtraction works fine there. Both sides start with a pool of points and if one of them drops to zero before the percentage needed to capture happens, they lose (even if they were one base away from winning - could you imagine the heartbreak?). What about Aces High's three sided fight, though? It requires a winner (by territory capture only, currently). If one out of three zeros out their point pool, who wins?
If we decide that attrition could be modeled by those points going from one side to another (no .... actually just to - like the ENY model) with no starting pool and just a threshold to reach then that sound like a more manageable model. One side can shoot down, bomb, sink a certain number of perks (whether it be split evenly from the other two sides of mostly from one and some from the other) and when the entire team reaches a specific threshold, it wins (earning, of course, bonus perks,as well). I know this is pretty obvious but I'm just writing it down to see if we're all on the same page.
I'd like a rough idea of how many overall perks a side should accrue to win a map through attrition.
Lusche? :)
P.S. Bomber formation sneaky milk runs on a large map wouldn't be discouraged by such a system. Just sayin'.
-
Erg. The above does nothing to encourage augering buffheads to try to land their missions (other than a perk multiplier, which is already the case). No perks earned by an opposing side.
Back to a 'point pool' system.
What if all three sides do start with a point pool and losing equipment subtracts from it? 50 - ENY subtracted from their point pool. That would be 48 points per bomber for a formation of 29s. 10 points for a Spit I. What about losing a fleet? A straight 50?
This still presents a problem for three sides. A loser can be determined but what happens when there are two 'non-losing' sides left?
-
The current perk and ENY system wouldn't change. Though I think ENY may end up not being necessary since people would be more inclined to even up the sides.
Perk points are not the points I am referring to. I haven't played for awhile but there use to be something that said "Points" or "Total Points" whenever you looked at your stats in game. I believe they are used to determine rank. So the game does currently have a point system as far as I know.
I suggested a flat target specified by HTC. I used a target number of 50000 just as an example. I wouldn't know what a good number would be for something like this. The goal for each team would be to reach the target number first. You would get points by dogfighting, bombing, attacking, GV'ing, and base captures.
Someone else in this thread suggested the attrition idea which I also think is good.
I also suggested a zone method where the map has zones with bases and strats (Ammo,Radar, Fuel, AAA etc) attached to them. This has been in use before. I don't know if it is still the case. The strats would be valid targets and directly effect the capabilities of the zones. Like back in AH1 where you could take a base's fuel down to 25%. If your strats were also damaged, it would take longer to repair.
Each country would have a certain number of frontal zones active determined by the numbers of players online. Something similar is currently in place where some rear bases cannot be captured. It would be the same accept these bases would also cannot be damaged or taken off from. This would consolidate online players so ensure activity and interaction which is what most MMO players are looking for when playing an online game.
Once an entire zone is captured the victors get bonus points and their overall strats restored to an extent or fully. The zone itself would reset back to the original country after say 10 or 15minutes. Enough time for the victors to land or rearm and ransack and pillage. Think of it kind of like a map reset but at a smaller level.
If a team has overwhelming numbers on one front compared to the corresponding zone on the enemy side they would receive less points than they would if they were outnumbered or on an evenly split front. This would encourage people to find a more even fight or balance the sides altogether. It would also give an outnumbered side an equal chance to win the overall war. Consider it kind of like a handicap.
The maps would also have HQ and major strat targets for each country. These would be prime targets for bonus points as well. And these strats directly effect all the strats ability to repair for the individual zones. I think radar should revert somewhat back to old times. Nothing like the 2 hours no radar like before but maybe something like 30minutes if HQ was hit with city 0%.
-
I put this yesterday in the new strat post. It stays within the current framework of the game. Increases strategic targets without resorting to two sided war strategic chokeholds to win by denying everyone in a country their uber rides. Allows those who don't give a flip to keep playing their way. While attracting them to these new areas for the fight, rather than herding them there with complicated board game strategic rules of engagement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Strats to change War Win Percentages.
HTC could add sub-strats to each country that modify the percentage of fields you need to capture in that country towards winning the war and flipping the map. Some number would have to be determined along with salting them in across the medium back field of each country. They can artistically look like rail yards, steel factories and such.
Their structure would be strategic targets with about the same kill ability and rebuild\resupply ability as a town. Their purpose, as your bombers, or jabo, or tanks destroy them. The percentage of fields needed to win the war from that country is reduced from 20%. Very heavy auto ack would be reasonable due to their direct impact on winning the war.
Just as a town can be destroyed, an M3 or C47 can bring the place back up. If you own the next GV base or airfield over, hurray for your side wining the war sooner. Or hurray for that evil M3 driver or sneaky C47 pilot who gave up an hour or more to drive or NOE across a sector to stick you in the eye by bringing up the strat.
So the percentage destroyed of a substrat or combination of substrats destroyed would combine to modify the percentage of country fields you need in your possession to win the war. And that sneaky M3 driver or C47 pilot would be able to change the odds back to his country's favor in one or two trips along with the rebuild time controlled by the City strat. A detailed page from the clipboard would be needed to clearly show all country's substrat, their percentage damage in real time, and what percentage of fields are needed at that moment for a country to win the war.
Outcomes or Downsides.
Those who don't care can furball or GV spawn fight like always. Those who do, now have real short term war like targets to impact the outcome of the war including the ability to stick the winning country in the eye at the last moment by resupplying.
In the end, you get a new map to do it all over again faster if one country gets it together to smash all of the substrats with strategic bomber missions and quickly steam rolls the minimum number of bases in concert. And you keep an open sand box world for the players who simply want to drop in for an hour and shoot at things. If a furball, bomber intercept or GV battle is happening near a substrat, funsies for them. Or they hunt up the usual offering of game play and not worry about the strategic war win.
The biggest downside, you will need bodies and a certain amount of coordination of assets to leverage the reduced percentage of fields to win the war quickly. On the up side, just as a last minute M3 can raise the percentage of fields needed to win the war and cut your success short. A single bomber or even jabo can suddenly win the war with the small number of bases you already have. Strategic options so to say instead of needing a hoard. But a hoard can do it like old times since the maximum number of fields needed will still be 20%.
-
The OP suggested ( wished) that the outcome of fighter on fighter had a secondary role in the War win criteria.
The suggestion was based on a point based target.
I like this idea but do not like points...... What other other mechanisms may there be where fighter on fighter generates a secondary bias to war outcome.
-
What other other mechanisms may there be where fighter on fighter generates a secondary bias to war outcome.
I would be good with anything really. I think the game is too heavily focused on capturing bases and with the current setup I think the game has become counter intuitive.
These are my general critiques of the game.
The maps are huge which allows for a lot of smaller fights to break out across it. But it takes a lot more than a squad or 2 of players to capture an undefended base let alone a defended one.
As an MMO it should encourage interaction amongst it's player base considering that's what most people who play MMOs are looking for. As it is now players are encouraged to take as many as possible and fighting where there's the least amount of resistance.
Most gamers seek instant action. From my experience I'd fly 5-10 minutes to a fight just to get there and realize it's a one-sided affair and all the enemy has left or the enemy defended well and all the friendlies have left leaving me to fight 10-20 alone. Either way not much reward for a 5-10minute flight.
People logging in and seeing their country is losing really have no incentive to play. If you're not an experienced player or good at fighting (which most aren't) constantly getting shot down by greater numbers gets old very fast.
Those are just a couple basic critiques.
-
The moment a wish thread deviates from discussing practicalities and implementation (when it isn't a wish to model a plane or GV) I get bored. ;)
-
They also want HiTech to completely change the game. Not find avenues inside of his parameters to expand the game within its current framework. Which is what he is more likely from years of observation to give some thought to. But, then they don't have to meet his payroll and loan obligations.
-
They also want HiTech to completely change the game. Not find avenues inside of his parameters to expand the game within its current framework.
Most of what I have asked fits into the framework of what the game can already do or has done in the past.
Which is what he is more likely from years of observation to give some thought to. But, then they don't have to meet his payroll and loan obligations.
Not sure what you're getting at here. There was no asterisks in the "Wishlist" sticky that said I was required to meet some sort of payroll/loan obligations in order to make a suggestion.
If I did not care about the game and only intended on ripping on it I wouldn't be here making a suggestion to make it better. I could just do that in the general forums. But being an adult, I would more likely just play other games (like I have been) rather than flame a game I did not like.
To me the game has everything needed to be enjoyable. A great flight model, fun ground game, bombers, sea war. A lot of things already exist in the game. To me the only thing missing is what to do in those planes, gv's bombers ect. There's little action. That part of the game has gone real stale over the years. It's also just about the only thing that hasn't changed since the game began. HTC has tweaked everything but the war itself. Hence the title of the thread.
And if you call action grabbing a bunch of your friends or all 15wings of your squads and taking a bunch of undefended or lightly defended bases then you are part of what is wrong with the game today and why a lot of very good players left.
-
They also want HiTech to completely change the game. Not find avenues inside of his parameters to expand the game within its current framework. Which is what he is more likely from years of observation to give some thought to. But, then they don't have to meet his payroll and loan obligations.
As a student of psychology you should see and understand what most of these suggestions are. People are looking for ways that HTC can use to guide the players back to using those things that are so neglected in the game that use to be used so often. With the shift in the way this generation has pushed the game many are just looking for a way to shift it back to when there was more strategy, fighting, and tactics used.
Nobody is looking for a re-write of the game coad, just an adjustment to "guide" players into more avenues of game play.
-
Nobody is looking for a re-write of the game coad, just an adjustment to "guide" players into more avenues of game play.
Very well said.
-
TW9, i remember when we used to be with Hornets, me and you used to capture a chain of Vases on Pizza map with 1xM8 +1 m3( until we meet the LTARs or AKs :); the V base had 1 vh and 1 manned ack.Now the vbase has 4 vhs +1 Fh+ a dozed of guns.The town was small without guns easy to take all down with 1x P47 heavy. Bases were much easier to capture, without this ninja resuping .m3s, more dynamic front line,maps reset sooner and toolsheders like myself had fun grabbing land: this was strategy
Making bases very difficult to capture and this large maps impossible to reset in 7 days map cycle , ,eliminate strategy and 1000s of players ;
what's left to play for, what to achieve?
Nothing left ,only the abused score system posted on front page ecouraging cowardly selfish behaviour.
I see the graphics are getting a bust in next version, but imop, they can add butterflies and paint the grass pink, if the strategic gaming is not changed the numbers of players won't improve.
-
Making bases very difficult to capture and this large maps impossible to reset in 7 days map cycle
Most large maps are actually won.
But I know that won't stop you from claiming this thing again and again. ;)
-
As a student of psychology you should see and understand what most of these suggestions are. People are looking for ways that HTC can use to guide the players back to using those things that are so neglected in the game that use to be used so often. With the shift in the way this generation has pushed the game many are just looking for a way to shift it back to when there was more strategy, fighting, and tactics used.
Nobody is looking for a re-write of the game coad, just an adjustment to "guide" players into more avenues of game play.
HiTech modified game mechanisms in response to the many years long problems with hoards which many of these same players screamed at HiTech for years to bring under control. Ultimately we have the finest in anti-hoard mechanisms and no hoard anymore. The game stopped being fun from the hoard lemming's point of view and here we are. The screaming worked. Fields and towns that take a super hoard to capture that even we don't like.
Now the same screamers are screaming for HiTech to put it back the way it was because we don't have lemmings to club anymore(easy fields to capture). We have an arena filled with mostly 20%ers because the 80%ers stopped having fun. Because the 20%ers didn't like their answer to being clubbed unmercifully, "The HOARD". And many of the clubbed are now dumb, fat , and happy, dorking around in the eye candy orgasmic sky's of WT.
You guys need those hoards and all of their unintended consequences as much as HiTech needs their money.
Stop complaining and let HiTech complete AH3.
-
HiTech modified game mechanisms in response to the many years long problems with hoards which many of these same players screamed at HiTech for years to bring under control. Ultimately we have the finest in anti-hoard mechanisms and no hoard anymore. The game stopped being fun from the hoard lemming's point of view and here we are. The screaming worked. Fields and towns that take a super hoard to capture that even we don't like.
Now the same screamers are screaming for HiTech to put it back the way it was because we don't have lemmings to club anymore(easy fields to capture). We have an arena filled with mostly 20%ers because the 80%ers stopped having fun. Because the 20%ers didn't like their answer to being clubbed unmercifully, "The HOARD". And many of the clubbed are now dumb, fat , and happy, dorking around in the eye candy orgasmic sky's of WT.
You guys need those hoards and all of their unintended consequences as much as HiTech needs their money.
Stop complaining and let HiTech complete AH3.
If nothing changes but the graphics how's that make it AH3? You can put lipstick on a pig but it would still be a pig. It's pretty obvious the game has headed in the wrong direction. The numbers confirm that. People have posted valid requests in this thread and attempting to belittle those people for doing so instead making valid counters (ie stating why you think there isn't a problem) only shows your level of intelligence (or lack there of).
-
It's a "horde"......... Just sayin
Although if any of you pilits can guide me to a hoard secreted about any terrain ....... I would be most grateful.
-
It's a "horde"......... Just sayin
Although if any of you pilits can guide me to a hoard secreted about any terrain ....... I would be most grateful.
For whatever reason spellchecker sometimes flags "horde" and confuses those who fear their attempted troll will be counter-trolled by their lack of intelligence.
-
Thread's gone south. It's become more 'bout trading insults than ideas.
-
The day there's no trolls on the BB's will be the day pigs learn to fly.
-
Take away winning the reset altogether. Rotate maps regularly. Adjust those maps based on numbers in flight. Make a number of bases indestructible so that low numbered sides always have fields they can up from to continue the fight. Limit dar and counters in how far into bad guy land they can see, allowing for a low number side to be able to up a counter attack without a dar bar showing
Removing the win the reset feeder bar and putting the emphasis on player vs player, team vs team combat would seem like the way to go. Getting to the reset feeder bar can be done with a lot of bodies and little combat.
-
Then TW9 come back and fly with us.
-
In general, this thread speaks to have rewards that create an incentive for organized actions.
+1
boo
-
In general, this thread speaks to have rewards that create an incentive for organized actions.
+1
boo
:aok
-
-1
-
If this happends then Knights will always win, due to beating the aircons down and moving forwards the first.