Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tuton25 on December 25, 2014, 11:56:39 AM
-
I think that improving the ground war will drastically improve the game all around. I mean "improve" by adding more tanks, artillery, and infantry options, as well as make battles between them more common (apart form the crater MA). Here is why I think it will help:
1) Shorter learning curve. To learn a tank well enough to get a few kills only takes a few minutes, rather than the hours for aircraft. This will keep new players interested long enough to where when they get frustrated with flying they have something easier to fall back on.
2) More ground attack aircraft. This should also help with the learning curve. With more tanks and infantry options people will up ground attack aircraft. While I don't think the A20 or Il2 will become more popular than spits and ponies, it should pull people down to the deck. With an altitude advantage it will give the new guy a slight advantage if they learn to keep it.
3) More players. If the game was more rounded and didn't cater to a niche market more people would try it out. With the popularity of other tank games on the market Aces High has the opportunity to compete with them.
This is more of a discussion on philosophy than a discussion on what should or shouldn't be implemented.
-
You must be new if you don't know that this is what HTC has been doing the last few years.
If you look you'll even find complaints about it. :lol
-
I still believe that the ground war did much to kill the action we had in the air.
-
the techno barrier (stick pedals throttle etc) was always lower for the ground vehicles in that a mouse and keyboard would render no disadvantage while in the air most players have found full flight controls to be necessary to be on equal footing.
so depending on your point of view the ground war is populated by players that would not be in the air war anyway?
then there's players that like all facets of the game and find any new additions and variety to be good things.
-
the techno barrier (stick pedals throttle etc) was always lower for the ground vehicles in that a mouse and keyboard would render no disadvantage while in the air most players have found full flight controls to be necessary to be on equal footing.
so depending on your point of view the ground war is populated by players that would not be in the air war anyway?
then there's players that like all facets of the game and find any new additions and variety to be good things.
this!! :airplane:
And not everyone is or will be, "a great pilot". The ground war helps keep players around,, hopefully at some point, the high seas will bring in or help retain more and more players as well!
-
this!! :airplane:
And not everyone is or will be, "a great pilot". The ground war helps keep players around,, hopefully at some point, the high seas will bring in or help retain more and more players as well!
ahhhh but that can become a slippery slope. If player population increases by 20% and its all tankers how does that help the "fighter" guys? They still don't have anyone to fight and so they start logging off and soon quit the game all together. So all you do is turn Aces HIGH in to a tank game.
Personally I'd rather see players who while not now nor ever will be great pilots continue to fly and try. Heck I've been in that boat for 13 years now.
Catering to one type of player isn't going to help, be it pilots or tankers. What is needed is better game play so more people can get enjoyment out of a single game.
-
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< will never be a great pilot - not because of the planes I choose (biggest personal favourite is the Spit V and the 38G), but because I just dont have the skill/coordination/time required.
That said, this game provides me with the ability to have fun on my terms - win or lose (I generally lose). If I can get a grin plastered on my face in a sortie or 2, I'm happy. If I manage to get a couple of kills in that sortie, I'm happy.
If I lose a fight, meh, nothing unusual there - I enjoy pretty much all the different things I can do in game, whether its dying in a plane, gv, manned gun, cant think of many places I can make friends, then go and hunt them down and try to kill them (apparently its really frowned on in real life :D)
Wurz
-
Some facts
November 2005 compared to November 2014
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/gv70vs178_zps8c61a183.jpg)
The over all GV quote has risen from about 20% to about 24% over the past 9 years. "Most of the players in GV now" is often quoted, but is not even correct on CraterMa.
FYI, the GV set in tour 70 had 3 tanks, by tour 178 this had increased to 14 tanks and tank destroyers
-
ahhhh but that can become a slippery slope. If player population increases by 20% and its all tankers how does that help the "fighter" guys? They still don't have anyone to fight ...
It helps the fighter guys if the game is still online. BTW how can more than 1 "fighter" not have anyone to fight and how do more ground targets change that?
-
It helps the fighter guys if the game is still online.
ahh but that is the slippery slop I mentioned. How long will the game be on line if flying guys keep leaving?
BTW how can more than 1 "fighter" not have anyone to fight and how do more ground targets change that?
ahh yes mister specific, technically if there is more than one guy flying you "should" have someone to fight. Heck mid-day there are 90 folks on line and there is no one to fight because a percentage are sitting in the tower, a percentage are in GVs, and a percentage are hiding from any kind of contact while doing their milk runs. :rolleyes:
Spin it how you want FLS, but as the numbers drop there are less players in the sir and so it gets harder and harder to find a fight. Cater to GVs only and that is all you'll have in the game. Of course the same goes for catering only to the flyers. A balance must be maintained
-
ahh but that is the slippery slop I mentioned. How long will the game be on line if flying guys keep leaving?
As long as flying guys keep arriving and aren't run off by all the complaining.
-
I still fly almost every time I log on, but,, I'm a tank guy,, I've stayed because of the tanks,, you get to shoot me down every so often because you have tanks in this game. There are no GV only players that I know of!
I've seen DR7 in planes recently even and he was as close as any I know to being GV only?
-
There are no GV only players that I know of!
last tour we had 3 pilot ID's who spent 100% of their game time in GV mode and logged a considerable mount of hours:
killbox 59:48
Gavilan 35:28
Kobi2014 22:10
-
I like the fact that we have tanks in this game. The ground game is just another faucet of fun that AH has to offer, as well as another strategy used to win wars and take bases, while also getting new people to join for the battle aspect of tank fighting in an open map. It makes the "war" sense a little more realistic. I hope that even one day we could encorporate ground troops and play as soldiers, to have the whole war game.
That being said, I have never been a tank guy. I really only play this game for the fighter/plane aspect of it. GVs are just boring to me. I fear that GV players are taking over. I fear that fights are diminishing because of the amount of GVs players. Instead of huge furballs, most grab tanks which lessons the amount of planes in the sky and makes it easier for the opposing team to cap bases.
Things like TT take a huge amount of players out of the "war" aspect of the game and puts them in their own section, which I think contradicts the point of the game.
I'd like to see more people back in planes and utilize this game for the air combat. I've always thought the air combat was the main point of this game. Tanking was kind of secondary and it was good that way. But more and more players get in tanks and it is kind of making the air aspect of it lame, especially because of the diminishing players.
I like the tank aspect but I also hate it because it takes away from the aircombat fun of the game. I hope that it doesn't turn into a GV game because air combaters get bored ( which I think is what is happening.)
In my personal opinion I'd rather see new players learn the air game than the tank game. I hope that more air enthusiest will pick up this game in the future so that air fights and furballs will be prosperous once again. That is the main concept of the game if you ask me.
Just my opinion and 2 cents worth from a guy whose played for a while.
-
I'd like to see more people back in planes and utilize this game for the air combat. I've always thought the air combat was the main point of this game. Tanking was kind of secondary and it was good that way. But more and more players get in tanks and it is kind of making the air aspect of it lame, especially because of the diminishing players.
It still is secondary, see my chart (and explanation) above.
-
As long as flying guys keep arriving and aren't run off by all the complaining.
What you seem to consider "complaining" some of us consider "constructive criticism". The OP asked for a discussion on "improving the ground war will drastically improve the game all around." I posted my thoughts on them. I have been here just as long as you and love this game as much as you, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that if the game is geared more and more toward ground wars you will see less and less guys flying.
I don't have a problem with people playing the tank aspect of the game especially if it is what brings in new players, but I would like to see them graduate to the flying aspect of the game eventually. Building or enhancing one aspect of the game over another will NOT in my opinion help the game grow.
-
last tour we had 3 pilot ID's who spent 100% of their game time in GV mode and logged a considerable mount of hours:
killbox 59:48
Gavilan 35:28
Kobi2014 22:10
Thank you,, three out of how many players? Anyway, glad I didn't say any at all.
never mind,,just over roughly.0015 % of the players , are GV only players,, pretty big threat to the air war!
-
It still is secondary, see my chart (and explanation) above.
Yes but according to your charts, it is slowely not becoming secondary anymore, and I'm afraid this is why the air combat aspect of it is diminishing along with the air combat players. It could be a correlation..
-
Yes but according to your charts, it is slowely not becoming secondary anymore,
It took 9 years to get from 20 to 24%, At that rate, we would be at 50% by 2070 or so ;)
-
It took 9 years to get from 20 to 24%, At that rate, we would be at 50% by 2070 or so ;)
Okay, but is it still 24% with the same amount of air flyers there are today? Ie, is it still 24% of the total population today, compared to 20% as it were 9 years?
-
Okay, but is it still 24% with the same amount of air flyers there are today? Ie, is it still 24% of the total population today, compared to 20% as it were 9 years?
It means that in 2005 the AH players spent about 20% of their total gametime in vehicles, while now they do spend 24% of their total gametime in them.
Absolutely speaking, we have both less players in planes as well as in GV's these days due to the overall loss of players.
-
can you generate the same numbers with field gunners?
-
No, can't track them by hours as the score page doesn't show that. Only by kills, but that's much less accurate.
In 2005, 6% of all plane kills had been made by all kind of manned guns, while in 2014 it's 7%
-
I don't have a problem with people playing the tank aspect of the game especially if it is what brings in new players, but I would like to see them graduate to the flying aspect of the game eventually.
I must be ungraduating then because I GV more than I fly these days. In fact I bet my time spent doing each has completely reversed over time.
-
I'm coming up on 3 years in game, I joined to fly, found out I stink at it as a noob with the steep learning curve. I tried a Gv and the first time out I got a kill compared to the 2 weeks or more of flying till I got a good clean kill. I think if the game did not have more than just flying I would have been done after the first month, having more than one option in the game keeps the noobs hanging around......I think I'm about 50% of the time in the air and the other 50% in a GV or a gun making peoples day :devil
my 2 cents on the game........be way nicer to the Noobs and help them out and get rid of chl200, any new player who finds it or comments on it, gets sick of the game real quick.
-
ahhhh but that can become a slippery slope. If player population increases by 20% and its all tankers how does that help the "fighter" guys? They still don't have anyone to fight and so they start logging off and soon quit the game all together. So all you do is turn Aces HIGH in to a tank game.
Personally I'd rather see players who while not now nor ever will be great pilots continue to fly and try. Heck I've been in that boat for 13 years now.
Catering to one type of player isn't going to help, be it pilots or tankers. What is needed is better game play so more people can get enjoyment out of a single game.
Usually what happens is whenever a large ground war gets going. aircraft show up to try and bomb them. then other guys show up in fighters to kill the bombers. then yet more fighters show up to kill the fighters that are trying to kill the bombers who are trying to bomb the GVs..
An improvement to the ground game could significantly help the air war.
I occasionally enjoy GVing (when it isnt a spawn camp) as a break from flying. It can be quite fun when its not whackamole or fighting over nothing.
I see improvements to the ground game as having more potential benefits then drawbacks as it may attract new players. And certainly some of those players will want to at least try flying
-
Usually what happens is whenever a large ground war gets going. aircraft show up to try and bomb them. then other guys show up in fighters to kill the bombers. then yet more fighters show up to kill the fighters that are trying to kill the bombers who are trying to bomb the GVs..
An improvement to the ground game could significantly help the air war.
I occasionally enjoy GVing (when it isnt a spawn camp) as a break from flying. It can be quite fun when its not whackamole or fighting over nothing.
I see improvements to the ground game as having more potential benefits then drawbacks as it may attract new players. And certainly some of those players will want to at least try flying
this is my exact thinking, said more elegantly than I ever could.
-
I still believe that the ground war did much to kill the action we had in the air.
+1
I forgot this was GV's Low, and it's not Aces High... :eek:
-
As long as flying guys keep arriving and aren't run off by all the complaining.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner (at least for 1/3rd of the problem). The other 2/3rds being the poo-throwing monkeys on the bbs. If you really want to see AHIII around for a long time and you don't have anything nice to say, say it offline.
-
The game doesn't need elitists, it needs people who will be average at best at everything.
They also need to have a huge desire to play 3-5 days a week for a few years. Elitists will play till they are good and will just burn out and never play anymore.
-
I still believe that the ground war did much to kill the action we had in the air.
Or maybe people got burned out by the air war. Or found it getting stale, and rather then quit the game entirely. They just did something else.
There is no saying how many stayed because for the ground option. Probably many more then left because of it.
People like having options. I love a good furball, or a base take/defence,or occasionally GVing. But if all I had were any one of those options. This game would have gotten old and boring long ago.
-
Usually what happens is whenever a large ground war gets going. aircraft show up to try and bomb them. then other guys show up in fighters to kill the bombers. then yet more fighters show up to kill the fighters that are trying to kill the bombers who are trying to bomb the GVs..
An improvement to the ground game could significantly help the air war.
I love free-for-alls like this :D The perfect time to up a P-38L heavy; targets everywhere, on the ground & in the air :D
I kill a few & die alot but its fun.
I don't GV only fly :old:
LtngRydr
-
Because the newer generation want more gratification quicker, I believe that the "hardcore" guys who died thousands of times to learn how to be the best they could fighting in an aircraft will get lower and lower with years going by. Doing something to improve the basic amount of players in the game overall should be what we want. This way, maybe they will want to start to fly more. Probably at first they will be in bombers, but eventually will switch to jabo's then full fighters. Then doing what AH is designed for. Fighting in the air, sea or land. :) If we don't try to get "some" people in and the last "Hardcore" fighters keep leaving. No one will have something to fight in AH. Started to play in tour 81. Much has change in the years. But Lusche's numbers don't lie.
-
To me playing AH is not only about fighting the fight in a warbirds even though i consider myself more like fighter jockey than anything else. Fighting just for the fightings sake ain't enough for me. I like the idea that there is this sense of purpose in what i do, supporting other finns / rooks to capture a field or escorting our buffs etc. Seeing GV'ers doing their part on the ground is part of the immersion. Infantry would indeed add to this feeling of immersion and i would not complain if more GV's will be offered instead of new planes. Heck i can't even fly half of them as one should after 14 years of doing these online sims.
This is also the reason i like scenarios. It gives you this sense that you are a tiny spec, a single wheel in a big big macine. You can feel and you can see there is war going on around you. Otherwise i might as well play warthunder or some il2 series game. AH got it right. And i support the idea of making new machines to the grinder wether to fly, drive or crawl...
-
Usually what happens is whenever a large ground war gets going. aircraft show up to try and bomb them. then other guys show up in fighters to kill the bombers. then yet more fighters show up to kill the fighters that are trying to kill the bombers who are trying to bomb the GVs..
An improvement to the ground game could significantly help the air war.
I occasionally enjoy GVing (when it isnt a spawn camp) as a break from flying. It can be quite fun when its not whackamole or fighting over nothing.
I see improvements to the ground game as having more potential benefits then drawbacks as it may attract new players. And certainly some of those players will want to at least try flying
I don't see this happen very often, and when it starts to build all you get are the cries from the GV guys about all the "lame bomb****ing".
I don't have a problem with improving the ground game, but neglecting the air game while doing it is foolish and counter productive. Sure you bring in more ground guys but lose more air guys, so whats the point?
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner (at least for 1/3rd of the problem). The other 2/3rds being the poo-throwing monkeys on the bbs. If you really want to see AHIII around for a long time and you don't have anything nice to say, say it offline.
ahhh so we are suppose to talk about the game on the games message board only if we have positive things to say, riiiiight :rolleyes:
If HTC took it as complaining they could easily handle it by editing posts, deleting posts, and even putting posters PNG. However I think they look at it as constructive criticism. I'm sure they have built ideas around some of the things players criticize. I remember when players criticized that taking ack out at a field was too easy and so players couldn't up to defend, HTC added more ack.
If people keep bring up the same criticisms maybe there is something that needs to be looked at. If dar is always down and players are login to come here and criticize that issue every week maybe they should look at it and tweak if they find that is is down an inordinate amount of time.
-
Well actually... it can happen that GV drivers get stuck onto some field we try to capture. I remember in recent history an enemy V-base we closed with our bombers and we were flamed for it. Flying our buffs we couldn't believe that fellow rooks were giving us hell for trying to help in capuring a field they seemed to be working on. And when one of us took m3 in, he was shouted with pretty rude names as if we should not capture this bridgehead vital for rooks to push forwards to another enemy isle.
We did make the capture and the flaming went on. We were ruining their sport or something. As if the goal was not to push forward and try to capture fields! Luckily I don't see this kind of activity often but boy did we laugh. But one begins to wonder. There are so many ways to play this game, so many goals to achieve, so many different factions within the same countries that one easily steps on somebody elses toes. Multifaceted for sure.
In the end the guys in GV's made a notice that they let the enemy capture back this field without resistance. The finns decided that it won't happen.
/edit. And you wonder why rooks lose... hell, we have to fight oneanother :)
-
Well actually... it can happen that GV drivers get stuck onto some field we try to capture. I remember in recent history an enemy V-base we closed with our bombers and we were flamed for it. Flying our buffs we couldn't believe that fellow rooks were giving us hell for trying to help in capuring a field they seemed to be working on. And when one of us took m3 in, he was shouted with pretty rude names as if we should not capture this bridgehead vital for rooks to push forwards to another enemy isle.
We did make the capture and the flaming went on. We were ruining their sport or something. As if the goal was not to push forward and try to capture fields! Luckily I don't see this kind of activity often but boy did we laugh. But one begins to wonder. There are so many ways to play this game, so many goals to achieve, so many different factions within the same countries that one easily steps on somebody elses toes. Multifaceted for sure.
In the end the guys in GV's made a notice that they let the enemy capture back this field without resistance. The finns decided that it won't happen.
/edit. And you wonder why rooks lose... hell, we have to fight oneanother :)
That's a testament of how the war/capture system is not interesting in it's current state. Why bother capture a field when you currently have a fight, and that there is 150 fields to capture after that one? I understand why you guys got yelled at, I never liked when people kill the FH in an otherwise good fight.
-
It helps the fighter guys if the game is still online. BTW how can more than 1 "fighter" not have anyone to fight and how do more ground targets change that?
Inclusion of the gvs has brought some negative effects even to fighters though. Running for field ack turned into running for friendly wirble and taking off a field became dangerous with gvs camping close to landing/TO paths etc.
It would be cool if AH had also troops WW2OL style, I would love to strafe some fps players on the fields (of war, not airfields) :)
-
I would be interested in stats re kills for
GV v GV
GV v AC
AC v AC
Interestingly the OP referred to Ground war and Air war. Not ACM duelling & GV jousting.
I for one would like the whole ground war modelled to provide a foil for the Air Combat gaming model.
I would like the ground war moved away from airfields but still be the key to the land grab aquisition re town capture. It always seemed wrong to me that airfields are some how linked to towns but GV fields are not..... I see how it's evolved this way from the basic model used by AW in the early 90's but cannot help but observe that the balance is not right or even credible.
The ground war should IMO be the primary land grab gameplay whereby towns are captured to create logistic routes toward key strat elements. This is supported ( in defence and attack ) by air elements which have to fight for dominance over ther ground war in order to influence it appropriately.
Disabling ( even capturing) airfields should be very difficult in this scenario except when they are denied logistics due to the land grab.....( in which case they would simple shut down and be available for "acquisition" by capture or just acquired CV like by the side that now has the logistic supply{like capturing a port})
In this scenario aircraft are not denied access to game play through porking. The reduced necessity to provide a heavy cap over an extremely adjacent field permits defending AC access to combat beyond the end of the runway.
The land war is mobile and denied direct access ( spawns) to airfields.
Strats ( or just key cities) would be capturable (by land based forces with logistical supply) and the acquisition of a % of these would force the surrender of the side losing them. There would be a significant group of uncapturable fields ( gv & ac) behind the strat facilities.
-
I would be interested in stats re kills for
GV v GV
GV v AC
AC v AC
This year so far (jan-nov)
air to air 1.478.863 47%
air to ground 247.427 8%
ground to ground 991.105 32%
ground to air 410.388 13%
ground to air kills include kills by manned guns, gv vs planes only would be more on par.
-
This year so far (jan-nov)
air to air 1.478.863 47%
air to ground 247.427 8%
ground to ground 991.105 32%
ground to air 410.388 13%
ground to air kills include kills by manned guns, gv vs planes only would be more on par.
I suppose that a small % of ground to ground would also be from manned guns.
It's a pity that the air to ground kills on manned guns is not counted. It would be a matter of debate whether the data would be relevant in other areas of discussion (score etc) ..... albeit that it would ( in this discussion) represent game play time by players doing what they wish to do even if it's dieing ( eventually) in a manned gun.
What we see though is that the "ground war" (32%) and the "air war" (47%) are indeed predominantly separate. So going back to the OP's wish to enhance one in a way that improves the other .....must be preceded by gameplay mechanisms that actually promote the "ground v air war".
-
What we see though is that the "ground war" (32%) and the "air war" (47%) are indeed predominantly separate.
Though some caution should be used when doing these comparisons based on kills, as both forms of combat have substantially different kills/hours. On average, vehicle combat K/Ts are significantly higher than air to air combat ones.
Second, this also doesn't means there is that much of separation between them. Tanks are rolling to a base. Tank hunters take off, but are engaged by enemy air cover which in turn provokes more fighter sorties. An air battle ensues over the target, and as long as this air battle is relatively balanced, few tanks are being killed from the air, as Il-2's, A-20s and such are a premium target. More tanks are being killed by other tanks defending the town.
That would be a combined arms battle, with still relatively few A2H kills and relatively many G2G kills.
If much more tanks would be killed by bombs, few players would actually bother to use them, as this is a very lopsided and frustrating kind of 'combat' for a GV driver.
-
I think you're correct in as much that an air superiority dominance ( or at least a stalemate) would be the essential requirement to ( in this scenario) a successfull ground mission unless an effective ground to air defence is employed.
My opinion regarding the tank driver not wanting to play through fear of being bombed.......
My first impression is a sort of "doh!" Re tanking timidity...... However re game play balance I would again point to the present situation whereby attacking towns is presently linked to the close proximity of airfields..... It's really toooo easy to up a bomber to travel a couple of miles to bomb the incoming tanks..... This drives the motivation to pork ord and so on and so on...etc etc.
Link towns to GV fields as per above and now the ordinance has to be flown some 10-15 miles to be used against incoming GV's.... Then ( I would argue) we see GV 's being bombed much more in the quantity found when ( presently) trying to capture a GV field from an adjacent GV field.
-
I never liked when people kill the FH in an otherwise good fight.
I agree.
However, like I previously stated, I also really enjoy those spur-of-the-moment free-for-alls. When for some turn of events, everyone just converges at a base and has at it. The only thing that makes it perfect is when it is at a port and both CVs are there too. :old:
-
I don't have a problem with improving the ground game, but neglecting the air game while doing it is foolish and counter productive. Sure you bring in more ground guys but lose more air guys, so whats the point?
What is it about the "air game" that you feel is neglected? I don't think HTC really cares if the guy paying for a subscription is flying an aircraft, or driving a tank. I think a target is a target is a target. And I have seen fights prolonged and drawing in many more targets for both sides where there is an area with a mix of GV's and Aircraft.
-
What is it about the "air game" that you feel is neglected? I don't think HTC really cares if the guy paying for a subscription is flying an aircraft, or driving a tank. I think a target is a target is a target. And I have seen fights prolonged and drawing in many more targets for both sides where there is an area with a mix of GV's and Aircraft.
I don't think its neglected, however if all they do is improve the GV game and draw in only that type of player AND the numbers continue to fall and the replacement numbers are only GV type players the game will become Aces Low in truth. Im only saying catering to only one style of play is going to hurt the game more than help it. Generating more ground battles doesn't guarantee more air battles
-
I asked how you thought the air game is being neglected, your responding with:
I don't think its neglected
seems at odds with your original statement:
I don't have a problem with improving the ground game, but neglecting the air game while doing it is foolish and counter productive.
I’ll ask the question a different way, what is it you would change/ improve/ add to the Air Game?
-
I asked how you thought the air game is being neglected, your responding with: seems at odds with your original statement:
I’ll ask the question a different way, what is it you would change/ improve/ add to the Air Game?
Im saying that if you ONLY improve the ground game....neglecting the air game..... you will soon only have gv style players. They must improve BOTH to help the game, not just one style. Improving the ground game alone will NOT help the air game as suggested in the title.... "Improving the ground war to help the air war".
I trust in HTC to continue on their even keel of advancing ALL aspects of the game and leave it to them to decide which is the right path for the game. While I trust in HTC, it isn't going to stop me from suggesting other avenues to take. :D
-
Im saying that if you ONLY improve the ground game....neglecting the air game..... you will soon only have gv style players. They must improve BOTH to help the game, not just one style. Improving the ground game alone will NOT help the air game as suggested in the title.... "Improving the ground war to help the air war".
I trust in HTC to continue on their even keel of advancing ALL aspects of the game and leave it to them to decide which is the right path for the game. While I trust in HTC, it isn't going to stop me from suggesting other avenues to take. :D
I understand all that about HTC, I’m asking a more straight forward question , based on your 13 years experience in AH, how would you like to see the air game changed/added to/ improved ? Not a trick question, just wondered what your thoughts on the subject are.
-
I understand all that about HTC, I’m asking a more straight forward question , based on your 13 years experience in AH, how would you like to see the air game changed/added to/ improved ? Not a trick question, just wondered what your thoughts on the subject are.
Personally I'd like to see something along the lines of what they were working toward in the "Combat Tour" setup.
We need a "Supreme Commander" for each team. Missions run with objective that need to be completed using both air and ground to attack and or defend. This part of the game MUST be voluntary as not everyone will like to play it. However I think it would help game play for everyone.
There seems to be a large part of the population that likes group play, organized missions, team work. This would cater to their style of play. With better organization and better mission planing you would see players move away from the typical horde in a ubur rides NOE type missions to missions with more thought and maybe needing a bit of skill and luck to pull off. I always found those missions that may have a bit of doubt on roll out being that much more satisfying a win when they did succeed.
While these missions/type of play isn't everyone's cup of tea, it can generate more fun for others as well. Furballs will flock to the sits of these battles as defends if only to have someone to shoot at. Some may join the mission knowing other will be up to defend. With GVs brought into the missions you will have more defenders upping in gvs to stop them rolling up on the field. With the gv on the attack there would be less spawn camping and more tactical fighting in GVs... hit and move, or use an tank to draw a group into a trap and so on.
While the main arena is a big sand box I think it needs a bit of a push to generate ALL of the options available and I think having a Supreme Commander would be the best way to do that. As it is now you either fight the horde and are in the horde. Some maps are GV spawns fights some you see very little GV fighting at all. With some organization to guide the play I think you'll see more options available to everyone.
Now, how to do this LOL!!! beats me! I don't think you could have it player side. While there are some like GHI, Joker, ET, and a few others that seem to be able to get a team together none of them seem to have either the imagination, or the will to do it right. They are happy to call for a horde and point it at one base.
A player committee? 6-10 guys on each team that take turns pushing their team ahead sharing battle plans and information on where and how to attack/defend, a continuous command presence in the game for each team. It could work, but it would be a lot of work and communication and most of all dedication. Who has time for that kind of commitment?
Server side command. Best choice but how to program it. The program would have to know and be able to evaluate what was going on in the game if not every minute often enough to keep up with the game flow. Review and evaluate every 5 minutes or so would be the max I would think. It would also have to be accessed by players for those that like to run missions. Adding a mission would have to be "fit in" with the over all plan. The command would have to adjust it's missions to allow a player made mission by canceling one of its own missions or building something around the players mission to aid in the front/attack. A server side command could also detect enemy missions and announce defensive mission scrambles. It could load single player missions with a predetermined plane and you just select it and you roll. I think it could be fun to select a defensive spot to find myself on the runway in a P40 or something. Just to add a challenge to the game.
Can it be done, I'm sure it can. Will it work the way I think it would, I'd love to see :devil I just think that if you have more going on than we the player generate now it can't help but be more fun for everyone.
-
Personally I'd like to see something along the lines of what they were working toward in the "Combat Tour" setup.
We need a "Supreme Commander" for each team. Missions run with objective that need to be completed using both air and ground to attack and or defend. This part of the game MUST be voluntary as not everyone will like to play it. However I think it would help game play for everyone.
There seems to be a large part of the population that likes group play, organized missions, team work. This would cater to their style of play. With better organization and better mission planing you would see players move away from the typical horde in a ubur rides NOE type missions to missions with more thought and maybe needing a bit of skill and luck to pull off. I always found those missions that may have a bit of doubt on roll out being that much more satisfying a win when they did succeed.
While these missions/type of play isn't everyone's cup of tea, it can generate more fun for others as well. Furballs will flock to the sits of these battles as defends if only to have someone to shoot at. Some may join the mission knowing other will be up to defend. With GVs brought into the missions you will have more defenders upping in gvs to stop them rolling up on the field. With the gv on the attack there would be less spawn camping and more tactical fighting in GVs... hit and move, or use an tank to draw a group into a trap and so on.
While the main arena is a big sand box I think it needs a bit of a push to generate ALL of the options available and I think having a Supreme Commander would be the best way to do that. As it is now you either fight the horde and are in the horde. Some maps are GV spawns fights some you see very little GV fighting at all. With some organization to guide the play I think you'll see more options available to everyone.
Now, how to do this LOL!!! beats me! I don't think you could have it player side. While there are some like GHI, Joker, ET, and a few others that seem to be able to get a team together none of them seem to have either the imagination, or the will to do it right. They are happy to call for a horde and point it at one base.
A player committee? 6-10 guys on each team that take turns pushing their team ahead sharing battle plans and information on where and how to attack/defend, a continuous command presence in the game for each team. It could work, but it would be a lot of work and communication and most of all dedication. Who has time for that kind of commitment?
Server side command. Best choice but how to program it. The program would have to know and be able to evaluate what was going on in the game if not every minute often enough to keep up with the game flow. Review and evaluate every 5 minutes or so would be the max I would think. It would also have to be accessed by players for those that like to run missions. Adding a mission would have to be "fit in" with the over all plan. The command would have to adjust it's missions to allow a player made mission by canceling one of its own missions or building something around the players mission to aid in the front/attack. A server side command could also detect enemy missions and announce defensive mission scrambles. It could load single player missions with a predetermined plane and you just select it and you roll. I think it could be fun to select a defensive spot to find myself on the runway in a P40 or something. Just to add a challenge to the game.
Can it be done, I'm sure it can. Will it work the way I think it would, I'd love to see :devil I just think that if you have more going on than we the player generate now it can't help but be more fun for everyone.
Didnt AW at one point have some sort of automatic mechanism to direct people to where they were needed A sort of automatic mission generator?
I seem to remember something along those lines going on
-
I agree with Fugi, that Combat Tour was "the dream". HTC, has lived up to their promise to deliver much of what CT had to offer, including AI combatants, and a long list of improvements added to the current AH game play.
One area that might be a short term "compromise" that we already have in place is the Achievement System. Tweak it to represent more of a daily task and evaluation tool.
How should it be done? I could write a page of suggestions, ranging from assigning rank (not just stars), to adding perked equipment for performing certain tasks.
As for the OP about ground war, helping to bring in pilots, the jury is still out..... so, I will keep practicing at both just in case :cheers:
-
Didnt AW at one point have some sort of automatic mechanism to direct people to where they were needed A sort of automatic mission generator?
I seem to remember something along those lines going on
No but it did have an auto mission generator for single players to use.
I think we should revert to the question re how the ground war can be improved such that it also benefits the airwar.
The temptation is to return to a ground war v airwar debate which gets us no where.
-
No but it did have an auto mission generator for single players to use.
I think we should revert to the question re how the ground war can be improved such that it also benefits the airwar.
The temptation is to return to a ground war v airwar debate which gets us no where.
Sorry Tilt,
Some of Tuton25's examples of improvements do warrant that debate. I do however, agree with the larger assumption that improvements in the "ground war" could relieve some of the frustration with players' difficulty to find desirable action versus other online players on large maps with low numbers. I just think that those improvements have more to do with how, when, where and what entices players to gather. << That debate too, has been echoed since 2001.
I think that improving the ground war will drastically improve the game all around. I mean "improve" by adding more tanks, artillery, and infantry options, as well as make battles between them more common (apart form the crater MA). as far as infantry battles, that would be some feat to accomplish, everything else already done (and didn't support this assumption)
{snip}
If the game was more rounded and didn't cater to a niche market more people would try it out. With the popularity of other tank games on the market Aces High has the opportunity to compete with them. if I am any indication, I tire of sitting on the ground, fairly stationary much faster than flying about looking at "stuff"; also the cost in performance making anything that resembles the other tank games, would probably lose popularity with the fighter jocks :joystick: that enjoy the flight model
This is more of a discussion on philosophy than a discussion on what should or shouldn't be implemented. actually, it is more of a discussion on what brings money into Dale's pocket
-
I agree with Fugi, that Combat Tour was "the dream". HTC, has lived up to their promise to deliver much of what CT had to offer, including AI combatants, and a long list of improvements added to the current AH game play.
One area that might be a short term "compromise" that we already have in place is the Achievement System. Tweak it to represent more of a daily task and evaluation tool.
How should it be done? I could write a page of suggestions, ranging from assigning rank (not just stars), to adding perked equipment for performing certain tasks.
As for the OP about ground war, helping to bring in pilots, the jury is still out..... so, I will keep practicing at both just in case :cheers:
There is no need to make it so complicated. You don't need ranks evolved. .. see how that works out for cv groups. All you need is a purpose behind the game and a way to guide it in an interesting and varied way.
Right now the purpose is to win the war, and they way it's done is with a horde running g the same noe raid over and over. If a supreme command ran the missions there could be more variety leading to more action and challenges.
Dred, I don't remember AW having something like this other than players. The Mafia was good at guiding the As, the MAW was good at guiding the Bs. The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing :devil
-
There is no need to make it so complicated. You don't need ranks evolved. .. see how that works out for CV groups. All you need is a purpose behind the game and a way to guide it in an interesting and varied way.
Right now the purpose is to win the war, and they way it's done is with a horde running g the same Noe raid over and over. If a supreme command ran the missions there could be more variety leading to more action and challenges.
Dr ed, I don't remember AW having something like this other than players. The Mafia was good at guiding the As, the MAW was good at guiding the BS. The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing :devil
The 113Th Lucky Strikes hasn't been on an NOE raid in over two years. I also don't see that many NOE missions being offered up by Karo and his group of Knights. I think an improved mission planner would accomplish a lot toward creating a more interesting game play for both Air and Ground units to be able to work together with some strategy. The current mission planner is nothing more than a horde gather with no way to plan routs, altitude and assign targets. I would love to see artillery added. But the maps would need many changes, a road system that actually means something. Bridges that could actually cross a river and provide a target that actually has value. Mobil AntiAir, Airborn units that attack other targets besides map rooms, come HI Tech, it's been 15 years. Engineer Units that defenders could use to repair, airfields, towns, bridges, roads. Here we are on the eve of a major release and what is it that we will get, Pretty water, pretty trees and colorful mountains. But game play will still be attack town, put 10 troops in map room capture field, big whop.
-
I would like to see more mobile flak vehicles. Preferably with some armor that's effective against gunfire.
-
The 113Th Lucky Strikes hasn't been on an NOE raid in over two years. I also don't see that many NOE missions being offered up by Karo and his group of Knights. I think an improved mission planner would accomplish a lot toward creating a more interesting game play for both Air and Ground units to be able to work together with some strategy. The current mission planner is nothing more than a horde gather with no way to plan routs, altitude and assign targets. I would love to see artillery added. But the maps would need many changes, a road system that actually means something. Bridges that could actually cross a river and provide a target that actually has value. Mobil AntiAir, Airborn units that attack other targets besides map rooms, come HI Tech, it's been 15 years. Engineer Units that defenders could use to repair, airfields, towns, bridges, roads. Here we are on the eve of a major release and what is it that we will get, Pretty water, pretty trees and colorful mountains. But game play will still be attack town, put 10 troops in map room capture field, big whop.
One of the videos HTC has posted about the new release showed a new bridge. How much that will now co.e into play is yet to be seen. Will we have rivers and ravines that will bring the bridges into play and create choke points? Only time will tell.
-
Ground's fairly covered (add a Kübelwagen).
(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/04/vw-kubel-550x326.jpg)
Expand the water war. Add four battleships and 2 carriers.
Oh, and add a bomber or two and another fighter for the Italians.
:) :cheers:
-
The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing :devil
As a fervent C I resemble that remark!
-
There is no need to make it so complicated. You don't need ranks evolved. .. see how that works out for cv groups. apples and oranges, I was merely talking about the achievement system, not privileges from ranks as with CV control All you need is a purpose behind the game and a way to guide it in an interesting and varied way. agreed, now dangle a carrot in front of that cart and see how far it goes (in other words what are you giving the players to lead them in the desired direction? I merely suggested rank as a carrot)
Right now the purpose is to win the war, < the purpose is to login and have some fun, and yes, making a good show achieving country objectives, or even winning a war, can be fun.... but it does not always turn out that way > and the way it's done is with a horde running the same noe raid over and over. If a supreme command ran the missions there could be more variety leading to more action and challenges. if you substitute clearly stated objectives, rather than supreme command, I agree.... right now we have a sophisticated system of supply, with the exception of the HQ killing all radar for a country for long periods of time, it is an example of where ground and air wars could be channeled.
Dred, I don't remember AW having something like this other than players. The Mafia was good at guiding the As, the MAW was good at guiding the Bs. The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing :devil
Expand the water war. {ding, ding} actually, the more intense fights nowadays have been the fleet attacks on airfields..... maybe due to the short flight distance so that combatants are constantly being replenished.
-
< the purpose is to login and have some fun, and yes, making a good show achieving country objectives, or even winning a war, can be fun.... but it does not always turn out that way >
To you it may be logging in and having fun, to many its win the war. You have to look at what "others" are doing/wanting. Years ago it was fighting, and so we had huge furballs. Now it's win the war, and we have huge hordes. Can you imagine the game years ago with fields having only a few acks, towns that were small and everything was lined up in strait lines, then add in todays hordes. LOL!!! they would roll 4-5 base before they had to land out of fuel!
This generation likes to capture bases. Even when a CV is involved, it's due to the short flight times to bring ord in. Once the CV is sunk the battle disappears and the base takers move to some other base. HAd they rolled a few buffs from another base to hit the field the CV was hitting before the attack got going the base would have been captured easily, but for thought and extra time to get those buffs there are not something todays players think about, it's hit it quick and hard and hope for the best.
They already have the objectives..... capture bases and win the war. What is needed is another way to do that instead of the same old, same old.
-
Back to the OP's wish to see improvements in the ground war such as new vehicles, artillery and such, I respectfully do not see achieving his desired result of a better air war. :headscratch: Fugi, as you and I both can agree, the improvements in ground war should be aimed at creating focal points for sustained action. :aok
I have stayed away from wishlist posts recently, waiting for the next immergence of AH the third generation. However, I do believe that much of what this thread is about can be achieved by making small tweaks in the existing systems, and maybe some added coad in the Achievement system.
-
I really like Traveler's suggestion of a road system that means something, and functional, destroyable bridges that span rivers.
Seemed to me that too many ground battles were static engagements that lasted as long as vehicles were available from the involved V-bases. As soon as one side knocked out the VHs, the battle ended and moved somewhere else on the map.
What about adding a whole new target to the maps - capturable villages? With real, useable roads and bridges connecting towns, and capturable villages along these roads that could serve as resupply depots for the attacking columns? We could see ground advances into enemy territory along these routes. With a new vehicle like the Deuce-and-a-half that could carry 10 troops, captured villages could provide repair and refit to attacking forces to allow for sustained pushes into enemy territory. Bridges along the routes would serve as natural interdiction targets for defending air units, as would the columns of advancing units moving long the road...
-
I've always favored and pushed for a meaningful road net as well as more drastic effects for off road movement
I really like Traveler's suggestion of a road system that means something, and functional, destroyable bridges that span rivers.
Seemed to me that too many ground battles were static engagements that lasted as long as vehicles were available from the involved V-bases. As soon as one side knocked out the VHs, the battle ended and moved somewhere else on the map.
What about adding a whole new target to the maps - capturable villages? With real, useable roads and bridges connecting towns, and capturable villages along these roads that could serve as resupply depots for the attacking columns? We could see ground advances into enemy territory along these routes. With a new vehicle like the Deuce-and-a-half that could carry 10 troops, captured villages could provide repair and refit to attacking forces to allow for sustained pushes into enemy territory. Bridges along the routes would serve as natural interdiction targets for defending air units, as would the columns of advancing units moving long the road...
Sounds a lot like my suggestion
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,367854.msg4900434.html#msg4900434
-
^^^ thanks for the link, yes it does sound like basically the same idea. Think I've always liked the idea of blowing up bridges...
-
I'd like them to add coast watchers and forest scouts and the like. The game "knows" what an NOE looks like, have the host bust 1 in 3 or something like that to simulate reports getting through to set an alert. It would make the NOE that much more chancy and give the few defenders that normally show up a bit of an edge to get there before the vulchin starts.
-
I'd like them to add coast watchers and forest scouts and the like. The game "knows" what an NOE looks like, have the host bust 1 in 3 or something like that to simulate reports getting through to set an alert. It would make the NOE that much more chancy and give the few defenders that normally show up a bit of an edge to get there before the vulchin starts.
Could also setup radar more like it was really like. A chain of towers outside of the bases
-
Let's face it radar in the game is nothing like it actually would be in your cockpit. The fact that you do have that option, really points to the obvious, that dot dar and dar bar are needed to "boost" online player interaction, not avoidance.
Again, I say that tiny tweaks without introducing much new, would have drastic impacts on game play. That is probably why HTC is very careful not disturb the status quo.
-
Too late to edit previous post. I just wanted to make it clear that I am for changes :aok but, only HiTech staff know where and what limits can be pushed. Let's see what they have in mind. In the meantime, they have been receptive to suggestions about existing coad. :salute
-
I think the popularity of fleet attacks show that what AH players actually want is faster action, shorter transition times. And it makes sense, nobody really likes the 10 minute transit flights (unless you're in a historical scenario).
-
nobody really likes the 10 minute transit flights (unless you're in a historical scenario).
Wrong.
-
Except for snail............ he likes to do things nice and...... sloOOOW..... :D
I agree, most players prefer shorter transition times to fight. Ten minutes to a fight is not all that bad, especially if the fight meets you halfway. The concern about altitude, prompts longer flights, and longer flights enable some to pile on the kills.
For the adrenaline rush and pure thrill, close by furball action, gets my blood running :joystick:
-
Best thinkin my mind is still that random, long drawn out fight that makes you swear the whole time because both pilots are equally skilled and niether gives way. Startin from alt, to the deck. 5-10 minutes :banana:
-
Wrong.
I think your style of 'climb to 30k and dive' players are a small minority. The masses want action.
-
I'd like them to add coast watchers and forest scouts and the like. The game "knows" what an NOE looks like, have the host bust 1 in 3 or something like that to simulate reports getting through to set an alert. It would make the NOE that much more chancy and give the few defenders that normally show up a bit of an edge to get there before the vulchin starts.
I thought the darbar was supposed to simulate the coast watchers and forest scouts. Perhaps instead of showing just a green and red bands in a sector, the darbar could be altered to show just a red band by key pad within the sector for sectors within one sector of a friendly base. As for busting NOE missions I think that needs to remain a thing of skill, the NOE raid has to remain below the lower limit of the radar as is but if they do show let the darbar that will appear reflect the Key Pad of the sector in which the aircraft exists for sectors that are within one sector of a friendly base. By identifying the sector keypad defenders will know more of an exact location.
-
Wrong.
As is this for a good majority, nothing much we can do about it, the base distance only between some bases are a bit too far, but for the most part where there are 10 minute transit times, it gets old after like 2-3 sorties.
-
I think your style of 'climb to 30k and dive' players are a small minority. The masses want action.
You are wrong again, as you totally incorrectly identify my playing style. But thats no surprise.
And I never said the 'masses' do not. You claimed "nobody" likes 10 min transit flights, which is simply not the case, else nobody would do long range strat runs, nobody would intercept them and nobody would join Earls bomber raids, especially no fighters to fly escort.
-
I thought the darbar was supposed to simulate the coast watchers and forest scouts. Perhaps instead of showing just a green and red bands in a sector, the darbar could be altered to show just a red band by key pad within the sector for sectors within one sector of a friendly base. As for busting NOE missions I think that needs to remain a thing of skill, the NOE raid has to remain below the lower limit of the radar as is but if they do show let the darbar that will appear reflect the Key Pad of the sector in which the aircraft exists for sectors that are within one sector of a friendly base. By identifying the sector keypad defenders will know more of an exact location.
That's the problem I see tho. When ever there is a water type map up like this weekend all of the shore line bases are hit by noe's. The fights never expand beyond that for the most part. Once the shore line bases are captured the attacks stop.
If the shore watchers were simulated some of these endless noe's would be spotted and busted. Too many players seem to want to hide and avoid any contact with the opposing players. I agree that the noe should be available, but it shouldn't be such a guarantee.
-
That's the problem I see tho. When ever there is a water type map up like this weekend all of the shore line bases are hit by noe's. The fights never expand beyond that for the most part. Once the shore line bases are captured the attacks stop.
Sounds like you are trying to control how other people play
If the shore watchers were simulated some of these endless noe's would be spotted and busted. Too many players seem to want to hide and avoid any contact with the opposing players. I agree that the noe should be available, but it shouldn't be such a guarantee.
If this is so true, shame on the defenders for not anticipating and setting up some patrols to counter. A BARCAP would have gone a long way to providing some early warning. There is a reason that most of the aircraft operational flights during WWII were none combat flights and just search and patrol, but good luck with trying to set up a mission to establish a sustained patrol. We all know that the game is lacking in any kind of strategy and perhaps that is where AI aircraft could be used to help improve that part of the game.
-
I think the popularity of fleet attacks show that what AH players actually want is faster action, shorter transition times. And it makes sense, nobody really likes the 10 minute transit flights (unless you're in a historical scenario).
Double wrong :)
-
So fleet attacks are extremely popular and create action and your conclusion of that is that people want to fly long distances rolling their thumbs. Logical and I must be wrong :bhead
-
So fleet attacks are extremely popular and create action and your conclusion of that is that people want to fly long distances rolling their thumbs. Logical and I must be wrong :bhead
You said "NOBODY" likes 10 minute transit times, and I'm sorry but you are just wrong. If you flew at alt as I do you would see there are a whole bunch of guys spending time to get to alt and in position to do whatever they may have in mind. You never see them if you are flying low and that's ok, I understand spending time climbing or intercepting or whatever they are doing isn't for everyone. But there are far more folks doing what you say "nobody" is doing.
Alt Monkeys of the World Unite !
-
You said "NOBODY" likes 10 minute transit times, and I'm sorry but you are just wrong. If you flew at alt as I do you would see there are a whole bunch of guys spending time to get to alt and in position to do whatever they may have in mind. You never see them if you are flying low and that's ok, I understand spending time climbing or intercepting or whatever they are doing isn't for everyone. But there are far more folks doing what you say "nobody" is doing.
Alt Monkeys of the World Unite !
Getting alt and LIKING it are two different things! I spent hours upon hours climbing out of pure necessity for survival (sometimes completely AFK out of boredom even if it meant risking your virtual life). I can understand how in a historical scenario it's interesting to fly for hours even and pretend you relive the battle - but on MA for me it comes as a total surprise if someone really liked to wait a large portion of their daily playing time traveling from field to another.
Let's make a survey - how many would choose instant air spawn close to the fight and how many would prefer to fly 10 minutes to get to the same spot with the same alt :)
In fact closer airspawns would increase the player density so much that 30 players would generate a similar traffic on the front like 90 players (well, unless there is the horde phenomenon which again at least I don't like at all).
The longer it takes for a player to rejoin the battle the emptier the arena seems to be.
-
Let's make a survey - how many would choose instant air spawn close to the fight and how many would prefer to fly 10 minutes to get to the same spot with the same alt :)
It just takes one to make your claim of "nobody" indvalid.
Two have already posted in this thread. I LIKE fighting at altitude, my absolute favourite in the MA was engaging (and escorting) high altitude bomber missions, with most of my sorties taking much longer than 30 minutes of flight.
Again, none of us disputed the majority being more interested in short range, quick action.
And yes, there's a difference between a minority and "nobody"
-
It just takes one to make your claim of "nobody" indvalid.
Two have already posted in this thread.
And again, none of us disputed the majority being more interested in short range, quick action.
And yes, there's a difference between a minority and "nobody"
Oh yes, let's nitpick about words now. That will make AH better. Carry on!
-
Getting alt and LIKING it are two different things! I spent hours upon hours climbing out of pure necessity for survival (sometimes completely AFK out of boredom even if it meant risking your virtual life). I can understand how in a historical scenario it's interesting to fly for hours even and pretend you relive the battle - but on MA for me it comes as a total surprise if someone really liked to wait a large portion of their daily playing time traveling from field to another.
Let's make a survey - how many would choose instant air spawn close to the fight and how many would prefer to fly 10 minutes to get to the same spot with the same alt :)
In fact closer airspawns would increase the player density so much that 30 players would generate a similar traffic on the front like 90 players (well, unless there is the horde phenomenon which again at least I don't like at all).
If AH ever becomes a game of instant air spawns, I'm done with it at that time.
-
Oh yes, let's nitpick about words now.
:rofl
-
If AH ever becomes a game of instant air spawns, I'm done with it at that time.
With the dwindling numbers it seems that something new has to be experimented with or you're done - but not by your choice.
-
I'd rather fly 10mins
-
Sounds like you are trying to control how other people play
endless noe's are controlling how I play. I either play walk a mole chasing player who are determined to NOT engage in combat in a combat game, or I am forced to fly cap missions along the coast in the hope i run into a fight.
I not saying take away the noes, I'm saying make them less popular by having them get busted more often.
If this is so true, shame on the defenders for not anticipating and setting up some patrols to counter. A BARCAP would have gone a long way to providing some early warning. There is a reason that most of the aircraft operational flights during WWII were none combat flights and just search and patrol, but good luck with trying to set up a mission to establish a sustained patrol. We all know that the game is lacking in any kind of strategy and perhaps that is where AI aircraft could be used to help improve that part of the game.
This is a game that is suppose to have combat in it. I'm not paying 15 a month to fly cap. I pay to play. Less and less people are playing with more and more hiding. Could this be a reason subscriptions are down?
-
With the dwindling numbers it seems that something new has to be experimented with or you're done - but not by your choice.
The 113th Lucky Strikes is down to 6 hard core members, each has been here since the beginning and we collectively, on some of those long 10 min flights, have discussed what it would take for us to collectively go find another game. We'ed like to see an improvement to the strategy side and to creating strategic targets that have some meaning, like bridges at river crossings that would created both Air and ground conflict, perhaps the inclusion of meaningful AI like AirWarrior had. We all discussed the addition of Air Spawns and to a man decided that we wouldn't play. So we been looking at other games that we as a UNIT might switch to if and when AH dies or becomes to arcade for our liking.
-
endless noe's are controlling how I play. I either play walk a mole chasing player who are determined to NOT engage in combat in a combat game, or I am forced to fly cap missions along the coast in the hope i run into a fight.
I not saying take away the noes, I'm saying make them less popular by having them get busted more often.
This is a game that is suppose to have combat in it. I'm not paying 15 a month to fly cap. I pay to play. Less and less people are playing with more and more hiding. Could this be a reason subscriptions are down?
Are you telling me they are paying 15 a month to hide? Perhaps the decline of squads has more to do with subscriptions being down. Our policy in the 113th is to invite everyone to join us and give a squad a try if not our squad perhaps another. We see a lot of guys roll on through, They join, learn the ropes and jump out to become a "lone eagle" "Super Fighter Pilot" and soon after that, they become a former player of Aces High.
-
{snip}
The longer it takes for a player to rejoin the battle the emptier the arena seems to be. this is definitely true for long drives to spawn points........ on that point. "Should LVTs be placed closer to the shore line?"
What in the ground war effects air war? Let's try and keep the discussion on topic.
1- Ground to air defenses, including vehicles, manned guns, auto guns, and puffy ack.
2- Strategic target location, hardness, and defenses (same as above)
3- Visibility and effectiveness against air to ground attackers.
4- (Probably should be listed as number 1) The "fun" aspect of the war. Currently, spawn camping and base captures is all we got...... < please take this as intended, an observation and not a whine :pray
5- Distance from spawn to action. CV's seem to have been pushed further off shore making LVT landings, for the most part fruitless.
-
What in the ground war effects air war? Let's try and keep the discussion on topic.
1- Ground to air defenses, including vehicles, manned guns, auto guns, and puffy ack.
2- Strategic target location, hardness, and defenses (same as above)
3- Visibility and effectiveness against air to ground attackers.
4- (Probably should be listed as number 1) The "fun" aspect of the war. Currently, spawn camping and base captures is all we got...... < please take this as intended, an observation and not a whine :pray
5- Distance from spawn to action. CV's seem to have been pushed further off shore making LVT landings, for the most part fruitless.
That's just it, currently there is nothing that effects the air war and nothing connected to a airbase that effects the ground war, aircraft are not limited in supply, and can endless fly out of bases that can't be captured , While it is possible to take down hangers and VH's. The same game strategy has existed since the roll out. capture field with 10 troops, there is no limit to available aircraft so no battles to hold or protect strats like factories , no limit to available spits or P51's, 190s or 109's No limit to any kind of GV unless that hanger is down supply is limitless . So the strategy is roll a horde to a base, capture it. No limit to the number of aircraft that depart out of any one field. It's the basic game play that after 15 years has become very stale . There is no need to develop a strategy because none is needed.
-
That's just it, currently there is nothing that effects the air war and nothing connected to a airbase that effects the ground war, aircraft are not limited in supply, and can endless fly out of bases that can't be captured , While it is possible to take down hangers and VH's. The same game strategy has existed since the roll out. capture field with 10 troops, there is no limit to available aircraft so no battles to hold or protect strats like factories , no limit to available spits or P51's, 190s or 109's No limit to any kind of GV unless that hanger is down supply is limitless . So the strategy is roll a horde to a base, capture it. No limit to the number of aircraft that depart out of any one field. It's the basic game play that after 15 years has become very stale . There is no need to develop a strategy because none is needed.
See I think we should have strat factory targets such as factories for the "uber" rides, 262's 190D9 and 152, Spit 16,,KI84, Tigers (both variants) LA7's
Time the amount of damage needed to be done and/or time down to ENY. This would both create more of a reason to do missions and a reason to defend against them.. Surround them by AA bases so that NOE raids on them would be near impossible. And make them hard enough so that it takes more then one set of bombers to do any significant damage
-
Are you telling me they are paying 15 a month to hide? Perhaps the decline of squads has more to do with subscriptions being down. Our policy in the 113th is to invite everyone to join us and give a squad a try if not our squad perhaps another. We see a lot of guys roll on through, They join, learn the ropes and jump out to become a "lone eagle" "Super Fighter Pilot" and soon after that, they become a former player of Aces High.
Thats how the play has gone. Now it is more important in the game to capture bases. Even lots of the so called "fighter" guys are falling into the no fight mentality, to them the kill is the most important. I don't know how many times I came into fight at a disadvantage, either alt or numbers and as soon as you make enough moves to either start turning the tables or just show your not an easy kill off they go, looking for ack, more friends or to regain their advantage.
I think squads should be a better value in the game. If "x" amount of your squad mates hit a certain percentage of targets or knocked down a certain number of players during an attack the squad earns perks. Squad nights use to be important to many players, now it's more about a "click" than anything. Put squad ranks on the web page instead of individual ranks. I'm looking for a squad now that likes to run missions. I miss that element in the game as it is few and fare between good missions these days. Sure you get Jokers horde, GHIs horde, or ETs horde but thats about all you have.
The only GV vs air action we have these days in breaking spawn camps or just bombt***ing them. Both of which does nothing but tick off the GVers. It doesn't matter how much you work the GV game until you can get it out of the spawn. Get rid of the spawn camps and no you get hunts. Hunts for the attackers.... which way are they coming? Can the attack be slowed/stopped by heavy fighters? If not report ahead, defenders set up an ambush!
But again you fall into the same old boat, your dictating how people play. Take away the spawn camping and how much of an uproar would you hear? Same as if you took away vulching a field. To some its the only way they either want to, or CAN play. Removing their type of fun isn't really fair, but if it was in the interest of better game play? I don't know, Im glad it's not a decision I have to make.
-
I think the next update will help alleviate some of these concerns. With the new town and field layout, coupled with the new terrain designs, it will help the ground war become more dynamic instead being the whack-a-mole spawn camp it's become.
ack-ack
-
I think the next update will help alleviate some of these concerns. With the new town and field layout, coupled with the new terrain designs, it will help the ground war become more dynamic instead being the whack-a-mole spawn camp it's become.
ack-ack
It will indeed, but not for all that long if it is lipstick on a pig...... (oh, my squadees.... just spit out some mud...) :D
and none of us know what the new version ground war will be.... so, a wait and see is the best thing to do. It doesn't hurt to make suggestions as we all are trying to do, but after building a whole new graphics system, I think that tweaks can go a long way without major coad changes.
-
Thats how the play has gone. Now it is more important in the game to capture bases. Even lots of the so called "fighter" guys are falling into the no fight mentality, to them the kill is the most important. I don't know how many times I came into fight at a disadvantage, either alt or numbers and as soon as you make enough moves to either start turning the tables or just show your not an easy kill off they go, looking for ack, more friends or to regain their advantage.
I think squads should be a better value in the game. If "x" amount of your squad mates hit a certain percentage of targets or knocked down a certain number of players during an attack the squad earns perks. Squad nights use to be important to many players, now it's more about a "click" than anything. Put squad ranks on the web page instead of individual ranks. I'm looking for a squad now that likes to run missions. I miss that element in the game as it is few and fare between good missions these days. Sure you get Jokers horde, GHIs horde, or ETs horde but thats about all you have.
The only GV vs air action we have these days in breaking spawn camps or just bombt***ing them. Both of which does nothing but tick off the GVers. It doesn't matter how much you work the GV game until you can get it out of the spawn. Get rid of the spawn camps and no you get hunts. Hunts for the attackers.... which way are they coming? Can the attack be slowed/stopped by heavy fighters? If not report ahead, defenders set up an ambush!
But again you fall into the same old boat, your dictating how people play. Take away the spawn camping and how much of an uproar would you hear? Same as if you took away vulching a field. To some its the only way they either want to, or CAN play. Removing their type of fun isn't really fair, but if it was in the interest of better game play? I don't know, Im glad it's not a decision I have to make.
You're welcome to wing up with the 113th Lucky Strikes, we fly on Saturday evenings as Knights vox 113, we have never changed sides and doubt that we will anytime soon. Every flight we fly is a mission and sometimes we wing up with others and sometimes we go out on our own. We tend to pick a field and shut down everything on it for hours at a time or we strike at adjoining fields to cut off nme support. We resupply bases, fly troops, escort bombers, what ever it takes. You can fly what you like, but we do use the P38L J and G, a lot.
-
That's just it, currently there is nothing that effects the air war and nothing connected to a airbase that effects the ground war, aircraft are not limited in supply, and can endless fly out of bases that can't be captured , While it is possible to take down hangers and VH's. The same game strategy has existed since the roll out. capture field with 10 troops, there is no limit to available aircraft so no battles to hold or protect strats like factories , no limit to available spits or P51's, 190s or 109's No limit to any kind of GV unless that hanger is down supply is limitless . So the strategy is roll a horde to a base, capture it. No limit to the number of aircraft that depart out of any one field. It's the basic game play that after 15 years has become very stale . There is no need to develop a strategy because none is needed.
ö
While in theory attrition and limiting the planeset sounds like an awesome idea, think about this scenario: You log on, your country has all the strats destroyed because previous players didn't have the capacity or didn't care to protect them. Your planeset is totally limited for the whole day and you can't even turn the tables alone let alone with the crappy planes you have.
Attrition would just make the country imbalance even more pronounced because the hordelings always have a few dweebs who do nothing but NOE strats and ords, then suicide while the horde keeps poiunding the smaller country so that nobody can even care about the few dweebs who do their sabotage work completely unopposed.
AH:s biggest problem are the gamey gamers themselves, not how the game is made. This is every MMOs biggest dilemma, how to keep the game fun but also stop the players from ruining the game for others with their selfishness.
-
That's just it, currently there is nothing that effects the air war and nothing connected to a airbase that effects the ground war, aircraft are not limited in supply, and can endless fly out of bases that can't be captured , While it is possible to take down hangers and VH's. The same game strategy has existed since the roll out. capture field with 10 troops, there is no limit to available aircraft so no battles to hold or protect strats like factories , no limit to available spits or P51's, 190s or 109's No limit to any kind of GV unless that hanger is down supply is limitless . So the strategy is roll a horde to a base, capture it. No limit to the number of aircraft that depart out of any one field. It's the basic game play that after 15 years has become very stale . There is no need to develop a strategy because none is needed.
While I really liked the feature in AW where if you destroyed the Spitfire victory, it prevented anyone from upping a Spitfire IX and it really caused some epic air battles to fight your way to the factory. However, there was a big downside in that once the Spitfire factory was bombed and people couldn't up Spitfire IX's, players would log in mass or switch sides to another country that still had Spitfire IXs.
-
While I really liked the feature in AW where if you destroyed the Spitfire victory, it prevented anyone from upping a Spitfire IX and it really caused some epic air battles to fight your way to the factory. However, there was a big downside in that once the Spitfire factory was bombed and people couldn't up Spitfire IX's, players would log in mass or switch sides to another country that still had Spitfire IXs.
Yes this is prime example of what's your fun may kill the others fun. If one side gets to make their game 'too fun' for themselves (be it killing strats to disable the enemy, bomb hq, horde in massive numbers you name it) the more 'fun' it comes for the other side the less fun it becomes for the opponent side. Then after a certain threshold the opponent side sees no point in playing the game anymore and either logs off temporarily or if situation continues, cancels totally.
-
ö
{snip}
AH:s biggest problem are the gamey gamers themselves, not how the game is made. This is every MMOs biggest dilemma, how to keep the game fun but also stop the players from ruining the game for others with their selfishness.
I think the biggest problem as far as imbalance is concerned is the "all or nothing" base take. A player / group / country could work for hours trying to take one field. In the end, either you got it or you tuck your tail and vacate.
Like others have said, if the war had more objectives other than capturing bases, that at least gave missions and sorties lasting effects other than removing bombs or radar from a base for a few minutes, a base attack could show some sort of real progress, even if the base has not been captured. Capturing hills, villages, railways, bridges would equal more interaction and more fun. Festers map almost has that feel, with the chain of vbases. Think if at the end of that chain a major strategical airfield was located, and the vbases had single hangars and multiple entry points from either country (on that front), advances could routinely be made by small forces, but also easily pushed back.
Somewhere along the line, someone has decided that rolling bases is bad for AH. I put out the challenge that it is GOOD for AH, and even better when a low populated country has an opportunity to score territory (even if at a slower rate).
-
While I really liked the feature in AW where if you destroyed the Spitfire victory, it prevented anyone from upping a Spitfire IX and it really caused some epic air battles to fight your way to the factory. However, there was a big downside in that once the Spitfire factory was bombed and people couldn't up Spitfire IX's, players would log in mass or switch sides to another country that still had Spitfire IXs.
I never understood the people that did that. How long was the factory down? For a whole 15 minutes?
I personally think the ones with the problem is the ones that cant survive without their favorite ride for 15 minutes (hey, Im willing to put my ride on the line)
Anyway. Thats why I suggested it be tied to ENY. To make it harder for the horde to destroy without pulling significant numbers from the win the war effort. triple the amount of act surrounding strats. Make hitting them a major accomplishment and not just a milk run
I also still believe in Zones. We had the best overall gameplay when we had the fights over the primary zone bases.
Have a strat factory for each category in each zone. Then unless all strats are hit at once. Then nobody is ever completely without their ride. Only from upping their ride in a given zone. Place them toward the back of each zone and the closer you get to a strat target the less distance someone has to travel in "their" ride to get to the fight
-
I think the biggest problem as far as imbalance is concerned is the "all or nothing" base take. A player / group / country could work for hours trying to take one field. In the end, either you got it or you tuck your tail and vacate.
Like others have said, if the war had more objectives other than capturing bases, that at least gave missions and sorties lasting effects other than removing bombs or radar from a base for a few minutes, a base attack could show some sort of real progress, even if the base has not been captured. Capturing hills, villages, railways, bridges would equal more interaction and more fun. Festers map almost has that feel, with the chain of vbases. Think if at the end of that chain a major strategical airfield was located, and the vbases had single hangars and multiple entry points from either country (on that front), advances could routinely be made by small forces, but also easily pushed back.
Somewhere along the line, someone has decided that rolling bases is bad for AH. I put out the challenge that it is GOOD for AH, and even better when a low populated country has an opportunity to score territory (even if at a slower rate).
the problem with objectives no matter what they are is Anything that is objective based promotes the horde. At least as its done now where everyone can up from a single location and for a massive conga line to an objective.
Is why I also support limiting the number of planes that can be up from any one base at any given time.
Limiting the number of aircraft that can be up from any single base would force the players to spread out. Thus creating more of a change of a fight on a broader front.
You might still get your hording on one location. But you also increase the chance of discovery. And break down the horde into smaller components which can be dealt with before their objective is reached. It would also force mission planners to use their imaginations.
I mean. C'mon. It doesn't take much of a thought process to say OK Everyone up here in X plane and Y plane brom base ABC and we will all go to Base XYZ en masse.
-
I never understood the people that did that. How long was the factory down? For a whole 15 minutes?
I personally think the ones with the problem is the ones that cant survive without their favorite ride for 15 minutes (hey, Im willing to put my ride on the line)
Anyway. Thats why I suggested it be tied to ENY. To make it harder for the horde to destroy without pulling significant numbers from the win the war effort. triple the amount of act surrounding strats. Make hitting them a major accomplishment and not just a milk run
I also still believe in Zones. We had the best overall gameplay when we had the fights over the primary zone bases.
Have a strat factory for each category in each zone. Then unless all strats are hit at once. Then nobody is ever completely without their ride. Only from upping their ride in a given zone. Place them toward the back of each zone and the closer you get to a strat target the less distance someone has to travel in "their" ride to get to the fight
These are all great ideas and from a game playing idea I'd enjoy any changes to the game strategy , but it all involves changes to code and I'm not sure that the powers that be are willing to undertake the effort or invest the budget of resources and time to tear into the guts to rework the basic guts of game play that make up the strategy side of the game. I've always heard that the code changes to date, all collectively to date were supposed to help create basic modeling game engine changes to help make future game changes easier and more cost effective, AHII and the WWI arena, Now I know they are working on pretty water, grass and trees, So do we have to wait another 5 to 15 years to get basic changes to the game strategy??????
-
I still adamantly say, all or nothing objectives, drive most folks away from any coordinated group effort. The term horde, is nothing new and will be found in most any multiplayer game.
Bishops had V mega squad that rolled bases, AND provided a great number of opportunities to find an air battle (even if it was in a concentrated area).
NOE quick strikes were successful rolling bases, and also gave ground units the opportunity to get in some defensive ground to air kills.
Almost any other type of group effort besides the newly favored fleet sneak attack, is fading fast..... along with........ (sigh)