Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 49Dallas on September 25, 2015, 03:27:14 PM
-
It's one of the things that make this game so good, Such a large map. Some of the best maps are the large ones. :mad:
Some people say that small maps are better because this game is dying, Has less players, And it's "hard to find a fight". I say use darbars and look for flashing bases. Even on large maps in the middle of the night with five guys on there are always fights, If there isn't one or you somehow can't find one then MAKE A FIGHT.
-
. Even on large maps in the middle of the night with five guys on there are always fights,
Not true
If there isn't one or you somehow can't find one then MAKE A FIGHT.
If it just were so easy for a single player...
-
Two things that annoy me enough to think about quitting the game:
1. Small maps
2. HQ (country radar) being down
-
IMO the small maps are still large enough for people to hide in at low number times if they so desire. Someone reupping 2 sectors away to avoid you isn't materially different from 6 sectors away.
Unless they restrict it to the point everybody's forced within a sector of one another, people are still able to hide effectively.
Wiley.
-
IMO the small maps are still large enough for people to hide in at low number times if they so desire. Someone reupping 2 sectors away to avoid you isn't materially different from 6 sectors away.
Sure.
But smaller frontlines concentrate the action somewhat. And at least you have a chance to fly to a different field if the center of activity moves around, and you often can even fly to a battle between the other two chesspieces.
During non US times, there's often just one single con in each 'active ' sector, each player hitting his own target of choice.
-
Not true
If it just were so easy for a single player...
Not true? Explain.
It IS easy, Fly to a base and there will be uppers, If not then hit dar, ords, make them want to defend the base.
-
Yes they should
-
Not true? Explain.
It IS easy, Fly to a base and there will be uppers, If not then hit dar, ords, make them want to defend the base.
Been there done that. (Don't forget that I am actually playing on those low times).
Maybe, when I'm lucky, I will get a single upper. In either case, they will quickly notice I'm not really a threat for a base
The problem is, when the frontlines are getting too long, players naturally tend to spread out. One player per sector. Occasionally several gather to grab a base, but if met with any resistance, they also tend to dissipate and try it elswhere, as there are so many potential targets. One of them MUST be unguarded.
But by they way, I have little doubt how this vote will end. I'd be very surprised if the majority would vote for "discard large maps".
-
Been there done that. (Don't forget that I am actually playing on those low times).
The dilemma is that what is good with few players is not the same as what is good with many players. I don't have an answer.
Can we get more non-US players on board?
Lusche/Snailman, is your baby old enough yet?
-
Personally I would like large maps to go for the same reasons Lusche does. Failing that I would like the map win rules altered so a smaller percentage of captured fields are needed for big maps. Just to the point where each big map averages roughly the same number of days up as each small one.
-
The dilemma is that what is good with few players is not the same as what is good with many players. I don't have an answer.
We don't really have 'many' players anymore. The times where small maps could been way too crowded are long gone.
Remember, we did play on small maps exclusively with much higher player counts in the past.
Before the arena split (when we had a large & small mix) we could end up with like 600-700 on a small map during primetime (eeeek!). After the split, it was still 300-500 in each arena (and we had only small maps then). And about 90-100 during 'ebb time' in the most active arena (no caps at that time).
Today we have something like 30-220 players during the week.
But the vote won't be decided here in the forum. It's primetime US players who will decide.
Lusche/Snailman, is your baby old enough yet?
lol... 16 months now :)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/fail_zpsrzn1hh8d.jpg)
-
With all due respect, there is no vote, players do not decide. Present your arguments civilly because only one person will truly decide.
-
We don't really have 'many' players anymore. The times where small maps could been way too crowded are long gone.
Remember, we did play on small maps exclusively with much higher player counts in the past.
Before the arena split (when we had a large & small mix) we could end up with like 600-700 on a small map during primetime (eeeek!). After the split, it was still 300-500 in each arena (and we had only small maps then). And about 90-100 during 'ebb time' in the most active arena (no caps at that time).
Today we have something like 30-220 players during the week.
But the vote won't be decided here in the forum. It's primetime US players who will decide.
The majority is US primetime players. I've played extensively in the middle of the night when there are few players online and yes, People will just "go to other bases" but they can do the same with small maps. Even the smallest maps, With five people online you can go to another base or even fight another country. If people want to get away from other people they can, Easily.
-
With all due respect, there is no vote, players do not decide. Present your arguments civilly because only one person will truly decide.
There is, when you log into the game.
-
There is, when you log into the game.
It dosen't mean anything, Hitech will untimely decide.
-
It dosen't mean anything,
If it would not mean anything, it would not be there.
-
"Good fights" are the exception these days , not the rule.
The only guys who prefer the monstrous sized maps are the
"capture the undefended base" crews. Those guys, while the most
vociferous of AH players, do not represent the majority of players.
The ridiculously oversized maps contribute to the lack of extended,
drawn out, fun, contesting of various areas on a map where decent
sized fights are to be had.
Occasionally, one can "work up" a good fight by overflying a field, or
perhaps droppin' a few bombs on a town to tease a few "defenders" into
the air, but these defenders in the main, just hide in the town and field
ack, or sit in a wirbel or manned gun.
Eventually, the "attackers" just get popped while wastin' their time,
dying to field ack or wirbels, then log off in disgust, or worse, decide that
it's time to end their subscription and move on to something more fun.
The numbers speak for themselves. Why these maps persist when it's
a simple matter of dinking with the server is beyond me.
Regards, Odd
-
If it would not mean anything, it would not be there.
Talking about the poll.
The issue here is that the game is dying, And people are trying to blame big maps.
People die by guns, Why not just ban them. Right? heh.
-
The issue here is that the game is dying, And people are trying to blame big maps.
No, we are not.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
I really miss Trinity.
-
I really miss Trinity.
Yep same here.....love the large maps, I play 4am 8am est Saturday and Sunday's Don't ever really have an issue finding someone to shoot at
Don't get me started on that waterless map tho...logoff whenever its up
-
I say remove large maps until we get enough players to actually win them instead of waiting 7 days.
Or keep them and reset the count down to 3 days.
-
There has to be a certain player saturation to maintain action/combat/fun. HTC decided on the "high number" back in the days of large populations and gave us 2 late war arenas. Unfortunately we are now finding the low number limit.
Players spread out along the fronts in the game. Be it capture the base types, hide from the enemy types, milkers or furballers everyone looks for an area to play in. With the lower number the areas are getting more and more spread out.
We need to switch to only smaller maps to compress the action, to give us that saturation back.
-
I've got a screwy idea: Off Peak Rates. Make it free to play 1AM to 7AM Eastern.
-
We need to switch to only smaller maps to compress the action, to give us that saturation back.
I agree with this totally.
Some of you might even find it fun to have resistance when you do your big runs instead
of hours of nothingness to achieve your goal. :aok
-
It's one of the things that make this game so good, Such a large map. Some of the best maps are the large ones. :mad:
Some people say that small maps are better because this game is dying, Has less players, And it's "hard to find a fight". I say use darbars and look for flashing bases. Even on large maps in the middle of the night with five guys on there are always fights, If there isn't one or you somehow can't find one then MAKE A FIGHT.
I absolutely agree with you dallas. The large maps are the most interesting and offer the greatest variety of game-play experiences, and it would be awful if they were sacrificed due to the complaints of the minority that seek out furballs above all else. And some of the people who complain about not being able to find a fight at off peak hours (on small or large maps) don't ever seem to be part of the fight when one does occur, so I'm not quite sure what to think about that.
-
If the number of bases outnumber the players, particularly during prime time, that map should be removed. Why do we need a map with 250 bases with only 170 players online?
Ideally, I'd like to see map that funnel the action into corridors or somehow cause the map to restrict flight outside a certain area when online numbers are down. However, implementing that would not be easy.
-
Big maps are gon have to go. I like some like the compello map or FesterMA but when it gets down to most times of the day where numbers are below 150 it's best not to have them around.
I have no idea what Dallas means when he says there's a fight to be had with 5 players spread over a big map but I think a good thing to do is to keep new players by always having some action for them, because no one would think of playing a game that advertises action when it has none.
-
I fancy new maps
-
snip -
I have no idea what Dallas means when he says there's a fight to be had with 5 players spread over a big map but I think a good thing to do is to keep new players by always having some action for them, because no one would think of playing a game that advertises action when it has none.
This made me remember my first month in AH. I was doing a tour in a P47, a D I think it was. I'm Pacific time, and this was whatever year is listed in my sig.
Anyway, I'd log in around 8 my time and every night and I was still playing past midnight. Five players would have been a horde when I finally gave up and went to bed each night.
I'd load up with bombs and try to prep a base for capture. It was good practice for when I could plink a Tiger II later. No opposition, right? Yeah, right! lol
I don't know where they'd come from, but some guy would always appear in a spit and send me back to the tower crying like a little girl. Keep in mind that I love my two little girls so it's not an insult to little boys either.
I stayed and saw the game grow to it's former peak and I have no doubt that it will attract new players and grow to the point you guys will start crying about too many dweebs ruining the game.
The furballer vs porker vs lack of coordination rants will be back, I have no doubt.
While I feel your pain with the lack of previous numbers, in the meantime, check out the new alpha version and your expectations will be lifted immensely. Truly, the Alpha puts all the current competing flight combat games to shame.
-
I haven't posted here in a while, but I'll post because of the current suggestion. I voted "Yes" for the simple reason that there's not the playerbase to support large terrains anymore. It sucks, but it's a simple fact of life. Especially off hours, there's not a fight to be found, things are so spread out.
...that being said
Most of the small terrains are crap and old as hell, the terrain sucks and most things about them suck. Grinder, Uterus and the Balkans are probably the 3 best maps currently out there for size, base placement and fun terrain.
My personal suggestion is to go to 2 teams and get some of the AvA maps in play that are awesome... open up the plane types to where I can launch a 109 off a CV if it's a water map so people don't feel put off... and maybe put a limiter on switching sides as such that if there's unbalanced sides you can switch to the lower side without waiting or penalty, but add maybe a switch 'queue' if you're trying to switch from the low side to the high side to win some easy perks for a map win... or better yet, just get rid of map win perks all together because they're garbage... or even go to a -50% perk bonus on top of current ENY if you decide to switch to the side with numbers that's effective for 1-4 hours maybe?
I personally don't know, but it's to the point that there's no real fights anymore. If there is a fight, the fun police come in and bomb a base into submission, or the people just switch and go to somewhere else that's undefended. As far as a combat simulator goes, I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of combat anymore.
:bolt:
-
totally agree Dallas. Large maps are my favorites, there is never a problem finding a fight if you want one. Every large map usually has a dedicated furballing spot. Small maps are largely only good for furballing, and not every AH'er is a furballer. Plus the constant HQ being dropped, no ords on fields etc are another problem with small maps. If large maps are taken out of rotation, I really doubt I would keep my subscription.
-
Big maps are gon have to go. I like some like the compello map or FesterMA but when it gets down to most times of the day where numbers are below 150 it's best not to have them around.
I have no idea what Dallas means when he says there's a fight to be had with 5 players spread over a big map but I think a good thing to do is to keep new players by always having some action for them, because no one would think of playing a game that advertises action when it has none.
I have to disagree with your main point but im not knocking you.
It's when numbers are below 150 when taking bases with low numbers is a blast. You have to be smart otherwise a 0-4 situation become a 1-20 slaughter. The only glory in sneaking a base is doing it 3-4-5 times in a row quickly. I have come to find the best time no matter what map happens to be playing is when numbers are under 150 :salute its my way of seeing a glass half full
-
I have to disagree with your main point but im not knocking you.
It's when numbers are below 150 when taking bases with low numbers is a blast. You have to be smart otherwise a 0-4 situation become a 1-20 slaughter. The only glory in sneaking a base is doing it 3-4-5 times in a row quickly. I have come to find the best time no matter what map happens to be playing is when numbers are under 150 :salute its my way of seeing a glass half full
How is repeatedly sneaking bases (repeatedly avoiding a fight) any fun, let alone the most fun you have?
I can understand once in a while but if that's what really thrills you, try offline - all the bases are undefended. Yippee!
-
We need bigger mapz! :old: :)
-
OK then lets see some of you guys make some new maps... I am in the process wwith the new terrain editor on making a small but rather fun map... ohh did I tell you its all ports and a small island cluster in the center for teh guys who want to furball ...
LAwnDart
-
Isn't the use of 'furball' as a thought-terminating cliché getting a bit old by now?
-
totally agree Dallas. Large maps are my favorites, there is never a problem finding a fight if you want one. Every large map usually has a dedicated furballing spot. Small maps are largely only good for furballing, and not every AH'er is a furballer. Plus the constant HQ being dropped, no ords on fields etc are another problem with small maps. If large maps are taken out of rotation, I really doubt I would keep my subscription.
WOW, cancel your subscription? Really?
I don't think anyone HTC is saying get rid of the large maps forever! While the numbers are low, concentrate the players on the small maps. Once AH3 is released and the new players start rolling in :pray Im sure HTC will add in the large maps again, who knows maybe a reworked Trinity as well.
-
Isn't the use of 'furball' as a thought-terminating cliché getting a bit old by now?
Ya I think "terminology" might be an issue here.
When some people say fight, they mean furball, others mean a GV battle, others still, mean a base capture.
The game is suppose to be about using simulated WWII battle equipment against "live" players from around the globe in realtime action. It also gives players the option to avoid that action. That "other game" gives small battle areas in timed missions. Why? Because it gives quick action, NOT quick avoidance. If HTC wants to continue/grow then that is the way they are going to want to go.
Why do base capture players hate furballers? I love them, while they are busy capping a field a few of us can get in flatten a town and grab it. Why wouldn't you love to see the furball for at the base your attacking?
-
...
And some of the people who complain about not being able to find a fight at off peak hours (on small or large maps) don't ever seem to be part of the fight when one does occur, so I'm not quite sure what to think about that.
Quoted for truth.
Some people like to take bases. Smaller, denser maps will make this more difficult.
.
.
.
Waiting for the "it should be difficult" arguments (from those who haven't put me on the ignore list.)
.
.
.
Not every player is an uber baby seal, lemming killer. Some newbies need some space to develop and have fun. New players are just as valuable as customers as crusty old forum warriors.
Sorry for the whining tangent. I still don't have the answer to our international comrades during their peak hours.
-
I voted yes for the simple reasons A. It's difficult for a new player to find fights as it is. If the player base has a smaller area to fight in, it would be easier to find fights and have fun. B. The player base isn't as big as it use to be and somestimes there is a big fight on one side of the map and no action on the other. This isn't about only having 2 teams because I like 3 teams, there just isn't enough players to satisfy both sides with the player base currently. That being said, I think the base distance has a huge impact on the excitement as well. Even on a small map far bases can detour people from reupping, also making it difficult to defend from another base. Festers map is the only big map that works right now because the bases are close together and the base location brings all the game concepts together. The only thing I don't like is TT. The base location and distance even on a small map makes a big difference to the exciment and makes it a little more fast paced.
I hope there are another few small maps you could put in rotation as well so the current ones don't dry out. There are a ton of incredible maps in this game that hopefully we could utilize in the MA setting.
All in all I'm still having a good time but I don't fly in the off hours and I completely understand their sentiment having played this game for over 10 years.
:salute
-
Ya I think "terminology" might be an issue here.
When some people say fight, they mean furball, others mean a GV battle, others still, mean a base capture.
The game is suppose to be about using simulated WWII battle equipment against "live" players from around the globe in realtime action. It also gives players the option to avoid that action. That "other game" gives small battle areas in timed missions. Why? Because it gives quick action, NOT quick avoidance. If HTC wants to continue/grow then that is the way they are going to want to go.
Why do base capture players hate furballers? I love them, while they are busy capping a field a few of us can get in flatten a town and grab it. Why wouldn't you love to see the furball for at the base your attacking?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Right on sir. Furballers defo play there part in base capture, whether they like it or not (-;
Having said that when a enemy base is saturated in green dots and ya get there, and everything's still up? Bring an egg guys, rolling base's creates furballs, no one likes getting rolled <S>
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Quoted for truth.
Some people like to take bases. Smaller, denser maps will make this more difficult.
.
.
.
Waiting for the "it should be difficult" arguments (from those who haven't put me on the ignore list.)
.
.
.
Not every player is an uber baby seal, lemming killer. Some newbies need some space to develop and have fun. New players are just as valuable as customers as crusty old forum warriors.
Sorry for the whining tangent. I still don't have the answer to our international comrades during their peak hours.
No, not every player is an "uber baby seal, lemming killer" but fighting more or working to take a base instead of avoiding fights or sneaking/rolling base TEACHES you how to be a better play.
-
I voted yes for the simple reasons A. It's difficult for a new player to find fights as it is. If the player base has a smaller area to fight in, it would be easier to find fights and have fun. B. The player base isn't as big as it use to be and somestimes there is a big fight on one side of the map and no action on the other. This isn't about only having 2 teams because I like 3 teams, there just isn't enough players to satisfy both sides with the player base currently. That being said, I think the base distance has a huge impact on the excitement as well. Even on a small map far bases can detour people from reupping, also making it difficult to defend from another base. Festers map is the only big map that works right now because the bases are close together and the base location brings all the game concepts together. The only thing I don't like is TT. The base location and distance even on a small map makes a big difference to the exciment and makes it a little more fast paced.
I hope there are another few small maps you could put in rotation as well so the current ones don't dry out. There are a ton of incredible maps in this game that hopefully we could utilize in the MA setting.
All in all I'm still having a good time but I don't fly in the off hours and I completely understand their sentiment having played this game for over 10 years.
:salute
-
OK then lets see some of you guys make some new maps... I am in the process wwith the new terrain editor on making a small but rather fun map... ohh did I tell you its all ports and a small island cluster in the center for teh guys who want to furball ...
LAwnDart
Dang it LawnDart, what the heck are you thinking? You know dang well the Luftwaffe has no carrier based aircraft. You had better be installing runways at those ports or you will be hearing from my lawyer.
Luftwaffe Uber Alles!
-
Simple solution, Make a ring of three untakeable V bases with a center spawn and make a ring of untakeable airfields around the Vbases. Place this "island" on large maps so people quit crying about not being able to find a fight in the middle of the night when everyone is sleeping.
-
Simple solution, Make a ring of three untakeable V bases with a center spawn and make a ring of untakeable airfields around the Vbases. Place this "island" on large maps so people quit crying about not being able to find a fight in the middle of the night when everyone is sleeping.
Just shows that you aren't actually understanding what it's all about...
-
Just shows that you aren't actually understanding what it's all about...
There aren't enough numbers in the middle of the night to support small maps. If people don't want to fight they will go other places. The problem isn't large maps, It's that we have so few players at 3am.
-
Dang it LawnDart, what the heck are you thinking? You know dang well the Luftwaffe has no carrier based aircraft. You had better be installing runways at those ports or you will be hearing from my lawyer.
Luftwaffe Uber Alles!
To quote another player this is the idea..Simple solution, Make a ring of three untakeable V bases with a center spawn and make a ring of untakeable airfields around the Vbases. Place this "island" on large maps so people quit crying about not being able to find a fight in the middle of the night when everyone is sleeping.
LOL i guess we are on the same strategy.. I will post some screenies as I get it along better...
LawnDart
-
There aren't enough numbers in the middle of the night to support small maps. If people don't want to fight they will go other places. The problem isn't large maps, It's that we have so few players at 3am.
When there's only 20 people online it's easier to find action when there is only 3-4 frontline bases instead of 20-30.
The problem IS that we have so few players but one of the leading causes of the declining numbers is not being able to find any action during the off hours.
-
WOW, cancel your subscription? Really?
I don't think anyone HTC is saying get rid of the large maps forever! While the numbers are low, concentrate the players on the small maps. Once AH3 is released and the new players start rolling in :pray Im sure HTC will add in the large maps again, who knows maybe a reworked Trinity as well.
Can you point me to that post where HT said something about eliminating big maps? I haven't been around much lately.
The game is suppose to be about using simulated WWII battle equipment against "live" players from around the globe in realtime action. It also gives players the option to avoid that action. That "other game" gives small battle areas in timed missions. Why? Because it gives quick action, NOT quick avoidance. If HTC wants to continue/grow then that is the way they are going to want to go.
Are you a spokesperson for HTC now? If so I'll just search for your posts.
-
I've got a screwy idea: Off Peak Rates. Make it free to play 1AM to 7AM Eastern.
not a bad idea! :aok
<--- voted yes (even though we had 3 hours of fun on Fester's map this afternoon) all you have to do is pretend to attack a bish town and they are all like :mad: :bhead :furious :joystick:
-
Can you point me to that post where HT said something about eliminating big maps?
There's a vote popup at game login.
-
:ahand
WOW, cancel your subscription? Really?
I would consider it actually (not that it really matters) Things change....is what it is
-
There aren't enough numbers in the middle of the night to support small maps. If people don't want to fight they will go other places. The problem isn't large maps, It's that we have so few players at 3am.
Lmao so if there aren't enough numbers to support small maps, how will having big maps help solve the low population problem?
-
Lmao so if there aren't enough numbers to support small maps, how will having big maps help solve the low population problem?
It's not a map size problem, It's a population problem.
-
It's not a map size problem, It's a population problem.
So how would having bigger maps help that we have low numbers? If we have a population problem then we need to have smaller maps so the players are concentrated in a smaller area.
With big maps, small numbers of people are or can be spread out over larger areas; so that means there would be less interaction with other players simply because of the space.
So yes it is a map size problem.
-
It's not a map size problem, It's a population problem.
The map size problem can be fixed at the flip of a switch. A population problem cannot be fixed as easily.
If there is less action for a player to enjoy, they log on less or cancel their account outright. This equates to even fewer players because of the big map.
Map size and population are both problems, but only one is easily fixed and can happen over night.
-
Can you point me to that post where HT said something about eliminating big maps? I haven't been around much lately.
Maybe you should check in once and awhile so you know whats going on and so can then discuss these topics a bit more ..... umm shall we say on point?
Are you a spokesperson for HTC now? If so I'll just search for your posts.
Im not, but I can point out things I've read here. Search my posts, what do you mean?
It's not a map size problem, It's a population problem.
Correct, but a quick fix is to use only small maps to concentrate the player numbers and so generate more fights.
-
Maybe you should check in once and awhile so you know whats going on and so can then discuss these topics a bit more ..... umm shall we say on point?
Maybe you should have just told me there was an in-game vote like Lusche did instead of being an <insert word here>.
And BTW I wasn't discussing the topic. I was only asking where the information came from. I'm not sure how I could have been any more "on-point" with what I asked than I was.
-
Fester map, even with it's constantly porked HQ, has 10 times more fights at anytime, more than any small map. Removing it simply because it has a certain number of bases, really takes away more than it adds. Fester placed the action close, and those that are seeking action find it. Take away the HQ lights out instead, then you will see an increase in fights. Since that most likely would have to be done manually, I would rather see the development of graphics update take priority.
-
I voted yes. :aok
-
The HQ raiders have done more to damage the large maps than what they know or care to know.
The Fester map showed its ugly side again last night. An innovative map killed by a few.
-
Maybe you should have just told me there was an in-game vote like Lusche did instead of being an <insert word here>.
And BTW I wasn't discussing the topic. I was only asking where the information came from. I'm not sure how I could have been any more "on-point" with what I asked than I was.
I took your post as a "sarcastic" reply to mine, so I replied in kind. Seeing as you said "Are you a spokesperson for HTC now?" how else should I have taken it? It is one of the things that bothers me. People who have taken a break from the game comment on things people post/complain about having no clue as to what has changed in the time they have been away. Your post proves that out to a Tee
Fester map, even with it's constantly porked HQ, has 10 times more fights at anytime, more than any small map. Removing it simply because it has a certain number of bases, really takes away more than it adds. Fester placed the action close, and those that are seeking action find it. Take away the HQ lights out instead, then you will see an increase in fights. Since that most likely would have to be done manually, I would rather see the development of graphics update take priority.
Fester map is probably the worst of the big maps. I was on from 3 eastern to almost midnight and the rooks had two fights going. The rooks were hording the western side of the map, while a few were defending the eastern side. The eastern side started out fairly even but after a few hour turned into a Knight horde fest. About that time the Bish got their horde rolling on the western group of GV bases.
So it was pretty much fight IN the horde, or fight against the horde. Luckily we only lost DAR once, but it was down long enough that the rooks lost more players and so made "being our turn in the barrel" just that much more fun.
Players seem to think that as your spread out on the big maps you NEED more players to take a base (big map, big attack). Small maps seem to generate more of a conga line type sustained battle. I should have watched the numbers more closely just to see what the peek was. I do know that half the guys I was flying with logged in frustration after spending hours going head to head with hordes. How are new players going to cope with that?
-
The HQ raiders have done more to damage the large maps than what they know or care to know.
The Fester map showed its ugly side again last night. An innovative map killed by a few.
Ain't that the truth?
Logged in this morning to each country having 25-30 players and our HQ was down. So little going on and some tard(s) decide to make more people want to log off. Not only that, there was an enemy fighter looking to pick off resupplying goons. What a dick move.
These HQ killing eunuchs need to be put down for the good of the game.
-
I voted "I don't care" because I didn't want to vote for or against it but in truth I do care. I just don't think I have enough information to really make the right choice. I trust HiTech to make the right choice because I believe he knows what is best for the game.
-
So it was pretty much fight IN the horde, or fight against the horde.
That sounds like a fight to me. Jump to the side being horded, pick a horde, and start killing things. None of the other large maps generate fights like these. Some CAN in some areas of the map but FesterMA can do it pretty much anywhere on the map at any time and that's why it's my personal favorite large map.
-
I don't fly if it is a small map, I fly when large maps are on. However IMHO it isn't if it is a large or small map, it is the game play, game play is old, stale and boring. Also one reason why new people don't stay is because of how old timers treat them. We need new game play, like Marshalling, Ship yards and more Strategic and Tactical Targets that can effect the map.
Now you can flame me for saying what I said. I for one don't want the Big maps taken out.
-
That sounds like a fight to me. Jump to the side being horded, pick a horde, and start killing things. None of the other large maps generate fights like these. Some CAN in some areas of the map but FesterMA can do it pretty much anywhere on the map at any time and that's why it's my personal favorite large map.
I agree 100%
-
IMHO, the whole point of the game is to engage in combat with some opponents. Killing HQ, flying off the map, these are things that seem to run counter to the point of the game. More to the topic, though, I'm ok with large maps. But truth be told, when the population is low and you have to search to find a fight on a large map, I don't think the real problem is the map.
(Also there should be extra candy out on the table when one country falls below 50-60%, imho. Like B-29's with a single atomic bomb that could level a field and town. How cool would that be.)
-
That sounds like a fight to me. Jump to the side being horded, pick a horde, and start killing things. None of the other large maps generate fights like these. Some CAN in some areas of the map but FesterMA can do it pretty much anywhere on the map at any time and that's why it's my personal favorite large map.
These are not fights. Fighting in the horde means racing 6 other guys to kill one plane who really doesn't have much of a chance to put up a good fight. Fighting against the horde means spending all your time either flying like ROCKY and picking (boring as all h@ll), or spending flight after flight rolling turning, ducking and dodging being completely on the defensive against 5+ all night. While the later is better as there are more targets, there is far less "fighting" due to the fact your dodging all the time. Sure it's fun, but the frustration sets in eventually.
Now this is all from a "vets" point of view. Hows a new guy going to view these situations?
In the horde..... never going to get a fight, let alone a kill as there are not going to beat a vet to the punch in that situation. Against the horde.... they are going to die ALL the time and NEVER get any where. It will be the longest.... or shortest 2 week trial ever.
Saturday these were the only options for a new player to try. Giving those situations, how many new players do YOU think are going to stay?
-
I guess we have different definitions of a fight. The idea of fighting 20 enemy planes alone is something that I look forward to each and every day. In fact, if I can't find these kinds of fights then I log off for the day.
I kind of agree with your thoughts with new players. Some new players may find fighting with or against the horde boring like you said, but I don't think every one of them will. Some people may find flying with a bunch of allies a lot of fun. Whether they kill a plane or not, blow something up or not, it doesn't matter to them as the base gets taken and they feel like they were a part of it. Others may actually enjoy fighting outnumbered and fight against the hordes. Will they die a lot? Absolutely, even the most skilled of pilots get killed every now and then against a horde. All it takes is 1 mistake. The new guy, however, is actually looking for this kind of action though so he'll have fun.
Will people decide not to sub because all there is to do is fight with a horde or against it? Probably, but there will also be people who like flying with the horde or fighting against it. I personally think we could do with more players who enjoy fighting against the horde as they seem to be in a short supply right now. Currently the vast majority of the players are the "win the war" types who will gladly horde undefended bases all day long. If we can pick up some more players who like to fight against the hordes then the numbers will start to balance out again. More people will up to fight the horde, making the numbers more even. Base takers can plan out large missions to take a base. People who like fighting the hordes will up to fight them, and people who like the more even fights can help out on either side.
-
I agree 100%
Just a short time ago I would agree. The base defense to stop a horde would be great fun. The trend of late is de-ack the field and vulch anything that moves. Not so much fun as it used to be. More than half the time now, it is just a vulch with no intent of a base capture.
The worst word in the game, "The vulch light is on."
-
I guess we have different definitions of a fight.
Really?
-
I think it really comes down to how the bases are placed on a map and the distance between them.
Player base does become a problem during off hour times which is why smaller maps would be the best implication to this situation.
Also with smaller maps there is just much more direct action. However, you can still be highly offensive and attack other bases secretly. Smaller maps do not limit base taking strategy or secrecy. It's really all about how you go about capturing the base to begin with.
That being said, a map that incorporates all styles of play in one general area really brings a lot to the exciment of the game. While festers map is large, he really did well making the map where all types of action can happen in 1 1/2 sectors. His bases are closer together and in positions where all types of fights can happen at the same time. I'd really like to see bases closer together so that it is easier to defend from another base, as well as make the action quicker with less hordes. In some maps killing the FHs allows for a hoard to approach without being able to up from another base to defend without it taking you 45 minutes to get there.
I think it's about the map and base structure more than the size but the size does have an impact when the player base is down, therefore it's best to have smaller maps in rotation for now.
-
In my opinion, it really has very little to do with map size and more to do with the players. If players don't want to fight or are more interested in milking attack runs or bombing AI targets, then smaller maps won't really solve the issue (though they will mitigate it to some extent by forcing fights to occur due to proximity). However, the larger underlying issue will remain, that being that most players really aren't interested in fair fights.
Just last tour, a player in a 190, who I had killed several times previously, heads in my direction while I'm engaged with another player. When their teammate dies, the player immediately turns to base and runs to their ack, despite having slightly more E and alt than me. Knowing it was them, I simply chased them and recorded. This happened several times throughout the night, with the player in question only engaging once they had additional numbers to help them, and avoiding any situation that was a 1v1, 2v2, or anything balanced, regardless of the aircraft I upped (I flew everything from a C205 to a D9).
This same player has been very vocal in this very thread, stating how people should fight and discouraging running. Truth is, the majority of players here do the same thing. Everyone whines about a lack of fights, but few will actually up and fight. It's just the way it is.
This isn't an attack of any sort, simply an observation. I vote for smaller maps, but I don't think that will fix the long-term issue, which is simply player choice.
I think the long-term fix is to simply get more players, which is what HTC is working on.
Just my .02
-
However, the larger underlying issue will remain, that being that most players really aren't interested in fair fights.
I hate to admit it but I actually agree with you on this. I know for a fact that I am never interested in fair fights. I am always looking to be at the biggest disadvantage I can put myself in.
Also watched the video. Not sure what you are trying to say here I saw no running at all. What I witnessed was a 190 extending for a positional advantage and in the end it worked.
:headscratch:
-
So how did a topic about large maps turn into look at me i made a youtube video.(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/7b/7bf9c68556dbf01556bbfd7d452889c9d3c1a9a472d2ff650c86748f0f726817.jpg)
-
Also, the Fester map, despite being large, actually generates the most fights out of any other map, IMO. I'd like to see that one stay.
-
Also, the Fester map, despite being large, actually generates the most fights out of any other map, IMO. I'd like to see that one stay.
I second that.
-
Just a short time ago I would agree. The base defense to stop a horde would be great fun. The trend of late is de-ack the field and vulch anything that moves. Not so much fun as it used to be. More than half the time now, it is just a vulch with no intent of a base capture.
The worst word in the game, "The vulch light is on."
Which is why the bases should be closer together so it is easier to defend from another base. It doesn't matter what size the map is, if the bases are too far apart and you cant defend very well from other bases like when the FHs go down, it shuts down the fighters causing no one to up. If there is not a near by base, that base gets hoarded while the other team sits in the tower looking for another fight.
-
Fester map is the best (but buggy) large map due to the small front-line.
Large front maps just make LWA a place where base-takers look for undefended fields, and avoid any type of intervention to their business, + rarely any good fights.
-
Also, the Fester map, despite being large, actually generates the most fights out of any other map, IMO. I'd like to see that one stay.
+1
-
Also, the Fester map, despite being large, actually generates the most fights out of any other map, IMO. I'd like to see that one stay.
Agreed...... Although I'd like to see all the large maps stay
-
Kind of a boring conversation... someone post something exciting.
-
Zack rules. :old:
-
Also, the Fester map, despite being large, actually generates the most fights out of any other map, IMO. I'd like to see that one stay.
As long as HQ is up.
-
Also, the Fester map, despite being large, actually generates the most fights out of any other map, IMO. I'd like to see that one stay.
Agreed
-
No need to remove any maps, just drastically cut the max arena up time. 3 days should be enough.
-
lol... 16 months now :)
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/fail_zpsrzn1hh8d.jpg)
That's a super cute kid! :aok
-
Air Warrior (early to mid life of AW) had only a small fraction of the player base that AH currently has, yet it was nearly always possible to find good fights. Of course, the whole Air Warrior world was about 2 sectors by 2 sectors of our sector sizes.
It's all an issue of density of players (players per area) -- not area alone and not number of players alone.
People who say, "Big maps are fine -- we just need more players" are correct. But we don't have more players right now, so that is a moot point.
People who say, "To increase action, we need smaller maps" are correct. And doing that is very possible.
I would very much like smaller maps or reduced active area however it is accomplished, especially off peak.
Having flown plenty of off peak (like 2 am and later Eastern time), I do not believe people who say, "It's no problem to find good action off peak". I think that they don't know what they are talking about. I think that they flew once off peak and it seemed OK, so they think that's how it always is, or they flew at midnight Eastern and thought that was off peak, or the have an amazingly low bar for what passes as "good action."
-
The map size problem can be fixed at the flip of a switch. A population problem cannot be fixed as easily.
If there is less action for a player to enjoy, they log on less or cancel their account outright. This equates to even fewer players because of the big map.
Map size and population are both problems, but only one is easily fixed and can happen over night.
This is the most correct answer, I was given the authority to judge this problem and make a determination, please send all you complaints to:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/)
-
Some small maps <gags> :( make me log even faster. Fester's map has the most action at almost anytime the HQ is not taken down, and it is one of the, if not the largest map (counting bases).
What I like to see is, a SMALL amount of time to the action, and a LARGE variation in the type of action.
Fester listened to many of the suggestions from players and achieved the above. Some small maps pop up, and I immediately know what the tone of the fight will be= Fly 15 minutes to find a fight resulting in a one way flight.
-
Having thought about it, I still think the small maps give people that want to hide enough room to hide effectively. However, maybe the benefit actually comes from people thinking it's easier to find the fight, therefore they're more active, therefore there will be more fights.
Bring on the placebos if they work.
Wiley.
-
It simply comes down to base distance + size of the map+ base position / # of players.
If either of these are off, the map wont be very enjoyable.
I think we all understand this by now.
It is up to Hitech to implicate those reasonable changes in the new game. I'm sure he is on to it.
A map with similar concepts that Fester has, but smaller, would add a great amount of fights and action to AH.
Once the HQ prob gets fixed, I think the maps will bring a lot of action for new players.
-
:bhead you guys need help. If you are not posting a mission be quiet and fly your plane. :old:
:old:
:airplane:
-
Some small maps <gags> :( make me log even faster. Fester's map has the most action at almost anytime the HQ is not taken down, and it is one of the, if not the largest map (counting bases).
What I like to see is, a SMALL amount of time to the action, and a LARGE variation in the type of action.
Fester listened to many of the suggestions from players and achieved the above. Some small maps pop up, and I immediately know what the tone of the fight will be= Fly 15 minutes to find a fight resulting in a one way flight.
The HQ needs to be moved back behind the 163 base. :old:
-
I think the idea was to use the HQ to start fights. Everything about the Fester map is to funnel players into combat. I suspect the HQ placement on hindsight is a tactical boo boo. Fester if he is willing and around or HTC could move the HQ back between the un-capture able bases and put an end to much of the griefing on that map.
-
If you guys could talk HTC into at least experimenting using 128x128 terrains since our numbers are so low, and they were a success,I'd gladly double the amount of MA terrains in just a couple weeks time.
-
If you guys could talk HTC into at least experimenting using 128x128 terrains since our numbers are so low, and they were a success,I'd gladly double the amount of MA terrains in just a couple weeks time.
128*128? Do you have any screenshots? I would really like to see one... And I thought 20*20 was huge....
-
128*128? Do you have any screenshots? I would really like to see one... And I thought 20*20 was huge....
He's talking miles, your talking grids.
-
He's talking miles, your talking grids.
Oh :(
-
If you guys could talk HTC into at least experimenting using 128x128 terrains since our numbers are so low, and they were a success,I'd gladly double the amount of MA terrains in just a couple weeks time.
I'm not sure why we need 128 mile MA maps. It is not really the size of the map that is the issue or even the number of fields, it is the length of the front lines. For instance FesterMA generates a lot more action than the other 512 mile maps as the front lines are only a few fields wide. Nor is there a rule about how much of a 256 mile map you have to fill with fields or terrain. It should be possible to get the same effect as a 128 mile map with a 256 mile map by making the front lines 2 or 3 field long and not using the whole area.
-
The last map to be taken out of rotation, the one with the mountains dividing the country's and the super gv spawn camp, only allowed three front lines. The war stalled and people cried. A blend of left and right thinking can adjust each map to suit the specific challenges it poses with the communitys gripes. :bolt:
-
you can have a large map with maximum number of bases allowed if you design it like a narrow road with limited opportunities to avoid fights which a lot of people try to do to "win". then you can have the "front" move a long ways around the map along this road but it still remains a narrow front with concentrated intense fighting if you set it up right.
design your map so that anyone that avoids the fights and "wins" ends up surrounded behind enemy lines and "loses" and it becomes a self correcting front that funnels players into each other and gets everyone killed.
when you design your map ask yourself...
"have I done everything possible to ensure everyone will be killed in the maximum variety of ways?"
-
The last map to be taken out of rotation, the one with the mountains dividing the country's and the super gv spawn camp, only allowed three front lines. The war stalled and people cried. A blend of left and right thinking can adjust each map to suit the specific challenges it poses with the communitys gripes. :bolt:
All the MA maps have three front lines, it is just a question of how long they are. Trinity had essentially 1 opposing field per front line at the starting position which is not enough. The front lines widened out later but it was hard to get to that point. It was a badly unbalanced map, with an extra field on one front line and that spawn camp on another. With current player numbers I reckon 3 fields plus a CV per front line is about optimum.
-
Th current map is the small square one - I think of it as the "postage stamp" map.
Approx 60 people online. 12-16 in flight each country.
A high percentage flying around in F4U-4s and P-47Ms.
It was like furball lake.
This isn't a map size problem. It is a Summer's Eve problem.
-
Sounds like Beta2, my least favourite map as it is so difficult to get anyone to fight on it. The main problem being the barrier mountains running across the front lines that force planes up to high alts. Once up there and in enemy territory many players are loathe to drop below 10K since the mountains then block their escape route. The long flight times and lack of CVs don't help either.
The best thing about Beta2 is that being so small its not around for long. If the big maps had a time limit or a reduced percentage of fields needed to win there would be less complaining about them.
I agree its not a map size problem, it is a map design problem. It is possible to design or modify an MA map to better cater for low player numbers whatever size it is.