Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Open Beta Test => Topic started by: Chilli on November 09, 2015, 01:59:23 PM

Title: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: Chilli on November 09, 2015, 01:59:23 PM: (https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M82210f7fd75af3a2007e1b3121a7eeedH0&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0)

I am afraid that there should be a definite concern about how different layouts ground visibility (both in vehicle and air) may change gameplay. If you recall, the version that increased the town size, had an ill effect on base captures until a percentage was introduced that allowed towns/ airfields to be captured for the first time without destroying all of the buildings. Then a flag was placed in town to signal it's ready state. Later, strat damage / repair system and .dt commands worked other elements into the "tug of war" between chesspieces.

I know, I know...... we are here to test the coad.... and dem grateful, am able to. :salute I sincerely hope that we will also have an opportunity to suggest or poll gameplay issues / noticeable changes before beta....... because we know folks just love :old: change............ :uhoh
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: NatCigg on November 09, 2015, 02:40:46 PM: the best change would be a universal horde creator. preferably one with a ww2 theme that strategically helped to win the war. :salute
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: Chilli on November 09, 2015, 03:21:03 PM: mmmm kay.....

What I believe creates "numbers" online, is the feeling of achievement that individuals feel from participating. This is why folks (myself included) attack strategic targets (hard and soft). This is also why pilots up from capped fields, man guns, launch ground vehicles, etc to defend and attack.

Anything that takes away from an individual's ability to effectively achieve any goal will reduce the number of participants and balance is crucial to maximize that number.
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: NatCigg on November 09, 2015, 06:40:25 PM: Most people play to win. Win the game, what ever that is. Playing ww2 fighter pilot is the ultimate game. If you think the da is what we love of this game you will quickly find the community die. :old:
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: JimmyD3 on November 09, 2015, 07:14:58 PM: Quote from: NatCigg on November 09, 2015, 06:40:25 PM
Most people play to win. Win the game, what ever that is. Playing ww2 fighter pilot is the ultimate game. If you think the da is what we love of this game you will quickly find the community die. :old:

As it is today, most people in the MA play to win the map, in what ever manner is necessary. Planes or GV's. :banana:
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: 715 on November 09, 2015, 07:40:44 PM: Quote from: Chilli on November 09, 2015, 01:59:23 PM
I am afraid that there should be a definite concern about how different layouts ground visibility (both in vehicle and air) may change gameplay.

I have no doubt you are concerned, and perhaps even with reason, however I have no idea what you are concerned about. I have no idea what "different layouts ground visibility" means. Do you mean the visibility of the ground? Do you mean the visibility of building targets on the ground from the air? Do you mean the visibility of vehicles on the ground from the air? Do you mean the visibility of vehicles on the ground to other vehicles on the ground? And what do you think is affecting said visibility? Too many trees, or too undulating ground, or lighting effects, or something else?

Perhaps you could be more specific please?
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: Chilli on November 10, 2015, 04:23:12 AM: 715,

Yes, pick one, or all of the things that YOU listed (see you did understand) :D As far as eye candy goes, I welcome all of the changes. :rock I am just pondering if we will keep the current MA win the map / capture town with ???? percentage of buildings destroyed and all auto ack down?

Pondering how difficult it would be to bring a M3 to new towns across bridges? :joystick: Pondering if tanks will roam the countryside or just camp spawn points and town bridges? :noid Also, pondering how visibility range will effect any air to ground attack, either attacking ground vehicles or level bombing structures? :airplane:

I guess, that without any real "wet run" one could hope that eye candy will keep the :furious fuss to a minimum for a while, but if the delicate balance of individual achievements will be raised to a level of difficulty requiring uber skill and expensive system upgrades, :uhoh oh boy......

My unsolicited opinion says, if the current MA system will exist in AH3 (and haven't heard anything to suggest that it wouldn't), then there should be available measures to shift the balance away from "easy base defense" to "attack advantages" to begin with. Adjustments if needed can always be added after a proper "beta testing" period.
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: Wiley on November 10, 2015, 01:01:57 PM: Quote from: Chilli on November 10, 2015, 04:23:12 AM
715,

Yes, pick one, or all of the things that YOU listed (see you did understand) :D As far as eye candy goes, I welcome all of the changes. :rock I am just pondering if we will keep the current MA win the map / capture town with ???? percentage of buildings destroyed and all auto ack down?

Pondering how difficult it would be to bring a M3 to new towns across bridges? :joystick: Pondering if tanks will roam the countryside or just camp spawn points and town bridges? :noid Also, pondering how visibility range will effect any air to ground attack, either attacking ground vehicles or level bombing structures? :airplane:

I guess, that without any real "wet run" one could hope that eye candy will keep the :furious fuss to a minimum for a while, but if the delicate balance of individual achievements will be raised to a level of difficulty requiring uber skill and expensive system upgrades, :uhoh oh boy......

My unsolicited opinion says, if the current MA system will exist in AH3 (and haven't heard anything to suggest that it wouldn't), then there should be available measures to shift the balance away from "easy base defense" to "attack advantages" to begin with. Adjustments if needed can always be added after a proper "beta testing" period.

The problem is, without decent numbers those kinds of things can't really be playtested effectively. Also, I'd expect any changes to the gameplay will be some of the last things done in the Alpha/at the beginning of Beta. Doesn't make much sense to implement stuff like that until the groundwork is laid.

Wiley.
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: bustr on November 10, 2015, 01:17:09 PM: In the closed alpha when Hitech first gave us NDisles, the trees were real world forest thick. Tanks would disappear under the trees from fighters and from each other inside of the tree line three trees in at 600yds. Subsequently Hitech thinned the trees and tanks are visible now. I have a forest on the backside of my 4 mile desert tank gunnery range behind the shooting stand. I should place tanks in that forest with another spawn point facing the forest. Or even place the TT object on my gunnery terrain and place tanks all over that object in the forest.

As for tanks camping bridges, planes got bombs.

If Hitech uses a "participation trophy" brush on each AHIII terrain, why even pay him $14.95 anymore.
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: Chilli on November 10, 2015, 03:03:05 PM: Wiley,

I agree there is no way to test, but you can still draw conclusions from observations. I am only inserting hypothesis (base capture as we know it will become more difficult). We have seen this before when towns grew in AH2 and balance was off. The result was town percentage, and white flag in town.

I agree that the time to insert any balance adjustments would come after groundwork is finished. I don't think it is ever too early to be aware though. Especially since state of development:

Quote
State of the Dev Cave!
-----
We have a few items left for us to convert / rewrite to the new system.

1) Road/ train system.

Basically, if I were to build a test rocket, I would primarily build it to fly, but before I would launch it, I would put as much effort into guarding against it crashing. HTC, has proven they are very competent and so I am confident in their end product. I simply put a finger in the air and feel the "wind" has shifted (base defense). I strongly feel it would be an easier introduction to beta to error on the side of "base attack advantages" rather than what I perceive will be an easier base defense (by default, not by design).

Bustr,

Instead of achievements, I should have used the word accomplishments. I didn't mean the trophies, but actual player's completed goal during their sortie. For example: destroyed vehicle hangar to provide time for M3 to make it across the bridge to town (in a coordinated airfield capture attack).
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: SirNuke on November 10, 2015, 04:36:29 PM: (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-52Azqi4dV5Q/VkJxH_XXVeI/AAAAAAAARTs/A1cjSk0A1Pk/s736-Ic42/whiteflagthis.jpg)
Title: Re: I know this is a "graphics update" but.............
Post by: Chilli on November 12, 2015, 12:10:23 PM: Note: I should have tested before this post. Would it be a huge undertaking to bump map low level of detail gun pits at around say 7k feet? (found to exceed upon test). Edit: YIKES!! When I moved the Object Detail slider, bump map was visible 8~9k ft. That is excellent!! :salute

Lolz SirNuke, that is pretty much my question. Much briefer than all my text :rofl

715, my apologies in my OP I omitted an apostrophy and the understanding was not clear (corrected below) Sometimes I think the English language was invented by a blind Chinese martial arts master. :P

Quote
I am afraid that there should be a definite concern about how different layouts' ground visibility (both in vehicle and air) may change gameplay.