Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: save on June 22, 2016, 07:31:06 PM
-
Most of last week and 1rst half of the week we had about 20-25 players each at prime time Euro TZ.
The big maps don't do anything good for the game with these numbers.
-
Most of last week and 1rst half of the week we had about 20-25 players each at prime time Euro TZ.
The big maps don't do anything good for the game with these numbers.
I'd have to disagree........big maps are good fun especially for big bomber missions. 20 -25 players....means it's the middle of the night for most players....who for the most part do not have a problem with the "Big Maps" they even show up in Early and Mid War....and those maps don't stay up a full week....
-
It's afternoon for the US player base.
Players that not enjoy bomber action probably just log off after some too low-intensive fighting in tank-island.
-
who doesn't love a good bomber run?!!!
-
I'd have to disagree........big maps are good fun especially for big bomber missions. 20 -25 players....means it's the middle of the night for most players....who for the most part do not have a problem with the "Big Maps" they even show up in Early and Mid War....and those maps don't stay up a full week....
A few personal thoughts on that matter:
1. There were no big maps in EW from 2006 until my leave in nov 15. Can't imagine they have reintroduced them.
2. Maps always rotated faster in EW & MW because of the even lower and massively lopsided player count. 7-0 players can 'win' a map in short time. (just to give a perspective, in tour 187 there were less than 2(!) kills made for every captured base in EW, while about 100 in LW)
3. Big bomber missions ? What big bomber missions? I had wished there were still any left in my last year of AH, but after the dispersal of the central strats and the rapidly sinking player numbers, I didn't actually encounter them anymore. None of the very few raids (talking about three or four over a year) I saw was actually getting past the immediate frontlines.
4. The large maps were introduced at a time when the population was about twice as large and still growing. And not declining constantly.
5. I made the final decision to stop my subscription when the AH community apparently voted for keeping the large maps.
-
I'd like to see smaller maps personally. The action needs to be compact if you want players to stick around. I can promise you that no one enjoys climbing to 35k to shoot down a set of B24s. People want to open the game. See an area with 15-20 players fighting each other, up and and join the fight. If you have to search the map for a fight, it's not going to work, if you have to up for 1 tiny dar bar and can't even find he guy, it's not going to work. If new players cannot find the action, they will not stick around. If there isn't and area that funnels the action during the off hours, players will leave because they simply cannot find action or are willing to climb to 30k for b24s that are insanely difficult to catch and shoot that high.
These are logical conclusions that need to be addressed.
-
I can promise you that no one enjoys climbing to 35k to shoot down a set of B24s.
Oh, that's not true at all :t (even when ignoring the fact B-24s can't fly that high ;))
-
I can promise you that no one enjoys climbing to 35k to shoot down a set of B24s. People want to open the game.
These are logical conclusions that need to be addressed.
Your "logical conclusions", based on "nobody wants to fly to 35K", may not be accurate. I assure you sir, I do enjoy the challenge that you eschew. It takes time, it takes a different skill set, and the satisfaction I get from making that kill, to me, is much higher than one fight on the deck after the other that requires little to no patience.
-
Lord knows I enjoy it too, Zoney and Lusche, but you've got to admit there's very, very few of us. I bet there's no more than 50 people (and that's probably high) in the game that habitually go to 25k+ in the MA. Lusche probably has gleaned those numbers based on average sortie time and number of kills over phase of the moon, or somesuch. ;)
One format that gives what Dmon's describing is a round-based format like WT. I hate that kind of limited gameplay but that's what's popular. The vast majority of people want their instant action in bite sized pieces.
The game's greatest strength is you are given an area to operate in and can do whatever the game allows you to do in that area. Its greatest weakness is your opponents have that same freedom.
Wiley.
-
No one seems to have any trouble climbing up to get me no matter HOW high I fly! :x
And I like the big maps just fine.
-
Oh c'mon... what would the Steamrollers have to do? :bolt:
-
Sigh, might as well play off line if you want to spend 25 minutes catching a B24/17 at 25k only to get killed by laser beam easy mode gunners that don't die after you put a good 35 -60 20mm cannons up their arse.
-
Sigh, might as well play off line if you want to spend 25 minutes catching a B24/17 at 25k only to get killed by laser beam easy mode gunners that don't die after you put a good 35 -60 20mm cannons up their arse.
You should fly some more buffs to see how 'easy mode' gunnery is against an opponent not going for the dumb '6 o clock' attack trying to put "20mm cannons up their arse.:)
-
No one seems to have any trouble climbing up to get me no matter HOW high I fly! :x
And I like the big maps just fine.
Zardoz is my friend :)
-
I flew buffs the first month of this year because I didn't have a JS. Flew at 15k bombed base after base took a nap on the way home. So exciting.
-
I love shooting down bombers just like the rest of you, but if that's all I got to shoot at once in a 45 minute time span, that's just not fun. And the #s tell me it's not that exciting for them either.
-
I flew buffs the first month of this year because I didn't have a JS. Flew at 15k bombed base after base took a nap on the way home. So exciting.
I dare you to do that against the Knights, while I am flying. I can promise to relieve your boring ride home by eliminating it.
-
I dare you to do that against the Knights, while I am flying. I can promise to relieve your boring ride home by eliminating it.
At 15K, he would be far too low for you to spot him :old:
-
Some call the boredom of climbing high... exciting.
I prefer to go up against another person or persons and fight, win or lose. No boredom.
Climbing skillset alt+x and hope something good is on TV.
-
At 15K, he would be far too low for you to spot him :old:
(https://m.popkey.co/d3d881/jdyoe.gif)
-
Some call the boredom of climbing high... exciting.
Some of the best fights I ever had were up there. Most notably against well escorted high altitude bomber raids. It's another world up there, no quick jerking on your stick... thinking, planning, keeping a very sharp eye on your E state... trying to find a gap in the coverage, or engaging the escorts to create one for your teammates..
that were good times :old:
I really miss that a lot :(
-
Some of the best fights I ever had were up there. Most notably against well escorted high altitude bomber raids. It's another world up there, no quick jerking on your stick... thinking, planning, keeping a very sharp eye on your E state... trying to find a gap in the coverage, or engaging the escorts to create one for your teammates..
that were good times :old:
Now do all that at low altitude and add the trees, hills, and ground. Possible ack and flack along with GVs shooting at you and planes dropping in on you. Then more enemy showing up much quicker. Now you have what it is to be in a fight that takes quick thinking and reflexes, E management, head on a swivel sweaty hands excitement.
-
Now do all that at low altitude and add the trees, hills, and ground. Possible ack and flack along with GVs shooting at you and planes dropping in on you. Then more enemy showing up much quicker. Now you have what it is to be in a fight that takes quick thinking and reflexes, E management, head on a swivel sweaty hands excitement.
That sounds like fun!
Some of the best fights I ever had were up there. Most notably against well escorted high altitude bomber raids. It's another world up there, no quick jerking on your stick... thinking, planning, keeping a very sharp eye on your E state... trying to find a gap in the coverage, or engaging the escorts to create one for your teammates..
that were good times :old:
I really miss that a lot :(
That sounds like fun!
^See that^ ?
2 ways to have fun, of the 100's of ways to have fun.
The difference is presentation.
Lamenting the fact that everyone does not want to play as you do Violator is ridiculous. We get it, we can't help but get it because almost every day you find a way to climb up on your soapbox and TELL those of us who don't play your way that what we are doing isn't fun and if you aren't furballing then you are not a valuable member of the game and as you said we should just play offline. You don't see a problem with that attitude?
-
i just knew that the big maps were as good as gone after we voted. but nope, the hiders outnumbered the fighters.
-
That sounds like fun!
That sounds like fun!
^See that^ ?
2 ways to have fun, of the 100's of ways to have fun.
The difference is presentation.
Lamenting the fact that everyone does not want to play as you do Violator is ridiculous. We get it, we can't help but get it because almost every day you find a way to climb up on your soapbox and TELL those of us who don't play your way that what we are doing isn't fun and if you aren't furballing then you are not a valuable member of the game and as you said we should just play offline. You don't see a problem with that attitude?
And lusche is having so much fun in the game that he cancelled his subscription.
Willy said it right when he said that today's gamers want instant action. That why wot and those games draw crowds. Due to those games being crap is why they have big turn overs in players.
Match a good game like this one with more instant action and the numbers will climb and maintain. Then some of those players may try other things like high altitude attacks and defenses.
-
And lusche is having so much fun in the game that he cancelled his subscription.
Willy said it right when he said that today's gamers want instant action. That why wot and those games draw crowds. Due to those games being crap is why they have big turn overs in players.
Match a good game like this one with more instant action and the numbers will climb and maintain. Then some of those players may try other things like high altitude attacks and defenses.
15$ a month subscriptions. :old:
do i need to say it again.?
-
And lusche is having so much fun in the game that he cancelled his subscription.
Willy said it right when he said that today's gamers want instant action. That why wot and those games draw crowds. Due to those games being crap is why they have big turn overs in players.
Match a good game like this one with more instant action and the numbers will climb and maintain. Then some of those players may try other things like high altitude attacks and defenses.
I live in fear of the day HT comes out with an arena that's set up like WT with 15-30 minute rounds to accomplish some specific goal with a reward at the end of it. It will be hugely popular, and the MA will become a ghost town.
IMO this game had its heyday at a time when there wasn't anything remotely comparable in terms of flight and gunnery mechanics that had instant action, so people tolerated the open world MA because of the gameplay. When a few companies came out with a F2P option that had different performance for different aircraft and rounds based gameplay, there was a viable option and people didn't need to tolerate the open world sandbox to get their fix.
The people who are still here either like the mechanics of the game enough to tolerate the parts of MA gameplay they don't like, or like the open world sandbox style play they can't get anywhere else other than WBs.
If I wanted to play Counterstrike in airplanes, I wouldn't be here. Unfortunately an awful lot of people seem to want to play Counterstrike in airplanes, and they are elsewhere.
Wiley.
-
That sounds like fun!
That sounds like fun!
^See that^ ?
2 ways to have fun, of the 100's of ways to have fun.
The difference is presentation.
Lamenting the fact that everyone does not want to play as you do Violator is ridiculous. We get it, we can't help but get it because almost every day you find a way to climb up on your soapbox and TELL those of us who don't play your way that what we are doing isn't fun and if you aren't furballing then you are not a valuable member of the game and as you said we should just play offline. You don't see a problem with that attitude?
All I said was that maps during off hours should provide a funnel for fights to happen. Even in small maps there is still the ability to climb to 30k and attack undefended bases. Smaller maps help newer members of the game find fights. If you have a large map with scattered players and then most of them are in high bombers, most people don't have the time, attention spans, the know how's, the wants, to go up at a sector with a tiny dar bar and find the red guy! If the red guy is in a 25k 190D, then your pretty much SOL on having any sort of fun because the guy isn't even going to attack you.
If you joined the arena and it was easy to spot the action and the fight, the majoirty of the people would be in that area, thus using their time to dog fight and be apart of the action. The bombers could still have their fun and be apart of the action or not. The fights would create excitement and meaning. This would build up the player base instead of it declining because of a lack of action.
You don't even have to modify the MA at all. Better base placement and smaller maps to direct the action. Thats all it needs.
-
Climbing skillset alt+x and hope something good is on TV.
The interesting part happens when some other guy has done the same thing and doesn't run when he sees you.
Wiley.
-
So last Tuesday night the 35k massed B17 mission to the knights city and HQ and the massed interceptor battle didn't happen...... :O
There has been a recent trend of those missions on Tuesday nights around 7:30-8:00pm US pacific time for some months. Then Tuesday night is POTW squad night and we do put up a mess of interceptors to entertain the squads who want to test their bomber skills against knight land's city and HQ.
-
I used to enjoy intercepting bombers on occation. The Jug was built for the thin air.
Two things have ruined that for me...
First and most recently is the massive missions with 30 bombers (10 players) packed so close together at 30k+. The wingman function has made these missions ridiculously easy. Bomber pilots don't even need to be present to make turns to stay with the group. It virtually pointless IMO to even try to attack them because you're not going to be able to make a single pass without getting heavily damaged or destroyed. Even the 47M (fastest prop fighter in the game) has trouble engaging bombers that high. Not fun spending the time to get to 40k knowing that.
I also don't consider it fun to find a guy in a set of buffs in the flight levels only to watch him bail as soon as I get into icon range.
...These are the reasons I generally don't bother trying to intercept anymore. Big maps with far flung bases certainly facilitate this style of play. There should never be more active bases than players IMO.
-
What makes you guys think smaller maps are going to have any impact on people who want to run, ack hide, and not fight in every way possible? A smaller map very mildly affects alt monkeys, but gameplay largely stays the same.
Wiley.
-
First and most recently is the massive missions with 30 bombers (10 players) packed so close together at 30k+. The wingman function has made these missions ridiculously easy.
It also made multiple kills per pass much easier. Ta 152H, sweep from left to right hold down "fire all". See your framerate dropping from several Liberators on fire. Oh, and glide home with a radiator leak .... :D
What makes you guys think smaller maps are going to have any impact on people who want to run, ack hide, and not fight in every way possible?
Experience. You know, we did have small maps, not just big.
The difference is not one on the mindset of the individual player. (You might note that I didn't complain about 'ack hiders', 'runners' 'vulchers' or anything like that in the past years).
It just funnels the action, which has a natural tendency to spread out (with almost everyone doing 'his thing'). On several small maps you even have a chance to fly to that single battle on the map, even when it's the opposing countries slugging it out (no, changing sides is not always an option). Higher action density.
Don't get me wrong, I love big terrains and the enhanced combat options they offer - provided you have enough players online. In fact, after the great arena split when all large maps were retired (at a much higher player count) I lobbied very hard to get them back. But things are different when you have several sectors of frontline per active player...
-
Air spawn on a small map, shoot bullets till I die and do it over and over and over again
lol
The large maps would work if there was enough to keep me busy without having to think about what to do, I want to just do it I don't want to have to think about it.
lol
We've been bred from AW forward how to fight and survive, minimum alt cap, don't engage without a plan, stay alive that's how you get numbers people think are great and drool and brag over. That's how you're supposed to have fun.
The genre is in a slump, it has moved to instant action, not instant gratification.
How many people have you tried to get to play this game and the almost all say its boring, why would I want to "fly" for 15 minutes to fight for two minutes. and you explain the strategy and the planning and they still say it looks boring.
Keep in mind these people don't know anything about board games
I started AW in the fall of 95, AW must have had smaller maps because even when the population was dying towards the end you could still find a fight in FR. I cant play AH for more than a couple months in a row and heaven forbid never during the summer.
Moral of the story, shorten the fight cycle, give me something I can conquer now and instantly beat the other side, run a small map random 10 vs. 10 max, single base capture with two more bases one for each team to spawn off of.
Instant action not Instant gratification
-
Keep in mind these people don't know anything about board games
That's the solution! We design an AH board game! :x
For the younger folks in their thirties, we could also do a variant with trading cards, like Magick:The Gatering or some stuff like that :old:
-
My brother and I played a board game where each fight earned more masts for your boat cant recall the name Spanish Armada style ships, we played for hours but it did have fights that you arrived at sooner than AH, lol
-
What makes you guys think smaller maps are going to have any impact on people who want to run, ack hide, and not fight in every way possible? A smaller map very mildly affects alt monkeys, but gameplay largely stays the same.
Wiley.
A lot of people, especially vets simply didn't and still don't understand that the whole point of the game, when you boiled it down, was to die to various degrees and have fun doing it.
-
Moral of the story, shorten the fight cycle, give me something I can conquer now and instantly beat the other side, run a small map random 10 vs. 10 max, single base capture with two more bases one for each team to spawn off of.
If you can find the people, you could do this now, today, with a private arena.
Wiley.
-
Its not private arenas people want, to exclusive, not random enough,
PS
both Milton Bradley Games, Broadside and Dogfight those were the days
-
Its not private arenas people want, to exclusive, not random enough,
PS
both Milton Bradley Games, Broadside and Dogfight those were the days
Wooden Ships & iron men here!
And for air combat:
Air Force
Luftwaffe (sucked tho)
Over the Reich and Achtung Spitfire!
Air Superiority and Air Strike
-
I had no friends, so didn't play board games. :(
I get your meaning Hungry. You basically want WT on this engine then. That's fine, like I said, it'd be much more popular.
Wiley.
-
The funny part is I'm an old (er) guy, but yes when I play these days (battlefield 4) but not lately, I want to get in fight it out and after a period of time get back outside and finish the grass cutting or the latest wood project I'm working on
I don't want to make a lifelong endeavor out of playing a video game anymore and maybe that's the real todays mentality that HTC is dealing with. Get in have some fun Get out and go do something else and if that worked I'll be back tommorrow
-
Sigh, might as well play off line if you want to spend 25 minutes catching a B24/17 at 25k only to get killed by laser beam easy mode gunners that don't die after you put a good 35 -60 20mm cannons up their arse.
Very well said sir.
-
...no quick jerking on your stick... thinking, planning, keeping a very sharp eye on your E state...
Why do you think they hate it so? Your point cancels out about 3/4's of the "bestust pile-its evar!"
-
I like big maps because I get that fun 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 or 3 on 2 intercept. Small maps have these chocke points with waves of diving fighters that are not really suitable for my favorite P47.
Furballs are fun in stuff that turns with canons where you can twist your way out and get kills with kust a few hit sprites but yet I find that borring.
Anyway, I like big maps where you can scan for these sneaky few dots and launch to try to mess up their plan. 😊
-
I like big maps because I get that fun 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 or 3 on 2 intercept. Small maps have these chocke points with waves of diving fighters that are not really suitable for my favorite P47.
Furballs are fun in stuff that turns with canons where you can twist your way out and get kills with kust a few hit sprites but yet I find that borring.
Anyway, I like big maps where you can scan for these sneaky few dots and launch to try to mess up their plan. 😊
For his stats Lusche would like to know if you played Board games when you were a kid?
-
off peak hours, or <100 players it should be small maps only.
Maybe go back to saving the prime time map at X o clock.
-
off peak hours, or <100 players it should be small maps only.
Maybe go back to saving the prime time map at X o clock.
Offer both and let the player base decide by stats, Large maps and 10 vs 10 (example number only to indicate small) random savage maps
-
players will go wherever the #'s are big or small.
If you have a big map already up no-one will be bothered to switch.
-
Not when they get a taste of the instant action style small maps, fight or be killed, three bases (or minimal number) I know its somewhat been done before similar to H2H was it a number of years ago, but this isn't free its forced action. Love it or go fly for 15 minutes to find a two minute fight. Or go play the board game style fly for an hour to get to 35k to bomb someone's base hoping no one sees you.
-
I usually log off on the smaller maps. for one thing they normally get rolled pretty fast. so if you want to see 3 or 4 maps getting rolled every day. go for it.
semp
-
Numbers tend to sweep the instant action short attention spanners and lone wolfs along with the flow. They get caught up in all the action numbers generate at any location on our maps. These players existed back before the 2009 start of the numbers down turn. With out those numbers for them to go along with the flow, to take advantage of the action, they are not a type of person who is interested in "creating" the fun. That's why instant action with all the sound and fury type games attract them. Especially if they think the game is free. It is also the reason squads are essential to the health of our game because the friendships are why many of those players keep coming back providing the bulk of the numbers we still have today. You see this on display every Friday night at FSO.
The game in it's traditional format can sustain the instant action and lone wolfs. Back in the day when they popped in for the first time, the numbers of players all going somewhere and doing something all the time was the attractor that kept them coming back. Every time these days a sudden uptick in numbers blooms at a location, you see everyone who can, get drawn to the action. You also see how our smaller numbers contributes to the shorter lifespan of these action outbreaks by the first wave of players not being sustained by a 2nd and 3rd like in the past allowing them a mental breather from getting killed. Then getting back into the fray because there was still a concentration of numbers creating action and fun, while today's obvious sense of the fight being lost inside of 30 minutes was not a norm back then. Today the sense of when the tide turns is very well honed with smaller numbers, shortening many large engagements so your sweet spot window for action is much shorter. Good or bad, with smaller numbers, today's players are more willing to see the writing on the wall and find another fight rather than offer up their scalps to a perceived lost cause or the same vets too many times.
Numbers is the secret to the attraction of this game. Shrinking the arena size will not proportionally ram a courage rod up anyone's kester and magically turn them into a fighter. Numbers will though, proportionally reduce your work load to finding people in circumstances attractive to your game play style to shoot down. You will be more inclined to ignore those who run from bad circumstances early. In a target rich environment it's easier to hide in plain sight for the early runners, while you didn't notice that most players ran back then just like they run away today. Because of the low numbers the running and other things players do to avoid getting killed are not proportionally hidden in the crowd. Most people in most games don't want to fight, they want to hide in plain sight and bag a few kills the fastest way they can.
Anyway AH3 is about on us, and it has an instant action arena where you sit in the Oclub and get thrown into a fight after an automated countdown. Shades of WT......
-
My opinion is that action and fun are, to an extent, proportional to player density (players/area).
Big maps, to me, are enormously less fun than smaller ones with the current number of players.
With our current number of players, the only motivation I can see for a big map is to get somewhere without encountering opponents. For players like me, that is the whole point of the game, to encounter opponents.
-
My opinion is that action and fun are, to an extent, proportional to player density (players/area).
Big maps, to me, are enormously less fun than smaller ones with the current number of players.
With our current number of players, the only motivation I can see for a big map is to get somewhere without encountering opponents. For players like me, that is the whole point of the game, to encounter opponents.
Brooke
Very well put, much better than I, player density is why I still play Battlefield 4 Knife and pistols only Locker Room, sometimes up to 60 players fighting is a relatively small area is a blast. Granted its cold not much conversation and unless you join a clan there's not much in the way of long term friendships, but, it does attract the players night in and night out without fail even after all the bad press BF4 has gotten and gets.
If AH3 could find a way to increase the intensity a player feels when they enter an arena. Of course you have to cater to the vet crowd who continue to use "I" in every post that refers to changing something as if its a veiled threat or don't question me I know better.
-
My opinion is that action and fun are, to an extent, proportional to player density (players/area).
Big maps, to me, are enormously less fun than smaller ones with the current number of players.
With our current number of players, the only motivation I can see for a big map is to get somewhere without encountering opponents. For players like me, that is the whole point of the game, to encounter opponents.
:aok
-
From the June AARP news letter page 6
"Older Gamers Join Digital Fun"
The good news
Nearly 4 in 10 American's age 50 plus play games on various devices (laptop or desktop)
The Bad News
Only 5% of those play shooter games and 1% play fighting games. Someone's playing them but not this particular population.
My takeaway is those under 50 are not here in numbers seen elsewhere, HT needs to get younger, optional smaller maps with more intensity, of course I don't play any of the World of... games how do those maps compare?
-
I live in fear of the day HT comes out with an arena that's set up like WT with 15-30 minute rounds to accomplish some specific goal with a reward at the end of it. It will be hugely popular, and the MA will become a ghost town.
IMO this game had its heyday at a time when there wasn't anything remotely comparable in terms of flight and gunnery mechanics that had instant action, so people tolerated the open world MA because of the gameplay. When a few companies came out with a F2P option that had different performance for different aircraft and rounds based gameplay, there was a viable option and people didn't need to tolerate the open world sandbox to get their fix.
The people who are still here either like the mechanics of the game enough to tolerate the parts of MA gameplay they don't like, or like the open world sandbox style play they can't get anywhere else other than WBs.
If I wanted to play Counterstrike in airplanes, I wouldn't be here. Unfortunately an awful lot of people seem to want to play Counterstrike in airplanes, and they are elsewhere.
Wiley.
Agreed, an instant action setup like WT would knock off half the people who play now. It takes away too much of the options for other game play.
However things could be tweaked to encourage quicker action in this game.
Go to the smaller maps until numbers increase.
Change the percentage of enemy bases needed for the win to create more fights per map and also make them last a bit longer.
coading changes..... (added for the new version)
move bases a bit closer.
add goals.... land "x" amount of kills per day/week for bonus points/perks... get "x" amount of kills per day/week for bonus points/perks..... get "x" amount of buildings per day/week in a buff or attack mode for bonus points/perks and so on.
Adding these mini goals will get more people to "participate" in one way or another. More buff runs, more missions, more furballs, more action all around.
-
From the June AARP news letter page 6
"Older Gamers Join Digital Fun"
The good news
Nearly 4 in 10 American's age 50 plus play games on various devices (laptop or desktop)
The Bad News
Only 5% of those play shooter games and 1% play fighting games. Someone's playing them but not this particular population.
My takeaway is those under 50 are not here in numbers seen elsewhere, HT needs to get younger, optional smaller maps with more intensity, of course I don't play any of the World of... games how do those maps compare?
More like Battlefield than this. It's free, you should check it out.
Wiley.
-
Agreed, an instant action setup like WT would knock off half the people who play now. It takes away too much of the options for other game play.
Even if they still had their favorite rotation maps intact? The trick would be to get the word out, hey try this we've expanded our two week free trial to 30 days for this one time limited offer blah blah blah
-
off to play Tom Clancy's The Division, pick a gun a mission and go run down the street and shoot, its not half bad, open world
-
they are actually called "Terrains" maps is where you pull up your clipboard-to look up at the base's--just sayin
-
first belongs in Wish List-2nd this thread is a mute point-they will not make any changes in ah2-except maybe skins-in which they added some 2-3 weeks ago--since AH3 will be out in :cough cough" 2 weeks.
-
Most of last week and 1rst half of the week we had about 20-25 players each at prime time Euro TZ.
The big maps don't do anything good for the game with these numbers.
+1
-
I have played World of Warships for the past few weeks. Is it any good? yeah / nah / kinda......hmmm.
What it is though is assured combat and that aspect I love. I have almost given up on AH at the moment. I simply do not get enough fighter combat to keep me interested. My personal preference would be to have 2 sides and smaller maps to encourage / force contact with the enemy forces.
-
My WAG on this is HTC would like to introduce new maps but they are manpower eaters.
I hope they come up with a "weather in" program to reduce the size of the maps according to population but that would me a manpower eater as well I would guess.
-
For his stats Lusche would like to know if you played Board games when you were a kid?
No I didn't, I couldn't stand in place. I played outside. :uhoh
In a nutshell, I like Big Maps because I can finish what I started without the bad guy running to a bunch of friends within seconds of being in trouble. :old:
-
No I didn't, I couldn't stand in place. I played outside. :uhoh
When my parents wanted to punish me, they did not ground me. I was sent outside to play! :D
-
Vampires? :D
-
I would like to see smaller maps.
-
I would like to see smaller maps.
here you go
(http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad296/Omorru/Maps/Mosaden-map_small.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Omorru/media/Maps/Mosaden-map_small.jpg.html)
-
here you go
(http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad296/Omorru/Maps/Mosaden-map_small.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Omorru/media/Maps/Mosaden-map_small.jpg.html)
It takes a village. :old:
-
Yee Haw............let's make it so me163s can reach every base on the map.
-
Yee Haw............let's make it so me163s can reach every base on the map.
With a little patience they can :old:
-
My opinion is that action and fun are, to an extent, proportional to player density (players/area).
Big maps, to me, are enormously less fun than smaller ones with the current number of players.
With our current number of players, the only motivation I can see for a big map is to get somewhere without encountering opponents. For players like me, that is the whole point of the game, to encounter opponents.
:aok
Seems like a lot of the arguments against the smaller maps are coming from those who would prefer to avoid encountering an opponent. If the current population trend continues, they may see their dream come true.
-
Small to medium size maps with the central mega strat. Personally, my favorite maps are Crater, pizza, and the canyon land map.
-
My first boardgame was Chancellorsville, made by Avalon Hill
Wooden Ships & iron men here!
And for air combat:
Air Force
Luftwaffe (sucked tho)
Over the Reich and Achtung Spitfire!
Air Superiority and Air Strike
-
My personal preference would be to have 2 sides and smaller maps to encourage / force contact with the enemy forces.
A two country war wouldn't work, which is why we don't have it in AH.
-
A two country war wouldn't work, which is why we don't have it in AH.
It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?
-
It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?
Maybe because HTC might end up having to choose which side a player took per login?
-
Maybe because HTC might end up having to choose which side a player took per login?
big deal
-
It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?
I'll take a wild guess here and say this would, like the old "split arenas" kill off even
more of the existing squadrons.
-
Maybe because HTC might end up having to choose which side a player took per login?
Why? If the player login is random then statistics say that the imbalance would actually be smaller with two sides than when the same number of players are spread over three sides, thereby making fewer per side.
-
Really, really, don't like small maps.
When ndisles is up I just GV on tank Island.
Doing away with Large maps would be a mistake.
My 2 cents.
-
Why? If the player login is random then statistics say that the imbalance would actually be smaller with two sides than when the same number of players are spread over three sides, thereby making fewer per side.
There would be hordes. Lots and lots of hordes. THEN, along would come the Axis vs Allied crowd... and it's all downhill from there.
-
It works well in a great deal of other games, why wouldn't it work here?
Two sides rarely work in a MA setting because most players will gravitate to the side with the most numbers.
-
Being this is a spitball post, can any of you gents who like small maps go into your favorite art program. Then rough out say a 512x512 layout of what you believe would bring players together versus allowing them to avoid each other? Lay down blue as the background then paint some tan or brown for land. You don't need to make icons, just use text like LAB, MAB, SAB, GV, PRT and so forth to indicate fields. We all can use our imagination that your fields are about 1 sector apart.
Then imbed it back in this post while explaining why it works for you in your experience with the game. Also allow others to download it and make modifications to diagram their counter argument to your choices.
The AH3 terrain editor is easy to use and Easycor and Greebo have written an excellent manual per Waffle's request. I'm just thinking instead of wasting your ideas here forgotten during the usual fights to follow. I've already built an offline gunnery training terrain for AH3 so believe me the terrain editor is easy to use. If someone will post the sector counts for the three sizes of terrains, I will create a 512x512 base sheet with grids and imbed it in here. Then all it will take for you is some time in a basic art program.
-
(https://tagn.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/pacifictheater.png)
I'm making a bit of a joke here, but serious in this way. A good portion of the life of Air Warrior had many fewer players than Aces High, yet it was fun to play and very active, even down to only 4-6 players online. Why? Because players/area was still fine. When there were 4-6 players up, you flew and encountered them. They weren't flying off somewhere impossible to interact with.
Sectors in Air Warrior, by the way, were 12 miles x 12 miles. So the above map would fit in about 1.5 by 1.5 sectors in Aces High.
Action is all about players/area.
If you have 40 players, but a terrain where there is a person here, then 4 sectors away another person, and so on -- there will be no action. It will be no more exciting that flying offline.
If you have 40 players, but a terrain that is 3 sectors by 3 sectors, you will have action and plenty of it.
It just depends. Does your on-line multiplayer flight-combat company make more money in the long term catering to people who want an offline flying experience while flying online or catering to people who want many-on-many fighting while flying online?
I'm here for many-on-many fighting among humans. Without that, it has no appeal to me.
-
(https://tagn.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/pacifictheater.png)
I'm making a bit of a joke here, but serious in this way. A good portion of the life of Air Warrior had many fewer players than Aces High, yet it was fun to play and very active, even down to only 4-6 players online. Why? Because players/area was still fine. When there were 4-6 players up, you flew and encountered them. They weren't flying off somewhere impossible to interact with.
Sectors in Air Warrior, by the way, were 12 miles x 12 miles. So the above map would fit in about 1.5 by 1.5 sectors in Aces High.
Action is all about players/area.
If you have 40 players, but a terrain where there is a person here, then 4 sectors away another person, and so on -- there will be no action. It will be no more exciting that flying offline.
If you have 40 players, but a terrain that is 3 sectors by 3 sectors, you will have action and plenty of it.
It just depends. Does your on-line multiplayer flight-combat company make more money in the long term catering to people who want an offline flying experience while flying online or catering to people who want many-on-many fighting while flying online?
I'm here for many-on-many fighting among humans. Without that, it has no appeal to me.
This is pretty much my arguement as well. Not saying the game needs to change. Just maps that are better suited for the community. The lack of maps/same maps every week, makes the game get old for some people. What I'd really like to see is a dedicated team of map makers that can create a lot of maps and that funnel action for everyone to be apart of.
-
AH terrain sectors are 25x25, so what is the smallest MA map we have in rotation at the moment? What is the smallest number of sectors allowed as an MA terrain? I've played on some excellent AvA small terrains but, the AvA is a more open environment.
Can anyone give me the sector count for MA terrains?
-
Also from 2000 Hitech explains why we have three countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TT We are going to remain 3 sides in the main arena.
What 3 sides does for arena play.
1. It balances out 1 side having more players than the other.
2. It Spreds the fights out accross the arena. If you only have 2 sides you would see a lot more of everyone fighting in 1 spot.
3. It provides everone with more enemys to fight. If all 3 sides are = numbers you always have 2 enemys to fight for your sides 1.
4. It creates a more dynamic enviorment because who each country is attacking changes . As opposed to 2 sides where you are always attacking the same side.
5. Countryies devlope a personality over time. With 3 countries we end up with a more diverse flavor.
HiTech
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,11939.msg153697/topicseen.html#msg153697
-
AH terrain sectors are 25x25, so what is the smallest MA map we have in rotation at the moment? What is the smallest number of sectors allowed as an MA terrain? I've played on some excellent AvA small terrains but, the AvA is a more open environment.
Can anyone give me the sector count for MA terrains?
We can certainly have either 20 sectors by 20 sectors or 10 sectors by 10 sectors.
You could make an effective playing area smaller than 10 by 10 by design of the terrain. For example, a 5x5 continent surrounded by water is similar to a 5x5 terrain, or just by arrangement of bases.
-
I looked it up:
1. - 256x256 = 10 sect x 10sect
2. - 512x512 = 20 sect x 20 sect
So I will imbed a jpeg or bitmap 512x512 pixel with a 10x10 grid and blue base color. Then all of you guys can download it and use paint to create a white board kind of discussion about small maps.
-
OK, just download this image, open it, and paint. It is 10 (25mile x 25mile) sectors which is the small terrain 256x256. Show us what you are talking about in terms of a better terrain for our current numbers in the MA. Some of this audience should be able to talk about base placement theory for funneling of fights as the fronts change. Or to change the fronts.
(https://s20.postimg.org/e7vasuxzh/Sm_Map.jpg)
-
I guess it's true then. Many of you gents want "anyone else" to do the work while you pass judgment on it and it's creator if it doesn't send a thrill up your leg.
The AH3 terrain editor is very easy to use and Easycor, Greebo and others from the AvA and SEA arenas will advise you with the nuances if you are polite to them. Whether it's the bitmap I posted with a 10x10 sector grid, or you use engineering 1"x1" graph paper and a pencil. You will have to sit down and rough out a proof of concept diagram to guide you in the terrain editor.
Everyone who has something to do with creating terrains in AH2 who is a player is tied up converting terrains to AH3 and testing them. Waffle can make terrains because we needed them for testing back in the alpha. But he is busy baby sitting AH3 to give you thrills up your legs. Right now is a window of opportunity to turn all of your grievances into your utopian version of an MA terrain. It just takes a PC\Laptop, a copy of the terrain editor, and a mouse.
-
I guess it's true then. Many of you gents want "anyone else" to do the work while you pass judgment on it and it's creator if it doesn't send a thrill up your leg.
The AH3 terrain editor is very easy to use and Easycor, Greebo and others from the AvA and SEA arenas will advise you with the nuances if you are polite to them. Whether it's the bitmap I posted with a 10x10 sector grid, or you use engineering 1"x1" graph paper and a pencil. You will have to sit down and rough out a proof of concept diagram to guide you in the terrain editor.
Everyone who has something to do with creating terrains in AH2 who is a player is tied up converting terrains to AH3 and testing them. Waffle can make terrains because we needed them for testing back in the alpha. But he is busy baby sitting AH3 to give you thrills up your legs. Right now is a window of opportunity to turn all of your grievances into your utopian version of an MA terrain. It just takes a PC\Laptop, a copy of the terrain editor, and a mouse.
You hit the nail on the head. This game allows you to actually have input into the game.
If you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk. Show your ideas. I think many will find it is not as simple as put fields on a map. It has to work when the map ebbs and flows too.
If you feel you have a great setup, and you may, make a terrain and get a few folks to test on it. You may get a map with your name on it.
-
I guess it's true then. Many of you gents want "anyone else" to do the work while you pass judgment on it and it's creator if it doesn't send a thrill up your leg.
The AH3 terrain editor is very easy to use and Easycor, Greebo and others from the AvA and SEA arenas will advise you with the nuances if you are polite to them. Whether it's the bitmap I posted with a 10x10 sector grid, or you use engineering 1"x1" graph paper and a pencil. You will have to sit down and rough out a proof of concept diagram to guide you in the terrain editor.
Everyone who has something to do with creating terrains in AH2 who is a player is tied up converting terrains to AH3 and testing them. Waffle can make terrains because we needed them for testing back in the alpha. But he is busy baby sitting AH3 to give you thrills up your legs. Right now is a window of opportunity to turn all of your grievances into your utopian version of an MA terrain. It just takes a PC\Laptop, a copy of the terrain editor, and a mouse.
I make maps for a living, not the ones that most people are used to, but maps none the less. The brief amount of time that I have spent tooling around with the terrain editor had brought me to the conclusion that it is "clunky". Now, I like what I do for a living, but I do not necessarily want to eat away at my free attempting to create a terrain.
-
I make maps for a living, not the ones that most people are used to, but maps none the less. The brief amount of time that I have spent tooling around with the terrain editor had brought me to the conclusion that it is "clunky". Now, I like what I do for a living, but I do not necessarily want to eat away at my free attempting to create a terrain.
That is fine. It also means you have no time to complain. Just have fun and enjoy your free time.
-
I guess it's true then. Many of you gents want "anyone else" to do the work while you pass judgment on it and it's creator if it doesn't send a thrill up your leg.
The AH3 terrain editor is very easy to use and Easycor, Greebo and others from the AvA and SEA arenas will advise you with the nuances if you are polite to them. Whether it's the bitmap I posted with a 10x10 sector grid, or you use engineering 1"x1" graph paper and a pencil. You will have to sit down and rough out a proof of concept diagram to guide you in the terrain editor.
Everyone who has something to do with creating terrains in AH2 who is a player is tied up converting terrains to AH3 and testing them. Waffle can make terrains because we needed them for testing back in the alpha. But he is busy baby sitting AH3 to give you thrills up your legs. Right now is a window of opportunity to turn all of your grievances into your utopian version of an MA terrain. It just takes a PC\Laptop, a copy of the terrain editor, and a mouse.
Im sure there are many people looking to give it a go....... once AH3 is released. What is the point of putting time and energy into something that cant be used yet? There are still bugs to work out. Greebo, one of the top map makers is the only one with an MA map up in AH3 and they are STILL finding issues in it.
People here are commenting on things that can be done NOW for AH2 with little work on HTC part. It is just a request to remove the large maps until the numbers climb again..... be that naturally or when they switch to AH3. For the most part, people are not complaining about "HTC's map", they are complaining about the lack of players to fill out and create the momentum needed to get the action going on the large maps.
We live in a "I want it now!" type of society and as we can not have AH3 NOW, maybe we can have the large maps removed NOW and keep/get the fun rolling in AH2
I make maps for a living, not the ones that most people are used to, but maps none the less. The brief amount of time that I have spent tooling around with the terrain editor had brought me to the conclusion that it is "clunky". Now, I like what I do for a living, but I do not necessarily want to eat away at my free attempting to create a terrain.
Have you looked recently? Easy and Greebo have been building a manual for terrain building with the new tools HTC has added for AH3.
-
I make maps for a living, not the ones that most people are used to, but maps none the less. The brief amount of time that I have spent tooling around with the terrain editor had brought me to the conclusion that it is "clunky". Now, I like what I do for a living, but I do not necessarily want to eat away at my free attempting to create a terrain.
There are tools in the AH3 terrain editor to create automated elevation features in a single button press. I suppose I should learn them but, I had too much fun making the land ala "mud pie, la sand castle fresco". The biggest thing is the repetition and time involved. After all the time I spent carving water cut geo features, it's now pretty second nature how land and it's features should flow.
You can see it in any landscape photo on the internet so no one has to reinvent the wheel. And the elevation tool works better for me if I just chunk down single elevation blocks of land and rapidly remove everything that shouldn't be there. Like stacking blocks of ice on each other and carving Mt. Reiner out of it with a chainsaw. It's really the picayune of field placement and creating the resupply system that consumes time because you have to visit every field you place on the map to make sure all the spawns and towns work. And a check list of conditions to meet acceptance to the MA from Skuzzy.
There is a tool that will automate the terrain tile painting based on elevation. Personally I found tile painting to be like using the elevation tool in the ability to paint trees, clutter and rock if you get a handle on how trees, clutter and rock with show up from landscape photos. I am told you can import properly formatted geo maps to auto create real world locations. I'll leave that to the AvA and SEA guys who are really fantastic at creating terrains. I think Easycor could quickly bring you up to speed on it. And Artik has created a program to help accomplish it.
Fugitive:
I have a gunnery training terrain for offline I will release to newbies when AH3 goes live. I use it for offline bug testing in the beta. You can create AH3 terrains now and simply run a build against them with every beta patch Hitech releases. Then test that for any bugs like I have done since I created it back at alpha 87, and then run it when the AH3 download is forced on all of us. It's not very complicated......and Easycor and Greebo have written a great how to manual.
Just don't be a south bound rodent's hole like me and I'm sure they will help you get your creation into the game. Both are very good at creating terrains.
-
When they finally roll out AH3 for the masses, I will transfer my long dormant project map to the new standard. No point in re-starting it until the requirements are set. Hopefully, it is much less tedious pointy-clicky stuff. Setting random elevations with a mouse, on a map that is all canyons takes forever.
-
Still is.
If you think about it the actual ground combat radius is about a 4sq mile area. So from your vehical spawn down to your base, sculpt and paint that by hand. The rest, learn to use the mass elevation and terrain painting tool first. Then tweak those 4sq mile areas by hand at every field and strat. I hand sculpted and painted every square inch of a 9x16 mile island to understand how to use the terrain editor hand tools. It no longer takes very long to hand tweak and paint a 4x4mile area. I have about 50miles of cliffs and water cuts that drop from 2000ft to sea level with a 10mile water cut canyon and all of its feeder runoff cuts from 2000ft down to 500ft. There is a 4500ft mount next to the field to spawn wirbles so you can be 500yds below the drones to practice gunnery.
I created all of it by hand starting with a 2000ft block of sand, then removed what wasn't supposed to be there very quickly by hand. My goal was to test how real world the new terrain editor would allow you to sculpt land features. Just follow the water. Here is a view from about 25k.
(https://s20.postimg.org/bnzzdkdu5/gunryIsle.jpg)
-
Two sides rarely work in a MA setting because most players will gravitate to the side with the most numbers.
Not true.
-
Not true.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but I believe HiTech has toyed with 2 sides 3 sides and 4 sided wars, coming down on that 3 sided was the best.
-
3 sides isss better with a lot of players. It keeps the sides even. And when they are not even, there is usually a team getting its but kicked. Which is generally the best side to be on to find all the fights! See how that works?
With a 2 sided map, people just want to be on the winning team and 8/10 times everyone hoards one side for an easy win.
-
And lusche is having so much fun in the game that he cancelled his subscription.
Willy said it right when he said that today's gamers want instant action. That why wot and those games draw crowds. Due to those games being crap is why they have big turn overs in players.
Match a good game like this one with more instant action and the numbers will climb and maintain. Then some of those players may try other things like high altitude attacks and defenses.
Ahh the debate continues, shocking!
Fugis interpretations havent improved any over the years. Notice the comparison of Lusche leaving to instant action gamers flocking to WOT?
Lusche wasn't an instant action gamer.
AH isn't dying because instant action games are taking over and never has been. It thrived before. AH death is due to other failures.
The large maps would work if there was enough to keep me busy without having to think about what to do, I want to just do it I don't want to have to think about it.
And this guy was almost on to something, but then he kept talking...
How many people have you tried to get to play this game and the almost all say its boring, why would I want to "fly" for 15 minutes to fight for two minutes. and you explain the strategy and the planning and they still say it looks boring.
It's been said many times before, AH has a large learning curve... and ZERO structure in place to keep new players interested while they learn and old players interested as their tastes change from furballer to strategist, to bomber pilot, to scenario enthusiast.
If you build a "sandbox" don't be surprised when the kids grow out of it.
-
All fine examples of how to quote a post then completely misdirect the intent of the post without offering a shred in return, its an internet artform
-
I didn't misdirect anything, I only pointed out more "you're not having fun the right way" posts. What kind of return are you expecting?
I agree that instant action is necessary, but promoting it and excluding any consideration for different types of game play is just pushing the dagger deeper and twisting it.
There are already free instant action games out there with better graphics, air spawns, more aircraft, more tanks, and more players. That doesn't leave much for AH to compete on.
-
3 sides isss better with a lot of players. It keeps the sides even. And when they are not even, there is usually a team getting its but kicked. Which is generally the best side to be on to find all the fights! See how that works?
With a 2 sided map, people just want to be on the winning team and 8/10 times everyone hoards one side for an easy win.
Pure, unsupported CONJECTURE.
-
There are always exceptions to the rule, but I believe HiTech has toyed with 2 sides 3 sides and 4 sided wars, coming down on that 3 sided was the best.
Back when you had 700 players in an arena yes... The dynamics have shifted some.
-
Players being unable to adjust thier gaming to suit the changes whining for the game to adjust instead so they can continue to fly the same stale mission profiles without having to learn new ones.
Way to herd all the cattle into a small room.
That surely won't work.
-
Players being unable to adjust thier gaming to suit the changes whining for the game to adjust instead so they can continue to fly the same stale mission profiles without having to learn new ones.
Way to herd all the cattle into a small room.
That surely won't work.
If people want an arena where they can't find anyone to fight they can always go back to Warbirds. I hear they're selling plenty of that over there. Ahem.
-
Back when you had 700 players in an arena yes... The dynamics have shifted some.
Worked well with it capped at 300
-
Worked well with it capped at 300
Yeah, but not so well with 50.
-
Yeah, but not so well with 50.
You have to sit and think, "what is the maximum numbers online at peak time" then go from there. I've seen AcesHigh above 300.
-
I didn't misdirect anything, I only pointed out more "you're not having fun the right way" posts. What kind of return are you expecting?
I agree that instant action is necessary, but promoting it and excluding any consideration for different types of game play is just pushing the dagger deeper and twisting it.
There are already free instant action games out there with better graphics, air spawns, more aircraft, more tanks, and more players. That doesn't leave much for AH to compete on.
I'll just say this, I'm not a younger player, but I still play a variety of multiplayer games and have three sons who all play multiplayer games. This is a business, comparing this game to business models and business trends elsewhere, if you don't adapt you get passed up, your customer base shrinks and you disappear, doom and gloom yes sometimes in business unpopular decisions need too be made
The thing you cant ignore is that HTC has made it this far, we don't know where he intends to take his business model, we don't know what research he's done or how much time he's spent doing the necessary research actually playing other games to determine where the business model should be or at least validate his thought process, we can only make suggestion's based on what we see and like here and elsewhere by comparison.
Personally I wish him well and hope he can find the balance, all I know is that I'm having a hard time staying here for more than a few months at a time even though this is my favorite game.
Over and out
-
You have to sit and think, "what is the maximum numbers online at peak time" then go from there. I've seen AcesHigh above 300.
Once a week?
And if a big map is good for 300 now when a big map was good for 500+ THEN... By extension a small/medium map with 300 would be great.
-
I didn't misdirect anything, I only pointed out more "you're not having fun the right way" posts. What kind of return are you expecting?
I agree that instant action is necessary, but promoting it and excluding any consideration for different types of game play is just pushing the dagger deeper and twisting it.
There are already free instant action games out there with better graphics, air spawns, more aircraft, more tanks, and more players. That doesn't leave much for AH to compete on.
I cannot for the life of me understand ANYONE wanting air spawns, that is just plain stupid. I have tried most all of the other air combat games and find most of them boring. Many you have to pay extra for better planes or play a long time to earn enough points for better equipment.
-
Interesting, I just hit level 30 in Tom Clancy's The Division, I now get "Daily Missions" for additional "rewards" I know Daily isn't practical here but the concept of Daily Missions for perks, looks like its designed to keep people playing giving them something else to do. Might be a nice training arm for new players. I know we have missions here but to be honest the quality is low or organization of them is low.
Quality missions or as I've said before a campaign mode AH
-
I cannot for the life of me understand ANYONE wanting air spawns, that is just plain stupid. I have tried most all of the other air combat games and find most of them boring. Many you have to pay extra for better planes or play a long time to earn enough points for better equipment.
Think out of the box, maybe they're not for you but can they be worked into something else for the attraction value to others
Time to leave out the " I " in these conversations wouldn't you agree?
"Because that’s the way we have always done it …"
from a quote from Mark Cuban
If you ever really want to get me mad, just bring up this phrase or something comparable in a business conversation. “That’s the way we have always done it.” Could there ever be a worse reason for doing something.
Do it because it’s the right thing. Do it because it’s the only thing. Do it because it’s all you know how to do or because it’s all you can afford. But please, don’t do it because its the way you have always done it.
"a paradigm is basically a way of thinking so like it is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices constituting a view of reality"
"There is a green traffic light, a red one and an orange one. You know in your head that you stop on red and you drive on green. Once you do that as a habit without thinking, it becomes a paradigm. It requires a great deal of will power and focus to change the paradigms we have in our minds. Imagine you move to the UK tomorrow and suddenly have to drive on the other side of the road! That would be very difficult. Imagine if you were raised to believe that the sun revolves around the earth and suddenly someone comes to tell you, no, the sun doesn't move, it is the earth that revolves around the sun. You get the point. Paradigm shifting and changing things we believe in with the heart and soul has caused so many people so much - regardless of what is right and what is wrong."
-
Not true.
It is true and has been shown to be true in multiple online flight sims. You can ask HiTech yourself, he'll tell you the same thing I as I did.
-
It is true and has been shown to be true in multiple online flight sims. You can ask HiTech yourself, he'll tell you the same thing I as I did.
Examples please.
My experience shows the opposite. People sideswitch for balance.
-
Hitech's explanation for three sides. Your opinion is your opinion. Hitech's game is Hitech's game. Argue with him directly to get two sides in the Wish List rather than all of these drive by sniping contests.
-------------------------------------------------------------
TT We are going to remain 3 sides in the main arena.
What 3 sides does for arena play.
1. It balances out 1 side having more players than the other.
2. It Spreds the fights out accross the arena. If you only have 2 sides you would see a lot more of everyone fighting in 1 spot.
3. It provides everone with more enemys to fight. If all 3 sides are = numbers you always have 2 enemys to fight for your sides 1.
4. It creates a more dynamic enviorment because who each country is attacking changes . As opposed to 2 sides where you are always attacking the same side.
5. Countryies devlope a personality over time. With 3 countries we end up with a more diverse flavor.
HiTech
-
(https://tagn.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/pacifictheater.png)
I'm making a bit of a joke here, but serious in this way. A good portion of the life of Air Warrior had many fewer players than Aces High, yet it was fun to play and very active, even down to only 4-6 players online. Why? Because players/area was still fine. When there were 4-6 players up, you flew and encountered them. They weren't flying off somewhere impossible to interact with.
Sectors in Air Warrior, by the way, were 12 miles x 12 miles. So the above map would fit in about 1.5 by 1.5 sectors in Aces High.
Action is all about players/area.
If you have 40 players, but a terrain where there is a person here, then 4 sectors away another person, and so on -- there will be no action. It will be no more exciting that flying offline.
If you have 40 players, but a terrain that is 3 sectors by 3 sectors, you will have action and plenty of it.
It just depends. Does your on-line multiplayer flight-combat company make more money in the long term catering to people who want an offline flying experience while flying online or catering to people who want many-on-many fighting while flying online?
I'm here for many-on-many fighting among humans. Without that, it has no appeal to me.
btw brooke the map would be equivalent to a 3x3 sector terrain in AH do to the 1/2 time velocities.
HiTech
-
OK, just download this image, open it, and paint. It is 10 (25mile x 25mile) sectors which is the small terrain 256x256. Show us what you are talking about in terms of a better terrain for our current numbers in the MA. Some of this audience should be able to talk about base placement theory for funneling of fights as the fronts change. Or to change the fronts.
(https://s20.postimg.org/e7vasuxzh/Sm_Map.jpg)
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n101/Latrobe_2006/map_zpspjnvn9at.png) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Latrobe_2006/media/map_zpspjnvn9at.png.html)
There, I made one. I call it LinkedLakes. Now someone go make this for me because I literally have no time to spare to learn how to use the terrain editor and create it myself.
-
We need a "Wheel of Fortune" like map. Starting at one o'clock and moving around. R K B R K B R K B. Now you have a dozen fronts.
I would love a map that's based on real geography, too. Surely one can find a balanced way to do that, no?
-
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n101/Latrobe_2006/map_zpspjnvn9at.png) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Latrobe_2006/media/map_zpspjnvn9at.png.html)
There, I made one. I call it LinkedLakes. Now someone go make this for me because I literally have no time to spare to learn how to use the terrain editor and create it myself.
I like it. :aok
-
We need a "Wheel of Fortune" like map. Starting at one o'clock and moving around. R K B R K B R K B. Now you have a dozen fronts.
I would love a map that's based on real geography, too. Surely one can find a balanced way to do that, no?
provide one example.
semp
-
I like it. :aok
With the AH3 terrain editor, it would take you 1 month if you didn't want super detailed 4mile x 4mile terrain geo features around each field. The actual land masses, use the elevation tool and work back from SL changing the elevation in steps to follow the changes in color on the work sheet. You can set it in multiples of 1000 to increase each step, then you will have giant irregular blocks of sand stacked up on each other.
Then use the increase\decrease tool set between 200 and .2 and cut away everything that shouldn't be there. Easycor or Greebo can explain the terrain tiles and painting for elevations. Once you have a giant empty clutter and tree painted land mass, they can tell you how to lay down bases, ports with task forces and the strats. You can crank it out looking at playability versus eyecandy. Use the cloud editor and simply place 25k heavy stratus layers over the whole terrain so you don't have to get too deep in the bushes with the cloud editor. Greebo has gotten very good with it due to CraterMA, so the stratus layers will be eezy peezy.
With your graphics program skills the terrain editor should be a snore for you.
-
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n101/Latrobe_2006/map_zpspjnvn9at.png) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/Latrobe_2006/media/map_zpspjnvn9at.png.html)
There, I made one. I call it LinkedLakes. Now someone go make this for me because I literally have no time to spare to learn how to use the terrain editor and create it myself.
I actually think that would work. Obviously a few modifications perhaps, but all three sides could fight each other, close bases, easier to up from a back base to defend. Looks like there would be plenty of opportunity to find fights. The altitude would be pretty low. I could see some big battles.
-
The important factor is how many fields the front line consist of.
Dolby's map example could also be larger, facing max 3-4 fields in width, enough for 30 players on each side to be able up and defend them on each front.
-
I cannot for the life of me understand ANYONE wanting air spawns, that is just plain stupid.
Well, OK, you've discovered my closely-kept secret. Here I thought I was fooling people.
I love air spawns. Only useful way to raise the fights from deck to historical altitudes.
- oldman
-
provide one example.
semp
You guys are the brainiacs, not me.
-
With the AH3 terrain editor, it would take you 1 month if you didn't want super detailed 4mile x 4mile terrain geo features around each field. The actual land masses, use the elevation tool and work back from SL changing the elevation in steps to follow the changes in color on the work sheet. You can set it in multiples of 1000 to increase each step, then you will have giant irregular blocks of sand stacked up on each other.
Then use the increase\decrease tool set between 200 and .2 and cut away everything that shouldn't be there. Easycor or Greebo can explain the terrain tiles and painting for elevations. Once you have a giant empty clutter and tree painted land mass, they can tell you how to lay down bases, ports with task forces and the strats. You can crank it out looking at playability versus eyecandy. Use the cloud editor and simply place 25k heavy stratus layers over the whole terrain so you don't have to get too deep in the bushes with the cloud editor. Greebo has gotten very good with it due to CraterMA, so the stratus layers will be eezy peezy.
With your graphics program skills the terrain editor should be a snore for you.
My laptop can't handle the editor. If the day comes I upgrade this is something I would consider doing.
I still have a lot to learn about skinning, too. Trying to decide if I should wait until AH3 to update my skins or just do them all now.
-
Manually creating a terrain in the editor is easier than creating skins, just time consuming. It becomes complicated when you want to automate all of the geo feature creation through third party code interfaces that it becomes graphics design rocket science. Check out the beta forum and talk to Easycor, artik, Greebo and 715 for help at that level.
If you have 8G of ram and at least a Core duo, you should be able to create a 10x10. Running a build takes it's own time because of all the data being processed. Go shopping and let it run while you look for Christmas present for the grand kids.
-
Imo, the 2nd ever worst setting for this game (after arena split few years ago) is the 7 ( seven days , 1 week) !! maps auto-reset time; I hate large maps, (this game was more fun on H2H arenas 8 playes, 2 teams on 4 bases maps) ; but i understand there was a democratic vote and majority wants to keep the large maps in rotation.
Ok, i respect your taste, but why 7 days same map? we are spending most of the time on boring dead large maps, ; it's almost impossible to reset the maps earlier with this low# and increased base capture difficulty. Imo map auto-reset time reduced to 24 or 48 hours would improve the quality of gaming, won or not just change it around 4AM ET, every day or 2nd day, when the # are low and doesn't affect the war effort.
(http://quotesincan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/god.jpg)
-
What also sucks is when a good map gets reset quickly. It's gone and we don't see it for weeks.
Maybe four days per map, even when it is reset? Just relaunch it. ???
-
What also sucks is when a good map gets reset quickly. It's gone and we don't see it for weeks.
Yep, i said it before;
If the percentage of captured fields needed for "Win War"/ reset would be reduced from currently flat 20% to 10% for large maps and increased to 25% for small ones, we would have maybe same arena time up for small and large maps;
-
Yep, i said it before;
If the percentage of captured fields needed for "Win War"/ reset would be reduced from currently flat 20% to 10% for large maps and increased to 25% for small ones, we would have maybe same arena time up for small and large maps;
I like this proposal. There are some large maps I like but winning the war is tough and they are up for too long. I would prefer this to cycling through all maps more quickly. I like most of the small maps but they are gone too quickly.
-
btw brooke the map would be equivalent to a 3x3 sector terrain in AH do to the 1/2 time velocities.
HiTech
Ah, yes! Excellent point! I had completely forgotten about that. :aok
-
Imo, the 2nd ever worst setting for this game (after arena split few years ago) is the 7 ( seven days , 1 week) !! maps auto-reset time; I hate large maps, (this game was more fun on H2H arenas 8 playes, 2 teams on 4 bases maps) ; but i understand there was a democratic vote and majority wants to keep the large maps in rotation.
Ok, i respect your taste, but why 7 days same map? we are spending most of the time on boring dead large maps, ; it's almost impossible to reset the maps earlier with this low# and increased base capture difficulty. Imo map auto-reset time reduced to 24 or 48 hours would improve the quality of gaming, won or not just change it around 4AM ET, every day or 2nd day, when the # are low and doesn't affect the war effort.
At the moment it looks like protecting the country initiatives that our large numbers in the past generated over 7 days no longer apply. If anything, the off peak tiny numbers have nothing else to do but change the look of base ownership un opposed then go to bed. Even 72 hours would give our smaller numbers something to look forward to. Now, I more often hear people in the tower cursing many maps because 7 days on maps designed for 300-600 players just grinds on into boredom for 200 and less players.
Watch, momentum will cause smaller maps to being showing up in AH3 specifically to address the change in numbers. Then the game will grow back to around 400 and we will be revisiting all of this...... :O
-
Whats wrong with having say 2 areas for each side that can be attacked defended? Players could still do whatever they wanted to attack/defend these areas. Once an objective was taken/completed a new area opens up? Would this not serve all player styles other than the ones that would like to fly/bomb in undefended areas.. Size of the map would no longer matter..
-
I have a great idea if you want instant flights and gratification go play arcade games on your phone. If you are playing a simulation type game it needs to simulate real flight characteristics as well possible, not basically log on already in flight. Then again that is just the real life flight instructor coming out of me in this game.
Think out of the box, maybe they're not for you but can they be worked into something else for the attraction value to others
Time to leave out the " I " in these conversations wouldn't you agree?
"Because that’s the way we have always done it …"
from a quote from Mark Cuban
If you ever really want to get me mad, just bring up this phrase or something comparable in a business conversation. “That’s the way we have always done it.” Could there ever be a worse reason for doing something.
Do it because it’s the right thing. Do it because it’s the only thing. Do it because it’s all you know how to do or because it’s all you can afford. But please, don’t do it because its the way you have always done it.
"a paradigm is basically a way of thinking so like it is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices constituting a view of reality"
"There is a green traffic light, a red one and an orange one. You know in your head that you stop on red and you drive on green. Once you do that as a habit without thinking, it becomes a paradigm. It requires a great deal of will power and focus to change the paradigms we have in our minds. Imagine you move to the UK tomorrow and suddenly have to drive on the other side of the road! That would be very difficult. Imagine if you were raised to believe that the sun revolves around the earth and suddenly someone comes to tell you, no, the sun doesn't move, it is the earth that revolves around the sun. You get the point. Paradigm shifting and changing things we believe in with the heart and soul has caused so many people so much - regardless of what is right and what is wrong."
-
I have a great idea if you want instant flights and gratification go play arcade games on your phone. If you are playing a simulation type game it needs to simulate real flight characteristics as well possible, not basically log on already in flight. Then again that is just the real life flight instructor coming out of me in this game.
That's not quite what I was suggesting, I think it was Brooke? that suggested both to have an offering, something to entice new players of not our generation, but looks like "I" comes through loud and clear in your post huh
-
There's a plethora of reasons why big/small maps are viewed by folks as either good or bad.
Everybody's got their own idea of what's "fun" and what's "not fun".
I will say that given that there's no real operational or strategic component to AH
beyond the simplistic "strats" system in use that there's no "incentives" which might be
used even on "large" maps to channel action to specific area(s) of a map in play.
It is what it is and folks will either like it and play it, or they won't. I think the
continued decline of the player base speaks volumes.
Perhaps AH3 will offer something different while maintaining its "spirit" as a flight sim
game. Therein lies the challenge.
The maps we currently use are incredibly complex, and my guess is that several hundred hours
of work was put into 'em. My -perception- is that they never change. They are put into use
"as is" and are never tinkered with regardless of how they work/don't work. A prime example
is one we use which still features GV spawns to "nowhere"; nowhere being where "strats" once
resided years ago. Yet, they remain.
I'm neither an HTC basher, nor apologist. I don't have a "side" in this or any other Aces High
issue. I'm just a regular slob looking for something to justify my continued expenditure of 15 bucks
a month on a game I currently find rather lackluster. It is only the social interaction within AH
and my squadmates who keep me as a subscriber.
Flame away,
Odd
-
You guys have the tools to pump out 10x10 terrains in a short amount of time. Seems no one wants to point fingers at Hitech for not having an in house terrain builder who's only job is to try and entertain everyone's boredom. The lack of any willingness to do anything but point fingers at anything but Hitech shouts the loudest to this.
Kind of like watching ch200 when you acm gawds thump your chests at everyone for being chicken and not wanting to fight. Building terrains is not much more complicated then what I've outlined in this post. You already have one 10x10 mock up to start with from an expert furballer.
-
The barrier to using smaller terrains isn't that we need them to be designed. Small terrains already exist.
-
You guys have the tools to pump out 10x10 terrains in a short amount of time. Seems no one wants to point fingers at Hitech for not having an in house terrain builder who's only job is to try and entertain everyone's boredom. The lack of any willingness to do anything but point fingers at anything but Hitech shouts the loudest to this.
Kind of like watching ch200 when you acm gawds thump your chests at everyone for being chicken and not wanting to fight. Building terrains is not much more complicated then what I've outlined in this post. You already have one 10x10 mock up to start with from an expert furballer.
What your saying is that HTC continue to stay small and rely on the community for development where it can instead of hiring that person to do maps and other enhancements, for me personally I get paid fairly handsomely to be a Sales Development Analyst and I put in a lot of hours doing so, I can pick the games I play when I have the time, my spare time is filled with home, grandchildren, wood projects and much more. No I'm not building maps for HTC, to me that's a core responsibility of the game designer who takes the money home at the end of the day. Sorry harsh I know but that's reality these days. No new guy is going to stay when some one tells him if you don't like it build your own map.
-
Some players do build new terrains as volunteers. Every terrain you play on in a special event was built by a volunteer, for example. We wouldn't have trouble getting more terrains.
It's just that more 10x10 terrains are not the needed next step.
-
Some players do build new terrains as volunteers. Every terrain you play on in a special event was built by a volunteer, for example. We wouldn't have trouble getting more terrains.
It's just that more 10x10 terrains are not the needed next step.
sorry if it sounded harsh but I got the impression that it was build your own terrains or shut up, not a big draw for the new guys
-
It's just that more 10x10 terrains are not the needed next step.
Brook spit it out instead of trying to be a self help guru. My point with these complainers is that they are afraid to point the finger at Hitech. At least not now Hungry. And too lazy to build terrains to prove they really have the magical answer to the terrain question. But, they all have an answer, and the same answer they have tossed out for the past few years as long as someone else will be on the hook for the work. Then they will happily rip that person's hard work to shreds and blame them for not knowing the answer when they get bored again.
The amount of spare time they each have to tell everyone exactly what is wrong with this game, they could have already built new terrains imbued with their answer. Even Hungry if he really cared about his answer beyond the forum sport of having an opinion.
Everyone cares just enough to tell everyone else how much they care by sharing their magical answer. At least Lathrob shared a well thought out work sheet in response to someone providing the base worksheet. No one else bothered to even submit their answer on the worksheet provided. Meh........
-
Brook spit it out instead of trying to be a self help guru.
What are you talking about? What I'm saying is straightforward:
1. I think that small terrains are better than large terrains for the game.
2. We already have small terrains -- no additional work is needed.
-
Brook spit it out instead of trying to be a self help guru. My point with these complainers is that they are afraid to point the finger at Hitech. At least not now Hungry. And too lazy to build terrains to prove they really have the magical answer to the terrain question. But, they all have an answer, and the same answer they have tossed out for the past few years as long as someone else will be on the hook for the work. Then they will happily rip that person's hard work to shreds and blame them for not knowing the answer when they get bored again.
The amount of spare time they each have to tell everyone exactly what is wrong with this game, they could have already built new terrains imbued with their answer. Even Hungry if he really cared about his answer beyond the forum sport of having an opinion.
Everyone cares just enough to tell everyone else how much they care by sharing their magical answer. At least Lathrob shared a well thought out work sheet in response to someone providing the base worksheet. No one else bothered to even submit their answer on the worksheet provided. Meh........
I love how when Bustr get off on a tangent he can no longer read nor understand any other post.
Nobody is bad mouthing the hard work people have put in building the maps we have. People are saying that until the numbers climb back up to the 400-500 range it would make more sense to decommission the large maps.
With the lower populations the large maps are not generating that self sustaining action that makes the game fun for most players.
-
I cannot for the life of me understand ANYONE wanting air spawns, that is just plain stupid. I have tried most all of the other air combat games and find most of them boring. Many you have to pay extra for better planes or play a long time to earn enough points for better equipment.
What's wrong with air spawns? In the right context, they are great. Saves loads of time in dueling. I think they could be good for other circumstances as well. How bout a time crunch scenario for people who don't have the time for the 3 hour tour!?
-
Please leave the large maps up.
They may be a pain for some, but it sure gives the double-teamed country a fighting chance over small maps where the double-teamers have the entire advantage.
It doesn't solve the double-team in prime-time USA time zonesproblem but it does slow them down.
ROX
-
Oh, that's not true at all :t (even when ignoring the fact B-24s can't fly that high ;))
yes they can. start with full fuel. got em to 35 once
-
sorry if it sounded harsh but I got the impression that it was build your own terrains or shut up, not a big draw for the new guys
+1
-
Brook spit it out instead of trying to be a self help guru. My point with these complainers is that they are afraid to point the finger at Hitech. At least not now Hungry.
Actually, I "pointed the finger" on this months ago. It was more of a question than an accusation, however.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,376897.msg5023415.html#msg5023415
-
yes they can. start with full fuel. got em to 35 once
This is the actual climb profile of a B-24 with full fuel:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/b24%20profile_zpstpyfipks.jpg)
At about 30k, your ROC has almost come to a halt and youre about to run out of fuel. That's why you never encounter any 24s at 35k in the MA (and I may add that have engaged a lot 30K+ bombers in my AH career...)
-
I've only played AH for a few years now. Wish everyday I had found the game sooner in life. Then I would be an ACE like so many of you here. I'm sure this has been tried before and the draw backs are obvious. When you log on, you are given several choices of things to do. WW1, TA and so on. Why not give another choice. Why not Big Map and Little Map?
It's just a thought.
Kimosabe
-
Lord knows I enjoy it too, Zoney and Lusche, but you've got to admit there's very, very few of us. I bet there's no more than 50 people (and that's probably high) in the game that habitually go to 25k+ in the MA. Lusche probably has gleaned those numbers based on average sortie time and number of kills over phase of the moon, or somesuch. ;)
One format that gives what Dmon's describing is a round-based format like WT. I hate that kind of limited gameplay but that's what's popular. The vast majority of people want their instant action in bite sized pieces.
The game's greatest strength is you are given an area to operate in and can do whatever the game allows you to do in that area. Its greatest weakness is your opponents have that same freedom.
Wiley.
Flying with zoney in the zoneyshere is always fun! Unless, your the other guy.... :uhoh
-
I've only played AH for a few years now. Wish everyday I had found the game sooner in life. Then I would be an ACE like so many of you here. I'm sure this has been tried before and the draw backs are obvious. When you log on, you are given several choices of things to do. WW1, TA and so on. Why not give another choice. Why not Big Map and Little Map?
It's just a thought.
Kimosabe
It would only work if the players go to the little map. The way it has always been is the players go to where the players ARE. Years ago when they first switched to the 3 arenas (EW,MW, and LW) they were listed in that order on the selection page when you logged in. Players picked the top one, or it defaulted to the top one but everyone was in EW. It looked like a sale on P40s! LOL! It lasted only about a day or so until people noticed that there was a LW arena with all the "good" planes and they moved there. It became the populated arena and so that is where everyone went.
We had a bit of this last night as my squad held a grudge match in WWI last night and we had all kinds of people stopping in because the arena was populated.
If you gave them the choice of a small map or a large map arena, more than likely they would choose the large map so they could continue to hide. Small maps force them to fight/work harder to achieve the goals they have (bombing a strat to drop dar for the arena, sneaking base captures with out opposition, and so on).
-
I love how when Bustr get off on a tangent he can no longer read nor understand any other post.
Nobody is bad mouthing the hard work people have put in building the maps we have. People are saying that until the numbers climb back up to the 400-500 range it would make more sense to decommission the large maps.
With the lower populations the large maps are not generating that self sustaining action that makes the game fun for most players.
1. - You gentlemen want to yell at Hitech and blame him for not doing what you in your esteemed collective wisdom have decided he has fallen on his face over. Only two of you have said that to his face in these forums. The rest of you are full of esteemed wise opinions but won't expose yourselves to censure by Hitech.
2. - You want small maps with specific features that in your esteemed collective wisdom will enhance the current low numbers of subscribers play experience. And maybe help new people decide to subscribe. You want someone else to provide them while you in your collective wisdom pass judgment on that unnamed person's investment of personal time and creativity.
3. - All of you are long on esteemed collective opinion but, zilch on getting off your virtual Tuchas and birthing the perfect spawn of your collective opinions.
4. - Brooke, the collective esteemed opinion cartel is bored with the small terrain offerings available for the MA and want different small terrains.
I noticed one of the small terrains converted from AH2 to AH3 now looks like the Serengeti and Rift Valley escarpment. When I was testing GV spawns on it I kept expecting to run into prides of lions, rhinos, giraffes, migrating herds and warthogs. It looked like being on the ground in an Animal Planet episode.
-
1. - You gentlemen want to yell at Hitech and blame him for not doing what you in your esteemed collective wisdom have decided he has fallen on his face over. Only two of you have said that to his face in these forums. The rest of you are full of esteemed wise opinions but won't expose yourselves to censure by Hitech.
I don't think any one is "yelling" at Hitech or anyone at HTC. We are suggesting and added our opinions as to what we think MAY help increase the action and so the fun in the game.
2. - You want small maps with specific features that in your esteemed collective wisdom will enhance the current low numbers of subscribers play experience. And maybe help new people decide to subscribe. You want someone else to provide them while you in your collective wisdom pass judgment on that unnamed person's investment of personal time and creativity.
We dont want NEW small maps, we want only the small maps that are already used in the main arenas. With that if the percentages of bases needed to win the war were changed a bit it would make the small maps.... that we already have last longer so we are not switching maps 3 times a day.
3. - All of you are long on esteemed collective opinion but, zilch on getting off your virtual Tuchas and birthing the perfect spawn of your collective opinions.
Many of us HAVE added HTC with game stuff. Some have helped in the alphas and beta, others have helped here on the boards with add in hardware and game play. Some have worked on the AH wiki, others the training site. I have a number on flash videos I made for the site to help with a number of basic things when first getting into the game.
4. - Brooke, the collective esteemed opinion cartel is bored with the small terrain offerings available for the MA and want different small terrains.
Now and then you do get someone suggesting one of the two sided AvA maps for the MAs. Once it is pointed out that those are not acceptable for MAs most back off. As I said above, at this time, to NOT take away from the time HTC are spending on AH3, removing the large maps and adjusting the win percentage ( just data on a sheet) are quick easy adjustments that MAY help put some of the action in the game.
I noticed one of the small terrains converted from AH2 to AH3 now looks like the Serengeti and Rift Valley escarpment. When I was testing GV spawns on it I kept expecting to run into prides of lions, rhinos, giraffes, migrating herds and warthogs. It looked like being on the ground in an Animal Planet episode.
Yes AH3 is coming along nicely, but it isn't here yet. Will it make it before too many people leave?
-
Squeezing everybody into a phone booth full of 1/4 fuel late war monsters sounds pretty lame.
-
Squeezing everybody into a phone booth full of 1/4 fuel late war monsters sounds pretty lame.
running the late war monsters is another "sign of the times". Personally I like running midwar planes 109G, Nik, zero, D hog, 38g or j. But with the way the game is played it makes it tough to fight in one. You cant catch ANYONE!
I was in a Nik last night, full fuel. Upped a base and as soon as I got out of ack range a high yak makes a pass. 4-5 passes later as Im slowly grabbing some alt due to his long zooms, a friendly F6 shows up about co-alt. The yak makes a few more passes and then as we both get co-E on him runs like a scalded dog. F6 goes to land and while I follow (seeing Im not going to catch the yak) the yak a high pony comes in. OK, I figure we got a 2 on 1 brewing here. Yak continues to rtb, but the pony starts the BnZ. After another half dozen passes I am running low on fuel and point my nose down and rtb. The pony, doesn't follow as we are still only a few miles from the base I upped from.
So ya, fun half hour. 2 fights as Puller would call them Im sure, but all I did was dodge lame BnZ passes until I ran out of fuel. I was playing for over 6 hours yesterday and had only 2 fights. GUNftr and Skyr <---- who ever that shade is, both fought well in a prolonged bit of action. Won one, lost one, but both were fun. Had I been in a Yak, LA, pony or some other speed demon the "fights" may have actually been just that FIGHTS.
-
As boring as it was to only have one map back in AWIII (I played RR back then), I never felt like I was chasing around ghosts and rumors trying to find someone to shoot at with only 150 players in an arena...
There's 87 in right now with a huge Pacific map and I've bailed twice trying to find the sole red dot. My kid should wake up soon and I'm wondering if I'll have anything to shoot at before he does.
This is kind of lame and a big part of the reason I can't keep interest in this game for more than 2-3 months at a time.
But, I mean, I guess it is great for people who don't want to run into anyone.
Edit - update, killed by CV ack from a group miles and miles away with no other dots in the entire sector on 3rd sortie :rofl
Edit #2 - finally some action: I get to shoot at a set of suicide b-17's flying 3k towards the CV to instantly kill any chance of a fight. I get 2, the third one bombs and bails.
BUUUUUT....
A few minutes later I do run into B2B who puts up a fun fight. :salute B2B.
So, there's fights to be had, but it did take me the better part of 40 minutes or so to finally find one. Not ideal!
-
Just logged off. It was Bish 37 players and Rooks had 12. Guess which country the Bish were running NOE steamroller missions against.
We need not only smaller maps, but two sides and an incentive to fight. Good luck with that last one though.
-
Just logged off. It was Bish 37 players and Rooks had 12.
And this on an European Sunday late afternoon. :(
Once upon a time I was hastily finishing my Sunday lunch just to get back to AH ASAP. Back to an arena full of action, furballs, sneaks, basegrabs, 'lame vulching orgies', cheating accusations. Kazaa was doing his big afternoon bombing raids with more players than total # being online today...
<sadpanda>
Ok, back to my spreadsheets...
-
Just logged off. It was Bish 37 players and Rooks had 12. Guess which country the Bish were running NOE steamroller missions against.
We need not only smaller maps, but two sides and an incentive to fight. Good luck with that last one though.
I'd take those odds if it weren't for the whack-a-mole going on...
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
Yeah keep putting words in my mouth fugi... :rolleyes:
Maybe after I get done with this storm cleanup and get my wife out the hospital and feeling better I'll get time to play...if your posts didn't make me laugh half the time I would put u on ignore....
-
And this on an European Sunday late afternoon. :(
Once upon a time I was hastily finishing my Sunday lunch just to get back to AH ASAP. Back to an arena full of action, furballs, sneaks, basegrabs, 'lame vulching orgies', cheating accusations. Kazaa was doing his big afternoon bombing raids with more players than total # being online today...
<sadpanda>
Ok, back to my spreadsheets...
Lusche
Do you have a feel for how the numbers drop in the summer months? Are these current low numbers all dissatisfaction with the game or are they in part due to the summer months, I for one wont be back until September / October time frame but I don't cancel my account
-
Maybe instead of getting rid of the bug maps, lessen the victory conditions instead. By the way if a fight is not clearly visible, try starting one.
-
I really enjoy Aces High, but I have little personal time and I don't want to waste it looking for a fight. Keep the big maps if you want, but it will make me much more hesitant to try logging in. Eventually, paying for the account I don't use won't make sense and I will stop doing that.
I can't persuade anyone with my opinion, but the above is the blunt truth.
-
Lusche
Do you have a feel for how the numbers drop in the summer months?
The summer drop effect seems to be relatively small and has only a minor impact on the overall picture.
-
The last couple of times I've been on (including just now), small terrains were up.
And I found significantly more fights at this late hour than I am used to.
Yay! :aok
-
Just logged off. It was Bish 37 players and Rooks had 12. Guess which country the Bish were running NOE steamroller missions against.
We need not only smaller maps, but two sides and an incentive to fight. Good luck with that last one though.
With the ENY they had to endure, bish did pretty good considering only being able to take up a box kite with a bb gun.
-
The side with the bigger numbers wins
-
Dolby, with smaller maps you can find a fight regardless of who win the map, with low numbers.
-
Yes Save, but what is your point addressing me?
-
Read the reasoning for decommissioning of the big maps, with me as the OP.
-
The maps are all the same size bro.
-
The maps are all the same size bro.
no they are not
-
no they are not
He's had too much of his cute little flag Icon. :blank:
-
I'm starting to come around to favor the big maps. In fact, we need much, much bigger maps.
Just logged off at 12:01PM EST because of the crowds. There were 68 people online and only 255 bases to fight at!
I feel triggered by so many combatants in such close proximity. :uhoh
-
Just logged off at 12:01PM EST because of the crowds. There were 68 people online and only 255 bases to fight at!
I feel triggered by so many combatants in such close proximity. :uhoh
AHIII will feature 'safe rooms' instead of the old Oclubs. Dimmed lighting, cozy corners, cuddly toys, no microaggression allowed (radio won't work in there) :old:
-
I'm starting to come around to favor the big maps. In fact, we need much, much bigger maps.
Just logged off at 12:01PM EST because of the crowds. There were 68 people online and only 255 bases to fight at!
I feel triggered by so many combatants in such close proximity. :uhoh
Absolutely! In fact, I think we should have terrains with built in safe spaces. Also, people should know that using too much bank in a turn is a micro-aggression. We need a bank limiter in the game to preclude this. ;)
Edit: Lusche beat me to it! :aok
-
no they are not
512x512 last time I checked. But back on subject, does the thread author not know he can shrink the clipboard, thus making the map smaller?
-
512x512 last time I checked. But back on subject, does the thread author not know he can shrink the clipboard, thus making the map smaller?
the small maps are 256x256 and that IS the point of this thread. On which "area" would it be easier to find action in, 65,000 square miles vs 262,000 square miles?
-
He's trying to get you on a technicality. For what purpose I don't know. Other than to just be a Richard.