Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tuba515 on December 19, 2016, 08:20:29 PM
-
I have heard talk (range and channel)about what would happen if it went to two countries (both from those who are for and against) Im not going to give my opinion on this, but what are your thoughts on this chatter. (this is just discusion on that topic)
-
This is a subject that has been beaten to death and one that we'll never (thankfully) see implemented in AH.
-
I agree , just I thought it would cool to see people's views on it :p haha
-
its called the AVA. swing in and check it out!
-
its called the AVA. swing in and check it out!
Yep, if fewer people talked about it and flew in it instead.... ;)
-
Dang it I am TRYING. Seems that anything that could go wrong is going wrong ON TUESDAYS!!!!! Maybe because I am excited about it? I am trying :bhead
-
At the number of people in MA, I can see it as a possible. In compared to 10 years ago where we had over 400 people.
-
At the number of people in MA, I can see it as a possible. In compared to 10 years ago where we had over 400 people.
400 people, those were the days, a furball at every turn.
As far as a two country system, it would be hard to see it as a beneficial change to AH, and as others have pointed out: there's always AVA.
-
I have heard talk (range and channel)about what would happen if it went to two countries (both from those who are for and against) Im not going to give my opinion on this, but what are your thoughts on this chatter. (this is just discusion on that topic)
More dynamic fights. More fun.
The naysayers are wrong.
-
its called the AVA. swing in and check it out!
AVA is not the same as a two-sided MA.
-
really? how is that? other then population?
-
really? how is that? other then population?
Can you fight 38s in a Spit over in AVA?
-
Can you fight 38s in a Spit over in AVA?
Sure you can. Just remember, the one who dies is the winner.
-
Sure you can. Just remember, the one who dies is the winner.
Then AVA is a misnomer.
-
Sure you can. Just remember, the one who dies is the winner.
UMM, Major Richard sir! Think you meant to say "The one that dies is the WHINER" ? Thats been my experience any how :x This forum does have a spell checker you know lol
Can you fight 38s in a Spit over in AVA? Then AVA is a misnomer.
That ranks up there with folk calling bombers buffs is a pet peeve!! SALUTE SIR! A fellow smart donkey!!! Unless you were meaning you were thinking of changing your name to Richard, of coarse!! :bolt:
-
Sure you can. Just remember, the one who dies is the winner.
He means that killshooter will kill the winner of the fight. AvA isn't the same as an MA, and it never was. But it does let you see what a two-sided war looks like.
- olmdan
-
AvA is a great place! Once they build some special maps and there are 5 people or more on during primetime every night. It will be an even more fun arena!! The fights are ALWAYS a blast in the AvA, and it's more intense with no icons!
2 side arenas only work with very small maps with very small #s. 30 max players and a map that's no bigger than 4 sectors. That's what I hope can happen in the AvA to bring more players into the arena with quick easy to find action.
I think the 3 side arena in the MA is the better option because it really does work against side stacking and even bigger hoards to win maps. It also presents opportunities to fight against other people on another side of the map. Changing the arena to a 2 side arena wouldn't change anything for the better. The more realistic option is to make the maps better suited for action by pushing bases a little closer together and limiting mountains. This makes it so people don't have to fly alt monkey BnZ planes all the time to be on par with the action.
-
for the record, the AVA has no ENEMY icons, not no icons. we have friendly icons on. people who fly the AVA regularly tend to be better MA players.
-
I love AvA, however, a 2-sided MA would expedite the demise of AH.
-
He means that killshooter will kill the winner of the fight.
AvA isn't the same as an MA, and it never was.
Agreed.
But it does let you see what a two-sided war looks like.
- olmdan
Disagree. Apples to oranges. The differences are not conducive to making two sides fun/popular.
-
I love AvA, however, a 2-sided MA would expedite the demise of AH.
Two sides was the funnest thing about WBs (other than RPS, which I also really enjoyed).
Three sides is a stagnant snooze fest. Actually, three sides really is two sides--most days it's just 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 1.
-
I love the AVA. Have not had time to fly much but I love it just the same.
-
we tried 2 sided once, with all planes enabled on both sides........... no one showed up.
<edit> besides with the exception of last Monday, we turn on all the same planes for both sides for Monday night madness. you should try it sometime.
and its not apples and oranges. we promote base capture whenever possible.
-
Apples and oranges.
A two-sided AVA is NOT the same thing as a two-sided Open Melee/MA.
-
agree to disagree, merry Christmas!
-
Apples and oranges.
A two-sided AVA is NOT the same thing as a two-sided Open Melee/MA.
No... one is called AVA and the other is called Open Melee. Monday Night Madness is sheer madness at it's best.
Open Melee will have three sides as it has been tested and deemed the best possible setup.
-
agree to disagree, merry Christmas!
I will go with the Merry Christmas part any way.
-
I will go with the Merry Christmas part any way.
:eek: you disagree to disagree? :rock
-
Apples and oranges.
A two-sided AVA is NOT the same thing as a two-sided Open Melee/MA.
Explain WHY you say this, other wise your just spewing rubbish. I don't see why it would be so different.
-
Explain WHY you say this, other wise your just spewing rubbish. I don't see why it would be so different.
How obvious does it have to be?
See my prior question. The answer is readily apparent in the name of the arena ALONE.
-
2 sided war isn't working for WB.
-
2 sided war isn't working for WB.
And three-sided war isn't working for AH.
We are marching the same path WBs did, just a few years later and with three sides instead of two. Identical path.
At least AH has effectively defeated its equivalent competiton so it has that going for it.
-
And three-sided war isn't working for AH.
And your proof is? Lower numbers in AH aren't a result of having 3 countries.
3 sides does work with small numbers. For example, in AW4W (Air Warrior for Windows or later known as Air Warrior Classic) a game before your time, had arenas with a 150 limit (later increased to 200) and 3 sides didn't have a negative impact.
However, arenas with only 2 countries (Axis and Allies and Korea) did suffer with only two countries and those were to of the lowest populated arenas because the teams would be lopsided. And as a side note, a rolling plane set also helped kill the Axis and Allies arena in AW.
-
How obvious does it have to be?
See my prior question. The answer is readily apparent in the name of the arena ALONE.
The name of the arena is Axis vs Allies, however it has been years since it was strictly "Axis vs Allies" planes. And years before that it was called CT (Combat Theater maybe?), maybe they should go back to that so it is a bit more descriptive.
Be that as it may, it has already been established that AvA arena does have 38 vs spit or any other combo you would like. So I ask again, why wouldnt it be the same as the Melee arena as a 2 sided war?
-
Lately, the Rooks have had low numbers so the fight for me as a Knight is most likely to occur with Bish because their numbers are closer to the Knights numbers. If there was just 2 sides, there would be absolutely no third option, the option that seems to work for me.
The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High has said numerous times that 3 sides work better than 2 sides. I'm thinking I'm going to go with his opinion rather than the opinion of a player who's vast experience is playing WarBirds and Aces High.
-
Lately, the Rooks have had low numbers so the fight for me as a Knight is most likely to occur with Bish because their numbers are closer to the Knights numbers. If there was just 2 sides, there would be absolutely no third option, the option that seems to work for me.
The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High has said numerous times that 3 sides work better than 2 sides. I'm thinking I'm going to go with his opinion rather than the opinion of a player who's vast experience is playing WarBirds and Aces High.
You should mention that "The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High" also did Warbirds and left when someone started making stupid decisions. :D
-
2-sided MA would expedite the demise of AH.
Maybe not... But I Liked the WW2 MA & rollin plane sets.
"The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High"
His leadership has got us a MA with less than 200 players... He NO LONGER GETS A PASS in my book.
Cav
-
And your proof is? Lower numbers in AH aren't a result of having 3 countries.
And YOUR proof is? Lower numbers in WBs aren't the result of having TWO countries.
However, arenas with only 2 countries (Axis and Allies and Korea) did suffer with only two countries and those were to of the lowest populated arenas because the teams would be lopsided. And as a side note, a rolling plane set also helped kill the Axis and Allies arena in AW.
WBs never had this problem. People sideswitched for balance.
Here we have two vs one or stagnant fronts--or even no front at all for one country at times. Two sides will up the clash ratio for all involved more consistently.
AVA suffers because of its settings. Also, people want to be free to fly any plane they want, not just Axis or Allied. (Edit In: If this has changed then change the arena name.)
-
The name of the arena is Axis vs Allies, however it has been years since it was strictly "Axis vs Allies" planes. And years before that it was called CT (Combat Theater maybe?), maybe they should go back to that so it is a bit more descriptive.
Be that as it may, it has already been established that AvA arena does have 38 vs spit or any other combo you would like. So I ask again, why wouldnt it be the same as the Melee arena as a 2 sided war?
Then call it Two Team Main if it isn't an AVA. And put the icons in. Mimic the Main Arena. Until then it is not equivalent.
-
Just keep beating the dead horse do your arms not get tired?
-
And three-sided war isn't working for AH.
We are marching the same path WBs did, just a few years later and with three sides instead of two. Identical path.
At least AH has effectively defeated its equivalent competiton so it has that going for it.
Hmm. Three sided war isn't working, marching the same path as WBs did but 3 sides instead of two, so it's not working but defeated it's competition.....
So, it's working?
Two sided war always has the ability to have one side dominate. 3 sided war one side can dominate but it exposes it's flank to a 3rd party, which can capitalize on that exposure and negate any territorial gains. You can't have the game play it the way you want it played, and you cannot balance it unless you dictate side balancing, so you must have a method to allow the dominant party to have it's exposed borders attacked forcing a defense. If the 1st countries exposed border isn't defended, the 3rd country will capture fields as fast, or faster, than the 1st country which will cause them to weaken and fall, allowing the 2nd, the once weakened country, to counter.
This condition is impossible with a 2 country side. Just because the Players don't take advantage of this does not mean the system is a failure.
2 sided war works in Structured Events, with objectives, focused plans, focused missions, and aggressive guidance from a dedicated command staff. This will never occur in the Mains. A 2 sided front allows for unrestricted domination by one side, a 3rd country removes the "unrestricted" element. Now, arguing that 2 sides can gang up, or one side is too low number to effect change, that's subjective and player issues to solve, nothing at all that can be coded out of the game.
As for the AvA not being melee, I get what you are saying, it's an Axis Vs Allies arena compared to the open, free for all Melee arena in the Mains. But that has nothing to do with the 2v3 side discussion.
-
Just keep beating the dead horse do your arms not get tired?
This is a *discussion* board. There is no horse beating on my end. :cheers: :salute
-
Hmm. Three sided war isn't working, marching the same path as WBs did but 3 sides instead of two, so it's not working but defeated it's competition.....
So, it's working?
If you consider this working...
Some disagree. (Reference CAV's post above.)
Two sided war always has the ability to have one side dominate. 3 sided war one side can dominate but it exposes it's flank to a 3rd party, which can capitalize on that exposure and negate any territorial gains.
The numbers oftentimes do not support that. It ends up being boring for a lot of players because the battle is all the way across the map between the other two teams or the opposite extreme: 2 on one GB.
As for the AvA not being melee, I get what you are saying, it's an Axis Vs Allies arena compared to the open, free for all Melee arena in the Mains.
I think proper labeling would help. I have only been in AVA once in part because of how it is labeled (my perception of the planeset there is apparently wrong).
But that has nothing to do with the 2v3 side discussion.
I'm not the one that brought it up. :salute
-
The numbers oftentimes do not support that. It ends up being boring for a lot of players because the battle is all the way across the map between the other two teams or the opposite extreme: 2 on one GB.
First, the 2 on 1 gang bang is regrettable but passes. We have all been on the receiving end and delivering end of that condition. The second condition though does create unhappy customers who might log instead of change sides to get at the fight even if the side change time was "0".
Does anyone really think Hitech will suddenly scrap the arena code and roll out a two side MA without a long term testing arena for that condition? Any of you members of a hidden testing forum for the two sided MA initiative like during the AH3 closed alpha testing period? That one went on for about 12 months, then 12 months of open alpha\beta, I was there from start to finish.
Otherwise the second condition is more important because it has happened frequently. Though I'm suspecting the change to the ndisles center island is an experiment towards alleviating the condition. Ever noticed Hitech does not make large scale overt changes out of the blue just to see if it will make anything better just for the forum complaint brigade? I doubt he can afford to jack around his customers just to make points with the forum complaint brigade.
If you use search on many of the topics you disagree with Hitech's way of doing things, you will get a good idea of what his ongoing philosophy for implementing this game is. You would answer most of your questions\complaints visa search. It will also give you an insight on how to present arguments for changes to Hitech versus picking oblique fights with him. Sadly short of his stated very expensive adult beverage "bribe", there are no insights to motivating changes in his mind faster than he has always implemented "his" changes all of these years.
-
2 sided war isn't working for WB.
LOL +1
-
Finally a logical explanation why two sides will not work.
Hmm. Three sided war isn't working, marching the same path as WBs did but 3 sides instead of two, so it's not working but defeated it's competition.....
So, it's working?
Two sided war always has the ability to have one side dominate. 3 sided war one side can dominate but it exposes it's flank to a 3rd party, which can capitalize on that exposure and negate any territorial gains. You can't have the game play it the way you want it played, and you cannot balance it unless you dictate side balancing, so you must have a method to allow the dominant party to have it's exposed borders attacked forcing a defense. If the 1st countries exposed border isn't defended, the 3rd country will capture fields as fast, or faster, than the 1st country which will cause them to weaken and fall, allowing the 2nd, the once weakened country, to counter.
This condition is impossible with a 2 country side. Just because the Players don't take advantage of this does not mean the system is a failure.
2 sided war works in Structured Events, with objectives, focused plans, focused missions, and aggressive guidance from a dedicated command staff. This will never occur in the Mains. A 2 sided front allows for unrestricted domination by one side, a 3rd country removes the "unrestricted" element. Now, arguing that 2 sides can gang up, or one side is too low number to effect change, that's subjective and player issues to solve, nothing at all that can be coded out of the game.
As for the AvA not being melee, I get what you are saying, it's an Axis Vs Allies arena compared to the open, free for all Melee arena in the Mains. But that has nothing to do with the 2v3 side discussion.
-
LOL +1
Two-sided wars had nothing to do with WB's problem. Actually, that aspect of the game was one of the things they got right.
-
Two-sided wars had nothing to do with WB's problem. Actually, that aspect of the game was one of the things they got right.
While it wasn't the main reason for WB's decline, it was a factor on top of the rolling plane set that was introduced. I remember how people started to leave WB because of it, one of the main reason why so many from WB migrated to AH.
-
While it wasn't the main reason for WB's decline, it was a factor on top of the rolling plane set that was introduced. I remember how people started to leave WB because of it, one of the main reason why so many from WB migrated to AH.
Completely untrue.
The RPS along with a pure Axis vs Allied--and some other stupid ideas promoted by Wild Bill's groupies--are what did it. Also, as in here, people just drifted away.
People you claim left there over two sides aren't staying here with three.
-
I would like to see "2 Side Tuesday" given a try. Mix things up for just one day a week. People would get to meet people that they never have, due to country loyalty. Maybe build more camaraderie in the community. And there would always be action on the front, unlike a three sided arena.
-
vraciu, what exactly qualifies you as an expert on this topic? you seem to know whats best for everyone else. how do you qualify your expertise? and please, no "ive played games for 10 years", anyone can say that! I'm just curious. no disrespect intended.
-
:aok :rofl
vraciu, what exactly qualifies you as an expert on this topic? you seem to know whats best for everyone else. how do you qualify your expertise? and please, no "ive played games for 10 years", anyone can say that! I'm just curious. no disrespect intended.
Having an opinion on a DISCUSSION board is a crime now?
Noted.
-
I would like to see "2 Side Tuesday" given a try. Mix things up for just one day a week. People would get to meet people that they never have, due to country loyalty. Maybe build more camaraderie in the community. And there would always be action on the front, unlike a three sided arena.
I like the idea but then I imagine people would just dodge Tuesdays...and I say that as an advocate for two sides.
Having a two-sided arena with 27 vs 22 is going to generate a lot more action than having 16 vs 15 vs 18.
I loved watching the fronts move in WBs. It was a blast to see the bad guys marching across the map and then have a Tobruk Moment to push them back. I see nothing like that here. It's all about percentages and convoluted formulae that makes winning the map gamey. It makes my eyes roll back in my head.
Hey, it has worked for a long time, I get it. I also know why HT says he did it that way (I heard his explanation directly in person). At one time it certainly served a purpose, but at some point three sides needs to go away even if just for a little while. Maybe it will be a hit.
I have never flown War Blunder (et. al.) longer than half an hour so I can't recall. Is it two sides? Three? Five?
-
FSO.
-
FSO.
More BACON
-
AVA suffers because of its settings.
Naw, not really, you go back to the oldest threads and see that it has always been a struggle to populate it. It can't be an automatic win the war arena because that system doesn't work with custom planesets and 2sided base ownership.
Still other than a few special occasions it is axis vs allies. It usually just becomes an axis vs allies dueling arena.
We keep trying to experiment with different things.
-
:aok :rofl
Having an opinion on a DISCUSSION board is a crime now?
Noted.
He said nothing about a crime. You ALWAYS post like you know everything, and most of us know that isn't true because when asked to back it up with verifiable facts you post something like the quote.
All he asked was why you believe, or have the opinion that you posted, as in was discussing your point of view. Instead of attacking him, maybe you could try discussing what qualifies you as an expert.
-
Ive presented 2 solutions to to the AvA team which should make the arena more populated and fun to play in. May take a minute on the new map and hopefully we can get some regulars to be in there every night to post #s. With 5 or 6 players in the room between 6PM and 10PM, it will appear as though it is populated. This will bring more players and the arena will fill up a lil more.
As far as 2 countries in the MA. It just simply wouldn't make anything better.
-
Someone should post the smog 8 map from AH2 on here so people can see what a good small fight map looks like. This would be perfect for the AvA or even for a midwar main arena.
-
He said nothing about a crime. You ALWAYS post like you know everything, and most of us know that isn't true because when asked to back it up with verifiable facts you post something like the quote.
All he asked was why you believe, or have the opinion that you posted, as in was discussing your point of view. Instead of attacking him, maybe you could try discussing what qualifies you as an expert.
If his question had been sincere instead of bait I would have gladly answered.
So funny that you who deride others suffer the malady you disdain: being an "expert".
This entire thread is conjecture. Everyone in it is speculating. Anyone who sees it otherwise has a distorted view of things.
Dale will do it his way. I am not required to agree with his every move, however.
In any event, I have the perspective of experience. I've seen it before. That may not qualify as expertise, however it does allow an informed opinion to be made. That and a dollar will get you a soda.
-
Oh, and until someone brings John Lott in here to run an analysis that can account for all the variables it will remain conjecture. There are no FACTS until that's done--just opinion.
-
In any event, I have the perspective of experience. I've seen it before. That may not qualify as expertise but however allow an informed opinion to be made. That and a dollar will get you a soda.
You're not the only one with the perspective of experience, some us, like myself, have been playing online flight sims since DOS AW days.
-
You're not the only one with the perspective of experience, some us, like myself, have been playing online flight sims since DOS AW days.
I never claimed I was. I merely questioned your expert opinion on this issue -- one with which I happen to completely disagree -- after you decided to go after me for having a different view. Nothing more nothing less. YMMV.
Your opinion is no more valid or invalid than mine.
-
I never claimed I was. I merely questioned your expert opinion on this issue -- one with which I happen to completely disagree -- after you decided to go after me for having a different view. Nothing more nothing less. YMMV.
Your opinion is no more valid or invalid than mine.
actually ack's opinion counts more than yours. you do know what he does for a living dont ya? while I do feel that a 2 country would do just fine, I trust hitech's opinion over mine. you know why? he's betting his business on a 3 country being better. while I may not agree on everything he does, I feel he's taking the game in the direction that will most improve it.
semp
-
actually ack's opinion counts more than yours. you do know what he does for a living dont ya? while I do feel that a 2 country would do just fine, I trust hitech's opinion over mine. you know why? he's betting his business on a 3 country being better. while I may not agree on everything he does, I feel he's taking the game in the direction that will most improve it.
semp
Nobody is infallible*. Fresh eye perspective is invaluable. Ack is wrong in my opinion.
Circumstances evolve. Three sides don't work as things stand now. Are two sides the solution? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think they will cause / hasten the demise of AH.
*The people at Kodak were experts, too.
--
It's academic. Dale isn't gonna change it.
:cheers:
-
Nobody is infallible*. Fresh eye perspective is invaluable. Ack is wrong in my opinion.
Circumstances evolve. Three sides don't work as things stand now. Are two sides the solution? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think they will cause / hasten the demise of AH.
*The people at Kodak were experts, too.
--
It's academic. Dale isn't gonna change it.
:cheers:
So what your saying is you are NOT an expert and so anything you say should be taken with a grain of salt. Just want to make that clear.
As for 3 sides "not working" why do you say that? Ever hear the phrase "its your turn in the barrel"? Well there is a good side as well as a bad to that. Some nights there are good fights on the fronts, other times there are not. You take the good with the bad. The issue with a 2 sided war is you'll see far too many nights with one team heavily out numbered and so "be stuck in the barrel".
I know you'll say "well in warbirds we use to switch to even sides". Well you can already see that wont work here because they prove it everyday. Bish cry about ENY all the time but will one squad change to another team to even things up and get away from ENY? nope.
Even if the 2 teams started out even, one side would seem to win more wars and before you know it more and more people would switch to that side and a huge imbalance would happen that would never correct it self. 4,5, or 6 teams would dilute the fronts even more and unless you had all the maps in a pizza shape there would be many maps where you'd never get to fight one or more teams while it was up.
Again, why isn't 3 sides working?
-
So what your saying is you are NOT an expert...
Hey, Fug, when did you stop beating your wife?
Again, when did I ever say, "I am an expert"? "It is you who say that I am." (A quote from a guy who was always right when the crowd was horribly wrong. There's a lesson here if you look for it.) This deflection technique isn't gonna' fly, sir.
I disdain the concept of self-annointed and conventional wisdom-designated experts, frankly (and there seem to be a few in this thread). They wind up being wrong all the time--while the little voice in the wilderness who knew better was ignored.
Without running a serious regression analysis (something I do have some expertise with in my previous life) one cannot say wth any certainty what causes what in this situation It remains anecdotal, conjecture, or an educated guess. I have offered mine. You're free to disagree.
Hitech and Skuzzy are working hard on this game. I am grateful to them for that. Skuzzy in particular gets a big <S> from me for his prompt attention, something that was sorely lacking at Brand X. I don't know how he does it. :salute :cheers:
(I'm not gonna' go into this sideswitch/ENY thing AGAIN. That's been hashed to death, too. Do a search for my previous comments on the subject if you are truly interested in my position.)
-
See Rule #4
-
I like the idea but then I imagine people would just dodge Tuesdays...and I say that as an advocate for two sides.
Having a two-sided arena with 27 vs 22 is going to generate a lot more action than having 16 vs 15 vs 18.
I loved watching the fronts move in WBs. It was a blast to see the bad guys marching across the map and then have a Tobruk Moment to push them back. I see nothing like that here. It's all about percentages and convoluted formulae that makes winning the map gamey. It makes my eyes roll back in my head.
Hey, it has worked for a long time, I get it. I also know why HT says he did it that way (I heard his explanation directly in person). At one time it certainly served a purpose, but at some point three sides needs to go away even if just for a little while. Maybe it will be a hit.
I have never flown War Blunder (et. al.) longer than half an hour so I can't recall. Is it two sides? Three? Five?
Are the numbers THAT bad?!?!?!
I really want to come back to AH but it's pretty hard to consider investing about $1,500 bucks (i need to buy everything) for such low numbers and no guarantee this game will even last another year or two.
-
See Rule #4
-
Are the numbers THAT bad?!?!?!
I really want to come back to AH but it's pretty hard to consider investing about $1,500 bucks (i need to buy everything) for such low numbers and no guarantee this game will even last another year or two.
They're RELATIVELY bad at the times I play. Relatively. YMMV. But I haven't been a peak time guy much of late.
If it says anything I took the six month prepaid offer. I'm not pulling the plug.
Give it a try. If everyone who was on the fence took the plunge we wouldn't have these threads. :)
-
Are the numbers THAT bad?!?!?!
I really want to come back to AH but it's pretty hard to consider investing about $1,500 bucks (i need to buy everything) for such low numbers and no guarantee this game will even last another year or two.
Don't let the opinions of a few mouthy idiots take the game away from you. This is a great game, there is lots of action and numbers are improving.
You need a good system to play any game worth anything anymore.
Grab a new system, re-open your account and come play.
Remember, 90% of the players don't bother to even post, they are just happily playing the game. They have no idea they are supposed to be miserable just because the doom and gloomers tell them so.
-
You're not the only one with the perspective of experience, some us, like myself, have been playing online flight sims since DOS AW days.
(http://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Sinclair_ZX_Spectrum/Title/Thumb/Thumb_Harrier_Attack_-_1983_-_Durell_Software_Ltd..jpg)
noob!
-
(http://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Sinclair_ZX_Spectrum/Title/Thumb/Thumb_Harrier_Attack_-_1983_-_Durell_Software_Ltd..jpg)
noob!
You got me beat. I started with Jet in 1985. (MSFS didn't count. Neither did Choplifter on the Apple II.)
Heck, I remember goofing around with C64 and Adam back in 1983 and prior. Can't remember a single game on the former though. River Raid perhaps?
-
See Rule #4
-
You got me beat. I started with Jet in 1985. (MSFS didn't count. Neither did Choplifter on the Apple II.)
Heck, I remember goofing around with C64 and Adam back in 1983 and prior. Can't remember a single game on the former though. River Raid perhaps?
real harrier pilots trained on this sim, it was that good :salute
-
real harrier pilots trained on this sim, it was that good :salute
I love the screenshot. :cheers: :salute
Edit in: Looking at gameplay framegrabs/videos brings back memories of those days. Lol.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MePgjXoo9aA
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
What strikes me as funny is that for years this subject is argued, for years there have been ample chances to prove the argument in AvA set up changes, using the SEA idle time, setting up custom arenas, but for some odd reason, no one is able to prove their idea has merit.
Arguing over speculation and concept is just a waste of breath, the tools are in place to prove your concept, but oddly enough no effort is being placed on actually doing something about it. As usual, it's a good idea so someone else should change the way they do things to satisfy a few. Just cracks me up.
Now, I know, the argument is already coming against what I just suggested, because it's been argued over and over again across the years. Some of you don't have the ability or understanding of the arena settings to set up an arena. Well, it's possible, and even likely, that there are far more things one doesn't comprehend about arena settings and balance as well, including why a 2 front war fails in an unregulated environment like an Open Melee Arena.
So, here's a thought, prove it. If you can't, think about that for a minute before you continue arguing over vapor. Anyone can have an idea, most people think their ideas are good, and no one wants to accept that they didn't think it all the way through, but it happens more often than not. Prove it, do something about it, or don't. Your arguments have far less credibility if they are nothing but conversation. Making a position clear is great, thank you for your opinion, but it's nothing short of an opinion unless you are actively wishing to change something, and if you intend for anything to change you are going to have to do more than talk. Just saying you want something to be different is fine and all, but there is a lack of genies in bottles to make your wish come true.
-
People go where the numbers are, regardless of the setup. (What causes the critical mass in the first place I can't say.). This, too, was seen in WBs. When it was a two-sided AvA WITH RPS everyone was there. When it was switched to a two-sided MA everyone WAS THERE.
AvA is mislabeled for one. For another, (as I understand it) it doesn't have the same settings as the MA. In any event they're not the same the number of sides available aside.
Bottom line:
If you turn the MA into two sides the AvA will still be empty.
If you turn the AvA into three sides the MA will still be full.
-
(http://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Sinclair_ZX_Spectrum/Title/Thumb/Thumb_Harrier_Attack_-_1983_-_Durell_Software_Ltd..jpg)
noob!
Game wasn't online/multiplayer. Better luck next time.
-
Game wasn't online/multiplayer. Better luck next time.
whoosh!