Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: eskimo2 on January 21, 2002, 10:55:23 PM
-
The Problem:
The MA is becoming boring/frustrating. (See Hangtime's Thread)
More often than not, giant furballs and gang-bangs are all that can be found in the MA.
Missing are organization, strat, surprise and options.
Strat;
With the last major release (1.08) of Aces High, strat was drastically changed.
Strat targets now rebuild automatically (Via trains) and can be rebuilt by players (Cargo Sorties).
Instead of increasing player organization and cooperation by requiring greater teamwork to achieve strategic goals, strategic missions have been altogether abandoned. Most players are not willing to participate in a difficult raid, that even if successful will be rebuilt before they get home, giving them no chance to reap the rewards of their hard work by implementing follow-up raids.
Before 1.08, I personally would knock down the HQ several times a week. Now, I can't even remember the last time anyone's HQ went down. As a result, radar-down sneak captures are gone.
Small Fronts, Large Player-Base, Limited Options;
With increasing numbers of players in the MA, all-too-often many players find themselves looking for something to do other than participate in the big furball or gang-bang. A persistent base of players who are ready to up as soon as they realize that something different is going on means that raids are intercepted more often. When a countries front line is down to 4 or less front line bases, and there are 300+ players in the arena, finding or starting a "fresh fight" can be impossible.
Radar, Too Much Information!
Get together 20 countrymen with a base capture objective, climb to 15K, fly 50+ miles to your target, and meet 20 co-alt+ enemy...
Why plan? Why organize? Well-planned missions fail too often because the enemy has too much warning.
Nothing kills the incentive to organize like an enemy informed of your actions!
Personally, I avoid planned missions often because I know that they are doomed.
If they were successful more often, I would participate more often.
To be successful, the enemy shouldn't know what is going on the instant 25 P-47s spawn on their own runway. When I see a big red bar appear opposite an empty friendly base, I have a pretty good idea what is going to happen in 15 to 20 minutes. I am probably going to get myself killed on my current sortie well before they get to their target. This means that I will have plenty of time to spawn, climb to alt and intercept them, or at least sneak out and hunt down their goon.
Giving Away the Locations of CVs.
It's hard to imagine that the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor would have gone so well had a trigger happy IJN pilot launched an hour early and attacked Pearl Harbor by himself. The same principle works in the MA.
If player feel that organized missions are too likely to be intercepted or well-defended against, or sneak captures are too unlikely to be successful, and strat targets are a waste of time, what are they to do? Join in the furball... or join in the gang-bang.
Solutions:
Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Why is this better?
Instead of being MANDATORY targets for successful strat raids, train killing would become an ALTERNATIVE method for denying the enemy the benefit of operational strategic sites.
Radar:
Changing a few aspects about the current radar status, could have a great impact on how the game is played.
#1. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar below 500 feet. Encourage sneak raids. Sneak raids would mean that players would have interesting options 99% of the time. 4 guys, with discipline, could capture an enemy base 100+ miles in enemy territory.
#2. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar in enemy territory. No dots or bars 25 miles beyond friendly bases. As stated above, organized missions could at least get to within 25 miles of an enemy base before the enemy is warned Via radar. Enemy would still get a 5+ minute warning, enough time to oppose, but not always en-mass.
HTC, if you want to see more organization in the MA, give organized players a chance to be successful more often.
Hold Flight on Aircraft Carriers.
Sneaking an aircraft carrier into attack position, behind the front line, is nearly pointless because someone always launches from it while it is en route and gives away its position. If the commander of the CV could "Hold Flight", organized CV missions would take place often. Players would have confidence in the mission and sign up because they would know that the enemy would not have warning before the mission starts. Everyone who recognizes the value of the CV's location would become unified in their efforts.
Effect on Bomber Use:
Replacing the value of strat targets would increase the use of bombers in Aces High.
Reducing the effectiveness of radar would also mean that slow-climbing bombers would stand a better chance of making it to target at lower altitudes, thereby increasing the use of bombers in the MA. I don't know why, but I have always felt that HTC has been looking for ways to make bombers more relevant and used in Aces High.
In general, incentive needs to be given for the organization of players in any sized group. When players find success by working together in small groups, they will develop greater knowledge, skills, and incentive to work in larger groups.
The above ideas would make Aces High more interesting, less predictable, create greater options, and promote teamwork among players.
eskimo
-
Hangtime,
Thanks for writing your thread.
I have been meaning to express these ideas for over a week now, but just haven't gotten around to it. Your thread, along with its responses, gave me the incentive to sit down and write it all out.
eskimo
-
whiner
-
As a counterbalance to this post, I will say that I like the MA the way it is--and far from getting worse, I feel gameplay has been massively improving lately. The amount of milkrunning is decreasing a lot and the fighting is more intense and drawn out.
I am happier with AH now than I ever have been before--indeed, I'm actually starting to LIKE it. The price is right, and now the gameplay is approaching the right level.
Sounds like you are just getting bored with the MA. While I understand that after awhile some players may become bored with the "anything goes" style of the main arena, there's no need to suggest changes to the MA that would adversely affect the game for those of us who are still happy with it.
Perhaps, rather than altering the MA, it's time for AH to offer more in the form of a second "main arena" with a different setup. Variety is a good thing.
J_A_B
-
Nice post Eskimo.
I particularly liked this part:
Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Why is this better?
Instead of being MANDATORY targets for successful strat raids, train killing would become an ALTERNATIVE method for denying the enemy the benefit of operational strategic sites.
-
Good ideas there. Here is another one:
Actually, armoured assaults have a weak point: spawn point. With only one known spawn point, once the enemy has located it, it is impossible to send more GVs at the enemy base. You will find tanks waiting and aiming just at the point where you are supposed to spawn and jabos orbiting over that place. In some cases, a single coastal battery will defeat any GV spawn attempt over'n over. Add the fact that GVs are clearly seen from long distances as clear dark dots no matter they are behind trees, etc.
Another GV related problem is the effectivity of the Flak. It is better against structures and vehicles than a PzIV.
The last issue is the precission and lethality of the acks against panzers. At maximum ack range it will hit you over'n over with no error/dispersion and main gun gone, tracks gone, all gone. And smoke grenades dont have any effect on the ack-laser accuracy.
IMO, only antitank guns (not present), other tanks, rockets or bombs should be able to kill a PzIV.
-
Good ideas, Eskimo :)
With regards to GV's, besides MANDOBLE's post, I think it's URGENT to solve ack positions firing through structures and hills. And make Panzer's HE shells more powerful against structures....
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Strat is fine and fun if the sides are balanced.
But as things are currently in main, those 'strat' missions are being launched solely to crush the last resistance of the already gangbanged small country (bish, nit or rook.)
Organization starts to SUCK when the country with HUGE ADVANTAGE launches 'strategic strikes' which contain more players in ONE STRIKE than the whole defending country has players.
That, my friends, is pure dweebery, not organization. It's the purest form of gangbanging.
-
mrsid2, the problem is that these massive attacks dont lead to a fast reset but to a long agony. Once the gangbanging countries found that the other one is closer to the victory, they start to use the most cruel tactic, they use the exceeding forces just to stop any advance of the gangbanged country, but dont push for the reset, instead that they try to take one or two bases of the other gangbanging country and so on. This way, the victim country with small numbers and two or three bases is "kidnapped" in this nonsense situation for several days. Each time the gangbanged country try to recover territory against any other country, it found a wall of fighters just waiting for them, the attackers are usually erased from the sky and the deffenders simply keep there waiting for another suicidal weave. Hell, lately I've seen bish and knights capping rook fields with the only intention of vulch, they keep vulching forever and dont move a single finger to take the base unless they have more bases than the other gangbanging team.
-
I know mandoble, and the things only get worse when the mapmonkeys do all kinds of tricks to win the war and get the precious perks.
One thing like that happened when I was about to see my first rook reset ever, the bish surrendered knits a field just as we were taking the last and ending the war. That way bish could hit our backs taking more fields while we were trying to end the war.
In the end instead of reset, the fight became a bitter vulchfest during which many logged, me included. In the end the dweebs got what they wanted, they gained enough rook fields while rooks were trying to capture the field the bish gave knits. That was great strat, good tactic, but a very boring for gameplay for both nits and rook. Nits were subjected to a continued attack on 2 fields and rooks were ripped off a victory. I was especially disappointed since I've yet to see a single rook reset ever.
I hear many rooks, although the spirit is generally high considering the situation, are spending less and less time online and many even thinking about quitting the game.
There's only so much a person can take and being gangbanged every night eats away the enjoyment.
For you sending the complaints that rooks have numbers, you don't: I dont give a sh't. This is the situation at my timezone, I sleep during that time. The arena should be more or less balanced around the clock because otherwise european / american players of a certain side will always be gangbanged, just the countries switch with the timezones.
-
Mandoble, Pepe;
You are right about the GV issues.
Ack should not be so effective against GVs at max range, very rarely do I survive in a GV once the ack opens up.
Each Panzer round seams to be about as effective as each ostwind round. Six 75 mm hits to kill an enemy GV is typical for me. Panzers are useless against ground targets. The ostwind is so much more effective.
In regards to countries being cornered, down to just a few bases, how effective is it for them to launch counter-offensive base-capture missions? It's not.
Even when a few planes manage to get away from one of the vulched bases, as soon as they enter a near grid, at any altitude, the enemy is alerted. As soon as they enter a grid that holds an enemy base, the base is defended.
No low-dar would give players of gang-banged countries a fighting chance to make it to enemy bases and attemt a capture.
eskimo
-
100% agree with your thread Eskimo!
-
I think Eskimo brings up some very good points, especially about the current strat model.
-
Made some good points about the missions. Good post, i agree with all you have said.
-
eskimo this is the best post i have seen in months.
i agree 200% with everything you have said. i have quit aces high but if hitech made these changes i would sign back up within 24 hours. i quit for each and every one of the reasons you cited in the problems.
in short you are spot on, and these changes NEED to be made if aces high is to become interesting again.
-
The problem with your suggestions, Eskimo, is that they proceed from the assumption that furballing is a problem, as is the inability to run lightly-opposed raids. Not all of us see it that way.
I note that most of your suggestions
(1) make it harder to defend targets
(2) add yet more critical targets that must be defended
or
(3) prolong the effects of an unsuccessful defense
I think defense is hard enough as it is. I don't really want to see it become even more difficult.
-
I'm a big fan of a reduction in the effectiveness of radar in AH. Its pretty potent...a bit too potent imo.
A few other suggestions/modifications for radar:
-- Allow dar bar indicatiors for _your_ forces in enemy territory. i.e. if there's a big fight at a field deep in enemy territory, keep the friendly dar bar as it is. Remove the enemey dar bar when outside your radar range. This at least allows folks to know where the action is for fights deeper into the enemy's country.
-- Eliminate friendly blips when in enemy territory. I should not be able to pop up radar and see a glob of green dots over an enemy controlled airfield. Assuming it is out of our radar range, the only info I should have available is friendly dar bar info for that area, nothing else. No friendly radar blips, no enemy dar bar. I'm deep in enemy territory and flying in blind, as I should be.
As it sits now I will never be surprised by what a dot is as radar either tells me immediately its friend or foe, or if in enemy territory gives me enough info to draw the right conclusion (i.e. its not friendly, ergo its enemy). No surprise, ever.
On the issue of CV's, well, I think for the most part they're a pretty ineffective tool in AH. CV based raids rarely bear fruit. Indeed, that is in part due to the ease by which they can be used. Fact of the matter is you can't restrict that use as by default it begs the question; Who decides when they can be used? You definitely can't go by points as they have nothing to do with strategic or tactical competance. In short, it'd be a real nightmare to manage I think. What you could do, however, is allow players to put a pop-up message in place in the hanger of a CV, indicating that it is enroute to a targe and should not be used. These would need to be a generic message(s) activated by a command of some sort. At least that way players trying to launch have an idea beforehand whats up. That's won't stop them from launching, but I think its a better middle ground.
Along with that, and as a primary change, one needs to look at the underlying problem with fleets...their glass jaws. Sinking a CV is childs play for the most part. One pilot with a hvy US fighter can suicide a CV without any real problem. Take two pilots and you're pretty much guaranteed the kill as the first draws ack while the other drops eggs. Point being a CV based operation deep in enemy territory is likely going to fail regardless as you just aren't going to have time to get LVT's in in most occasions before the CV is sunk (assuming of course that the other side does actually resist).
CV's imo should be a significant force. To make them such they need to be drastically strengthened. This not only allows many more gameplay options for both offense and defense, it also infinitely increases the importance of ports. Losing a port is a non-issue, as is gaining one. CV's just aren't that effective to warrant any attention to ports. Their only real value is that you can play "hide the CV" after. Good for a giggle but it too wears thin. Stronger fleets would indeed change that (as would supply convoys, but that's a different animal entirely).
If you set damage on the CA to 10,000 lbs and CV to 13,000 lbs of ord, give or take, you at least make it such that a combined effort is needed to take one out. That's roughly what you would be dropping on an airfield if you wanted to neuter it (13,000 roughly). Having a CV around the same makes a degree of sense.
My two bits anywhoo
Vortex
-
Love it eskimo!
Only one thing I disagree with, and that's limiting radar to 25miles from the nearest field. The dar bars would probably be the toughest to implent on this. Perhaps set it up so that only sectors adjecent to a sector with a friendly airfield will show the red bars indicating an enemy presence. This would give 25 to 50miles warning.
I'd really love to see the no bar for 499ft AGL and lower. wasn't it like that once? way back in the beta days? Me and the crew used to have alot of fun on the beta map flying NOE through the canyons and sneaking the center fields of the other side (11, 19, and 3 I think they were?) HT himself discovered how useful that feature would be and promptly muted me when I pointed it out on channel 1.
The hold flight idea on the CVs is good, but probalby needs more thinking through because of the rank/command structure for running the boats. Try this scenario: Map - Mindano, country in the southern part of the map. Someone ranked around 200 takes the CV and starts sailing it for a21 (I think? south-western most field on the end of the island). They turn on hold flight.
The task group is about 50 miles from the base, still about 30miles away from the chosen launch point for this attack. Someone ranked higher than the current commander of the task group decides he wants to go ahead and launch, but can't becuase hold flight is turned on. This person takes control of the TG, turns off hold flight, and launches. Then gives up control of the TG so whoever can take it and do what they want.
The original TG commander can take control back and turn hold flight back on, but the damage is already done. The group's position has been given away and the op is a wash because an impatient someone had a higher rank. Don't know what oculd be done about this problem though.
-
Well.... since the usual suspects have chimed in on a back slapping orgy.... I will give the opposition viewpoint.
Every "problem" called out in the post is really a bonus. Strat? Admit it... when you tell people about this game do you really have the balls to tell em about the capturer the flag aspect? It's friggin embarassing. I tell em you get to chose from 20 or so different fighter planes that have the same flight models and damage and gunnery as the real ones did... I tell em that you get to fly in an arena with 400 other guys from around the world and shoot each other down. I tell em you can actually talk to each other on "roger wilco'" and that there are three "countries" with anyone from another country fair game... They get very interested... If you try to explain the "strat" the light goes out and you can see em thinking what a kids game it is and what a dork you must be...
If all those ideas were implemented we would have a game every bit as boring (worse even) than the CT and about as populated after a month or so... except that even tempered zigrat would "be back". The game would be a radarless late war only game of hide and seek and mission gangbanging. Only people with no life (as opposed to "one life") would be able to "enjoy" (i use the word loosely) the "game" (again, loosely). There would be no place for lone wolfs or people who liked slower planes or didn't have 4 hrs a day to spend "playing" at formation flying.
Anyhow... eskimo writes well. He's just wrong.
lazs
-
Real war= Capture the flag.
-
Laz, FA3 has a place for you :)
-
rip.... real war equals years of boredom. I do not think we want to simulate that aspect. real war equals most people never seeing action or knowing if they are doing any good.
As i have told you before... I am not for seperate arenas or for other sims. I know you are pretty stupid and dishonest so i will repeat that as often as needed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by pbirmingham
The problem with your suggestions, Eskimo, is that they proceed from the assumption that furballing is a problem, as is the inability to run lightly-opposed raids. Not all of us see it that way.
I note that most of your suggestions
(1) make it harder to defend targets
(2) add yet more critical targets that must be defended
or
(3) prolong the effects of an unsuccessful defense
I think defense is hard enough as it is. I don't really want to see it become even more difficult.
pbirmingham;
I like to furball, I don't like it, however, when that's all there is to do most of the time.
I can assure you, the vast majority of folks will still be able to, and will, furball 100% of the time.
Furballers may even find their furballs lasting longer because the strat guys would rather leave the mess alone and attempt to capture a 2nd or 3rd line base.
These changes do not oppose furballing! They simply create alternatives for players who want them!
(1) Sometimes targets will be harder to defend. For low-alt no bar-dar raids to work, everyone must stay under 500'. This is can be very difficult and hard to pull-off with large groups and/or in hilly/mountainous terrain.
The norm will still be what we have now; a constant stream of planes, at all altitudes, heading from one base to another. A big shifting furball moving from one base to another, back and forth, hour after hour.
No bar-dar in enemy territory will really only benefit large organized groups, giving them a chance to assemble and climb before tipping off the enemy as to where an attack may take place. If a group of guys wait 10 minutes for a mission to start and then stay together, and work together, why shouldn't they be rewarded with success more often?
(2) What critical targets are being added? Trains and convoys? It should be possible, not easy, just possible, to diminish strat targets and base supplies by pounding trains or convoys for 30-45 minutes.
Current strat targets used to be more critical (actually had a strategic effect on game play) before 1.08). I am just suggesting that they serve a purpose.
"(3) prolong the effects of an unsuccessful defense"
How so? I don't get it. Elaborate please.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
"(3) prolong the effects of an unsuccessful defense"
How so? I don't get it. Elaborate please.
eskimo
"Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!"
In other words, once that un-detectable NOE raid succeeds, you're SOL and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, as opposed to the current situation where you can repair it.
I realize you're not presenting these as an anti-furballing platform or any such. I just think you're missing the fact that a lot of these alternatives you are creating involve depriving others of what they're using to further their play style. You're playing a zero-sum game even if you don't realize it. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't say that these proposals don't affect the furballers, because they definitely do. Therefore, you shouldn't be surprised when some of us raise our voices in opposition.
I like the game fine the way it is.
-
My main change would be (in agreement with eskimo) the ability to sneak under the radar. This was always possible in Air Warrior, below 200' was 'under the dar' and I like the 500' idea.
I actually assumed it was operating like that to start with but was quickly disabused of THAT!
secondly, as I have previously posted, I would like to see local radar from specific planes. ie: a radar operator position in certain planes (mossie, Ju-88 and Me110). This should be limited in range, not dependent on the country radar and show altitude.
In conjunction with knocking out the country radar these planes would then be startegically used to patrol the 'borders' and locate otherwise unseeable attacks.
But the under the dar option must definitely be added asap.
-
S!
I totally agree with Eskimo.
If the trains, convoys etc. don`t get through, then supply goes down. You gotta protect them or your side suffers.
-
I haven't read hangtimes post yet so I can only comment on this one. I think the idea's are all well thought out....BUT....the MA actually reflects the actual conditions better than ever (IMO). By 1944 the enviornment over europe was a blood bath (especially for the germans). Very little happened without significant interaction from the other side. Obviously as time went by the germans were no longer capable of fielding a truely capable defense, but from Jan 44 thru september or so the casualties on both sides were brutal.
Personally, I find the MA much less enjoyable right now...but I like to find the 1 on 1,2,3 and rumble on....now if you really dont apply solid SA, solid E-fighting/B&Z and fly with a squad or wingie you'll have a tough time. So mostly folks fly in a herd....stay close to the boundries etc.
As for raids...more people means less undefended turf...the easy 1-4 people capture stuff (very unrealistic) is going away...now you really need a larger more controlled team and a more focused effort. As for armoured combat...truthfully damage/death is drastically undermodeled. I recently read a book by one of the maintanence officers of the 3rd armoured division. By August of 44 most tanks were operating with crews of 3 instead of the normal 5. Each time a sherman was "killed" 2-3 crew members were killed on average. Often the tanks were salvaged and repaired within days. One incident in the book recalls 17 tanks that were repaired and refitted with new crews (an experienced driver and 2 recruites). They rolled for front lines at 10am....the maintanence batalion ran into them as they moved forward again supporting the days advance....they found 15 of the 17 knocked out at 4pm with almost 100% crew lose. Tanks were very susceptable to all kinds of weapons....especially shermans:)
Anyway, I think were suffering from to much of a good thing...for some of us...it's a "brave new world" and many (including me) are going to need to adjust our thinking and tactics to confront this new MA.
Starting to see why B&Z was invented in the 1st place :)
-
pbirmingham;
Who flies the C-47s anyway? Strat guys, or furballers?
Why does everything need to be quickly un-done?
What's more important; having a game that involves complex and dynamic strategy and sometimes leaves a country deprived of resources, or one that is stagnant?
How does losing radar on occasion hurt furballs? If you have been furballing between A-1 and A-43 for the past 2 hours, and the radar goes down, why would you expect not to find the same furball, in approximately the same place, on your next 7 sorties?
If my memory serves me right, when dar is down, and there is a big furball or fight going on somewhere, countrymen talk about it. It's not all that hard to find a fight or furball without radar.
If the enemy captures some of your bases while the dar is down, what do you care? Your furball is still taking place, right?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rip.... real war equals years of boredom. I do not think we want to simulate that aspect. real war equals most people never seeing action or knowing if they are doing any good.
As i have told you before... I am not for seperate arenas or for other sims. I know you are pretty stupid and dishonest so i will repeat that as often as needed.
lazs
Laz, put down the pipe. Real war=Capture the flag. I was not talking of the content of the war, I was speaking of the GOAL of war.
-
Good post, Eskimo. Some other good ideas here too.
-
Thanks Sabre,
I should make it clear that most of the Strat concepts expressed in this post were originally concieved by Sabre.
eskimo
-
Those are some well thought-out ideas Eskimo. There is a definite decrease on the effect strat targets have on the MA environment. It's basically become a waste of time to attack strategic targets. It's easier to just capture fields and skip the strat. I'd like to see field capture made tougher and strategic targets have more effect on a country's war-making capabilities.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
The Problem:
The MA is becoming boring/frustrating. (See Hangtime's Thread)
More often than not, giant furballs and gang-bangs are all that can be found in the MA.
Missing are organization, strat, surprise and options.
I have seen more furballing now than I have ever seen before. I've also seen more serious attacks/strat being used than I have ever seen before. If I don't like the situation where I'm flying... I relocate.
The one thing bothering me about the furballs right now is that they aren't really furballs. There aren't 10's - 20's of aircraft engaging each other... there's 3 planes engaging 10 enemies on each side of the "front" with maybe 2 in the middle... and then 10 more sitting back just in case one makes it through.
I've found that as a result of that completely absurd mentallity (wether you furball or not)... things can be much better elsewhere. Now, people know the core mentality and how to circumvent it. I find it a challenge to attempt thwarting their efforts. Trying to predict what the enemy is planning and stopping it is a challenge in and of itself. I've found a handfull of likeminded people in the MA that seem to think the same thing.. cause they are usually in the same area. Basically, I make my own fun in the MA and can always find an enemy willing to oblidge me. Its just that not every enemy chooses to do so.
Strat;
With the last major release (1.08) of Aces High, strat was drastically changed.
Strat targets now rebuild automatically (Via trains) and can be rebuilt by players (Cargo Sorties).
Instead of increasing player organization and cooperation by requiring greater teamwork to achieve strategic goals, strategic missions have been altogether abandoned.
Strat has also changed to allow a small group of players to easily capture a field simply by destroying the town. It works both ways.
I've not seen this many captures of heavily defended fields in some time.
Most players are not willing to participate in a difficult raid, that even if successful will be rebuilt before they get home, giving them no chance to reap the rewards of their hard work by implementing follow-up raids.
I have zero sympathy here. Its called coordination. Simply because you complete one mission, it is felt there should be an immediate reward (on your next mission). Sorry.. I don't agree.
Before 1.08, I personally would knock down the HQ several times a week. Now, I can't even remember the last time anyone's HQ went down. As a result, radar-down sneak captures are gone.
And knocking down HQ several times a week is a better option? I can't help but detect a heavily skewed perspective here.
Small Fronts, Large Player-Base, Limited Options;
With increasing numbers of players in the MA, all-too-often many players find themselves looking for something to do other than participate in the big furball or gang-bang. A persistent base of players who are ready to up as soon as they realize that something different is going on means that raids are intercepted more often. When a countries front line is down to 4 or less front line bases, and there are 300+ players in the arena, finding or starting a "fresh fight" can be impossible.
I really don't get the complaint here. Is there a map where you really have this option without actually being down to 4 or less bases? Lake Uterus is the only one that seems close, and that's narrowing it to 5 bases. The rest, however, are much more expansive.
Radar, Too Much Information!
Get together 20 countrymen with a base capture objective, climb to 15K, fly 50+ miles to your target, and meet 20 co-alt+ enemy...
Why plan? Why organize? Well-planned missions fail too often because the enemy has too much warning.
A well planned mission would have escorts helping you out. Basically, you want to be able to aproach a field with a group of bombers undetected. I find the notion quite silly.
Besides, its somewhat counterproductive to argue that too many people are furballing AND too many people are preparing to intercept attacks at 20k in the same thread.
Nothing kills the incentive to organize like an enemy informed of your actions!
On the same theme.. nothing kills incentive like having no idea what you are hopping into. The same tools enabling the defenders to intercept attacks are being used to plan missions. Many people choose to participate based on the "cake walk" factor. You are removing that with your radar statement.
Personally, I avoid planned missions often because I know that they are doomed.
If they were successful more often, I would participate more often.
To be successful, the enemy shouldn't know what is going on the instant 25 P-47s spawn on their own runway. When I see a big red bar appear opposite an empty friendly base, I have a pretty good idea what is going to happen in 15 to 20 minutes. I am probably going to get myself killed on my current sortie well before they get to their target. This means that I will have plenty of time to spawn, climb to alt and intercept them, or at least sneak out and hunt down their goon.
Yet so many are successful. You are generating a theme here. For some reason, your tone suggests that planned missions should all be successful and that the current MA is not accomodating to that belief.
Nothing is guaranteed. Taking 40 players along should not exclussively ensure anything. Strat has been added that both enables the attackers and the defenders to do many things. It seems neither side wants to completely acknowledge that... nor utilize it.
Giving Away the Locations of CVs.
It's hard to imagine that the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor would have gone so well had a trigger happy IJN pilot launched an hour early and attacked Pearl Harbor by himself. The same principle works in the MA.
Come up with a solution that doesn't involve napolean dictating exactly when people can or can't fly from a carrier... and exactly where that carrier is going.
If player feel that organized missions are too likely to be intercepted or well-defended against, or sneak captures are too unlikely to be successful, and strat targets are a waste of time, what are they to do? Join in the furball... or join in the gang-bang.
Come up with a way where its easier for EVERYONE to succede in the MA. Please.
Truth be told... its only possible to do that for half of them.
To be continued...
-
Solutions:
Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
I like the idea of convoy destruction having a affect on the base. So long as there is some notification that it is occuring... maybe on a country alert or something. People should know that convoys have not been arriving at a base. It would be too easy for an ostwind to sit on the tracks nailing anything that aproaches without being observed.
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Excellent idea. Right now the convoys are virtually ignored... by both offense and defense.
The only worry or consideration I have is that this is not something that should be able to be denied in secrecy. If a convoy is destroyed... it needs to be broadcast.
Radar:
Changing a few aspects about the current radar status, could have a great impact on how the game is played.
#1. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar below 500 feet. Encourage sneak raids. Sneak raids would mean that players would have interesting options 99% of the time.
I totally agree. I do think that there should be some indication, however, when you are VERY near to a base. I seriously doubt any base was bombed in complete secrecy.
4 guys, with discipline, could capture an enemy base 100+ miles in enemy territory.
I don't necessarily think this is a good thing... see above.
#2. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar in enemy territory. No dots or bars 25 miles beyond friendly bases. As stated above, organized missions could at least get to within 25 miles of an enemy base before the enemy is warned Via radar. Enemy would still get a 5+ minute warning, enough time to oppose, but not always en-mass.
5 minutes is not enough time to oppose. Find a single plane that can climb to 20k in 5 minutes. AH does not have people patrolling. We do not have people joyous at the idea of flying for 1000 hours in order to get 2 kills. People just won't be sitting around waiting for this to happen. Right now there are indicators, and there still aren't that many people that get up to alt to intecept attacks. The majority of organized attacks I've seen faced perhaps 2 defenders at alt... seldomely more.
HTC, if you want to see more organization in the MA, give organized players a chance to be successful more often.
Your proposals really are more likely to make disorganization more successful. Making things easier is not the way to improve skills.
Hold Flight on Aircraft Carriers.
Sneaking an aircraft carrier into attack position, behind the front line, is nearly pointless because someone always launches from it while it is en route and gives away its position. If the commander of the CV could "Hold Flight", organized CV missions would take place often. Players would have confidence in the mission and sign up because they would know that the enemy would not have warning before the mission starts. Everyone who recognizes the value of the CV's location would become unified in their efforts.
Here is a major fallacy. Wouldn't no dar outside of 25 miles from a base make this a moot point? Or are you arguing that people should only be able to launch from a CV when it is right next to an enemy base... somewhere a CV would not historically have been. You want a change to promote completely a-historical behavior, citing other a-historical behavior as a reason.
Ironic.
Effect on Bomber Use:
Replacing the value of strat targets would increase the use of bombers in Aces High.
Reducing the effectiveness of radar would also mean that slow-climbing bombers would stand a better chance of making it to target at lower altitudes, thereby increasing the use of bombers in the MA. I don't know why, but I have always felt that HTC has been looking for ways to make bombers more relevant and used in Aces High.
Bombers need to be recognized for what they were... instruments. They won/captured absolutely nothing on their own. They denied, diminished and weakened things... they did not defeat them.
The bombers in AH have capabilities far exceeding those in real life. There have been so many concessions for the sake of gameplay that they have become quite silly in general.
If you are going to make it more difficult to detect bombers, you need to make it more difficult to fly them, gun from them and to destroy targets with them. You need to make targets more vague and have less of an obvious tactical impact. Remove the obvious/consistant cause and effect syndrome.
Then... you can start to argue how unfair things are for bomber pilots.
In general, incentive needs to be given for the organization of players in any sized group. When players find success by working together in small groups, they will develop greater knowledge, skills, and incentive to work in larger groups.
Incentive needs to be given to gang-bangs? Really? After all.. you argue that attacks should be harder to see coming. You argue that bombers should have more of an impact. You argue that defenders are too well equiped. You are basically arguing that anyone who organizes a large mission should have everything in place to ENSURE it is successfull.
I've got news for you... large missions are not what needs to be promoted in the MA. Common sense is. Right now that is not being used by either furballers or mission planners... or its so rare that we seldomely notice the few times it is used.
"OK.. now lets get the next base!" is not planning and strategy. All of your country being successfull on one front, while losing horribly on the other is not what needs to be promoted.
There simply needs to be more balance. More incentive to hold your home land and to realize that losing it is not an acceptable situation since you captured a little of someone else's.
The above ideas would make Aces High more interesting, less predictable, create greater options, and promote teamwork among players.
You want to slap a guarantee on organized mission success, but you feel it would be less predictable?
I strongly disagree
Balance... for defense and offense. Balance for furballers and strat. Balance. Balance. Balance.
AKDejaVu
-
"Who flies the C-47s anyway? Strat guys, or furballers?"
Both. I've flown '47s to fields that were damaged.
"Why does everything need to be quickly un-done?"
Why is it important that the effects last a long time?
"What's more important; having a game that involves complex and dynamic strategy and sometimes leaves a country deprived of resources, or one that is stagnant?"
Having fun is most important. Whether the strategy is stable or chaotic, matters much less.
"How does losing radar on occasion hurt furballs? If you have been furballing between A-1 and A-43 for the past 2 hours, and the radar goes down, why would you expect not to find the same furball, in approximately the same place, on your next 7 sorties?"
I see. And of course, nobody's going to fly a 30K Lanc over one of the bases while the radar is down and pork the FH's, either, right?
"If the enemy captures some of your bases while the dar is down, what do you care? Your furball is still taking place, right?"
This would be true if capture was a surgical operation that had no other effect than the base changing hands. We both know that the real situation is different, as it is common to strike at fields near the object of a capture attempt, to make defense that much harder.
I enjoy a little bit of everything, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to step outside the "war" and just put some lead in some bogies. A lot of people would, inadvertently or otherwise, make that much more difficult, because the more mischief that 25K Lanc can wreak, the more often I'll be forced to abandon whatever I'd hoped to do and attempt to stop it.
Again, any of these changes will enhance some peoples' style of play at the expense of others'. If you will quit believing that what you are asking for costs nothing to anybody else, this discussion will be much more fruitful. Right now, though, you're trying to convince me that your suggestions don't change anything I should care about.
-
Eskimo.
Great ideas, and your time spent explaining them is greatly appreciated. I have to dissagree the Hold Flight option.
I am pretty new to AH being a Warbirds retread, but too many times I've seen people move the CVs way too close to the enemy shore line.
I do understand there are reasons for this like shelling the enemy bases, or launching landing craft, however when your trying to have a squad meet with a CV based USN squad, it gets old having the CVs right off the enemy coastline, you end up constanly looking for another place to land. To be honest when we launch froma CV miles out to sea, it never occured to me we were messing somebodys sneak attack up. Tuning the radar down a bit might help here. At times it seems this games almost to the point where you need a High Command, and orders for each squad, so ya dont pee on somebodys parade.
:rolleyes:
-
after reading akdejavus thread i agree that if the radar settings were implimented the idea for a "hold flight" on the carrier becomes a poor one. if a carrier is within 50 miles of landfall, it shoud not be masked. sneak attacks form carriers are a good idea (ie if teh plane takes off from 200 miles away the enemy should not see the instant bar dar). But if you wanna sneak it up to 10 miles offshore, taht should be tougher... they could even spot it with mk 1 eyeball.
i think bar radar should work like minesweeper. bear with me on this. there should be a radio tower at each field, and mabye take a 500 lb egg to kill it. taht radio tower gives bar radar coverage in a 9 grid sector. picture the sector of the field being the 5 on thkeypad... 1-9 would eb covered by bar radar. this would still permit up to a 50 mile range in bar dar, but would allow for activity (such as the afore mentioned carrier raid) to form up properly. if you nkock out the tower, bar dar is gone for 1/2 hour in those sectors, unless they are overlapped by another tower that is still up.
i have to say i really love the idea of degredation via lack of resupply. right now attacking convoys is worthless.
-
The MA has really lost my interest lately because of the eternal furballing (which for some is the point of the game). Honestly I liked the ndisles map though because it gave people a place to furball (on the central island) while leaving most of the strat stuff around the edges for the other types of players. Unfortunately that map doesn't seem to work well in that fashion with the number of people online these days at prime time.
If I were to throw some ideas out for discussion:
1) Change the dar model... Make it altitude dependant with no hard floor for detection range. Fly low results in shorter detection range (<12miles?), fly high, longer detection range (50miles), fly extremely high-very long detection range (100 miles). Dots at half the detection, otherwise only bar. This helps the low guys make sneaks and helps defense to give time to scramble against the really high strato-guys too.
2) Don't allow strat target to rebuild with resupply. Give the bomber guys something worthwhile to hit. Still allow it at fields though, it's what allows furballs to continue for the likes of Laz, et al. Few things are quite as fun as trying to fly a supply goon into a contested field... I respect guys who can pull that off.
3) Take out "salvo 1". Make bombers drop the entire string in 1 go. No more pickle bombing. Make the ENTIRE strat target tile accept damage though, not picking off individual buildings. That way bombers will still be JUST as effective against strat targets. Hitting pin-point targets is the reason for jabo not our current type of high altitude laser bombing. You could still use bombers to hit airfields, but you better line up a number of targets in one pass... no more pickle bombing a whole airfield down from 30K in an Lanc.
4) Allow troop LVT's to spawn from CV's further off shore. Part of the problem with CV ops is that the CV has to get so damn close to shore to be effective. Once close then the enemy can just shell it with shore guns or use Typhoons and rockets to attack it at 500ft, ack-be-damned. Having it further from shore also helps you protect it since enemy planes have to fight a longer distance to get to it. If you want to run an LVT invasion though with the LVTA(4) you'll have to get close, like now. As it is, CV's are better defensive weapons than offensive ones and tend to get used that way.
4) Change the war-winning rewards. Part of the problem with the current system is that it awards 20 points to the winner.. barely worth actually finishing off anyone. How often is it actually 1 big guy pounding on 2 little ones, not often from my experience, usually it is 2 big guys picking on 1 little one... so here goes:
Look at the dynamics of it, the first place guy has no real incentive to win (20 perks, who cares) as he can get more by simply continuing to vulch/gangbang/milkruns. The second place guy doesn't really care to win since he can get more points from the vulch/gangbang/milkruns and the extra 20 points is almost worthless. The 3rd place guy doesn't have a chance... he just takes it on the nose. The way to change this would be to make the second place guy want to become the first place guy... badly... and thus maybe give the third place guy a chance to get back into the action.
I might be labelled a heretic, but 150 perks for first... 0 for 3rd and -50 for 2nd. The 1st place guy is fighting for something worthwhile, 150 perks, the 3rd place guy fighting for pride, and the 2nd place guy fighting to not be #2.
:)
-Soda
-
soda displays his true genius
-
Then why not just make two arenas, one for furballing, and one for strat.
Wait... isn't that what the dueling arena is? A big furball room?
-
Great post Eskimo..
I don't see furballing as a threatend pastime and i don't think the typical furballer is anywhere near endangered species status. It's certain that the obverse is true for the strat guys.
I do think that strat has suffered quite a bit in the last few releases, the current MA has strat reduced to hokieness in the extreme and most of these proposals amplify the good parts of the latest strat model changes and give us a chance to utilize the existing new strat tools to more effect.
postive constructive critisism of the current strat model and proposals for implementation are a far more productive course of action that the route I embarked on... i applaud this effort by eskimo and sabre, and the thoughtful observations by others on its relative merits... good and bad.
Nice work... hope HTC takes notice.
-
Originally posted by faminz
My main change would be (in agreement with eskimo) the ability to sneak under the radar. This was always possible in Air Warrior, below 200' was 'under the dar' and I like the 500' idea.
I actually assumed it was operating like that to start with but was quickly disabused of THAT!
secondly, as I have previously posted, I would like to see local radar from specific planes. ie: a radar operator position in certain planes (mossie, Ju-88 and Me110). This should be limited in range, not dependent on the country radar and show altitude.
In conjunction with knocking out the country radar these planes would then be startegically used to patrol the 'borders' and locate otherwise unseeable attacks.
But the under the dar option must definitely be added asap.
What He said. Nice thread Eskimo.
Palef
-
Good discussion going on here guys.
There's almost too much to comment on.
I especially like the idea of a warning going off when a base is under attack. Someone once suggested an air-raid siren.
As far the CV Hold Flight concept goes, I think that this is the least important idea originally expressed in my post. I do, however, think that it's implementation would increase carrier-born missions. I am also not suggesting that the option only be used to drive the CV right up to the beachfront. Missions could be launched at any range that the mission planner chooses. The Idea is to get folks to launch an attack together. Also keep in mind that the "Hold Flight" option would not necessarily be in place at all times, only when someone is working toward organizing and recruiting for a mission. Most of the time, CV use would be exactly as it is now.
Basically what I am advocating for in my post is for Strategy to be re-introduced back into Aces High and that organized missions get a chance to "get off the ground and under-way" before the enemy is warned.
It seems that HTC put a lot of effort into creating Strat Targets and a complex Strat System that has become largely ignored, it's just my guess, but I think that they are a bit disappointed as to how simple Aces High has become. I think my ideas show how strat can become relevant again.
It seems that HTC put a lot of effort into creating the Mission Planner as well, it's just my guess, but I think that they are a bit disappointed that it is not used more often. I think my ideas show some of the problems with missions and what it will take to make them a bigger part of the game. I really don't think that organized missions will be successful 100% (or anywhere near that) of the time if what I suggest is implemented, nor do I see how anyone could honestly think that these ideas would make that much of a difference. I am just trying to show how missions could be better, and as a result, used more often.
eskimo
-
Not sure if Hold Flight for the CV is a good idea, but....
Maybe it could be implemented with the Mission Planner. Set up a mission with the CV as the base, and when (some number of) players sign on to the mission, Hold Flight is enabled, and the misison planner has control of the CV. No planes could launch until the first flight of the mission does. If too many players bail out of the mission before it launches, Hold Flight would be disabled, and the mission planner loses control of the CV. A time limit could be added so that a mission launch time couldn't be more than (some number of) minutes from the current time.
This would enable a mission planner to have control of the CV for a limited time, as long as he has the support of some minimum number of players.
-
" Laz, put down the pipe. Real war=Capture the flag. I was not talking of the content of the war, I was speaking of the GOAL of war.
__________________
VMF-323 ~DEATH RATTLERS~ MAG-33
VMF-323 Website
MAG-33 Information
German "Black Widow"
"Mid-life" is when you go to the doctor and you
realize you are now so old, you have to pay
someone to look at you naked.
"
ripsnore.... Ok, we will let you have all the "goals" you feel would make you happy in AH if I can have all the "content" that I think will make me happy in AH. Fair enough?
lazs
-
slightly closer fields (3/4 sector) and tougher cv's would eliminate about 90% of the problems being discussed here.
lazs
-
Great post eskimo! Dejavu's reply was very good as well, giving an alternative perspective to the discussion.
There has been some suggestions to start an alternative to MA. I think that it would be a good idea. In my opinion, an arena with the changes that Eskimo suggested would be a nice starting point.
Camo
-
bump
Originally posted by lazs2
Well.... since the usual suspects have chimed in on a back slapping orgy.... I will give the opposition viewpoint.
Every "problem" called out in the post is really a bonus. Strat? Admit it... when you tell people about this game do you really have the balls to tell em about the capturer the flag aspect? It's friggin embarassing. I tell em you get to chose from 20 or so different fighter planes that have the same flight models and damage and gunnery as the real ones did... I tell em that you get to fly in an arena with 400 other guys from around the world and shoot each other down. I tell em you can actually talk to each other on "roger wilco'" and that there are three "countries" with anyone from another country fair game... They get very interested... If you try to explain the "strat" the light goes out and you can see em thinking what a kids game it is and what a dork you must be...
If all those ideas were implemented we would have a game every bit as boring (worse even) than the CT and about as populated after a month or so... except that even tempered zigrat would "be back". The game would be a radarless late war only game of hide and seek and mission gangbanging. Only people with no life (as opposed to "one life") would be able to "enjoy" (i use the word loosely) the "game" (again, loosely). There would be no place for lone wolfs or people who liked slower planes or didn't have 4 hrs a day to spend "playing" at formation flying.
Anyhow... eskimo writes well. He's just wrong.
lazs
-
An excellent post, Eskimo2; I think it is no exaggeration to cite this as the best post I’ve ever read on this board, although I have come to it late and have not digested all replies.
I absolutely agree with your proposed changes to bar-dar settings. Indeed, all of your suggestions would introduce major new incentives for working together as a team.
In my earlier post (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44859) I made reference to “AH as it was meant to be”. Laz2 quickly retorted along the lines of allowing each paying subscriber to decide how he wants it to be. And it would seem that many in the MA want nothing more than furball dweebery and gangbangery. For guys like Laz2 to say it’s up to the players is rather like buying an expensive concert grand piano, and using it to play Chopsticks, or nursery rhymes like Mary Had a Little Lamb. What a waste of a good instrument! For all some of these guys appreciate the strategic elements in the game, we might as well have an arena in which there were three islands, with a single airfield on each capable of launching fighters only.
In my experience as a WW2 gamer, the most rewarding mission was that of capturing territory and pushing back frontiers. All this flying around just picking off cons, most of which have re-launched by the time you finish your 30 minute sortie, just to boost score sheet and ego, is a waste of time. OK, I know we all go through that in the process of learning how to engage in combat, but for many it has become their raison d’ętre. I would probably have stayed the same had I not seen some hardworking opponents engaged in jabo missions to destroy my field and then capture it. Suddenly, I didn’t think I was such a hotshot anymore. BUT… some guys faced with the same situation will simply switch sides :rolleyes:
I vote that Eskimo2 be given a seat on the Board at HTC and be given executive powers to decide upon game strategy changes :) We have to accept that there ARE those guys who want nothing more than gangbangs and furballs. We can’t deny them this, as they are paying their monthly $14.95. But what we DO need is a thinking man’s environment; one in which strategic missions are given the chance to succeed alongside and in spite of furball and gangbang dweebery. When the furballers realise that their involvement with skirmishes and non-involvement with the WAR is costing them field after field after field, two things might happen. 1) The no-brainers will switch to whichever side is winning. 2) The thinking man will want to discover how to push back his own frontiers. This cannot be done alone, and will require teamwork. No more ignoring friends in trouble. No more ”I-can’t-be-bothered-to-give-you-a-6-call;-I-don’t-care-if-you-die-because-it’s-only-a-game" attitudes. No more stealing your friend’s kills by diving on his prey when it’s already ľ dead, getting credit for the kill but also creating a killshooter death of your friend. Those days will have to be consigned to the annals of AH history.
If eskimo2’s changes are put into effect, and more and more people rise to the challenge of strategic missions then maybe, just maybe, AH will finally enjoy a Community Spirit.
-
You describe a HTH server Beet1 amoungst friends or rival "clans" i think they call them. Which ironically works better than the CT for "you get this, you do that, and there ya have the server strat. Have fun or not, it's up to you." The CT provides bandwidth for more players, but still, the HTH is a great alternative considering the CT usage.
The clients you seem to cater this strat imposed ideal of "non-involvement with the WAR is costing them field after field after field" and they will "switch sides or discover how to push back frontiers" is kinda silly. If they cared, why would they furball in the first place? Cuz they want to furball.
Hey, don't blame me for pointing it out, nor the HTC finance department. They accept the dues from the furballers, and the strat guys, and keep doing so because the mayhem in the MA somehow produces fun for all, without predujice, and that's a feat in itself.
It's HTC's trick and ultimate nitch in the WWII massive online sim market they just excell at. Quite well to my enjoyment btw.
I doubt Eskimo's changes (whatever they are) will make me rich if implemented, but I'm buying lotsa stock in HTC just in case I'm so wrong.
No, just kidding, I ain't.
(your cheerleading skirt is at the dry-cleaners AKDeja, I spilt a Kessler coke on it. Sorry.)
-
Creamo, you are right - many of the furballer's don't care, but quite a number of them might be new players who don't yet know any better. When these players realise that despite their prowess as a fighter jock, their territory is being eroded away, they will hopefully realise that there is more to AH than furballing, and will want to engage in strategic missions to recapture lost fields.
As for the no-brainers, they will be happy to switch sides.
-
True. I find each side of the argument justified and fun, although now that the server is at 400 players, a massive furball is downright warptarded. Finally a mission is fun to attend.
Dismissing anyone's ideal of gameplay though, is thin ice, if not futile.
-
beetle... despite your low opinion of guys that wish to fight rather than to organize a gangbang... you have unwittingly hit on a grain of truth.
People will "participate" if it is fun. As it is, the strat is lame and embarassing but worse... It is custom made to bore the crap outta normal people who only play an hour or two at a session. You played WB and the strat was basically the same. Most still didn't give a crap about it, just like here, but they "participated"... Not because they realized that the greater glory of green or red or whatever was at stake but because the fields were closer and the fields fell faster. The front moved along at a faster pace more conducive to the casual player.
In AH if someone has an hour to play they don't want to waste it doing nothing (relatively) and then not even getting to fight much for all the trouble with.... no real reward or... impact.
moving the fields slightly closer together and having em fall faster will produce higher levels of percieved co-operation. You can imagine that they are all following your orders.
Oh.. to me.. the stratavarious part of AH is the flight, gunnery and damage models along with the fact that you can fight so many different FM's and gunnery modeles. To play the strat part is like playing chopsticks on said stratavarious. You are wasting all those good FM's, gunnery etc.. And what is the tradeoff?? gimicky capture the flag unrealism and bogus bomb effects.
lazs
-
lol, why tape Howard Stern anymore. This is way funnier, minus the porn dike midget wrestling.
Impossibly good banter. despite your low opinion of guys that wish to fight rather than to organize a gangbang
Wow, hats off to that dig, I'm fixated. Really.
-
Lazshole, I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again:
I am a furballer,
I am a base attacker,
I am a GV killer,
I am a vulcher, and I am a base defender,
I am a dogfighter, and I am a HOer.
I am a gangbanger, and I have been gangbanged,
I am a buff driver, both high and low.
I am a tanker and an AA gunner.
I am cruiser and shore gunner.
I am a CV killer, and a CV driver.
I am a PT boat driver,
I am a strat guy
I know many planes fairly well,
And I even fly the goon.
Lazshole,
I do it all.
I understand the appeal of furballing.
But because I do it all, I am able to view the game from all perspectives based on experience, not uneducated guesswork. I know what makes it fun from all perspectives.
I respect the opinion of furballers'on furballing.
But I do not respect the opinion of furballers' who claim to have some "overall vision" of the game (that they can't or won't even explain in accurate detail) that is not based on any firsthand knowledge of any aspects of the game other than furballing.
Your self proclaimed expertise, is nothing more than self proclaimed.
In other words, beyond furballing, you don't know what you are taking about.
You opinions on gameplay, beyond furballing, are about as valuable and accurate as my opinions are on internal medicine. I.E. you don't know Jack.
Lastly,
You're a tard.
And I suppose that I'm a bit of a tard too, for giving someone who is so obviously (and admittedly) uninformed, the time of day.
eskimo
-
#1. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar below 500 feet. Encourage sneak raids. Sneak raids would mean that players would have interesting options 99% of the time. 4 guys, with discipline, could capture an enemy base 100+ miles in enemy territory.
That's milkrunning. Not realistic by any means because there would be no warning whatsovever that the enemy is raiding an inland field. The milkrunners have already enough chances during the gangbang hours, when the defending side doesn't have enough players to protect all fields that are being attacked.
-
Creamo – I never wanted to sound condemnatory about anyone’s ways of having fun in AH. But by the same token, I think more people need to be encouraged to discover the satisfaction of belonging to a winning team which engages in the capture of territory and winning the war. Not to provide this encouragement would be akin to failing to encourage children to read challenging texts like broadsheet newspapers, and leaving them to read Janet and John books till they need bifocals.
Laz2 – those people will still be able to do their furball dweebery thing, if that’s what they want. Eskimo2’s proposals wont affect that. The proposals are not about hampering furballers, but about giving strategic missions a fighting chance, instead of having vultures waiting for their arrival.
-
Eskimo2!
Lazshole
LOL!!!
I think lazs is a bit of a lazshole if he can't disagree with Ripsnort, without making it personal.
By the way, Lazshole, I think the word you were looking for was "Stradivarius", although that's a violin, not a piano. Kind of reminds me of the Tommy Cooper joke about the Stradivarius and the Picasso...
-
I don't think it is imprerative that strat be adjusted so that small groups of people or even individuals should have a drastic affect on things. Sorry Eskimo, but everything you propose serves that concept almost exclusively.
It would be nice to see more coordination and concentrated effort. Right now that is sorely lacking and you are seeing the results of it. Instead of trying to bridge that gap... we come here and procede to alienate others to an even larger degree. Furball vs Strat... CT vs MA... LW vs Allied... whatever. This forumn is the foundation for establishing way too many cliques and individual groups.
The sad thing is that everyone looks to HTC for the solution. How are they supposed to solve a problem so deeply rooted in the players? How are they supposed to create a gaming environment that does everything for everyone without leaving anyone out? They don't.
They created an environment with so many possibilities that virtually everyone can find something they enjoy doing. Unfortunately, so few people enjoy doing the same thing that any group effort required goal is going to bump into issues. THAT is the problem. Its not HTC's doing or responsibility to fix.
The strat options are there. We don't want that because it requires too much coordination. The furballing is there, but we don't want that because it sucks valuable resources from the strat game that we don't want to bother to coordinate.
I see posts about "field generals" and I can't help but laugh. At least those are people that are willing to step forward and try something. Maybe they aren't exactly strategic nor tactical geniuses... but at least they realize that people need to work together to get something done.
"I want an arena where I can do exactly what I want to do and be extremely successfull at it". Yep... that's what HTC needs to give each and every one of us.
AKDejaVu
-
beet1, I do understand, sort of.
Encouraging AH's new player base isn't about how they should play, but how to get them to figure the game out imo.
The learning curve and getting a jump on the whole game is more important than choosing strat/furball sides. Once they get it, they become players.
I could make a heartstring pulling comment in tune to themore people need to be encouraged to discover the satisfaction of belonging to a winning team yada yada, but what's the point? Once they figure it out, they will do what they will.
Besides, the "Laszhole" moniker which you embrace all-a-sudden is neither funny, or warrented in this case. And like me, you'll garner much less respect just bashing for the opportunity. Actually, I make a effort to have a reason too, so retract that.
Anyway, thanks for arguing with me and Kessler Cokes, the Daytona 500 is on. I actually stayed alive and awake.
Cheers.
-
HERE HERE, Eskimo!
I don't fly in the MA anymore because it SUCKS! There's no point because all I can do is jump in some kind of fighter and join a furball. That gets REAL boring REAL quick. I don't care if my kill ratio is 0:10 or 10:0. In the end it's doing the same thing EVERY SINGLE MISSION. Perhaps the MA should be renamed to the FA. That way people who simply want fighter combat will know where to go for their Aces High deathmatch.
Unless something changes, I'm definately sticking to the CT. There may be fewer people, but at least they're wargamers.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
*snip*
The sad thing is that everyone looks to HTC for the solution. How are they supposed to solve a problem so deeply rooted in the players? How are they supposed to create a gaming environment that does everything for everyone without leaving anyone out? They don't.
They created an environment with so many possibilities that virtually everyone can find something they enjoy doing. Unfortunately, so few people enjoy doing the same thing that any group effort required goal is going to bump into issues. THAT is the problem. Its not HTC's doing or responsibility to fix.
The strat options are there. We don't want that because it requires too much coordination. The furballing is there, but we don't want that because it sucks valuable resources from the strat game that we don't want to bother to coordinate.
*snip*
AKDejaVu
True. Although I think there is a line that's being crossed with AH. Its the first game of this sort that's travelled this far down the strategic road. I think its presently at the point where moves in one direction of the other (enhance strategic aspects, or pull away from them) have a pretty difinite effect on the other aspect of the game...the fast furballs. When you do look at these proposals in every case enhancing one aspects directly degrades the other. Granted many argue that eskimo's proposal doesn't effect furballing but its pretty clear to me it certainly would, pretty substantially.
I really do think the best solution for HTC is to provide a base level of separation to the two main styles of play; furballing and strat. That's not to say make them exclusive of the other, only provide a layout where you can tweak each to maximize that portion of the game, and do it all in the same arena. It would be extremely easy to do as well. Take the furballing portion of the map from the Dueling Terrain and paste it off in the corner of each MA map we currently rotate through. Make it 15 or so ocean sectors away from the nearest land point so there's good separation from the primary terrain. Make the 3 bases there uncapturable and undestroyable, including ack. Allow no GV spawns.
Presto, there's your persistant furball area for those that just want to up for some quick fights and be done with it. Uncapturable fields makes it so you will always have a place to t/o. No GV spawns keeps the fights airborn. And the remote location prevents any overlap with the activities in the primary terrain.
The primary map you can now tweak more to the strategic flavours outlined by eskimo and others here. That's not to say that furballing will be completely destroyed there, only that with the furballing fields in each map you need not let that part of the game be a determining factor for this configuration. Tailor the main map directly to the strategic vision of the game as mentioned in some of the posts here.
The best part of it all is that you keep everything in one arena thereby keeping the community aspect together. At the same time you maximize the appeal to all sides involved. Once done I think AH would become infinitely more flexible, and enjoyable, as a game both for us as players and HTC as designers.
-
One Comment:
I don't like the marriage of ships in the Task Groups.
If I were carrier task group commander, I'm damn sure not going to risk my carrier unless I have too. If I need a battleship to shell the shoreline, I am not going to let my carrier become venerable.
If the battleship task group commander wants to seperate from the aircraft umbrella of the carrier, give them the option. Just don't require the carrier to stay with it and be dragged into the mire.
Seperate Task Groups
-
I got no problem with "lazhole". It fits. especially when some little chest pounding (you will hurt yourself blubber boy) twerp is trying to make it difficult for me to enjoy something I like. It helps if (as in this case) he is wrong.
beetle.. yeah, we get it... "for our own good" ... What kinda little socialist thinks he knows what is best for everyone when everyone is allready clearly doing what they enjoy? read deja and read vortex if you can't/won't read what I say... Oh, and slaming a petulant and pompous ripsnore is a public service. I probly have saved us all the agony of at least 3 or 4 more lines he woulda added to his sig by now.
problem with any complex strat is that it takes so long to implement that the casual player get's nothing from it. closer and more easily captured fields are more suited to said player. finding out that someone just organized a milkrun/gangbang that killed the radar or whatever just before you came on and lasts till jyu get off is just as unfun as being involved in the boring waste of time in the first place. I think most guys want to fight.
lazs
"the lazshole"
Public Relations Officer to the BK's
Ambassador of good will to the BK's
We are not recruiting... when someone dies we will send out applications... maybe.
-
Originally posted by Preon1
Unless something changes, I'm definately sticking to the CT. There may be fewer people, but at least they're wargamers.
Um....well....not all of them.....
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Um....well....not all of them.....
- oldman
fine oldman... then there's a higher percentage of wargamers in the CT and a MUCH LOWER percentage of people whining about bombers and sneak attacks ruining their fun.
would you agree with that?
-
Originally posted by Preon1
fine oldman... then there's a higher percentage of wargamers in the CT and a MUCH LOWER percentage of people whining about bombers and sneak attacks ruining their fun.
would you agree with that?
I'm really not qualified to express much of an opinion, because I haven't got that many hours into either arena. But, I'd agree that there's not a lot of whining in CT. Very pleasant. I suspect the crowd is older there. On the other hand, if I were going to whine about something, bombers sneaking in to pork a base would be one of the main things I would whine about.
- oldman
-
No Preon.
Try to find a fight sometime when there's only 6 people on-line.. and 5 of them are just trying to sneak undefended fields.
Its the MA.. just on a smaller scale and having more historic matchups.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
But, I'd agree that there's not a lot of whining in CT. Very pleasant. I suspect the crowd is older there.
I'd have to disagree about the lack of whining in the CT. I flew there for a bit last week and encountered almost non-stop whining. First it was whining about how I always had alt (I was in a 109G10... shocker that I'd have alt even if we all took off at the same time). Then whining about how I always gangbanged (funny since the one accusing me of that had been roped by me while three enemies tried climbing up my tailpipe). Then whining that I was attacking people just up from a base... then whining that I wasn't letting people get enough alt...
I mean, come on. Enough already. The whining only stopped once the whiners started appearing with numbers and alt. Then the whines of "unfair" changed to clever barbs like, "Aha! My lone, high Spit IX has made both your 190 and 109 run for ack cover! Sad!!!"
I'll give the CT the benefit of the doubt by assuming that such whining is not the norm. And despite it, I really did have some enjoyable fights. However, I advise caution when hawking the CT as whine-free.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
HBlair must not have been in the arena at that time.
:D ;)
-
Originally posted by Shane
HBlair must not have been in the arena at that time.
:D ;)
Stop it! Stop it! Get back in your cage! Now!
Sorry, folks, someone must have forgotten to close the latch. Move along, move along. Nothing for you here.
- oldman
-
Having been a CM and now an arena moderator (CT Team), I have just a little clue of how difficult a task HTC faces in trying to please such a diverse crowd as this community. The idea expressed above of having a small section of the MA terrain set aside for the furball crowd is an interesting concept, but I have a sneaky suspicion that that section of the terrain would be relatively void of players (as the Dueling arena has been). My opinion (and it’s just that) is that both camps can’t really exist without the other (pretty “Zen,” eh?:)).
With few exceptions, furballs start when one or more pilots head to an enemy base with the idea of capturing it. The strat-players are in effect the catalysts that spawn those furballs some love so much. They are the grain of sand at the center of the giant snowball. I don’t know which group is the majority (furballers or strat-guys), let alone how big that majority is. I do know at the core of my being that unless AH manages to strike a balance to keep both these often fractious groups happy and in the arena, the game will wither and die. Like the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome or the NFL of today, there has to be a point to the contest besides simple personal glory. Imagine what would happen to professional sports if it were suddenly decided to do away with score keeping and team rankings? Likewise, without a significant number of players who want to have an exiting fight (without necessarily being concerned about the overall progress of the war), there would not be sufficient counter-force to challenge the strat-crowd. Just as purposeless furballing eventually becomes boring, so to does milk-running against undefended bases and strat targets. Successfully pulling off a surprise capture in a crowded arena can be fulfilling…doing it at 0300 when there are no enemies to fool or surprise is meaningless to me.
You have to ask yourself, if base capture and strat are unnecessary, why have they been a part of every successful on-line flight sim to date? Why have strategic elements been a core feature of every successful off-line flight sim to date? Aces High is not about dog fighting (again, my opinion); it’s about WWII air combat, which runs the gambit from strategic bombing and defense to ground-attack, to (yes, even) dog fighting. It also throws in some ground and naval elements, because they are a large part of why those WWII air forces existed. Indeed, the only reason air forces exist at all is because of the desire for or threat of strategic attack (or to support ground or naval forced engaged in strategic attack or defense).
All this leads me to the conclusion that the current strategic system (the heart of this game, if you support my musings above) is currently flawed and unfulfilling. Unless it is given greater impact on “the War” in the MA, the MA itself will not hold the interests of a majority of the community for any great length of time. As such, I find many of the suggestions made by Eskimo and others above to be worthy of serious consideration.
Sabre
CT Team
P.S. Regarding the suggestion made about separating the big-guns from the CV fleet, that is exactly the set up right now in the CT. There are CV fleets without cruisers and cruiser fleets without CVs; the CV fleets can’t spawn LVTs but the cruiser fleets can. It should be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
now an arena moderator (CT Team),
wazzat?
-
Somone you should be nice in front of :D
-
LOL, Dead:) Nah...I've got pretty thick skin, actually. Shane, I'm on the CT Staff. We come up with new set-ups, set them up in the CT arena, and adjust it as circumtances and feedback dictate.
The current CT Team consists of myself, Hblair, Brady, and (currently on leave of absence) Buzzbait.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Just as purposeless furballing eventually becomes boring, so to does milk-running against undefended bases and strat targets.
Tell that to most of the Buffers. ;)
D
-
What I dont understand is why the milkrunners pay to play online?
They could do all the milkrunning they want just by taking fields offline. The gameplay is exactly the same. The fun is exactly the same - and no skill needed in either one.
-
"....But, I'd agree that there's not a lot of whining in CT....".
Maybe it's because they get it out of their system here on the BBS. Strange though...most of their whines are about the MA, even though they don't fly it anymore since they are so happy in the CT.
bowser
-
>>Perhaps, rather than altering the MA, it's time for AH to offer more in the form of a second "main arena" with a different setup. Variety is a good thing. <<
Isn't there already a place like that called the CT (Combat Theatre) arena?
-
>>IMO, only antitank guns (not present), other tanks, rockets or bombs should be able to kill a PzIV.<<
I don't agree at all. If you put enough ammo into a thing it ought to go boom; it just may take a lil longer for smaller caliber guns eg. .50 cal mgs etc. But the 20mm should be able to take out a pnzr IV, and a 37 mm ought to take one out easier than the 20mm. The things is though, most of these weapons didnt have an unlimited amount of time to lay that much ammo on a pnzr before it found your range and blew you away. So ambush was the most effective way to kill panzers.
The thing I find curious in AH is the reason for 37mm guns as ack ack instead of the 75mm;80mm;88mm and 90mm guns which are historically accurate. If fields had those, then there would be a real reason for buffs to fly as high as they do. As it is, buffs fly high in the MA to avoid fiters, which makes sense as they tend to come over fields as a solo act.
-
Sabre, you really do "splain" stuff very well. Salute.
I really don't think that an arena that promotes strategic game play greatly conflicts with the needs of furballers. In a strategic arena, strat guys and buff drivers have a variety of targets to attack. They often hit cities, HQs, rear bases, and sometimes even trains, convoys, fuel, ammo, depots and training facilities. This takes a lot of pressure off of busy front line bases. Before the current strat set up, the last place that I or my squad would want to take a bomber/s to would be to a furball base. A base that is involved in a furball typically has been under sporadic attack for hours. This means that its hangers, ack, troops, fuel, radar, ammo and town are all out of sequence in regards to being up or down. Not a good target for bombers or base capture. A furball base also has tons of fighters at who knows what altitude, that are bound to give bombers or jabo planes a very hard time, and likewise a poor chance of getting through. Lastly, a furball base is difficult to capture because there are typically tons of enemy fighters already airborne, ready and willing to defend it even if the attackers manage to flatten the base/town.
In a strategic arena, any target is better than a front-line base that is involved in a furball.
In the current set up, the only good strategic use of a bomber is to kill a CV or to kill hangers at a front line base. Strat targets rebuild too quickly to have an impact on the game. With the current numbers in the main, rear bases are nearly impossible to capture. Come in high or low, with many or few, you will be met in force.
How has the current set up impacted strat guys?
Strategic game play in AH is nearly dead. Strat guys can join a mission, or get in a bomber and go pork an enemy furball-suppling base, or go join the nearest furball.
When I am in a strat mood, I often find myself staring at the map, unable to find anything interesting to do.
What would a move toward a more strategic set up mean to furballers? That strat guys will be much more likely to leave furball bases (and fighter hangers) alone. I.E. furballs are likely to last longer.
It also means that sometimes furballers and everyone in a given country, may be without overall radar.
Some claim that this makes it hard to find a fight. I have furballed without the aid of radar. It is neither difficult nor time consuming to find a good fight or furball without radar. You can either ask where the furball/fight is, or you can check all the front line bases in your country and visually look from the tower. Typically, a furball exist where one of your country's bases is closest to an enemy base. Once you find a furball, you are probably set for hours.
The other consequence to furballers and everyone in a given country is that they cannot use the map and radar while they fight. Many players, especially newbies, may feel "lost" or venerable without this aid. Most players are able to learn how to fly and fight without it and can rely on traditional SA to enjoy the furball.
The real trade off for a move toward a more strategic set up for fuballers is:
Occasional loss of in-flight radar VS. furballs less likely to be interrupted by bombers or strat guys porking fields and hangers.
One way of looking at what AH has to offer is to compare it to a good steakhouse.
A good steakhouse that only offers good steak and potatoes can only be so successful. While there may be a number of customers who are perfectly happy eating only steak and potatoes every time they visit, many more patrons may visit more often if the steakhouse would only offer chicken, fish, salad, vegetables, desert and perhaps even a mariachi band as well. Variety in selection builds a customer base.
HTC obviously understands this concept. They offer a wide variety of aircraft and load-outs as well as vehicles, boats, ships, different maps and a dynamic strategic element. Many customers, however, feel that the strategic element of AH was lost when it was essentially dumbed-down.
It's ironic that the two symbolic themes of AH, chess and poker, are strategy games that could be rivaled (strategy-wise) with everything that we now have.
The things that I am asking for would not require months, weeks, or even days to implement (I think). Some of it could even be implemented by CMs (and is in the CT).
Don't get me wrong, I love AH. I'm not going anywhere.
When I first wrote the above post, I hadn't given the CT a fair chance (heck, I don't think I had ever even logged in). Some of what I have asked for in this post is, or perhaps already was, implemented in the CT. Perhaps more of the ideas expressed by myself and others in this post should first be tested in the CT. The CT type seem more than willing to test new ideas and don't mind not being able to do the exact same thing that they did last week.
But right now I think that the AH main is only a sim, when it could be a sim and a game.
We are playing checkers with chess pieces, and old maid with a poker deck.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar below 500 feet. Encourage sneak raids. Sneak raids would mean that players would have interesting options 99% of the time. 4 guys, with discipline, could capture an enemy base 100+ miles in enemy territory.
That's milkrunning. Not realistic by any means because there would be no warning whatsovever that the enemy is raiding an inland field. The milkrunners have already enough chances during the gangbang hours, when the defending side doesn't have enough players to protect all fields that are being attacked.
Have you ever participated on a low level (under 500') raid?
I have, probably hundreds of times. In both fighters and bombers.
Over land, it seems typical that about 10% of fighters will crash while flying nap-of-earth. Bombers don't seem to do as well, especially in hilly/mountainous terrain.
With any numbers, it is nearly impossible for everyone to remain low 100% of the time, especially hilly/mountainous terrain. Its hard to not give away your location.
A two man team often can get there without giving away their whereabouts, but when they get there, they're only two men.
When you arrive at the target base without being detected, you must decide, pop-up and expose yourself before you begin your attack, or continue at 3 or 400 feet.
If you remain low, you are faced with trying to de-ack your target while low. The first problem with this is that the ack is shooting at you through buildings, and you can't even see it. The next problem is that ack is much harder to hit from a low angle. This is similar to de-acking with a panzer from ground level verses from on top of a hill. The lower the angle, the more difficult the job. If you manage to kill a few ack, you are typically forced to egress very close to the remaining ack. 500' AGL is does not offer a lot of room to juke in while trying to avoid AA fire. (Most of my low raid deaths happen on the first pass egress.)
If you brought bombs, you risk dropping them too low where they won't detonate, or fragging yourself (you don't have much time to get away from a bomb that was dropped from 400'). Bomb hit % (while remaining low) is typically pretty lame. Straffing buildings from low angles is a bit harder, and I have seen many folks fly into them.
100% under 500' raids are a squeak to pull-off.
Popping up near your target is a temporarily more survivable option, but it shows the enemy exactly where you are - knocking on their front door. When you pop up in a heavy fighter after flying NOE, you might be able to zoom to 3K AGL and 200MPH. Not a heck of a lot of E if you ask me. When you get ready to start your attack, you can expect enemy fighters to start showing up. If you managed to coordinate the arrival of your goon with your attack you stand a chance of capturing the field. All that you have to do is flatten the town, perhaps de-ack the air-base and fight off the enemy who has been gaining alt and E while you've been burning yours on your jabo work.
The big questions now are, how many of your team survived, how many enemy have upped, or are upping, and where's your goon. Can you keep the enemy from killing your goon or troops?
If the enemy ups in numbers, or if even one skilled player gets off, your capture mission will probably fail.
Call it a milk-running if you wish.
My experience has shown that most of the time, it's just a different way to die.
As far as not realistic, your kidding, right?
Ever heard of the Doolittle raid?
How about Yamamoto's fate?
NOE sneak raids were run by virtually all air forces in WWII because they created a possibility of surprising the enemy.
eskimo
-
Let's try and keep AH simple guys. This whole 'strat' thing is such a weary topic. "Strat" lovers killed WB IMHO with their insistance on organization etc etc. What we got there was the WWII arena and for most of use it sucked! WB has NEVER been the same.
People pay to play. If they want to furball let them! If you want organization or historical scenarios, go to the appropriate area. Enough already. Let HT build his dream and the rest of us get back to the business of enjoying his creation!
Hwkeye
-
Eskimo...
That's a bit overboard and you're talking large scenarios and formations.
What is to prevent a single practiced pilot from taking a base down undected and then capturing it? Or one experienced jabo with one C47 coming along? With the system you propose.. absolutely nothing.
Anything, no matter how dificult, becomes simple with practice. People are showing that with JABO skills on a regular basis. Please don't try to use the unskilled masses to try to hide the potential of the practiced few.
Low level, at some point, needs to show on map. I'm all for no bar dar below 500 feet, just not over nor near an enemy base.
AKDejaVu
-
The point is that nobody should be able to attack a field without any warning when it happens on the field. It's like a situation where there is a town and a field completely abandoned and robots shooting back as ack.. Nobody to witness the attack.
That's not right.
You have to also remember that you don't need to deack fields anymore, just kill the 4 guns in the town and smash the buildings. This is quick and relatively easy. One suicide run with plenty of rockets in the general area of the town ack will smash it. Then the other jabo finishes off the town while the third finally catches them in goon and drops the troops.
All without ever giving away your position to the enemy..
Youre talking like Pearl Harbour was being bombed without any knowledge of the US army. They just woke up in the morning and 'darned, someone sunk all our ships! Looks like they captured a couple towns aswell..'
They may have come there as a surprise, but as sure as hell everyone knew what was happening the moment the first bomb was droped.
-
Might sound far fetched, but the way around the milk running, IIRC, has already been proposed:
Leave dar off below 500', but the second you pop into sight over any enemy base, a message pops up in the buffer, in white so you can't possibly miss it: FIELD "XX" under ATTACK!
Would all but eliminate milkrunning IMO, as there would be no chance of taking any base without a chance of it being defended.
-
AKdejavu, Mrsid and eddiek,
I would be happy with any of your ideas.
The point is,
If you can manage to get close to a base flying NOE, you should be able to at least get close without giving away your intentions.
eskimo
-
sabre... i think you have the gist of it. The relationship is symbiotic but... I don't agree with yur sports analodgy or... not entirely. Sex dowesn't have score nor does plinking with handguns. I can not think of any "sport" that goes on 24/7 and that you can join in for an hour or so any day or play constantly till you drop.
Any strat that destroys the ability for people to choose a plane or takeoff close to a fight or lose their ability to quickly find one (see what is going on) is not going to go over well with the majority of players who only come on for an hour or so to relax.
I say, closer more easily captured fields suit the purpose. radar never completly down and fields never left without fighters till they are captured. people "organizing" a raid will need fighter cover to vul.. er, "cap" the field. Bet they won't have any trouble finding participants. The "front" will move more quickly and have more meaning for people who don't live on line (the majority). The generals will feel like they are "leading". Everyone will be one big happy family. there will be no more strife in the land.. castle and horsey head and even the dildo worshiping cult will all live in harmony.
You want people to eschew strat and complain then fix it so that the fields are far apart with most of em hanging on the vine, useless to fighters, and the country blind every time one attention starved fluff driver feels his 30 min milkrun should be "meaningful".
lazs
the "lazhole"
-
In Warbirds, it was dead simple. Each field had a radar on the field. You could do your NOE run to get there, but then it was desirable to get the radar down as soon as possible. In this case, that field was blind. I believe each field had a radar which had a range of 20 miles, although that varied sometimes according to the whims of the strat realists. I absolutely agree with hwkeye's comments about that. The enemy might catch sight of you popping up in order to make a dive on the radar, but once the radar was dead, you couldn't be seen, unless within the radar range of a neighbouring field. There was never any of this bar-dar crap in WB.
As a European, playing at Euro friendly times, I run into the Asia-Pacific guys. It has to be remembered that many do not speak English, and therefore coordination can be difficult. (Remember that these guys cannot RTFM - has any thought been given to writing the AH tutorial in other languages - Japanese, for example?) For this reason, I don't think the strat should be TOO complicated, especially as there are few players on at these times.
But it beggars belief that here we are, discussing ways to appease the furballers! Furballing is one of those things that just happens, whatever strat model is in place. What really needs to be addressed is ways to allow strategic missions to succeed, without recourse to a gangbang generator er, mission editor.
-
Enable KillShooter in the Dueling Arena, and furballers will have a haven, no matter what happens in the MA.
-
Lazs, even if we disagree. I appreciate the civil nature of your response here (the “attention starved fluff driver” remark notwithstanding:)).
sabre... i think you have the gist of it. The relationship is symbiotic but... I don't agree with yur sports analodgy or... not entirely. Sex dowesn't have score nor does plinking with handguns. I can not think of any "sport" that goes on 24/7 and that you can join in for an hour or so any day or play constantly till you drop.
In regards to sex, I must disagree…men and women have been keeping score since Adam and Eve both noticed something was different:D. As for the handgun plinking, most people do keep score (even if they don’t realize it). Otherwise why even have a target, with the little circles and numbers inside them. Again, it all depends on what your motives for playing are.
Any strat that destroys the ability for people to choose a plane or takeoff close to a fight or lose their ability to quickly find one (see what is going on) is not going to go over well with the majority of players who only come on for an hour or so to relax.
From your comment, my first impression is that what you seek is an arcade game with a high fidelity flight model, not a simulation of WWII air and ground combat. Indeed, why have airfields at all? Why not just have everyone air-launched? Eskimo and other strat-minded players may be the minority (a perception, not an established fact), but if so they’re an important minority. Base capture is only half of the strat-equation. Attacking the enemy’s ability to wage an effective defense or offense are the other half of the equation, the half that is missing at the moment. The facts as I see them are that unless strat has the potential to limit (not destroy, but limit) the enemy’s freedom of action in some way, it isn’t strat at all, and is pointless (as it is today).
I say, closer more easily captured fields suit the purpose. radar never completely down and fields never left without fighters till they are captured. people "organizing" a raid will need fighter cover to vul.. er, "cap" the field. Bet they won't have any trouble finding participants. The "front" will move more quickly and have more meaning for people who don't live on line (the majority). The generals will feel like they are "leading". Everyone will be one big happy family. there will be no more strife in the land.. castle and horsey head and even the dildo worshiping cult will all live in harmony.
How would these changes make fields more easily captured? Every one of these ideas you put forth (closer fields, constant AWACS radar, no way to shut down or limit flight) make fields harder to capture, not easier. And it doesn’t address the larger issue of strategic warefare.
The other group your vision of AH is shutting out are the players I call “immersionists.” They may love the air-to-air fights, but only in the context of a more realistic (the “R” word!) operational environment. They want ground attack missions (which would be pointless if they can’t take out fuel and ammo and hangers, and thereby limiting the defenders’ options), strategic bomber missions (also pointless if they don’t have any effect on the war), and logistical interdiction (again, pointless in your AH model). In the fighter-duel world you describe above, these players are completely shut out.
You want people to eschew strat and complain then fix it so that the fields are far apart with most of em hanging on the vine, useless to fighters, and the country blind every time one attention starved fluff driver feels his 30 min milkrun should be "meaningful".
lazs
Actually, I’ve never believed having fields farther apart was a good idea, so I ask that you not lump me in with anyone who does. I also think it should take more than one player to totally destroy radar coverage, for example. A reasonably sized group working together, however, should be able to force widespread disadvantage on the enemy through strategic attack. I believe that’s all Eskimo is after.
Your arguments against the “strat” ideas above are totally based on the flawed idea that the AH MA should cater to your interests alone, at the expense of all other interests, simply because you’re view is the majority’s view (an empirically derived assumption at best). “A simple majority shouldn’t dictate what is right and just. Societies that allow mob-rule to determine morality are doomed to chaos and collapse, just as surely as those ruled by a single despot."
Sabre
CT Team
-
sabre...
score in sex is meaningless. Unless you are one of those guys who believes it when they say "you are only one etc..plinkingoes not involve targets with little circles and the score is like AH air combat... you hit that can before the other guy... you won.
high fidelity flight model..
your first impression is correct. I do want good flight models. I like the carriers and taking off from fields and even the ack. Not too fond of the way GV's are spawned. you claim that field capture is only half the equation and that destroying the countries ability to make war etc... Now we are getting to the meat of it.. Field capture is after all the entire point of the whole strat game. That is all we have right now and nothing else is being suggested.. Where you guys get in trouble with the casual player is exactly the "resources" thing. Just what do you think a casual player that comes on for an hour is going to think of your "limiting resources" idea?? They can get nothing but the disadvantages of such a system in a short time. They are left with no eyes (radar) or limited plane choices or any of a number of things that you call "limiting resources" and that I call making for a lopsided gangbang with no good fights.
closer more easily captured fields..
Closer is obvious.. more easily captured would be any of a number of things. I recall WB All a guy had to do was land a field and it was captured. Certainly, any time you could get troops to the tower would work. You claim that fluffers need to do something meaningful.. Why? they put out no effort except time. Make them have bomb dispertion and make them have normal views and fire only the guns they can get manned. AW had ackstars. Make them have to put out some effort for a change. "immersionists" Sounds good till you realize that what that means is a zero sum deal... you seem to believe that the only way they can get imersed is to have one type of phony realism (limiting resources) over another equally (but not more so) unrealistic easier base capture. Seems that if the thing doesn't take a lot of time and organization you don't find it "immersive".. Is that correct?
mob rule socieies etc....
LOL! A majority of players in a for profit game wanting something is "mob rule" to you?
Yu want to create an atmosphere where at any given time, a person logging on will have (depending on country choice) either a huge inherent diadvantage or a huge advantage... in either case he will spend one crappy, lopsided hour or so on line. Simply so that you may satisfy some quirky notion of "realism".
lazs
-
Well guys I tried the reasonable, logical, and civil approach. For a moment, I almost thought Lazs was going to engage in serious debate, rather than a simple reactionary diatribe. What was I thinking? Now you know why I've not responded directly to a Lazs post in months. He responds by distorting peoples' words and adopting a disparaging and sarcastic tone. I'm dissappointed, but not surprised. I guess his first effort at being polite and civil was just too much for him. :rolleyes: Good discussion otherwise.
Sabre
CT Team
-
sabre... talk to me not to some audience.
I contend that your post is every bit as sarcastic and worse, condencending, as mine. You have (as you accuse me) twisted my words and... It appears that it is you who are avoiding debate.
Show me where I am wrong and we will debate that. "mob rule", "arcade game" etc. Those are your words describing my ilk, while..... "immersionists" and "realism" are the words you use to describe your ilk (yes yours, u claimed em).
"distortion" read the posts and see who distorted whos words. the ones you didn't distort you simply ignored.
My contention is that we need strat that has short term effects not long term and that we need the fields to be closer and fall faster to move things along in a manner that more matches the playerbase timeframe. It is you who are not engaging in debate not I.
lazs
-
Lazs, you know, I almost agree with your arguement.
-I agree that everyone out there is paying money to have fun playing Aces High.
-I agree that there are a lot of people out there that are perfectly happy lifting a light fighter and finding a quick and easy furball to mess around in for an hour or so.
-I also agree that one person who lifts a bomber 300 miles away, goes and watches a movie, comes back 2.5 hours later and bombs out some hangars supporting the furball can affect your ease in entering this furball.
What I don't agree with is your statement that this one fluffer can ruin your fun.
One thing your arguement lacks is the existance of a limited selection of furballs for the "in and out" fighter pilot. The MA hosts hundreds of people. It's rare these days to jump in with less than 200 (remember when some mornings there would be only a tenth of that?) Now every country has at least one furball on both fronts (generally speaking there are more than that because it is also rare to see only one base to a front).
Another thing is the affect a single fluffer will have to your options. Should a bomber pilot destroy the FHs at the field you're lifing from, there's generally several options left to you. There's the other field supporting the furball that's only 5 minutes farther away, or there's one of the other furballs on your country's front.
How about his actual effectiveness in ruining your ability to lift? If he drops your FHs, then yes... but for only 15 minutes. If he drops your ammo, who cares??? you're not lifting with bombs or rockets anyway. Doesn't really matter if he drops your field dar, doing so only makes you lose dots and you see a BLACK CLOUD of them when you lift. If he drops part of your fuel, then dang... you'll lift a little lighter (you're only flying for an hour anyway right?). If he drops all of the fuel, I know SEVERAL planes that can fight for a good amount of time on 25% gas. Do you plan on living that long? Do you care? (this is just a game where the points don't matter right?)
Lastly is the existance of the problem. There aren't that many fluffs out there to constitute a real problem. Your issue is either with the guy that makes a 3 hour flight for 15 minutes of effectiveness or the group that wants to take a base so it attacks en masse where the enemy isn't defending. In order for the first fluffer to be effective, there have to be at least 12 of them working closely together to keep you down (if there are, good for them, but there are better ways to accomplish this). The second is usually stopped if they fly through a furball so they avoid you entirely.
THE POINT(s)
-Not everybody gets a constant kick out of taking off and mixing it up with fighters.
-Not everybody is totally bummed when they see that an organized assault has made them move to another furball.
-A good number of people really enjoy organizing and winning bases (such organization is fleeting at best in the MA because, as you said, people aren't usually in there for more than an hour).
-Newbies don't always want to fight in furballs. When I was new, I was completely wow'ed by the HQ raid (pointless these days).
What we strat types want is a chance to pull off an operation involving several people working closely together that will damage one front enough that after we land we MIGHT be able to take a base or 2 in the next half hour while that front recovers (as opposed to a base every 4 hours depending on who's got numbers in the furball) Personally, I don't think that a system like that would ruin the play of a person who is there for only an hour because there's a whole other front to move to (they don't care who wins the war right?).
Anywho, I've wasted a lot of time on this. I think I'll get back to the real world.
-
No waste of time, Preon. A very good post, well thought out.
Let's hope the Lazshole takes note :D
-
Excellent points, Preon1. If there were only one or two bases availablel to each side in the MA, then the argument against allowing any kind of strategic impacts from strategic strikes would be valid. That is rarely if ever the case, however. I reiterate that though dedicated air-to-air fighters (those that want nothing else but a straight A2A contest) may be a majority, that doesn't mean others should be totally excluded.
Sabre said:
Your arguments against the “strat” ideas above are totally based on the flawed idea that the AH MA should cater to your interests alone, at the expense of all other interests, simply because you’re view is the majority’s view (an empirically derived assumption at best).
As to whether I misread Lazs' tone or missunderstood his message, or whether my own post may have come across as "sarcastic and worse, condencending," I'll let this audience decide. It was not my intention, and didn't seem that way when I reread it before and after posting it.
LOL! A majority of players in a for profit game wanting something is "mob rule" to you?
Yu want to create an atmosphere where at any given time, a person logging on will have (depending on country choice) either a huge inherent diadvantage or a huge advantage... in either case he will spend one crappy, lopsided hour or so on line. Simply so that you may satisfy some quirky notion of "realism".
Admittedly, this is the line that sparked my ire. This certainly read to me like sarcasm and condescension, and is most surely a distortion of everything I've ever posted about strat and what I desire of it. Huge advantage/disadvantage? Nope. Some advantage/disadvantage (for a limited by meaningful time period)? Yes. If your posts aimed at my remarks were not meant to be inflamatory and a put down by you Lazs, than fine; I'll try to give you benefit of the doubt in the future. However, I then have to suggest that you in return reread your posts before submitting them. It has been noted before that your posts tend to be less than civil and respectful.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Well guys I tried the reasonable, logical, and civil approach. For a moment, I almost thought Lazs was going to engage in serious debate, rather than a simple reactionary diatribe. What was I thinking?
Did we read the same post? It seemed pretty reasonable to me. No personal attacks, no cute names to disparage others' style of play. He points out a big disadvantage to some of your ideas (to wit, that there is a large component of the player base who will suffer the effects of actions that happened before they got on, throughout the time they have to play.)
I didn't find it a reactionary diatribe at all.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
When these players realise that despite their prowess as a fighter jock, their territory is being eroded away, they will hopefully realise that there is more to AH than furballing, and will want to engage in strategic missions to recapture lost fields.
I have a hard time reading this as anything other than "... then they'll have to play my way!"
Am I missing something here, or are you really suggesting that the game be restructured so people will be forced to play it the way you want it played?
-
Originally posted by pbirmingham
Am I missing something here, or are you really suggesting that the game be restructured so people will be forced to play it the way you want it played?
The point is being lost here. Eskimo has offered up some good suggestions for revamping a strategic system that could highly benefit from some updating. The purpose of these changes is not to alienate a demographic of players, but to maintain the interest of another. In the end, total enjoyment (or HTC profits) is the goal.
Nobody's saying that it's not a tough balance to establish, but I think if you look at (many of) Eskimo's suggestions, and some of the revisions that have been made through this discussion, you'll find that limited change would merely enhance the game for those interested in the wargaming side of it without serious detriment to the Fighter MMOG people.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
The Problem:
The MA is becoming boring/frustrating. (See Hangtime's Thread)
Has the main arena changed or have you changed?
More often than not, giant furballs and gang-bangs are all that can be found in the MA.
Missing are organization, strat, surprise and options.
Funny thing organization by definition is the intent to gang bang.
Strat;
Before 1.08, I personally would knock down the HQ several times a week. Now, I can't even remember the last time anyone's HQ went down. As a result, radar-down sneak captures are gone.
Im not happy with the current strat balance either.
Small Fronts, Large Player-Base, Limited Options;
With increasing numbers of players in the MA, all-too-often many players find themselves looking for something to do other than participate in the big furball or gang-bang. A persistent base of players who are ready to up as soon as they realize that something different is going on means that raids are intercepted more often. When a countries front line is down to 4 or less front line bases, and there are 300+ players in the arena, finding or starting a "fresh fight" can be impossible.
I don’t disagree. Our current plan is to create bigger terrains with 4 times as many bases.
Fields still remain the same distance apart, but it greatly icreases the length of the front line.
This is why you have seen the max number of bases increased, and the changing of the map on the patch 2 versions ago, it was to optimize for larger terrains. Our current game plan is to create new terrains as soon as 1.09 stablizes.
Radar, Too Much Information!
Get together 20 countrymen with a base capture objective, climb to 15K, fly 50+ miles to your target, and meet 20 co-alt+ enemy...
Why plan? Why organize? Well-planned missions fail too often because the enemy has too much warning.
The defender must have information. With out your “Well-planned” suddenly a very simple plan.
Nothing kills the incentive to organize like an enemy informed of your actions!
Personally, I avoid planned missions often because I know that they are doomed.
If they were successful more often, I would participate more often.
To be successful, the enemy shouldn't know what is going on the instant 25 P-47s spawn on their own runway. When I see a big red bar appear opposite an empty friendly base, I have a pretty good idea what is going to happen in 15 to 20 minutes. I am probably going to get myself killed on my current sortie well before they get to their target. This means that I will have plenty of time to spawn, climb to alt and intercept them, or at least sneak out and hunt down their goon.
Once again are we talking Well Planed, as in more than one goon , possibly a deffense for the goon?
Or are we talking about a bad planed mission?
Giving Away the Locations of CVs.
It's hard to imagine that the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor would have gone so well had a trigger happy IJN pilot launched an hour early and attacked Pearl Harbor by himself. The same principle works in the MA.
How far away did the planes launch from the CV?
This isn’t an offensive only game. Simple sneek attacks with out any warning would not be fun game play.
With out a challenge , achiving the goal becomes boring very fast.
Just like you most people view missions as an attack mission.
Pushing towards what you are suggesting would swing far to much on the side of people must also play defensive only missions.
Going on patrol for a deffenive only air cover, with no idea if some one even planes on attacking is not normaly enjoyable by players.
If player feel that organized missions are too likely to be intercepted or well-defended against, or sneak captures are too unlikely to be successful, and strat targets are a waste of time, what are they to do? Join in the furball... or join in the gang-bang.
On the flip side if missions are to easy to achive there is no feeling of ocomplishment when completed.
Solutions:
Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Why is this better?
Instead of being MANDATORY targets for successful strat raids, train killing would become an ALTERNATIVE method for denying the enemy the benefit of operational strategic sites.
The alternative becomes a real problem when you wan’t to balance strat targets.
Suddenly something like a city with lots of buildings get changed to why kill all the city at all, when a few fighters just killing the train will have the same effect.
This would result in even less roll for bombers, and less of a need for orginazation.
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others.
Radar:
Changing a few aspects about the current radar status, could have a great impact on how the game is played.
#1. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar below 500 feet. Encourage sneak raids. Sneak raids would mean that players would have interesting options 99% of the time. 4 guys, with discipline, could capture an enemy base 100+ miles in enemy territory.
#2. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar in enemy territory. No dots or bars 25 miles beyond friendly bases. As stated above, organized missions could at least get to within 25 miles of an enemy base before the enemy is warned Via radar. Enemy would still get a 5+ minute warning, enough time to oppose, but not always en-mass.
With 1.09 we have an aditional warning system and will allow us to raise the floor of sector radar.
This system will flash the icons on the clip board when enemys are with in a range of any target. It will create an air raid siren at the attacked target and will also give a simple audible “Warning “ sound when a new target comes under attack. This will alow us to se how raising dar bar alt limit will work.
HTC, if you want to see more organization in the MA, give organized players a chance to be successful more often.
It is not our desire to have more organized players in the arena.
It also is not our desire to discorage organized players.
It is our desire to bring the most fun to the widest range of people.
Hold Flight on Aircraft Carriers.
Sneaking an aircraft carrier into attack position, behind the front line, is nearly pointless because someone always launches from it while it is en route and gives away its position. If the commander of the CV could "Hold Flight", organized CV missions would take place often. Players would have confidence in the mission and sign up because they would know that the enemy would not have warning before the mission starts. Everyone who recognizes the value of the CV's location would become unified in their efforts.
Ive considered this, the jury is still out on it. The down side effect is that it gives to much power to 1 person on each side. And the “Little General” effect can get much wors.
Effect on Bomber Use:
Replacing the value of strat targets would increase the use of bombers in Aces High.
Reducing the effectiveness of radar would also mean that slow-climbing bombers would stand a better chance of making it to target at lower altitudes, thereby increasing the use of bombers in the MA. I don't know why, but I have always felt that HTC has been looking for ways to make bombers more relevant and used in Aces High.
Changing radar has other implications associated with it. A while back I did some simple testing, I increased dot radar range in the arena (doubled it) Net effect was the furball effect was greatly lessened. The increase in range gave the ability to find isolated fights and the furballs became much less consentrated.
You are also lowering the need for fighter cover with bombers, there by promoting less orginzation.
In general, incentive needs to be given for the organization of players in any sized group. When players find success by working together in small groups, they will develop greater knowledge, skills, and incentive to work in larger groups.
What you are proposing with longer down times and strat changes would lessen the need to work in groups. For instance if you know the down times of towns is longer, fewer people are needed to achive the objective. Wrather than a quick overwhelming organized force.
The above ideas would make Aces High more interesting, less predictable, create greater options, and promote teamwork among players.
eskimo [/B]
In general I see your ideas as viewed from the attacker view point only.
When ever you try plan game play, you have to put yourself on both sides of the fence. If you think it would be great fun to sneek under radar and go hit the HQ, ask yourself the question is it great fun if the other side does that to you.
HiTech
-
WHERE U HiTech ?????
please reply on my E-mail
blablabla tactics nice...
but i want to login
PLEASE
-
Thanks HT for chiming in.
We all look forward to seeing the MA in 1.09
-
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
HiTech, thanks for finally chiming in and giving us an idea of what you guys and gals there in Grapevine are thinking of......
The air raid siren, I never thought of that! Too damn cool!
Just for the record, I think there is a place in AH for ALL players, be it furballers, milkrunners, dweebs, tards, buff drivers, ground pounders, etc..............I know you guys think of the overall picture, and I want to say THANKS!! for exercising some wisdom on the issue of gameplay.
-
sounds like they'll add a new depth to MA play, but....
can we please have the cluttersheep as optional? i shudder to think of the effect on fps that any increase in bases and strat targets, in conjunction with ground clutter, i.e. sheep and boulders in places that no GV will ever see, will have on systems.
-
Hitech,
Thank you very much for your response!
I especially liked:
quote: (Hitech)
"Our current plan is to create bigger terrains with 4 times as many bases."
This is an excellent solution that will help alleviate many of the problems that I have outlined in my post. The breathing room should make most people happy. Wars may become epic!
------------------------------------------------------------
You asked,
quote: (Hitech)
"Has the main arena changed or have you changed?"
Both, I think most players change over time, and clearly the main arena has changed with the introduction of trains and cargo.
One big difference is that I can't remember the last time I saw The HQ, or any strat target, being hit to the point of effecting the overall war in the Main Arena. Before the introduction of trains and cargo, strat targets were regularly used as war waging tools.
Another big difference is that the arena has also become much fuller than it ever was in the past. This is great news in most respects, but it has greatly influenced game-play.
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote: (eskimo)
"If player feel that organized missions are too likely to be intercepted or well-defended against, or sneak captures are too unlikely to be successful, and strat targets are a waste of time, what are they to do? Join in the furball... or join in the gang-bang. "
quote: (Hitech)
"On the flip side if missions are to easy to achive there is no feeling of ocomplishment when completed."
Very true,
I am looking for a balance and unpredictability.
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote: (eskimo)
"Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Why is this better?
Instead of being MANDATORY targets for successful strat raids, train killing would become an ALTERNATIVE method for denying the enemy the benefit of operational strategic sites."
quote: (Hitech)
"The alternative becomes a real problem when you wan't to balance strat targets.
Suddenly something like a city with lots of buildings get changed to why kill all the city at all, when a few fighters just killing the train will have the same effect.
This would result in even less roll for bombers, and less of a need for orginazation.
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others."
Again,
I'm just looking for balance.
If you had to spend a greater effort and amount of time killing trains to achieve the same task, train killing fighters would simply be a less efficient alternative to hitting the target directly with bombers. In my example, "Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%" You would be better off taking a bomber and getting results immediately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Air Raid" stuff is way cool!
It will add a lot to the game!
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote: (Hitech)
"It is not our desire to have more organized players in the arena.
It also is not our desire to discorage organized players.
It is our desire to bring the most fun to the widest range of people."
Sounds good! Smart plan!
------------------------------------------------------
quote: (Hitech)
"In general I see your ideas as viewed from the attacker view point only."
Your right, my ideas in this post are mostly expressed from an attackers point of view. But I am also an devoted defender. I love defense, at any odds. That's why God created A6Ms, right?
----------------------------------------------------
quote: (Hitech)
"When ever you try plan game play, you have to put yourself on both sides of the fence. If you think it would be great fun to sneek under radar and go hit the HQ, ask yourself the question is it great fun if the other side does that to you."
No.
Being shot down isn't great fun either.
- But the trade off is well worth it.
And I don't like it when the enemy captures one of my country's bases or CVs.
- But the trade off is well worth it.
Losing the war is not fun.
- But the trade off is well worth it.
It is a war-game after all.
Again,
Hitech thank you for your response!
When I originally wrote the above post, I hadn't yet given the CT a fair chance.
Perhaps the CT is the place for more strategically diverse wars?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Preon1
The point is being lost here. Eskimo has offered up some good suggestions for revamping a strategic system that could highly benefit from some updating. The purpose of these changes is not to alienate a demographic of players, but to maintain the interest of another. In the end, total enjoyment (or HTC profits) is the goal.
Nobody's saying that it's not a tough balance to establish, but I think if you look at (many of) Eskimo's suggestions, and some of the revisions that have been made through this discussion, you'll find that limited change would merely enhance the game for those interested in the wargaming side of it without serious detriment to the Fighter MMOG people.
I read Eskimo's points, and I also think that they are basically ways to favor the offense, as have been most of the suggestions for "improving" strategic play in AH. I don't like Eskimo's ideas, and I said so back in January (read several posts back.)
I understand that Eskimo is just trying to make the game more enjoyable by making some changes that he feels will improve his enjoyment of the game without harming others'. The problem is, just like the guy driving down my street with his Snoop Dogg cranked up high for maximum enjoyment, it will have an effect on others whether you and Eskimo realize it or not. I said this much in January as well; these offense-favoring ideas will have an effect on the play of others, and not all of these others (myself included) will appreciate it.
So, yes, I have read Eskimo's ideas and the revisions, and I still would not welcome the advent of these changes. As I said before, they add to the defenders' tasks, make the current defense tasks more difficult, and aggravate the consequences of failing in any of them. What do the people who would like to continue their "non-involvement with the WAR" get in return? Why should they not see these measures as a big stick to knock them into playing a different way?
That last message from me was a direct response to Beet1e's statement. I've detected an undercurrent, whenever this discussion arises, that the game should be tweaked so the "air Quakers" will have to play "our way." This is the first time I've ever seen it stated so baldly, however. I'm just checking to see if I've jumped to any conclusions here.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
quote: (Hitech)
"The alternative becomes a real problem when you wan't to balance strat targets.
Suddenly something like a city with lots of buildings get changed to why kill all the city at all, when a few fighters just killing the train will have the same effect.
This would result in even less roll for bombers, and less of a need for orginazation.
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others."
Again,
I'm just looking for balance.
If you had to spend a greater effort and amount of time killing trains to achieve the same task, train killing fighters would simply be a less efficient alternative to hitting the target directly with bombers. In my example, "Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%" You would be better off taking a bomber and getting results immediately.
eskimo
I really like this idea. When the mossie came out I figured that I would fly alot of NOE sorties in it, hitting trains and the like. But there just isn't any point, unless the train is heading to a base that is about to be captured. I don't want to shut down a base in one strafing pass on a train or truck convoy. But it would be nice if it had some effect.
-
pbirmingham
Thank you for expressing your views.
I think that you are a good spokes person for you "side".
What I don't understand, however, is exactly how you foresee the above ideas negatively impacting your game-play.
How often do you think radar will go down if resupply is revamped?
Exactly what tasks do you use radar for?
How do you personally compensate your game play when your country loses its radar?
And just so I/we have a better concept of where you are coming from, what % do you consider yourself a furballer, 100% being a furball purist.
What else do you do besides furball?
How much do you care about the overall war effort?
How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you.
How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?
How much time to you spend defending bases?
Do you like defense?
Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country?
I cut-n-pasted the following from an earlier response, please read and respond;
"I really don't think that an arena that promotes strategic game play greatly conflicts with the needs of furballers. In a strategic arena, strat guys and buff drivers have a variety of targets to attack. They often hit cities, HQs, rear bases, and sometimes even trains, convoys, fuel, ammo, depots and training facilities. This takes a lot of pressure off of busy front line bases. Before the current strat set up, the last place that I or my squad would want to take a bomber/s to would be to a furball base. A base that is involved in a furball typically has been under sporadic attack for hours. This means that its hangers, ack, troops, fuel, radar, ammo and town are all out of sequence in regards to being up or down. Not a good target for bombers or base capture. A furball base also has tons of fighters at who knows what altitude, that are bound to give bombers or jabo planes a very hard time, and likewise a poor chance of getting through. Lastly, a furball base is difficult to capture because there are typically tons of enemy fighters already airborne, ready and willing to defend it even if the attackers manage to flatten the base/town.
In a strategic arena, any target is better than a front-line base that is involved in a furball.
In the current set up, the only good strategic use of a bomber is to kill a CV or to kill hangers at a front line base. Strat targets rebuild too quickly to have an impact on the game. With the current numbers in the main, rear bases are nearly impossible to capture. Come in high or low, with many or few, you will be met in force.
How has the current set up impacted strat guys? Strategic game play in AH is nearly dead. Strat guys can join a mission, or get in a bomber and go pork an enemy furball-suppling base, or go join the nearest furball.
When I am in a strat mood, I often find myself staring at the map, unable to find anything interesting to do.
What would a move toward a more strategic set up mean to furballers? That strat guys will be much more likely to leave furball bases (and fighter hangers) alone. I.E. furballs are likely to last longer.
It also means that sometimes furballers and everyone in a given country, may be without overall radar.
Some claim that this makes it hard to find a fight. I have furballed without the aid of radar. It is neither difficult nor time consuming to find a good fight or furball without radar. You can either ask where the furball/fight is, or you can check all the front line bases in your country and visually look from the tower. Typically, a furball exist where one of your country's bases is closest to an enemy base. Once you find a furball, you are probably set for hours.
The other consequence to furballers and everyone in a given country is that they cannot use the map and radar while they fight. Many players, especially newbies, may feel "lost" or venerable without this aid. Most players are able to learn how to fly and fight without it and can rely on traditional SA to enjoy the furball.
The real trade off for a move toward a more strategic set up for fuballers is:
Occasional loss of in-flight radar VS. furballs less likely to be interrupted by bombers or strat guys porking fields and hangers."
Do you agree to the basic premiss that strat guys will be more likely leave furball targets alone if they had better alternatives, as described above?
I guess I just want a clearer picture of how you think some folks will be "knocked" into playing a different way if any of the above ideas are implemented.
Especially, how exactly do you think furballs will change?
Thanks,
eskimo
P.S.
All furballers are invited to answer any of the questions in this response.
As always, civility and clarity will illicit like responses, greater respect and understanding.
-
I find some of the tidbits in HiTech's response heartening, but also feel some dissappointment. I love this game, and have boundless respect for HTC's whole crew. But HiTech's response leaves me somewhat confused as to the direction he plans to go in with AH.
When 1.08 was first released, the addition of trains and convoys appeared to set the stage for a renaissance in on-line combat games. At last there would be a true logistical and strategic element in the game, where all the aspects of air combat would come into play. Instead, the only strategic elements in the game (hitting cities and radar) were essentially rendered moot. Some say that what some of us are asking for will take something away from those that just want to fly fighters against fighters. Yet, in fact we're now fighting just to get back what we had before 1.08. To wit, the ability to fly meaningful bomber and jabo raids that involve more than just attacking fields.
I've never felt that 1 or 2 people should be able to have a drastic affect on the entire arena. However, if I get 12 guys together to go hit a city or refinery or factory, or to take out every convoy and train around a depot, it should have a noticeable effect. The very fact that you could shut radar down for an entire country made the HQ worth defending, which made escorts important, etc.
My bottom line question to HiTech though is in regards to the promised bomber enhancements. Adding dispersion, fixing the guns firing through your own plane (not mentioned by HiTech, but definitely required), and adding the multiplane formation option sounds grand, but will there be anything worth bombing?
HiTech was dead on when he said that many of the suggestions Eskimo and others have made favor the offense. That's the nature of warefare. The attack has the initiative, and generally controls the time and place where combat will occur. The important point to remember is that nothing precludes the "defender" from going on the offensive.
I know HTC is trying to find a balance. My own opinion is that balance has swung too far over towards fight-on-fighter combat as the sole focus of the game. I'm just looking for ways to swing it back a little bit. In any event, this has been a pretty good debate for the most part. And I appreciate that HiTech chimed in, even if the tune he was singing wasn't all to my liking. Still, I almost missed HiTech's comment...
Im not happy with the current strat balance either.
This gives me hope that he has not shut the door on changes to enhance strategic gameplay.
-
"And just so I/we have a better concept of where you are coming from, what % do you consider yourself a furballer, 100% being a furball purist."
80% I do the odd buff sortie, but to honest it's mainly an attempt to improve my pathetic ranking. And I don't like the fact the the rankings are slanted towards the "total cyber warrior"; and that to gain a high rank one is forced into activities that have no real interest; such as buffing, GV etc (the corraly is that buff drivers are forced into fighters for the same reason - do they like this?)
"How much do you care about the overall war effort?"
Absolutly nothing. And I find the constant exhortations by the arena generals one of the most irritating aspects of online play.
"How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you. "
Marginaly - not at all if there's a good furball somewhere else.
"How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?"
Not at all.
"How much time to you spend defending bases?"
About 50/50 - depends where the fights are.
"Do you like defense? "
I like the fights - defense/offense is irrelevant in that context.
"Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country? "
Absolutly not. I've been flying rooks recently because they seem outnumbered. Should that change - so would I.
General response to the big cut n' paste:
My personal opinion is that the landgrab war/strat thing sucks; and I object somewhat in being dragged into it. It promotes gang banging, and an obsession with kills rather than fights. I've no interest in being #7 in a conga line to finish off one lonely enemy, I've no interest in bouncing people unawares - where's the challenge in that? I'd check 6 them if I could.
My position is there's nothing to win or lose - only experience to be gained. My perfect night is a series of great, challenging fights where I feel I have a fair chance of winning and that I'll learn something - regardless of whether I win or not.
All the above is to be taken in an MA context - Scenarios and events are a totaly different thing.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
pbirmingham
Thank you for expressing your views.
I think that you are a good spokes person for you "side".
What I don't understand, however, is exactly how you foresee the above ideas negatively impacting your game-play.
How often do you think radar will go down if resupply is revamped?
Exactly what tasks do you use radar for?
How do you personally compensate your game play when your country loses its radar?
[
Let's see -- radar currently goes down either (1) never or (2) three or four times an hour. This is strongly dependent on the state of your country at the time. When it's your turn in the barrel, you're going to be in the dark, so to speak. With resupply made more difficult, I imagine radar will not go down any more frequently, but once it goes down it will tend to stay down, because there is nothing the defenders can do to make it come up faster. Furthermore, its speed of recovery will be strongly dependent on the state of the trains -- a distributed target that must be defended.
I use radar to (1) find fights and (2) evaluate threats to targets in my home country.
And just so I/we have a better concept of where you are coming from, what % do you consider yourself a furballer, 100% being a furball purist.
What else do you do besides furball?
How much do you care about the overall war effort?
How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you.
How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?
How much time to you spend defending bases?
Do you like defense?
Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country?
Let me define "furballing" here. I mean looking for a fight with other fighters, where you and your opponents are roughly (very roughly) at parity. Taking on an opponent with an altitude advantage fits, as does taking on unequal odds, but getting bounced by three high bogies does not. A cold-sweat-inducing fight from 20K to the deck, where I lose, is better than getting a kill on someone who thought he was alone in the sector, when I'm in the "furball" mindset. This is not smart warfare, where you secure crushing advantages over your opponent as quickly as possible, and exploit them to the fullest.
I'd say my furball percentage is between 50 and 60 percent. When I'm not furballing, I'm either flying JABO missions in support of field captures, gooning in support of a field capture (driving the bus, I call it,) re-supplying damaged fields with my Magic Goon, driving a panzer in support of a field capture, or defending a field in a plane or ground vehicle.
I don't care much for the overall war effort, I must say. Basically, I think that the "war" is highly sensitive to imbalances in the number of players. If your country is outnumbered, there is no way you can avoid losing lots of territory. If your country is the largest and the other two concentrate their efforts on you, again the defense of your territory is very difficult. In my opinion, this is an integral flaw in the notion of a war that can be won by taking most of the opponent's territory -- you can be forced to fight every fight at a disadvantage, because if you do not fight, you will be at an even worse disadvantage later. The greater the fraction of your fields are capturable, the more slippery this slope becomes.
Because of this, I view every base lost as a regrettable event, because I know that things are just going to get worse. Face it -- if you're down to five fields, you're going to constantly be taking off into a cloud of enemies with more energy, because there are no longer any clear fields to take off from.
I probably spend a tenth or so of my flight time in base defense. I like it if the enemy planes are not so dense that my wheels never leave the ground. When I can get a 109F4 up, it's a blast. Otherwise, it is an exercise in sheer frustration.
As far as obligation to my "country" goes, that depends on what you mean. I generally ignore the petit Napoleons (though I can play one myself on the squad channel) but I will give six calls, clear the six of friendlies, and help out . I join missions if they look like fun. I don't do any of this out of "obligation" in that I'd feel bad if I didn't do them (squad members are another matter,) but because I appreciate it when I get six calls and help.
The real trade off for a move toward a more strategic set up for fuballers is:
Occasional loss of in-flight radar VS. furballs less likely to be interrupted by bombers or strat guys porking fields and hangers."
Do you agree to the basic premiss that strat guys will be more likely leave furball targets alone if they had better alternatives, as described above?
Unless the "strat" guys can have their fun without knocking out fields, no. The fields have to go sometime for someone to win the "war." If it is too dangerous to bring JABOs into a furball field to shut it down, the trio of 30-K Lancasters will appear overhead soon.
There's a basic tension here between people who want to win the "war" and people who, for various reasons, do not. Remember that "strat" here is another way to say "thinking about winning the war." To win the war, you have to take the bases.
I guess I just want a clearer picture of how you think some folks will be "knocked" into playing a different way if any of the above ideas are implemented.
Especially, how exactly do you think furballs will change?
I think people will be forced to choose between furballing and losing all their bases, much as beet1e predicts.
There is an easy way to resolve the conflict, though. If there were this "fightertown" area in an isolated area of the map, where you could always go for a quick furball, I would care little what was done with the rest of the map. I'd still goon, jabo, tank, whatever, but I'd always be able to step out of the war and just have a little dogfight.
-
preon said "THE POINT(s)
-Not everybody gets a constant kick out of taking off and mixing it up with fighters.
-Not everybody is totally bummed when they see that an organized assault has made them move to another furball.
-A good number of people really enjoy organizing and winning bases (such organization is fleeting at best in the MA because, as you said, people aren't usually in there for more than an hour).
-Newbies don't always want to fight in furballs. When I was new, I was completely wow'ed by the HQ raid (pointless these days).
What we strat types want is a chance to pull off an operation involving several people working closely together that will damage one front enough that after we land we MIGHT be able to take a base or 2 in the next half hour while that front recovers (as opposed to a base every 4 hours depending on who's got numbers in the furball) Personally, I don't think that a system like that would ruin the play of a person who is there for only an hour because there's a whole other front to move to (they don't care who wins the war right?).
Anywho, I've wasted a lot of time on this. I think I'll get back to the real world.
__________________
"Knowledge is Power,
Power Corrupts."
-Preon1
""""
preon.. I think my, and many others, style of fighting echos pbirmingham, vortex and seekers. -- I don't say that "everyone" enjoys fighting in fighters but...If they don't then they shouldn't have a huge effect on fighters.
-- no, everyone is not "totally bummed" when they see an organized assault that makes em move to another furball...If... A lone, suicide fluff or two dropping fighter hangers at the only field that is good for a close furbal is "organized' then organized players don't deserve to play. 5 minutes more of flight time is 10 minutes round trip... doing nothing.. 15 minutes hangar downtime is 1/4 or so of the time most guys spend in a AH session. I have never seen a good furball last more than 15 minutes or so before some talentless, suicide fluffer comes over above the fur and tries to kill the fighter hangers only. If you are lucky there are 2 places that have roughly even fites (good furs).
--organizing and winning bases is fine but porking bases till they come up again is entirely different. Personally I don't want to see organized gangbanging.. from either end.
-- newbies may or may not want to fight. If they want to get good in fighters tho they got to get down and dirty and die a lot. HQ raids and joining an "organized gangbang" won't teach em 1/10 as much.
The whole thing comes full circle. 1 or 2 players should not have a huge impact on the many in a 24/7 game. There should not be a huge imbalance in resources when people log on unless the "war" is very close to being "won" as was pointed out... having the radar down longer and more often effects the normal player too much.
lazs
-
Oh... and in this huge arena we may be getting.... is there any chance that one small "area" could be used as an early war plane only area?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The whole thing comes full circle. 1 or 2 players should not have a huge impact on the many in a 24/7 game. There should not be a huge imbalance in resources when people log on unless the "war" is very close to being "won" as was pointed out... having the radar down longer and more often effects the normal player too much.
lazs
Agreed. So how about a compromise?
Given that there will be a much larger map, how about sectioning off strategic assets? Instead of a universal headquarters and strategic assets, how about regional targets?
When each map is reset, the larger countries each have four regional areas. This isn't a fully baked idea yet, but the jist will be that if I get together with a dozen other pilots and really trounce the strat of one region, then those flying for that country who don't like not having dar can simply go to a region with their strat still up.
I think I'm going to start a new thread with this idea... ...later today.
-
a drunk idea ....
We have waypoint for Task force what about adding a Furball waypoint ?
Furballer and strat addict should be pleased with this idea no ?
hips ...
-
Originally posted by Preon1
Agreed. So how about a compromise?
Given that there will be a much larger map, how about sectioning off strategic assets? Instead of a universal headquarters and strategic assets, how about regional targets?
When each map is reset, the larger countries each have four regional areas. This isn't a fully baked idea yet, but the jist will be that if I get together with a dozen other pilots and really trounce the strat of one region, then those flying for that country who don't like not having dar can simply go to a region with their strat still up.
I think I'm going to start a new thread with this idea... ...later today.
Preon1,
This is a GREAT idea!
and yes, do post it so that we can see what others think of it.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by straffo
a drunk idea ....
We have waypoint for Task force what about adding a Furball waypoint ?
Furballer and strat addict should be pleased with this idea no ?
hips ...
Another good idea!
This thread may have value afterall.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... and in this huge arena we may be getting.... is there any chance that one small "area" could be used as an early war plane only area?
lazs
I wouldn't mind seeing this either.
But isn't this really a form of limiting the plane set?
Wouldn't it take less SA and skill to fight in such an environment?
There would be less variety of planes to oppose... Yes?
Sounds like a little CT in the middle of the MA...?
Again, your idea is fine, but it sounds like you are contradicting what you have said in the past about the CT.
eskimo
-
I think we should wait to see what happens with 1.09, as it appears from Hitech that the strategy will change dramatically with the new release. We should resume our discussions after we have seen it.
I like the suggestions of preon1 and eskimo2. I would welcome anything that increases the strategic/stealth element, and moves away from the mindless gangbang culture. The only times I see a field captured are as a result of a gangbang. That's no fun at all.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...If... A lone, suicide fluff or two dropping fighter hangers at the only field that is good for a close furbal is "organized' then organized players don't deserve to play.
So players who use planes for what they were designed for shouldn't be allowed to play?
We're getting awfully judgmental here. If every player who ever porked a fighter hanger weren't allowed to play.. Who would be left? Might as well just limit AH to a 3 indestructible-base fighter only arena. Would that really make everyone happy?
Originally posted by lazs2
5 minutes more of flight time is 10 minutes round trip... doing nothing..
Why can't you fly back to the closer base? You might even catch an enemy goon on the way.
Why do you bother flying home in the first place if time is so precious?
You must spend a lot of time flying home... doing nothing by your own choice.
I get bored too, and sometimes auger when I am out of ammo.
One of my favorite things to do is to land at a hot enemy base when I'm out of ammo.
It's almost always a death sentence, but when you pull it off... what a thrill!
Live or die, it's much more exciting and your back in action much faster than wasting time flying home.
Originally posted by lazs2
15 minutes hangar downtime is 1/4 or so of the time most guys spend in a AH session.
I must have missed this info.
Where did you get the stats on how long most players play per session?
Originally posted by lazs2
I have never seen a good furball last more than 15 minutes or so before some talentless, suicide fluffer comes over above the fur and tries to kill the fighter hangers only.
I've seen them last for hours... often.
It sounds like you want to make the MA available for the "elite" fighter pilots only.
Originally posted by lazs2
If you are lucky there are 2 places that have roughly even fites (good furs).
I've seen more... often. I would even say most often.
Originally posted by lazs2
--organizing and winning bases is fine but porking bases till they come up again is entirely different. Personally I don't want to see organized gangbanging.. from either end.
Do you even want an overall war?
Do you want bases to ever get attacked or captured?
Originally posted by lazs2
-- newbies may or may not want to fight. If they want to get good in fighters tho they got to get down and dirty and die a lot. HQ raids and joining an "organized gangbang" won't teach em 1/10 as much.
This is assuming that all anyone is interested in is furballing.
Some folks enjoy attack.
Some enjoy escort.
Some simply enjoy flying in a large formation.
In general, lots of folks enjoy variety.
Originally posted by lazs2
The whole thing comes full circle. 1 or 2 players should not have a huge impact on the many in a 24/7 game. There should not be a huge imbalance in resources when people log on unless the "war" is very close to being "won" as was pointed out... having the radar down longer and more often effects the normal player too much.
lazs
How huge is the impact?
How often are 1 or 2 players successful at changing the resources?
This is a war game. Each country spends time at an advantage and disadvantage. Do most folks really want things to be pretty much the same every time they log on?
Are you a "normal" player?
Are you sure that you are speaking for the "normal" player?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by pbirmingham
I think people will be forced to choose between furballing and losing all their bases, much as beet1e predicts.
There is an easy way to resolve the conflict, though. If there were this "fightertown" area in an isolated area of the map, where you could always go for a quick furball, I would care little what was done with the rest of the map. I'd still goon, jabo, tank, whatever, but I'd always be able to step out of the war and just have a little dogfight.
Thanks for the response.
I think I (and probably others) am/are getting a better feel for your "side".
I can't say that I clearly understand where you are coming from.
Why are people "forced" to choosing between furballing and anything else? Don't many folks choose to furball whenever they are in the mood no matter what is going on with the war? I furball when I want, ignoring the war, and I'm a strat-guy (self-proclaimed). I don't get it. Hence the "obligation to country" question.
Do you feel that the war currently moves at too fast of a pace?
Would it move to fast if the above ideas were implemented?
As far as the "fightertown" concept goes, isn't there always a few furballs going on anyway?
I think many of "us" see almost perpetual furballs taking place, some often for hours on end, so we consider the "fightertown" thing already in existence. You do not seem to see it this way and I can't figure out why we see it so differently. This alone may be the biggest factor separating our two "sides". Perhaps the definition of "furball" varies from player to player as well.
I consider a furball a big dense mix of friendly and enemy planes between two fields. When it moves directly over one field, and the ack goes down, it becomes a vulch, gang-bang or what-ever. Yes? No? More to it than that?
Originally posted by pbirmingham
I don't care much for the overall war effort, I must say. Basically, I think that the "war" is highly sensitive to imbalances in the number of players. If your country is outnumbered, there is no way you can avoid losing lots of territory. If your country is the largest and the other two concentrate their efforts on you, again the defense of your territory is very difficult. In my opinion, this is an integral flaw in the notion of a war that can be won by taking most of the opponent's territory -- you can be forced to fight every fight at a disadvantage, because if you do not fight, you will be at an even worse disadvantage later. The greater the fraction of your fields are capturable, the more slippery this slope becomes.
When you are down to just a few fields it is also easier to defend them. 100+ guys and 4 fields, no one is going to sneak one away from you either.
No Bar-Dar under 500', however, means that you stand a chance of getting a raid close to an enemy field. Even at a numerical disadvantage, you stand a chance of making a counter-strike. Nearly impossible now.
Yes? No?
Originally posted by pbirmingham
There's a basic tension here between people who want to win the "war" and people who, for various reasons, do not. Remember that "strat" here is another way to say "thinking about winning the war." To win the war, you have to take the bases.
Do you think some people don't want to win the war? Or just don't care either way?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Seeker
80% I do the odd buff sortie, but to honest it's mainly an attempt to improve my pathetic ranking. And I don't like the fact the the rankings are slanted towards the "total cyber warrior"; and that to gain a high rank one is forced into activities that have no real interest; such as buffing, GV etc (the corraly is that buff drivers are forced into fighters for the same reason - do they like this?)
Why are they forced?
It is generally agreed that rank doesn't mean much.
And if you are only a fighter guy, you can look at fighter stats and ranks only, Yes?
Originally posted by Seeker
"How much do you care about the overall war effort?"
Absolutly nothing. And I find the constant exhortations by the arena generals one of the most irritating aspects of online play.
"How much do you care when the base you are fighting from is captured from you. "
Marginaly - not at all if there's a good furball somewhere else.
"How much do you care when one of your country's bases, that you are not involved in, gets captured?"
Not at all.
"How much time to you spend defending bases?"
About 50/50 - depends where the fights are.
"Do you like defense? "
I like the fights - defense/offense is irrelevant in that context.
"Do you feel obligated to do anything in particular for you country? "
Absolutly not. I've been flying rooks recently because they seem outnumbered. Should that change - so would I.
So you don't seem to care about the war, but then you say:
Originally posted by Seeker
General response to the big cut n' paste:
My personal opinion is that the landgrab war/strat thing sucks; and I object somewhat in being dragged into it. It promotes gang banging, and an obsession with kills rather than fights. I've no interest in being #7 in a conga line to finish off one lonely enemy, I've no interest in bouncing people unawares - where's the challenge in that? I'd check 6 them if I could.
That sounds like someone who does care about the war... "landgrab war/strat thing sucks"
How are you dragged into it?
Originally posted by Seeker
My position is there's nothing to win or lose - only experience to be gained. My perfect night is a series of great, challenging fights where I feel I have a fair chance of winning and that I'll learn something - regardless of whether I win or not.
All the above is to be taken in an MA context - Scenarios and events are a totaly different thing.
This is a healthy attitude.
Salute!
I'm not sure, however, why you care what others are doing?
Or if I'm reading that wrong..?
Thanks for your response,
eskimo
-
eskimo on early war area idea... "I wouldn't mind seeing this either.
But isn't this really a form of limiting the plane set?
Wouldn't it take less SA and skill to fight in such an environment?
There would be less variety of planes to oppose... Yes?
Sounds like a little CT in the middle of the MA...?
Again, your idea is fine, but it sounds like you are contradicting what you have said in the past about the CT.
eskimo"
No.. not in the least. I have allways been a fan of early war rides and against perk planes. I want as much parity as possible. How to do that? RPS is fine but it leaves out people who would only fly certain planes... In the "area" idea... you could still have all the choice you wanted you just couldnt fly your D9 or 51 against P40's and a6m2's or 109e's etc.. This would differ from the CT limitations in major ways... Even the most limited early area with say 6 early planes available would have way more combinations than any CT axis vs allied setup. Plus the icons would remain the more realistic MA ones as would the radar. The CT guys have finally caught on to the fact of some of their built in limitations and have tried to get away from them by a "sliding perk set" kinda deal whereby everyone can be assured that they will be fighting a lopsided fight. Area arena would have 6 or so early war planes all with parity fighting each other. If one tired momentarily or permanently of this matchup they could simply click on a different field and be flying a mid or late war plane.... just not against early ones.
lazs
-
As defense goes, my brother (LtBlogs) and I will log on and then perform a CAP on the CV that needs it most. I don't mind defense, there is usually not much of a wait for someone to make an attack on the CV. The CV gets a defense, I get a fight and things seem pretty cool. I don't think that we should have a "Hold Flight" rule for CV's as how would we allow for CAP? I don't think we could have any reasonable defense of a CV w/o CAP, and I find it hard to believe CV's in wartime went too long w/o launching a CAP in enemy territory.
My 2 cents...
Jeff
aka
JconradH (AW- Luke%)
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Strat;
With the last major release (1.08) of Aces High, strat was drastically changed.
Strat targets now rebuild automatically (Via trains) and can be rebuilt by players (Cargo Sorties).
eskimo
Yep, that's the thing that gets up my nose. If one or more of your fields is being attacked from a certain nme field, a massive counter attack that totaly destroys that field, its fuel, ammo and services should result in more disruption than the five minutes it currently takes for a train, convoy or C47 to arrive and totally rebuild it.
-
Yep, me too, Tjay. Guess I'll repost this here, though it is also in the Gamplay forum...My "new" strat system idea:
The concept laid out here has been heavily influenced by the on-going debate on the AH strategic system. When HiTech chimed in the other day in Eskimo’s thread, I was at first disappointed on his views on the subject. Re-reading them however has lead me to better understand both sides of this whole issue. The central issue as I understand it is how do you change the strategic game system to provide more game-playing fun for the strat/immersion crowd without negatively impacting the enjoyment of the A2A purists? This is the acid test that any change must pass. I’ll start by laying out restrictions and assumptions. I ask that the reader give them careful consideration, and frame responses with them in mind.
Restrictions:
1. Any change in the strat system must be no more restricting to the individual pilot in the cockpit than the current system. By this I mean the ability to choose an aircraft, take off, find a fight, and engage the enemy in A2A combat. This is the toughest restriction, and may require compromise. However, any compromise should be weighted towards the A2A crowd.
2. Any wide-scale impact (action at point A effecting operations at point B) must require more than a couple players to accomplish, and must be of limited duration. The idea is to create a window of opportunity for the offense, rather than open up a gaping whole in the defense. I used 10 people as a base line figure when defining “more than a couple.”
Assumptions: These are the things that have already been announced by HTC as coming down the pipe in the AH development cycle.
1. Larger Maps will be the norm in the MA, with more fields and objects allowed in the TE.
2. The newly eluded to “Attack Warning” system will be in place, allowing changes to radar coverage in the MA without hobbling the defense too much.
3. Bomber enhancements implemented. Particularly I mean the addition of bomb dispersion, multi-aircraft option, and (hopefully) a fix for the “firing through your own plane” bug.
4. The re-arm pad code would be changed, such that re-arming on the re-arm pad would be tied to damage at that base. Example: if base fuel is down to 75%, then you could only load 75% fuel by hitting the re-arm pad.
Concept:
Rather than the “Proxy War” idea put forth by Preon1, we instead divide up each of the three countries’ territory into three “strategic provinces.” Each strategic province, or SP, will have it’s own organic strategic infrastructure (HQ, city, refinery, troop training camp, ammo factory, flak factory, depots, and train stations). Attacks against these facilities will only affect rebuild times and resupply in that province. The nature of those effects will be similar to what they are now, but with some important differences. Arena reset would occur when any country completely looses two of their three provinces (i.e. all bases and depots in those two provinces captured by enemy forces). This localizes the impact of strategic strikes. Kill a regional HQ – let’s call it the Provincial Air Defense Center, or PADC (pronounced “pad-see”) – and you affect radar only in that province, in effect creating a hole in coverage. The attack warning system would be completely unaffected by HQ damage. Strat target size and hardness would be such that approximately ten B-17s would be required to completely destroy it.
Rebuild and Resupply – This is the meat of the changes. First, you totally eliminate the player resupply (via goons and M-3s) of strategic targets, including depots and train stations. Each strat target would have a maximum down-time, assuming no convoys or trains reach them earlier. For a city (now a provincial capitol, rather than the country capital) we make that, say, 120 minutes. Now, for every train that reaches the city 15 minutes are subtracted from the down-time. So, if a city is completely destroyed (and assuming a train arrives every 15 minutes), the city would normally be rebuilt in one hour (2 hours – {4 x 15 minutes/train} = 1 hour). Kill the first train feeding the city, and the rebuild time will be an hour and fifteen minutes; kill two trains in a row and the rebuild time is an hour and a half. The point is, the city will rebuild no later than two hours, and could rebuild 60 minutes earlier if the enemy ignores the trains and/or train station. Other strat targets like refineries would have maximum rebuild times that would be dynamic, that is, the max rebuild time would be affected by the status of the provincial capitol. Again that maximum time would be shortened by timely arrival of their trains.
How would all this affect rebuild times at the pointy-end of the spear, i.e. the airfields, ports, and vehicle fields? Hanger down-time would remain 15 minutes as it is now, and would be unaffected by convoys or goons/M-3s. Other field objects (fuel, radar, barracks, ammo) would have a maximum, un-supplied rebuild time just like strat targets which would be at least a half hour to an hour. There are two ways to speed up rebuild: convoy/barges or goons/M-3 resupply. We’ll deal first with the first method, convoy/barge resupply. Arrival of a convoy or resupply goon/M-3 will immediately (within 3 minutes that is) rebuild field objects. The difference is that the level they can rebuilt to will be dictated by the level of damage to that province’s like-item strat facility. Taking fuel as an example, let’s say field A20’s max fuel load-out has been reduced by enemy attack to 50%. The provincial refinery complex for that area was also attacked and stands at 75%. When a convoy arrives, the fuel will be immediately restored to 75%, the maximum that can be supported by the provincial refinery. Ammo would have to be subdivided to allow for a gradual loss of offensive weaponry, rather than the all-or-nothing availability we have now. A possible correlation between ammo bunker status and ordnance availability might look like the following:
Ammo Bunker Status-
0-25% = MG/cannon available
26-50% = MG/cannon and rockets available
51-75% = MG/cannon, rockets, and light bombs available
76-100% = All ordnance available
The second method, goon/M-3 resupply would work somewhat differently. Resupply by goon or M-3 represents a redistribution of supplies between front-line bases, rather than resupply by the province’s strategic infrastructure. Goon/M-3 load-outs would be changed such that instead of selecting “field supplies” as a load-out option, the pilot/driver would be able to select up to two “cargo pallets,” similar to how Jabo pilots can select load-outs for multiple hard-point. There would be fuel pallets, ammo pallets, radar pallets, and barracks pallets. Successfully delivering a pallet by goon or M-3 (oh, and LVT’s…almost forgot those) would completely restore that resource at the field. HOWEVER, each type of pallet would only be available from fields where that resource type is undamaged! In other words, you couldn’t select a fuel pallet to load in your C-47 if the field you’re launching from has damaged fuel tanks. So each goon/M-3/LVT could only rebuild two types of damage per trip.
The above system works fine until you start talking about captured enemy bases. How does rebuild/resupply work for bases you capture in enemy provinces? Well, in all cases any base will eventually rebuild on its own, regardless of whether they receive resupply via convoys or goons. Resupply by goon/M-3/LVT would work exactly like the same, too. To re-establish automatic supply by convoy/barge would require you to capture the enemy depot feeding that base. Depots would be dynamically assigned to a province (the closest friendly one) upon being captured, to insure rebuild limits for newly captured bases would have the same restrictions as home-country bases.
Conclusion: The above system would allow a reasonably sized strategic strike to create a window of opportunity for the capture of bases. Yet the effects on the individual defending pilot’s freedom of action would be no more than they are now under the current AH system. Less so in some ways, as they would only affect things on a provincial level, not the entire country. The key is that damaging strat targets would not impact the current status at any bases, only the rebuild times of things already damaged there. The player resupply system would still be there to speed repair, but only to the level dictated by the current strat targets in that province. No more spawning a C47 on the runway or hitting the re-arm pad repeatedly at a damaged base to speed rebuild it. No one or two players could have much impact by attacking strat targets, either. Why? Because in general one or two players could not do damage fast enough (fly to target, drop bombs, rtb or auger, repeat) fast enough on their own to keep up with the train resupply.
I invite your comments and critique. I also ask that when you review this you remember that strat used to have more impact than it does now, and this simply seeks to redress that loss of impact. For the A2A purists (I dislike the negative connotation that the term “furballer” has acquired), I ask you that you be honest with yourselves when deciding if the above suggestions would truly spoil your enjoyment of AH, or simply inconvenience you a bit.
-
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others.
This is probabably the most important issue for me. Nothing makes me want to log off at a faster than 2 or 3 players from an opposing team effecting my gameplay for hours on end. It totally sucks worse than any gang bang.
Any loop hole in the game system will be abused. What one player calls a well played (planned or what ever) sneak, is just in reality the abuse of the game system.
Thanks HiTech
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I think I (and probably others) am/are getting a better feel for your "side".
I can't say that I clearly understand where you are coming from.
Why are people "forced" to choosing between furballing and anything else?
Because if all your fields look like this:
(http://bigscary.com/images/wrecked.jpg)
you will not be able to furball very effectively.
Anything that makes it easier to make fields look like that means that you will have to spend more time avoiding it if you want to get any furballing in.
Do you think some people don't want to win the war? Or just don't care either way?
eskimo
Don't care either way. Lots don't care about the war at all, except that the other guys can't win it without chewing up a lot of fields.