Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: chris3 on January 02, 2003, 06:54:10 PM
-
is it a good idea ???????
Hi
I have an idea for gameplay.
The problem in MA sometims is, it isn t very coordinated.
So my idea is if we get points for joining a mission we would join more missions and the MA get more coordinated.
as a result of these we need more perkplans but this isn t a problem.
I think it would be worked better as a special missions arena.
what did you think about this idea?
p.s.: sorry my bead english
cu guys in the endless war :-)
-
Getting a perk bonus for joining missions?
Good idea, Yes!
-
I 3rd that
-
One of the best ideas I've heard :)
-
Great Idea:D Sounds a lot like the Mission Theater thats is comming in 1.12;)
Booky
-
Originally posted by chris3
is it a good idea ???????
Hi
I have an idea for gameplay.
The problem in MA sometims is, it isn t very coordinated.
So my idea is if we get points for joining a mission we would join more missions and the MA get more coordinated.
as a result of these we need more perkplans but this isn t a problem.
The only problem I see is that for many people (me included), perk points mean very little and so are not a real incentive.
-
.........jes ok that were an problem if we dont have enouth perkplans.
But if P51 190d 109 g10 la7 yak and some others were perked.
the people need perkpoints more as this time.
cu
-
We discused this idea when we created perk points and missions.
Problems with it, is that in the end all it will do is make people will create a perminate mission just to get more perks, hence will make real missions even less used.
And all that would happen is you end up creating a nuisance feature.
HiTech
-
Hitech what about making Target selctions in the mission editor.
Example:
Mission goes for fuel and ammo.
Make buttons where u can select the target.
If the target has been destroyed the player will be awarded with perk points if he will be living 30sec after impact.
This will prevent people from makeing nonsense mission just to get perks.
Its just an idea and in no way perfect. But maybe a start to think about it.
-
And what about cap missions?
HiTech
-
Most of the missions we do are Attack missions. There are IMO just a few CAP missions.
Maybe award perk ammount to the pilots who survive a CAP mission after at least, whatever 10 -15 minutes flight. Add extra points for shot down planes during the mission.
What u think.
IMO at least a try
-
How about this, if the Mission Editor allows for a "Goal" field, say "Capture A10" or whatever, if the paticipant of that mission scores the field capture, all those enrolled in the mission (and still alive) receive xx amount of perks?
I see what you are saying, HiTech. But cooperation is so far and between in the Main Arena, it would be cool if there was some sort of bonus to team up and capture a strategic target.
-
Thats a terrible idea. The main doesnt need more "missions". Theres already to many 50 man base rapes going on. Offerring these guys a "bonus" to do even more of umm would be the end of a2a combat in the main.
So your "mission" to "capture a10" would become mass rape everyone wanting to get their "points".
The mission planner isnt an organizational tool. Its a gangbang planner. It oughta cost ya perks to run a mission. If its successful you keep the perks. If it aint then the mission "general" losses umm.
-
Good idea Paul.
But u should make the goals for the planes not for the hole mission.
U know with the current behaviour in the MA strat is some what useless. How many missions really capture a field ?
As long as people starting after they getting vulched u need a high ammount of player to cap a field. Normally only 20-30% of the people of a mission surviving.
I think it makes more sence to put the perks and the goal on the planes.
The targets the mission creator assigned to the plane is the "goal" for the plane and player.
Maybe add a "common" target as a bonus. Like Capture a field or destroy all assigned targets.
This will maybe bring the pilots to cooperate and to follow the orders.
-
There's no real way to defend against attack missions. When they're up (visible on the dar) it's already way too late to get enough defenders to altitude. If there's a single con at the target most wont climib anyway.
Missions do not work with flight times of 5 minutes between fields. The time frame to syncronize defence is too small - using a mission editor to do so will only slow it down even further.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Thats a terrible idea. The main doesnt need more "missions". Theres already to many 50 man base rapes going on. Offerring these guys a "bonus" to do even more of umm would be the end of a2a combat in the main.
So your "mission" to "capture a10" would become mass rape everyone wanting to get their "points".
The mission planner isnt an organizational tool. Its a gangbang planner. It oughta cost ya perks to run a mission. If its successful you keep the perks. If it aint then the mission "general" losses umm.
What's it to you? You quit, yes?
The Mission Planner seems ok if its on your side, if the mission is planned against you, you seem to have a problem.
What's wrong with a few folks getting a few perks for pitching in and successfully attacking a target? And for perks...good grief, I'm not saying 100 perks or anything like that. I'm lucky if I see 10 perk points any given night...I'm ecastic if I make it home and bring home a 2 perkpoint mission.
You see, I like the mission planner because the "generals" seem to get all pissed off if the war doesnt go their way, and they bemoan fellow players for not playing their way. Or, they gripe about no cooperation. The mission planner is a way for someone to walk the walk after talking the talk...you really wanna take that base? Make a mission. Some join, some don't. And if the stinking thing is a success because 10-15 individual egos relented and joined in, well HOORAY...maybe a little reward for doing so?
I was expecting some nay-saying about perk points. I sure wasnt expecting a whine about how bad missions are. Wotan, you surely are burnt out. Go make reservations to Florida and hire some local talent :-)
-
I have 3 years invested in ah and I have an opinion and its not whine.
As to the suggestion its terrible as I said. If you dont like what I say then theres an ignore button for you to use. HT is not going put these suggestions into place because he knows what it will mean. As a matter of fact he has said as much.
So my "whine" is nothing but telling you your suggestion is terrible. Get thicker skin or ignore me or dont offer terrible suggestions.
Instead of trying to get "personal" address the point HT made. Your sugestion doesnt address that. You would have folks joining a mission and then not participating just to get the benefit of the point "bonus".
Just like we have folks jumping sides to get the benefit of the side balancing perk multiplier.
IMHO it would just another thing to be gamed then whined about.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I have 3 years invested in ah and I have an opinion and its not whine.
As to the suggestion its terrible as I said. If you dont like what I say then theres an ignore button for you to use. HT is not going put these suggestions into place because he knows what it will mean. As a matter of fact he has said as much.
So my "whine" is nothing but telling you your suggestion is terrible. Get thicker skin or ignore me or dont offer terrible suggestions.
Instead of trying to get "personal" address the point HT made. Your sugestion doesnt address that. You would have folks joining a mission and then not participating just to get the benefit of the point "bonus".
Just like we have folks jumping sides to get the benefit of the side balancing perk multiplier.
IMHO it would just another thing to be gamed then whined about.
I applaud your whine, now that you've cried us a river, how about debating the topic at hand. Why is what I proposed such a *bad* idea I proposed and the refinement I suggested afterwards?
You can dislike me all you like, I haven't a problem with you, other than to disagree.
With all the Desktop Generals I see on nightly, I think the mission planner is a great tool for organzing those who generally wouldnt pitch in
-
Can u post ur stupid fight some wére else. Me and chris trying to offer HT a good idea.
thx
-
My point is clear.
The mission planner is a tool for those massive 50 man base rapes. Linking mission points to an objective like field capture will result in more of these as folks look for easy points. There is not a lack of missions.
Those "generals" are mostly new guys who calm down after awhile. They can be squelched and arent a problem.
As for disliking you thats in your head. I am completely indifferent toward you.
Your suggestion opens the door for more gameyness and subsequently more whines.
You are certainly able to give your opinion, as am I. However, you are the typical type that when someone disagrees with your opinion you revert to name calling and the like.
As shown in you last couple of posts.
Heres what ht said, read this time. He is dead right.
Problems with it, is that in the end all it will do is make people will create a perminate mission just to get more perks, hence will make real missions even less used.
And all that would happen is you end up creating a nuisance feature.
It doesnt get any clearer then that.
-
Woton: Regardless of your view you did manage to put quite a bit of whine in your post. Things like 50 plane rape, mission planer is a gang bang tool is what will void your argument, regardless of it's content.
Thats why your getting attacked , your trying to belittle people and concepts wrather than debate them.
HiTech
(on the whine patrol)
-
belittling people? whos singled out there?
people who participate in those mission types?
Its not like what I said is untrue. It may have been harsh but it is still true and I got the films and pics :)
Are you telling me you havent seen those 50 man missions? Its these missions that started the whole "suicide" jabo debate.
But either way
YMMV
Are you sure you arent picking on me because I used to fly lw planes ;)
(Thats a joke btw)
-
..at wotan and the others
i speak for the knights now. we often creat tactical missions which would hit the enemy hard. For example fuelstriks at ouer frontlin or hit baracks somethink like this. But this grat missions worked not very often becaus nobody want to join it.
Jes of course if we get a mission planer like this , missions for take any filds would be more harder. But the Enemy have the same missins plane so i think its not so a problem. I thinke it would be a great fight if two mission kolided in the sky.
but we need something to prevent (what HT ) that people make nonsens missions to get perkis.
cu in the endles war :-)
-
Woton: Now you accuse me of bias because you use to fly LW planes (note conspericy theory) ?
The belittle happens because you use the terms gang bang and rape. There are people who like to run missions, when you phrase it like 50 man missions, vs 50 man gang bangs it makes all the difference in the world , one is stateing facts the other is trying to belittle/flame/name call /whine what ever.
HiTech
-
What makes a CAP mission successful? I guess that is what HTC is seeking an answer to if you want to take this idea further (which is a good idea but as pointed out has a few flaws) Why is it so terrible that a bunch of players actually want to do more than fly aroudn in circles and make use of the features and tools given to us, field capture and the mission editor which I have used many months now for my squad organising missions that don't involve field capture but bomber missions with proper escort, organising the bombers into formation positions etc to hit strat targets. On the other hand I know missions can be defended against as was shown by a handful of members from my squad and a few other players online. Knights upped a mass heavy P47 mission and everyone defended well and organised themselves into beign able to land whilst covered or waiting for the next wave, in between we tried to hit back, they countered and at one point I thought the field was lost but upping from a nearby field we still managed to defend, getting behind the attackers to their C47's by not flying lemming fashion straight to the field we wanted to defend. For an hour this battle ebbed and flowed and in the end we defended the field and supplied it. It was frantic and it was fun and why the mission editor brings so much to AH.
-
How about getting X perks if you survive to rtb or loosing Y perks if you dont, this could help with some suicide tendencies I have noticed in the massive attack missions.
-
umm you missed the fine print ht, that was a joke. Please re read it. The accusation was in jest based on that gen disc thread. If I thought you were biased I would have told you there.
The "50 man base rape" was certainly a jab at those who participate in them but a "whine"? Come on.
Lepaul was simply trying to take a shot at me with his "whine" accusation. Thats fair enough but it certainly wasnt a "whine". Nor was it directed specifically at lepaul. It was a general statement based on my experience. Lepaul can decide to include himself in that generalization or to exclude himself.
I have the films and and pics to show these happen. I may have been harsh but I gotta call it like I see it. Others have as well.
YMMV
-
I had an idea which you might like HT.
How about you decide on what you feel a perfect mission would be with the least used players or a sliding scale of perks awarded depending on the numbers in a mission.
ie:
if the mission has 10 pilots each player is awarded say 5 perks
if the mission has 20 you get 2.5 perks and so on.
This would encourage the use of small numbers with specialised tasks.The person who makes a mission with 30 p47s will score very little compared to the person who uses the minimum of resources to complete the same task.
all perks would not be awarded if the mission is a failure:
ie a factory strike that doesnt destroy over 80% of the target or a failed capture attempt etc.
I aslo appreciate what you are saying about a nuisance feature but i think you as a developer should be allowed to add ideas and if they dont work out remove them.
just imo of course :p
-
I like chris idea cause it enables a whole bunch of great opportunities but i think its very hard to define goals respectively to define when a goal is fullfilled p.e. there are more than attack or cap missions, fighter sweaps come to mind. Furtheron there are different flawors of p.e. attack missions, attacking the CV comes to mind.
As i said first u have to define all the possible goals.
Then u have to define what has to be done to reach the goal.
So here's an example of the complexity only for attack missions:
Goal: Pork the field.
What objects to destroy? How many perks when the goal is to destroy fuel only? How many perks when the goal is to flatten the whole field? Is the goal reached when 99% of the attackers are dead (suicide missions)? How many perks when only 10 people are in or when 50 people are in?
IMHO its very very hard to cover all possibilities. Thats one of the causes that make me very curious about the Mission Theatre.
-
Pardon me while I applaud HiTech
You know, most of the missions I have flown have had 10-15 people in them. A few here and there had many many more, but not these 50-man generalizations Wotan is referring too.
My point stands, what's the big deal if a Mission with an established goal has some sort of small perk reward if it works?
I'm not saying fill the coffers of players with huge perk points for just signing into a mission and flying around. I understand the annoyance factor you guys are referring to.
Again, my thought, and however flawed it apparently is, was to encourage and reward cooperation. I've heard the Generals whine and people moan and groan over how few people are attempting to nab strategic targets. Kooky me thought that if the aparatus was there to reward people to join and successfully complete a mission, more folks might shut up and try it.
And that's my suggestion...I certainly do not expect it to be implemented but its an open forum, and I thought I'd put it out there.
-
i have a idea how to creat the perky mission
The Problem is how to diside how the people get there perkis by joinig a mission. I know that it is hard to programed
so here my esier idea i think:
if, for example 55 % of all peoples who flown in mission Stayalive , and these 55%peopple have earned in adjaverage for example 2.5 Perkis all the other which have worked in mission get XX perkis after the mission have completly ended.
i hope this idee would be esyer to creat.
And i hope too it becomes clear what i mean , sorry my bead english.
cu in the endless war :-)):)
-
I think I see why HT doesn't post in as many threads as I would like to see.
Thank You Wotan for showing that you are to blame for that:mad:
Hitech and friends.
Booky
-
Ok Booky
Either fly with 20 guys and rape the enemy and fight over kills, or fly with maybe 2 or 3 guys and get raped by the enemy and whine about it. I tend to find myself in the later of the two.
You know I am right. As for where and why HT posts thats up to him.
Lepaul your idea is still terrible no matter how well meaning you think it is.
That was the sum total of my "insult" toward you.
HT that thread by Gruenherz about taking sides. Heres what he meant. Read Booky's post in the other thread. He basically said the same thing I did then comes here to pat your back for "chatising" me.
Where were you during the post where every other guy went through calling hazed and us Nazis?
Its your board you set the tone, if you say you dont want phrases like "50 man base rape" well thats the rules.
But whatever symantics are used its still true.
-
yawn....
Wotan put the gun down and back away man:)
They got ya sorounded:)
First off it is not imo a good Idea to inchurage mishions in the MA, but I am biased, I dont care for the MA anymore, not since it exceaded like 300 people during prime time, since that time the MA is typicaly a series of fights with a very lage density of planes that moves between fields acording to atrition and the side with the lowere numbers gets bushed back and they are killed on the runway and their base is levaled. ( not how I was PC and avoided saying furball, gange bange and base rape.:) )
Thier is a point hear thought, a lot of people curently playing AH werent hear when it was different and their were fewer people playing, and skill and dogfighting were more of a factor than at present, not only do they not know the diferance they like it the way it is, as do some of the old hands.
If Wotan used potientaly inflamatory statements to collor his posting it was more than likely becuase he is pashionate about the game and sad to see it has changed so in a way that is to him dishearting. I dont beleave he ment any of the above a personal insult to anyone he is a good guy.
HiTech Has a point a lot of people will never see beyond somthing in any statement that contains somthing that is ofensive to them, they simply arent big enough or objective enough to filter through what they consider toejam to see the inhearent truth. Posting when I am upset has helped me loses several debates because of my deleverys for this fact alone. While this fact is inhearently twisted and wrong it is a very real thing and ultimatly can't be argued aganst.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Ok Booky
You know I am right. As for where and why HT posts thats up to him.
Lepaul your idea is still terrible no matter how well meaning you think it is.
That was the sum total of my "insult" toward you.
HT that thread by Gruenherz about taking sides. Heres what he meant. Read Booky's post in the other thread. He basically said the same thing I did then comes here to pat your back for "chatising" me.
Where were you during the post where every other guy went through calling hazed and us Nazis?
Its your board you set the tone, if you say you dont want phrases like "50 man base rape" well thats the rules.
But whatever symantics are used its still true.
Woton, first of all I'll give you credit for useing my other post. Yes I agree that it is like a rapefest in the MA, you got me on that one. However that is not why I said what I said about you being the reason HT doesn't post as much as most would like. He can't just come in here and tell you why he is setting things up the way he is without people like you shooting back saying something to the effect of "your a idiot to think that, I want it my way." Now I know those aren't your exact words, but in a way they can be interpreted that way. SO that is why I said what I said, and I stand by the comment too.
Booky
-
Re read what I said. I asked for nothing. A suggestion was made and I stated why I thought it was "terrible". HT and I agree on the original suggestion. Not exactly for the same reasons, ofcourse.
Ht's point was my use of the words "gangbang planner" and "50 man base rape missions". He thinks they can be "offensive." Therefore I "deserve" or at the very least "asked" to be called whatever name comes up. "Whiner" in this case.
No where do I imply or state that things should be done my way nor do I call anyone a name. I make no "demands".
In fact I have touted the idea behind the mission planner and made post both in the cap and tod forums on how side cos could use the mission planner. I have always critized the "gangbangs".
This "whine" consists of the same words you used and that others have used. If we are going to talk about "perception" and how things are "interpreted" then its fair game to point to how the things others say, even ht, can have multiple "interpretations".
Lepaul has had trouble in the past with folks who disagree with his opinions. Read any of the old "I am a poor bomber pilot" threads and you will see a consistant pattern.
Now your last post could apply to the others in the thread. Someone makes a suggestion, ht answers why things are how they are, then they make alternate suggestion based on each reply ht makes. Its the "never ending cycle".
I would ask that you just read what was written. If you had done that you would see HT was calling me on symantics. The very same ones used by you.
I am off to work and wont reply any more in this thread as a favor to Brady.
See I love ya Man :)
-
The problem with this idea is that it can only be implimented for offense related missions... as if we didn't have enough of them already.
Reward attacking bases even more... I don't think that's needed. In case you haven't flown in the MA recently, you've missed that the best defense is to let someone capture the base, wait until they move on to the next one and then re-capture the base back.
As a result, you see 8 different 50:5 fights going on across the map.
Seems it would be more benificial to give more perks out than normal for shooting down someone who's in a mission. Anything that would promote the desire to actually defend a base is a good thing IMO.
AKDejaVu
-
Thanks Wotan:)
What AKDejaVu said was a very well put summery of the MA, consise polite and bang on.
-
Combine a perk point modifier that adjusts for the number of friendlys vs. enemys within con range during missions.
If you attack w/ overwhelming odds then your perk points will be less, attack a field that is well defended then you reap extra perkies.
The same with normal MA engagements but maybe reduce the range down to D1000 or so...maybe a way to encourage less lopsided fighting, but then there are those who don't care for more or less perkies.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Lepaul has had trouble in the past with folks who disagree with his opinions. Read any of the old "I am a poor bomber pilot" threads and you will see a consistant pattern.
LOL....oh pa-leeaase....you are so lost in yourself... :rolleyes:
And I'm not the first to call you on it.
People disagree with me all the time, so what? I read your posts and you exaggerate and whine pretty consistently.
Go ahead, backpeddle some more.
-
Originally posted by hitech
And what about cap missions?
HiTech
Mission objectives such as "fighter cap" could be rewarded if air to air kills were made.......
Mission objectives such as attack could be rewarded if field objects /gv's were destroyed
Mission objectives such as bomber could be rewarded if strat objects were destroyed or fields captured.
Mission objectives such as GV could be rewarded if field objects /gv's were destroyed/captured and ground to air kills were made.
The problem is really the thwarting of the mission perk by multiple builders of one man missions.....
I agree with Wotan's observation re the Mission tool as a promoter of the mass raid....... however I would promote the use of a field limit to level this
I think we would also benefit if the attack / fighter button was removed and add an attack list with attack points......... (the only thing called a bomber would have a level bombing sight)........ if you choose any thing else with bombs or rockets (or cannon over 30mm) you are in attack mode.
Then the acm folk have a points column they can call their own.
-
I agree with Wotan on the 'gangbang planner.'
It got so boring and frustrating to see missions that consisted of more players than the defender had altogether, attacking a single empty field..
It was common practise while I still played in MA. We might have been fighting at around 120vs100vs50 odds barely surviving the combined attack of 180 or so players with 50 defenders all around the map, and then country x launches a huge mission to take an empty field.
What to do then? Speed there to defend and die usually 20:1 odds? Continue fighting where you were and watch them capture the undefended field?
I did my portion of the first, then started to do the latter and finally came to the realisation that any resistance was futile. Nothing was going to change in MA and the same attitude was going to ensure that you had to choose either from boring superiority in numbers or being retardedly outnumbered. Either way fun factor was zero for people who wanted decent fights.
There will always be a huge group of people who want to have cheap thrills and ensure winning with minimal participation or skill. They attack in hordes and get their kicks mostly by vulching fields or furballs of others.
Anyone suggesting to even up numbers so that real player skill would be represented better in the game result was slaughtered publicly in the UBB. The whine accusations and arguments were abysmal. Nobody saw any problem with the way things were.. There WAS NO numbers imbalance despite the gazillions of screenshots displayed.
But then in the end people (HTC) saw the thing I saw months before I signed out of my account in protest and the perk balancer was introduced. Looks like even that hasn't removed the problems completely but the direction is right and there seems to be hope.
If the gangbang hordes that created the 3:1 or worse ratio are now gone I might consider reactivating the account.
-
its a great idea....
..IF it costs perks to join such a mission.
-
Hers a question that has been running through my mind(a jigsaw puzzle in itself, but that is a different subject all together) Is it possible to increase field ack lethality as the number of bases owned decrease? For example, if Rooks are down to 25% bases, then the remaining AI and mannable flak guns at their bases are more deadly? I am in no way a software programmer, and I can imagine that this may be a nightmare to to do, but think that the harder it is to take a base as the numbers decrease for the losing side, may even out the fact of larger numbers being harder to defend against.
If this is impossible or a real pain in the keister to even think about, I apologize profusely :)
NwBie
-
Originally posted by Furious
its a great idea....
..IF it costs perks to join such a mission.
Interesting, and does the cost to join flucuate depending on which side is up/down, as we have now with perked aircraft/vehicles?
-
Just a thought about the perpetual mission problem.
Would it be possible for a mission to have a specified target, a field or other strat target. Offensive missions could be scored on how much of the target was destroyed or if the base was captured.
CAP missions would be setup in certain sectors, perhaps a 4 sector area. Planes in the CAP mission could earn perks for killing planes in that area just as now, and there would be a small bonus if the strat in their area was undamaged for the duration of their mission. A multiplier could be used for strat damage so that a little damage might lower the % and heavy damage lower it further or even eliminate it.
This might give an incentive to pilots to set up defensive missions and try to interdict incoming planes. Also I would suggest that only pilots that land from the mission be given the mission perk multiplier.
-
Backpeddle? I am 100% right. Theres nothing back peddle on. Theres no whine in the truth.
Your idea is terible. Furious has the right idea. The same type of idea I made in my 1st post.
Read this thread again there lepaul and you will see a number folks agreeing with me about how the mission planner is used now.
As I said if you have trouble with your "ideas" being criticized then dont offer terrible ideas.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Backpeddle? I am 100% right. Theres nothing back peddle on. Theres no whine in the truth.
Your idea is terible. Furious has the right idea. The same type of idea I made in my 1st post.
Read this thread again there lepaul and you will see a number folks agreeing with me about how the mission planner is used now.
As I said if you have trouble with your "ideas" being criticized then dont offer terrible ideas.
But Wotan, you are pretty much the only one whincing and whining (again) that my idea(s) are so terrible.
-
I think a simple perk multipier would work. A 1.5 or 2x multiplier for what ever plane you use. I also think that this will encourage something not often seen in the MA, patrols and CAPs. I manage to get 5 to 8 guys signed up for these missions now. Can't imagine how many would sign up if it involved a perk multiplier.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
But Wotan, you are pretty much the only one whincing and whining (again) that my idea(s) are so terrible.
Its more than just Wotan, though he was the most vocal.
There doesn't need to be an increased effort towards offensive missions. It would simply increase the disparity between attackers and defenders.
AKDejaVu