Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: falcon23 on April 12, 2009, 10:19:40 AM

Title: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 12, 2009, 10:19:40 AM
Fugitive posted this in another thread,and I am needing some defintions to some of these words in how they are used in this game..I have seen them used by many,so if someone can kindly "DEFINE" these words.in this in-game setting for me,then maybe we will be able to have a dialouge,as ALL will understand the meanings of the words in this setting..

 And,respectfully Fugitive,I am only using your quote,as it is the most recent one,and it is time for some defining from the community at large. :salute


QUOTE BY FUGITIVE: I don't think its that big a stretch. Over all game play has gone down hill. Everyone these days is looking for the quickest easiest way to do anything in the game. Mediocre players make mediocre game play and count on the horde to survive long enough to get the "job" done. Its too much trouble and hard work to learn to play the game well, so most settle for average, or less.END QUOTE

 I would like to know just what is meant by MEDIOCRE gameplayers,,Can this even be qualified in this setting of in-game battling???Is one only mediocre if they fly in a horde,and if so, at what number does a group flying together no longer equal QUALITY players,and become a HORDE of medicore players???

  Do mediocre players get shot down more than others??Are mediocre players those guys who cherry pick,who HO,or are they only mediocre if they are in a horde,and again what defines a HORDE????...5,10,12,15,20,45,62,players..

 
Now onto the word AVERAGE...Define the AVERAGE player for me please,is it someone who only gets shot down 50% of the time???75% of the time??? Is someone  considered average after they have gotten their name in lights on the front of the website???Or are THEY considered mediocre,or are they considered what we in AH should ALL ATTAIN to accomplish???Get our name in lights..

 You see we all have our OWN definitions IN_GAME of what these words mean,outside of the regular definitions of everyday life..

 What is a QUALITY player??again,the guy who gets his name in lights on the front page??I can hear you laughing at that statement..SO what makes a quality player??
 

GAME-PLAY going down-hill,who here is QUALIFIED to say that it is going downhill??

   If one wants to have PURE flying  air to air to air combat,then get your buddies and go into the DA or the TA,and fly PURE FLIGHT SA to your hearts content,but you dont do that,WHY??? I think it is because you would get very BORED of it quickly,and after awhile it would not be fun,and besides,then you couldnt come onto the BB's and whine and complain about how others are playing the game,and about how it is going downhill..

 SO who is QUALIFIED TO give defintions?? my bet is that it will vary due to the fact that many desire different things out of the game,and it all comes down to ONES OWN PERCEPTION....so then it becomes a MOOT point really,doesnt it??

                                                     

           

   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bj229r on April 12, 2009, 10:46:58 AM
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/banshee7_2007/ahss41.jpg)
If you are one of those red dots, (not YOU, in particular) you are contributing to poor gameplay---surround yourself with a horde, roll over those who didn't think to bring their own personal 'Atilla-the Hun' horde, land kills, NEVER face a risk of getting shot down, then think you have done something, and start to believe from the results you are actually a talented individual, and THIS is how the game must be played to be successful :furious
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 12, 2009, 10:55:09 AM
 You dont have to be qualified in anything more than breathing to see game play has gone way downhill. Sure the glorious and wonderful reset is the be all end all goal of the game and we all know this < :rock>   so the head on gang hord 50 man noe missions were born to facilitate that end.Nothing screams bad game play like the quake mentality kill at all costs.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 12, 2009, 10:58:03 AM
''''What is a QUALITY player??again,the guy who gets his name in lights on the front page??I can hear you laughing at that statement..SO what makes a quality player??'''''
 Most of the players here know who the quality players are and heres a clue.....They dont score high on the front page if at all.Score is NO indication of skill.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: grizz441 on April 12, 2009, 10:58:25 AM
what defines a HORDE????...5,10,12,15,20,45,62,players..

Has nothing to do with how many players, it has to do with the ratios.  If it's 20 on 20 but there are actual dogfights going on, then it's just a good fight.  However if it's 20 on 4, it's clearly a massive horde.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 12, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/banshee7_2007/ahss41.jpg)
If you are one of those red dots, (not YOU, in particular) you are contributing to poor gameplay---surround yourself with a horde, roll over those who didn't think to bring their own personal 'Atilla-the Hun' horde, land kills, NEVER face a risk of getting shot down, then think you have done something, and start to believe from the results you are actually a talented individual, and THIS is how the game must be played to be successful :furious


 Isnt what makes one successful in this game,who at the end of the month,thinks he got his $15 worth of fun out of it??

  I myself am doing more AvA combat,and not running missions as much,but if I get an inkling I put up missions,and as many who want to join can..And when I get bored of that I may Gv,or go back to AvA..Again it is all about PERSPECTIVE....

 And what would of made this particular attack,Good for gameplay???how many people is the cut-off??I have seen bases defended with as many people hitting it as you are showing in the pic,and it was still saved,not often,but have seen it happen..Was that an NOE?? it does not look to me like it could of been NOE,and if it wasnt,,you guys saw the dar,although you may not of expected as many as were in the mission,I bet the people who are in the mission expected to see as many from you guys on the ground when they got there..

 Judging from where that Vbase sits,that is a VERY important piece of property to own,spawns into 3 fields,who wouldnt of thought that the ones who own that base wouldnt of fought tooth and nail for it???

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TexMurphy on April 12, 2009, 11:01:21 AM
Let me chip in my perspective

I was gone from game for 2.5 years. Reason? Technical issues and lost a bit of interest in the game.

Before I left I felt that the game play experience had gone down hill. Partially due to too much hoard vs hoard furballs and to much base take on undefended fields. I also felt that player skill had gone down and that there where soo many dweebs that just ran HO runs on the deck and couldnt perform a ACM  to save their lifes.

Im back and let me say this. The game has NOT deteriorated in the last 2.5 years.

Has it gotten better? Maybe a little bit. I do find it a bit easier to find the smaller fights I like but its not a huge difference. Is player skill higher? Well mine is a bit lower so relativly speaking to my self Id say yes, but on avg I dont think so.

Has it gotten worse? Nope I cant say it has. Often when one comes back to a game after a long time one has forgotten the bad and made a plesant memory about the game which is false due to one always forgetting bad stuff much easier. Due to this the "omg this sucks" reaction almost always comes when one comes back to something after a few years. But its not like that with AH2. Its definatly not worse then I remember it.

Why do so may people experience "the game is getting worse"?

Well one reason is that they get better and better as pilots while avg Joe is still avg Joe. so when one wins more fights and the challenge goes down one experiences the opponents as worse while its actually just them selfs getting better. Less challenge leads to boredom for competitive people.

Another reason is that things that arnt evolving are deteriorating. Stagnation is regression. As I said above its neither gotten better nor worse in 2.5 years and biggest reason to this is that it hasnt changed.

In 2.5 years P39s, B26s and some GVs have been added. A terrain update has been made with changes to ack. Gameplay mechanics are exactly the same. Arena setups are exactly the same and maps are the same as well.

The biggest change in online play is the changes to the ack.

Honestly WOW what a evolution.

Biggest change overall is the offline missions but honestly that cant count since this is a mmo.

This said Im glad to be back flying and Ive missed it. But HTC really needs to evolve the game more because stagnation is the only sure way to destroy a product over time. I guess they have recognized this and that its partially due to the CT debacle.

Tex
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 12, 2009, 11:04:59 AM
Has nothing to do with how many players, it has to do with the ratios.  If it's 20 on 20 but there are actual dogfights going on, then it's just a good fight.  However if it's 20 on 4, it's clearly a massive horde.

 Well,as I posted above about the Vbase take..Whos fault is it in that case?? was it the MISSION planners fault for planning on good defense,or was it the defending countrys fault for not being aware of the possibility of another side wanting that base at all costs??
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 12, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
 People that are way to afraid to push the limits because they are afraid to lose that cartoon life are a big cause to bad gameplay.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 12, 2009, 11:17:41 AM
People that are way to afraid to push the limits because they are afraid to lose that cartoon life are a big cause to bad gameplay.

 Define please.."PUSH THE LIMITS"...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 12, 2009, 11:22:35 AM
 Ok these type of flyer will never risk anything.They would rather run away then take a chance on ACM trying to get a fireing solution.The nothing ventured nothing gained effect. Every fight can be a learning experience if you are willing to lay it all on the line and fight to the death.
  Sadly alot are to skeered to be shot down for some reason. I would bet alot of them run to the score page to see if their score is higher than someones and think they are "better" at the game.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: crazyivan on April 12, 2009, 11:25:07 AM
People that are way to afraid to push the limits because they are afraid to lose that cartoon life are a big cause to bad gameplay.
yeah, leave my cartoon plane alone, and stop shooting at me.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bj229r on April 12, 2009, 11:27:01 AM
Well,as I posted above about the Vbase take..Whos fault is it in that case?? was it the MISSION planners fault for planning on good defense,or was it the defending countrys fault for not being aware of the possibility of another side wanting that base at all costs??
The mission planners planned on whording an empty base, and thats what they found--3-4 flaks might have upped, but they would have fallen under the onslaught. Only a dedicated large squad of like-minded whordlings sitting in the tower, dutifully watching country-dar, could have prevented said onslaught. Coordinated response in the space of 2-3 minutes from various chess-piece members simply isn't likely. Were I a mission planner, and had that many guys at my beckon-call, I would have picked a base that actually had PEOPLE, no reason to roll an empty one, unless ya just don't want fights, period
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: kvuo75 on April 12, 2009, 11:27:12 AM
Well,as I posted above about the Vbase take..Whos fault is it in that case?? was it the MISSION planners fault for planning on good defense,or was it the defending countrys fault for not being aware of the possibility of another side wanting that base at all costs??

look at that screen again.. the vh's are already dead! and the main horde wasnt even there yet!

yea right they were lookin for a good defense..  :rolleyes:

i think the fact that huge groups of ppl want a BASE at all costs is strange...



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 12, 2009, 11:29:29 AM
I can understand your views that this can be very subjective, so I will just throw out my $.02

Good player: One that has great experience in this game and can be put in almost any situation and come out victorious because of his knowledge of not only what he is flying, but he/she understands the dynamics of what that other person is flying. One must note that in order to achieve this status, that its a very slow and rigorous process and doesn't happen overnight. ( People don't become guitar legends in 2 months or even 2 years of playing). The only way to learn is to learn through making mistakes and learning how NOT to make them the next time.

Poor player: Player that wants to get to point A --->Point B under any cost. They are people that want to achieve instant gratification no matter what it is. They will HO you, Ram you, Gang you, suicide their cartoon ride at any cost to achieve some sort of victory. They are generally the people that are too proud or too lazy to make the mistakes and learn from them. (As Fugitive was trying to state).

These guys that are notorious for hopping the map going NOE with a horde (Horde example: if you fight more green guys for targets than red guys, your in a horde) are usually met with negativity in here because 99% of everyone in here have been there, done that. Pure and simple, base hoping NOE style and you are relying more on luck than skill. ( you know where the town is, you know the only thing that is gonna fight back is the auto ack and its the same routine...over and over and over).
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: crazyivan on April 12, 2009, 11:30:13 AM
look at that screen again.. the vh's are already dead! and the main horde wasnt even there yet!

yea right they were lookin for a good defense..  :rolleyes:

i think the fact that huge groups of ppl want a BASE at all costs is strange...




someones gotta lead the sheep. :t
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bj229r on April 12, 2009, 11:31:20 AM
I can understand your views that this can be very subjective, so I will just throw out my $.02

Good player: One that has great experience in this game and can be put in almost any situation and come out victorious because of his knowledge of not only what he is flying, but he/she understands the dynamics of what that other person is flying. One must note that in order to achieve this status, that its a very slow and rigorous process and doesn't happen overnight. ( People don't become guitar legends in 2 months or even 2 years of playing). The only way to learn is to learn through making mistakes and learning how NOT to make them the next time.

Poor player: Player that wants to get to point A --->Point B under any cost. They are people that want to achieve instant gratification no matter what it is. They will HO you, Ram you, Gang you, suicide their cartoon ride at any cost to achieve some sort of victory. They are generally the people that are too proud or too lazy to make the mistakes and learn from them. (As Fugitive was trying to state).

These guys that are notorious for hopping the map going NOE with a horde (Horde example: if you fight more green guys for targets than red guys, your in a horde) are usually met with negativity in here because 99% of everyone in here have been there, done that. Pure and simple, base hoping NOE style and you are relying more on luck than skill. ( you know where the town is, you know the only thing that is gonna fight back is the auto ack and its the same routine...over and over and over).

I can buy that :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 12, 2009, 11:35:51 AM
The problem I see from a lot of people on this board is they have a pretty big blind spot, or are just stubborn and are going to stick to the "play my way" attitude.

Falcon23, I'm not picking on you, but let me use your post, and the "point of view" I get when reading it. When you run a mission, you are "flying with your squad", to others you are part of a horde. You don't believe, nor would you ever admit that you are a horde. So when ever a post comes up about "hordes" you are automatically on the defensive. This is the "blind spot" I'm talking about. Landgrabbers, win the war types, Furballers, and GVers are all guilty of it, and will defend their position completely here on the boards. What I'm about is being open minded about things, listening to other points of view, learning from others. Some may call me a furballer, but that is the "label" they put on me, to me I'm an Aces High game player. I may enjoy flying and fighting in a fight the most, but I do other things in the game as well.

So viewing with an open mind, here are my definitions.....

Mediocre players - To me is a player who will not reach his/her potential because they have stopped trying to move forward. Why learn to hit a VH with ALL the ordnance your plane carries EVERYTIME you make a run when you have 6 fellow players that well follow be hind you to finish off the job? This is one of the problems brought on by the horde. Why learn to fight 1 vs 1 in a plane when you can have 6 wingman? This type of player then becomes only able to do NOE missions with 20 of his closest buddies because they can't complete an objective any other way. They are weak in skill and tactics are, while it does work, they never will challenge themselves, why should they, it works.

Hordes - To me, a horde is overwhelming force. In a war, having 4 to 1 number superiority is a good thing, but not in a combat game that is NOT life or death, but entertainment. Honestly, is it really that much fun taking 20 guys to hit a VB? Even if half your guys missed their targets you would have a base totally flat with a couple guys still circling with bombs. There is no challenge flying in the horde, and a game is suppose to have some difficulty other wise its not all that much fun. Example... you and 4 of your friends go down to the field for a pick-up game of basket ball. There are 3 guys there shooting hoops. Do you play 5 on 3, or do you choose up sides and play 4 on 4? Most people play 4 on 4, why? because its more fun.

Average - I think this is a lot like I mentioned in the mediocre. To me an average player is one who does all things well. No they are NOT at the top of the scoreboards, nor on the front page. There are some elite fighter type, as well as buff and GVers too, but I think the main group of people who play are, or should be striving to be an average player. I consider myself an average player. I do all things OK...though I think I really suck in GVs... I think most players, who want to play the game would want to learn how to play all aspects of the game if just to have an idea of whats available, and how to counteract it. Knowing all of the basics would make most people well on their way to being an average player. Those that don't "stagnet" there and continue to learn become average, and some of those find a nich they are good at and excel and become some of those "elite" players. If you don't try to get better, you NEVER will. Of course some of us try, and only make it to average... like me.

Qualified -  Who should be qualified to give these definitions, any one I guess, its up to the community to decide which definition covers the tern. I try to look at these things with an open mind. I don't want people "to play my way" other than I'd like to see them play the game.  Running from a fight, doing NOE's to undefended base, after base, using overwhelming force to take an objective, and so on is NOT playing the game. COMBAT is the game, and avoiding it isn't they way it was meant to be. Again with the basket ball analogy.... you and your 4 buddies show up at the court before the team your going to play. Each of you sinks 10 baskets each before the other team shows. Technically you guys are up 100 to 0 but what have you won? If you can be honest with yourself, and look at thing objectively, then I think you should be qualified to help with the definitions.

Well those are my definitions. I'm not trying to push any one into a certain direction, I'd just like to see the game return to what it use to be. I'm not trying to accuse anyone person, or squad for the "down fall of game play", I'm just trying to point out it was much better before, and I'm sure it can be again.  :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Fianna on April 12, 2009, 12:32:10 PM
Some quick thoughts.

Mediocre and average mean the same thing, so a mediocre player and an average player would be the same. My loose definition would be someone who is better than about 49% of players and worse than about 49% of players.




What you talked about in your post, was people who lead to mediocre/average gameplay.

Examples:

1. There are 4 friendlies on the deck fighting one enemy, and you dive down to join in.
2. You're bypassing flying enemies to vulch planes still on the runway.
3. You're attacking a base, and you destroy fighter hangars before the VH and town.
4. You feel like flying buffs, and you knock out the fighter hangars at a base involved in a great furball (go attack a strat instead, much more realistic and you won't ruin a fight).
5. You run from a 1v1 fight to either a friend or ack. Once the person you were fighting turns around (because of ack) or starts fighting your friend, you turn around and go after them again.
6. In a furball, you kill the guy your teammate is shooting at, as opposed to the guy shooting at your teammate.
7. You run multiple NOE horde missions. One or two is ok, it's in interesting experience. Doing it more than two times shows you're only doing it to capture bases with no conflict (why play the game if you don't want to fight?).
8. You repeatedly fire in head-on merges.
9. You interrupt someone's 1v1 without asking.
10. A friendly asks you to stay out of his fight, and you pick the guy he's fighting anyways.


You might be the best player in the game, but if you repeatedly do the things listed, you're still a dweeb. There may be a correlation between dweebiness and skill, but having skill doesn't mean you're not a dweeb.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 12, 2009, 12:42:47 PM
it all started when air warrior went tits up...gone down hill since then.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kazaa on April 12, 2009, 01:07:37 PM
Fantastic topic Falcon, I’m going to try and voice my opinion here. :aok

What’s a horde?

A flight with more A/C then necessary to overcome an objective.

Game play going down hill?

Well I would agree that the general arena game play has gone down hill, maps are two big since the MA was split, hence the war is hardly ever won anymore. That means the “main objective is null and void”.

I spend most of my time online in the DA now, duelling the most advanced stick that I can find. My best friend Bruv and I can spend up to two hours a session duelling each other.

Who here is QUALIFIED to say that it is going downhill??

Everyone who pays their £9.99 a month has the right to voice their opinion on game play.

What makes a quality player ?

Do you mean skill wise? If so then the people who get their name in lights on the front page do poses some skill, a lot of patients and free time. However they are far from the most skilled pilots on a 1v1 bases in game! TonyJoey exempt as the kids got skills to pay the bills.

Other then that, the people who win KoTH have a right to claim greatness or held with some regard by other players.:cool:

I have just as much admirations for the people who are willing to spend their time organising fun for other people. Fuzeman is a prime example, The AH2 trainers fall into this category also.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 12, 2009, 03:51:35 PM
Fantastic topic Falcon, I’m going to try and voice my opinion here. :aok

What’s a horde?

A flight with more A/C then necessary to overcome an objective.

Game play going down hill?

Well I would agree that the general arena game play has gone down hill, maps are two big since the MA was split, hence the war is hardly ever won anymore. That means the “main objective is null and void”.

I spend most of my time online in the DA now, duelling the most advanced stick that I can find. My best friend Bruv and I can spend up to two hours a session duelling each other.

Who here is QUALIFIED to say that it is going downhill??

Everyone who pays their £9.99 a month has the right to voice their opinion on game play.

What makes a quality player ?

Do you mean skill wise? If so then the people who get their name in lights on the front page do poses some skill, a lot of patents and free time. However they are far from the most skilled pilots on a 1v1 bases in game! TonyJoey exempt as the kids got skills to pay the bills.

Other then that, the people who win KoTH have a right to claim greatness or held with some regard by other players.:cool:

I have just as much admirations for the people who are willing to spend their time organising fun for other people. Fuzeman is a prime example, The AH2 trainers fall into this category also.



 TY KAZAA for the kind reply,as well as all of you..

 Kazaa,your definition of horde is close...example:10/110's 8-10 fighters,4 goons...can take a base,less can take a base..Where is the line drawn as to it being A horde?Some would say it is a horde,some would say it isnt..This mission could possibly not take a base..Is it still considered a horde??Or is it only considered a horde,if it DOES take the base???

 SOme would say if they up at a base and it is 3or4 to 1 ratio..Should it be 1v1 ALL the time???2v1????

 Are you saying that the MAIN objective is to WIN THE WAR/RESET THE MAP???And that it is going down-hill due to the fact that this cannot be accomplished as easily anymore on the big maps?


 Opinions vary by perspective KAZAA as far as qualify,so there again it is back to the person paying the money as to how they want to have fun...

 

And to think that someone who runs in big missions,,ANYONE in the mission as not being average,or above average is a bit short-sighted I believe..I think the best way to compare oneself to how one is doing is by looking at ones own stats..many dont care about score,but others do care about it..
Its like you said fugitive..Its about flying with ones buddies and the comarraderie(SP) that goes along with those missions..

  You have win the war types,like me,you have ACM aircraft fighting many enjoy,like me,you have GVing which many like,like me..We have it all in this game.and we only have our own conscience to deal with how we played at the end of the day..

 If one is ruining your fun,or you always come in here and complain about how things are not working out in AH,then I think you are giving people too much power over you.. :salute

 
 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 12, 2009, 06:48:07 PM
Let me chip in my perspective

I was gone from game for 2.5 years. Reason? Technical issues and lost a bit of interest in the game.

Before I left I felt that the game play experience had gone down hill. Partially due to too much hoard vs hoard furballs and to much base take on undefended fields. I also felt that player skill had gone down and that there where soo many dweebs that just ran HO runs on the deck and couldnt perform a ACM  to save their lifes.

Im back and let me say this. The game has NOT deteriorated in the last 2.5 years.

Has it gotten better? Maybe a little bit. I do find it a bit easier to find the smaller fights I like but its not a huge difference. Is player skill higher? Well mine is a bit lower so relativly speaking to my self Id say yes, but on avg I dont think so.

Has it gotten worse? Nope I cant say it has. Often when one comes back to a game after a long time one has forgotten the bad and made a plesant memory about the game which is false due to one always forgetting bad stuff much easier. Due to this the "omg this sucks" reaction almost always comes when one comes back to something after a few years. But its not like that with AH2. Its definatly not worse then I remember it.

Why do so may people experience "the game is getting worse"?

Well one reason is that they get better and better as pilots while avg Joe is still avg Joe. so when one wins more fights and the challenge goes down one experiences the opponents as worse while its actually just them selfs getting better. Less challenge leads to boredom for competitive people.

Another reason is that things that arnt evolving are deteriorating. Stagnation is regression. As I said above its neither gotten better nor worse in 2.5 years and biggest reason to this is that it hasnt changed.

In 2.5 years P39s, B26s and some GVs have been added. A terrain update has been made with changes to ack. Gameplay mechanics are exactly the same. Arena setups are exactly the same and maps are the same as well.

The biggest change in online play is the changes to the ack.

Honestly WOW what a evolution.

Biggest change overall is the offline missions but honestly that cant count since this is a mmo.

This said Im glad to be back flying and Ive missed it. But HTC really needs to evolve the game more because stagnation is the only sure way to destroy a product over time. I guess they have recognized this and that its partially due to the CT debacle.

Tex

Quoted this because I think it got glossed over and is likely very very close to the mark on many points.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Halo46 on April 12, 2009, 07:11:06 PM
''''What is a QUALITY player??again,the guy who gets his name in lights on the front page??I can hear you laughing at that statement..SO what makes a quality player??'''''
 Most of the players here know who the quality players are and heres a clue.....They dont score high on the front page if at all.Score is NO indication of skill.

And skill is no indication of quality.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ghosth on April 12, 2009, 07:38:50 PM
It all depends on what floats your boat. There are several major and many minor classes of pilots.

Start by asking yourself a few simple questions.

A You see an enemy in the same plane your in, same alt, and E states.
1: Are you going to engage aggressively, trying to win?
2: HO and go, hoping you either kill him or get to help?
3: React defensively, and try to escape?
4: Try to stay alive until help comes?
5: Bail out so you can try again.

Ok so you've merged 3 times, keeps coming back nose to nose each time, no one gaining an advantage.
Do you
1: Take the next front quarter shot (what some would call HO) you get?
2: Push your plane to the edge and figure out how to get an advantage.
3: Try something new to see if it works?
4: Expect him to shoot next time?
5: Get on the radio and scream for help?


It was a great fight, but eventually he shot you down.
Do you
1: Send him a <S> and save film so you can figure out how?
2: Send him a PM asking him how?
3: Complain on 200 about <insert favorite tactic here>
4: Send him a PM accusing him of <insert fav rant here>
5: Log off in disgust


First rule of AH, its your dime, its your time, there is no wrong plane. There is really only one wrong tactic, and thats to HO and go on the initial merge. (the only true HO IMO)
Everything else depends on situation and how you choose to play.

But if you decline a 1 on 1, even if your at a slight disadvantage, your not a good pilot.
If you only land kills when flying with 3 or more other pilots, your missing out on what you could be.
If you whine every time you die, look in the mirror. If you died YOU made a mistake, someplace. Accept it.
Learn from it, and move on.
If your pm'ing people who just killed you and asking anything other than "how did you do that, or what mistake did I make. Well chances are your part of the problem.

Your dime, your time, your decisions, own them, they were yours. Right or wrong.
Make them, and then live with the consequences.

If your really want to be a GOOD pilot, try flying with even a modicum of honor and integrety, and in other than the top 5 planes.

ps answers are 1, 2 or 3, and 1 or 2.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ratpack1 on April 12, 2009, 08:52:24 PM
Bad game play, hording, vulching, hoing, camping, base capturing, milk running, start bombing, spitfires(as requested by Shuffler), lanc stukaing and warping will all be addressed in the next update in two weeks!(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/presto731/smiley-signs017.gif)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 12, 2009, 09:25:43 PM
TY KAZAA for the kind reply,as well as all of you..

 Kazaa,your definition of horde is close...example:10/110's 8-10 fighters,4 goons...can take a base,less can take a base..Where is the line drawn as to it being A horde?Some would say it is a horde,some would say it isnt..This mission could possibly not take a base..Is it still considered a horde??Or is it only considered a horde,if it DOES take the base???

 SOme would say if they up at a base and it is 3or4 to 1 ratio..Should it be 1v1 ALL the time???2v1????

 Are you saying that the MAIN objective is to WIN THE WAR/RESET THE MAP???And that it is going down-hill due to the fact that this cannot be accomplished as easily anymore on the big maps?


 Opinions vary by perspective KAZAA as far as qualify,so there again it is back to the person paying the money as to how they want to have fun...

 

And to think that someone who runs in big missions,,ANYONE in the mission as not being average,or above average is a bit short-sighted I believe..I think the best way to compare oneself to how one is doing is by looking at ones own stats..many dont care about score,but others do care about it..
Its like you said fugitive..Its about flying with ones buddies and the comarraderie(SP) that goes along with those missions..

  You have win the war types,like me,you have ACM aircraft fighting many enjoy,like me,you have GVing which many like,like me..We have it all in this game.and we only have our own conscience to deal with how we played at the end of the day..

 If one is ruining your fun,or you always come in here and complain about how things are not working out in AH,then I think you are giving people too much power over you.. :salute

 
 

Well you answered the one question I had. I was wondering what answer you were looking for here, because I was pretty sure you didn't really want to discuss this topic. All you were looking for is someone to post something that you could use to defend your position that your squad doesn't act like a horde. The bold section you bring up the horde questions and possible reason for using large numbers and questioning totals, then in the blue section you try justifying flying in large groups as flying with your buddies. You prove out the first part of my post very nicely....

The problem I see from a lot of people on this board is they have a pretty big blind spot, or are just stubborn and are going to stick to the "play my way" attitude.

Falcon23, I'm not picking on you, but let me use your post, and the "point of view" I get when reading it. When you run a mission, you are "flying with your squad", to others you are part of a horde. You don't believe, nor would you ever admit that you are a horde. So when ever a post comes up about "hordes" you are automatically on the defensive. This is the "blind spot" I'm talking about. Landgrabbers, win the war types, Furballers, and GVers are all guilty of it, and will defend their position completely here on the boards. What I'm about is being open minded about things, listening to other points of view, learning from others. Some may call me a furballer, but that is the "label" they put on me, to me I'm an Aces High game player. I may enjoy flying and fighting in a fight the most, but I do other things in the game as well.


4 on 4 basketball won't work for you, the other team might have a chance to win! Flying with a big squad can be just as much fun with the force split over two bases. Hit two Vbases at the same time, 10 on each. Now your not a horde. Now you are contributing to the fun of more people. Now you must have better skilled players to accomplish the objective. Now you have more of a challenge. Now you have a greater sense of accomplishment when....or if  :) you do win. This is the difference in "poor game play" and "playing the game.

I think Kazaa hit the points pretty well on the head, but like I said in the first reply, you have a blind spot and automatically go for the defensive position and have to try and twist what he said. Overwhelming force is not a subjective term. 8 guys is enough to take a base. Should a big defense show and stop you, regroup and bring 12 guys. I know heaven forbid you fail on the first attempt, your squad mates will shoot you and appoint a new CO  :rolleyes: The idea of the game is combat, succeeding at it wins you the "war" and awards you perk points. Or you can run around taking undefended bases, run from fights, NOE on one front then on the other and back again to ....get this.... win the "war" and awarded perk points.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 12, 2009, 09:36:40 PM
Quality game play here is no different than in any other game....ANY.

If you consistently use imbalances, flaws, inequities or subterfuge to succeed....you are not creating "quality" game play. In point of fact, if this is the way you play the game....you could (and should) be considered "lame". Contrary to what some folks want to believe, AH is not war. It is a game about war. In war, the goal is to win by whatever means. In a game, playing with that goal, will generally insure that you won't have many folks willing to play with you.

Quality game play means that game play is good/entertaining for everyone involved....not just those on the winning side.

My favorite analogy for what passes in the MA for good game play is.....

Imagine some poor wank sitting in the corner pulling on his pud and yelling..."WOW, SEX IS GREAT!". Calling that "great sex" equates calling what happens in the MA's "great game play".


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Oldman731 on April 12, 2009, 09:47:05 PM
But if you decline a 1 on 1, even if your at a slight disadvantage, your not a good pilot.
If you only land kills when flying with 3 or more other pilots, your missing out on what you could be.
If you whine every time you die, look in the mirror. If you died YOU made a mistake, someplace. Accept it.
Learn from it, and move on.
If your pm'ing people who just killed you and asking anything other than "how did you do that, or what mistake did I make. Well chances are your part of the problem.

This is very good.

- oldman
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Sloehand on April 12, 2009, 10:41:57 PM
''''What is a QUALITY player??again,the guy who gets his name in lights on the front page??I can hear you laughing at that statement..SO what makes a quality player??'''''
 Most of the players here know who the quality players are and heres a clue.....They dont score high on the front page if at all.Score is NO indication of skill.

This one is so easy.  A "quality" player is one who plays the game the same way you do, who is just as upset and supportive when the other guys doesn't fight or do things the way you think they should.  The "quality" player agrees with you that your way is the RIGHT WAY to play, and therefore, the ONLY WAY to play.  Everyone else is "mediocre", a newb and is just trashing your personal enjoyment of the game out of shear spite.  Dam the arrogance of the mediocrates!

Get some tolerance and quit being such babies.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 12, 2009, 10:54:16 PM
That's funny. I like being a baby because it's my 15$ and you're just a "mediocre" newb for being so tolerant.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: JunkyII on April 13, 2009, 12:07:24 AM
Fantastic topic Falcon, I’m going to try and voice my opinion here. :aok

What’s a horde?

A flight with more A/C then necessary to overcome an objective.

Game play going down hill?

Well I would agree that the general arena game play has gone down hill, maps are two big since the MA was split, hence the war is hardly ever won anymore. That means the “main objective is null and void”.

I spend most of my time online in the DA now, duelling the most advanced stick that I can find. My best friend Bruv and I can spend up to two hours a session duelling each other.

Who here is QUALIFIED to say that it is going downhill??

Everyone who pays their £9.99 a month has the right to voice their opinion on game play.

What makes a quality player ?

Do you mean skill wise? If so then the people who get their name in lights on the front page do poses some skill, a lot of patients and free time. However they are far from the most skilled pilots on a 1v1 bases in game! TonyJoey exempt as the kids got skills to pay the bills.

Other then that, the people who win KoTH have a right to claim greatness or held with some regard by other players.:cool:

I have just as much admirations for the people who are willing to spend their time organising fun for other people. Fuzeman is a prime example, The AH2 trainers fall into this category also.


Negative, Limbo won it one month and he HOs....also ran when he had C2 and I was in Pony lower then him....some people just get lucky. Bad gameplay is sprouting from people who dont wish to learn more about ACM.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dawger on April 13, 2009, 07:45:59 AM



First rule of AH, its your dime, its your time, there is no wrong plane. There is really only one wrong tactic, and thats to HO and go on the initial merge. (the only true HO IMO)
Everything else depends on situation and how you choose to play.

But if you decline a 1 on 1, even if your at a slight disadvantage, your not a good pilot.


If your really want to be a GOOD pilot, try flying with even a modicum of honor and integrety, and in other than the top 5 planes.



I'd agree with most everything Ghost said except for the points I quoted.

One of the major problems with Aces High is this silly "Cold Merge" concept. It is a training tool only or maybe some kinda of goofy dueling rule. Trying to make it some sort "right or wrong" issue is the root of much silliness on this board. I've been flying online for quite a long time and have seen every HO argument there possibly is.

 It boils down to one simple fact.

If you cannot avoid a front quarter high aspect guns pass there is a big hole in your skill set or mindset or both. It is exceedingly simple to avoid the "HO" attempt and turn it to an angles advantage. I would never consider teaching anyone to "cold merge". It only sets them up for failure. And the end result is lots of silliness on this board. Learn to avoid the front quarter aspect shots. Learn to turn them to your advantage. I used to invite students to grab a 190 and try to kill me using the "Head on". That usually got them interested in how I managed to avoid their shots and end up offensive.

Next item. Declining 1 v 1 = not a good pilot. I guess I suck because I decline 1 v 1 opportunities all the time. From advantage, neutral, or disadvantage. For many different reasons. A few examples. Hurricanes and Zeroes. I won't even bother. In my P38 it is not exceptionally hard to win the fight. In fact, the fight is so predictable, its rather dull. I don't have the inclination to engage in yet another boom and zoom on someone who thinks yanking on the pole is the only way to fight. Conversely, I'll blow 42,000 feet of altitude to kill a pony. I enjoy the heck out of killing ponies (If I can catch them). If I see a jet I'll point my six at him, proceed to the nearest base, land, logoff and go do something else. Jets are the ultimately in buzz killers in game for me. Mind numbingly dull to fight but they can hang around out of guns range forever if they have the merest amount of skill. People have different interests. And even though mine is getting into a good fight, i really have little interest in fighting certain aircraft in certain situations. It is just boring.

And last....honor and integrity. Beside the glaringly obvious fact that this is a game let us discuss definitions.

Honor is honesty to one's own beliefs. Notice....one's own beliefs not beliefs imposed on him by others. Cultures of Honor flourish where there is no rule of law. They have faded from much of the West. Totally misapplied here. I can be completely honorable within the framework of my squadron yet break many of the "laws" imposed by the gameplay police. Honor only applies to the belief system engaged. Honor in this game applies to each little "gang" not the entire community because there is no unified belief system in game.

Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome. A man with integrity necessarily is honorable within the context of his belief system.

If I am a member of a criminal gang that has set forth a system of beliefs, no matter how vile it may seem to the outside world, and I hold true to that system of beliefs I have integrity within that group and consequently I have honor. To an outsider I may seem the be the complete opposite but Honor and integrity do not apply outside of my particular belief system. And this is why we have the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Honor.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 13, 2009, 07:49:30 AM
Only a dedicated large squad of like-minded whordlings sitting in the tower, dutifully watching country-dar, could have prevented said onslaught. Coordinated response in the space of 2-3 minutes from various chess-piece members simply isn't likely.

Wrong. Maybe on your side or perspective, I can assure you.  
Just the other day a player on the Bish side alerted on country that a V base was being attacked by an NOE of umteen B-25's,  I was landing and went to help only to find that this person and I were the only two to show up before the hangers were taken down, I killed 10 of them and the troops that were there to save the base.  Anyone willing to defend will, those that choose not to will blame someone else for their lack of effort to save a base.  


Hordes - To me, a horde is overwhelming force. In a war, having 4 to 1 number superiority is a good thing, but not in a combat game that is NOT life or death, but entertainment. Honestly, is it really that much fun taking 20 guys to hit a VB?

Can this definition apply to wingman also?   You refer to 20 hitting a VB, what if its furball where its 10-3?  Is it still a horde?
More times than not, many will "hide" in this type of horde this is what some peoples perspective is on fighter hordes and how they "run" from a fight, afraid to mix it up, etc.

But if you decline a 1 on 1, even if your at a slight disadvantage, your not a good pilot.
If you only land kills when flying with 3 or more other pilots, your missing out on what you could be.
If you whine every time you die, look in the mirror. If you died YOU made a mistake, someplace. Accept it.
Learn from it, and move on.
If your pm'ing people who just killed you and asking anything other than "how did you do that, or what mistake did I make. Well chances are your part of the problem.

I cant agree with you more Ghosth. 

IMO, many that come here to complain about the flavor of the week are unknowingly part of the problem in some shape or form.  Throwing rocks from a glass house so to speak. 

This one is so easy.  A "quality" player is one who plays the game the same way you do, who is just as upset and supportive when the other guys doesn't fight or do things the way you think they should.  The "quality" player agrees with you that your way is the RIGHT WAY to play, and therefore, the ONLY WAY to play.  Everyone else is "mediocre", a newb and is just trashing your personal enjoyment of the game out of shear spite.  Dam the arrogance of the mediocrates!

Get some tolerance and quit being such babies.

 :aok


Good discussion and inputs.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 13, 2009, 09:50:43 AM
I'd agree with most everything Ghost said except for the points I quoted.

One of the major problems with Aces High is this silly "Cold Merge" concept. It is a training tool only or maybe some kinda of goofy dueling rule. Trying to make it some sort "right or wrong" issue is the root of much silliness on this board. I've been flying online for quite a long time and have seen every HO argument there possibly is.

 It boils down to one simple fact.

If you cannot avoid a front quarter high aspect guns pass there is a big hole in your skill set or mindset or both. It is exceedingly simple to avoid the "HO" attempt and turn it to an angles advantage. I would never consider teaching anyone to "cold merge". It only sets them up for failure. And the end result is lots of silliness on this board. Learn to avoid the front quarter aspect shots. Learn to turn them to your advantage. I used to invite students to grab a 190 and try to kill me using the "Head on". That usually got them interested in how I managed to avoid their shots and end up offensive.

Next item. Declining 1 v 1 = not a good pilot. I guess I suck because I decline 1 v 1 opportunities all the time. From advantage, neutral, or disadvantage. For many different reasons. A few examples. Hurricanes and Zeroes. I won't even bother. In my P38 it is not exceptionally hard to win the fight. In fact, the fight is so predictable, its rather dull. I don't have the inclination to engage in yet another boom and zoom on someone who thinks yanking on the pole is the only way to fight. Conversely, I'll blow 42,000 feet of altitude to kill a pony. I enjoy the heck out of killing ponies (If I can catch them). If I see a jet I'll point my six at him, proceed to the nearest base, land, logoff and go do something else. Jets are the ultimately in buzz killers in game for me. Mind numbingly dull to fight but they can hang around out of guns range forever if they have the merest amount of skill. People have different interests. And even though mine is getting into a good fight, i really have little interest in fighting certain aircraft in certain situations. It is just boring.

And last....honor and integrity. Beside the glaringly obvious fact that this is a game let us discuss definitions.

Honor is honesty to one's own beliefs. Notice....one's own beliefs not beliefs imposed on him by others. Cultures of Honor flourish where there is no rule of law. They have faded from much of the West. Totally misapplied here. I can be completely honorable within the framework of my squadron yet break many of the "laws" imposed by the gameplay police. Honor only applies to the belief system engaged. Honor in this game applies to each little "gang" not the entire community because there is no unified belief system in game.

Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome. A man with integrity necessarily is honorable within the context of his belief system.

If I am a member of a criminal gang that has set forth a system of beliefs, no matter how vile it may seem to the outside world, and I hold true to that system of beliefs I have integrity within that group and consequently I have honor. To an outsider I may seem the be the complete opposite but Honor and integrity do not apply outside of my particular belief system. And this is why we have the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Honor.

Well if that doesn't come of sounding a bit like a "Holy than thou" attitude I don't what does!

Dawger, you come in here and push your attitude, and agenda everytime you post something. You came from WB..or where ever.. and yes you were the best trainer/fighter/team player/whatever there, but your in our world now. What applied in your world doesn't necessarily apply in ours. Here we try to train the a HO is a bad thing, yes many people still take it, but most feels that it is a cheap shot and will call you out on it.

I don't know about from where you come from, but here the idea is to fight, or have combat. Turning down a 1 vs 1 means you should go fly Flightsim X because you don't want to fight, so go fly a flight sim where there is no fighting.

Honor is dictated by the community. In the US we have a certain honor, if your a gang banger, you may have a certain honor, but to the rest of society/community your unlawful scum that needs to be locked up. Same goes for the game. you may be honorable with in your squad, but the rest of the game community decide whether that is acceptable.

You came from a different neighborhood, ours works just a bit different.  It doesn't matter how long you have been in flight sim communities, what matters is how long you have been in THIS flight sim community. Anything you earned in other sims is thrown out the window when you switched, just like everyone else. Here you have to start all over, like everyone else. Nobody gets respect just because.... they have to earn it just like everyone else.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: crazyivan on April 13, 2009, 09:55:37 AM
That's funny. I like being a baby because it's my 15$ and you're just a "mediocre" newb for being so tolerant.
your  152 is bad game play, go shoot soemone else down. :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: FiLtH on April 13, 2009, 10:08:05 AM
        Here's the game in a nutshell.

       You start out knowing next to nothing, and invest months to years learning how to play. You will meet good opponents and lousy ones, and even more in between. You'll be in a 51 and frustrated why someone takes a hurri2c and complain that he only HOs you. You'll be in a Hurri2c and complain the 51 only wants to run. You'll be in abomber and get yelled at for dropping hangars, and a little while later you'll be yelling at the fighters that while they were furballing the goon died, and that you should have taken down the hangars.

      You will eventually get pretty good at the game and any fight you lose its not because the other guy outflew you or you made a mistake, its because the guy who shot you did something lame.

      You'll get on 200 to call out another person with the sole intent to make him look small, when in fact doing so reflects back on the original typist.

      Your passion for the game becomes a sort of selfish sickness where the only thing that matters is how you maintain your ego, where everyone is there for your entertainment, and abuse.

      Eventually you either wallow in that sad state of mind, or learn to say screw it and relax and enjoy the game and people in it, or quit, or die.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Sloehand on April 13, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
That's funny. I like being a baby because it's my 15$ and you're just a "mediocre" newb for being so tolerant.

Dam right and proud of it.  My $15 (dollar sign goes on the left, you see) is better than your "15$" because... well, because it's MY $15.  Oh, and by the way, you are very successful at being a baby, just in case you weren't sure.   :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Sloehand on April 13, 2009, 11:24:49 AM
       Here's the game in a nutshell.

       You start out knowing next to nothing, and invest months to years learning how to play. You will meet good opponents and lousy ones, and even more in between. You'll be in a 51 and frustrated why someone takes a hurri2c and complain that he only HOs you. You'll be in a Hurri2c and complain the 51 only wants to run. You'll be in abomber and get yelled at for dropping hangars, and a little while later you'll be yelling at the fighters that while they were furballing the goon died, and that you should have taken down the hangars.

      You will eventually get pretty good at the game and any fight you lose its not because the other guy outflew you or you made a mistake, its because the guy who shot you did something lame.

      You'll get on 200 to call out another person with the sole intent to make him look small, when in fact doing so reflects back on the original typist.

      Your passion for the game becomes a sort of selfish sickness where the only thing that matters is how you maintain your ego, where everyone is there for your entertainment, and abuse.

      Eventually you either wallow in that sad state of mind, or learn to say screw it and relax and enjoy the game and people in it, or quit, or die.

In a nutshell.   :aok

While I've come to respect most of the 'hot' sticks in the MA simply for their skill, I've found through the forum that too many have an 'elitest' attitude about the game (I didn't say 'all' or 'most').  It's their game cause they were either here first and/or they are the best at what they like to do, furballing.  They think they are being 'true' to the game and it's original vision or something and everyone else who doesn't play their way isn't. 

What they are, more or less, is arrogant, egotistical and as I've said before, intollerant.  Wonderful qualities in a person.  I have no problem with them not liking certain gameplay or thinking their way is better, but their 'supreme' attitude about it is wearing thin.  Which is probably the intention of many of them.  It's the other half of the game some of them enjoy.  Pissing people off for the fun of it, because they can without punishment.  I can hear them chuckling behind their skirts now.  Or is that clucking?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Chalenge on April 13, 2009, 12:38:13 PM
For every screenshot you can show of a bish mission into a field like that I can show you twice as many of both rook and knight missions. I can always tell when its happening from the 'other' LW arena because bish will have an eny and cannot change arenas because of the cap.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Anaxogoras on April 13, 2009, 01:08:00 PM
The Jokers gave a nice example of a horde yesterday with their attack on A44 in orange.  They attacked with dozens and dozens of P-51s and 4-engined bombers, closed the field entirely, did multiple lemming-goon runs on the town, and still failed to take the field.

Ultimately, they attacked with a far greater force than necessary, but failed to take the base because of a lack of tactical coordination.  It was pretty funny to see such a huge force not succeed at their objective. :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 13, 2009, 01:28:54 PM
       Here's the game in a nutshell.

      passion for the game becomes a sort of selfish sickness where the only thing that matters is how you maintain your ego, where everyone is there for your entertainment, and abuse.

      Eventually you either wallow in that sad state of mind, or learn to say screw it and relax and enjoy the game and people in it, or quit, or die.
No one has summed it up better FiLtH. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: AKKaz on April 13, 2009, 01:38:20 PM
Just as a curiousity.......... under the many examples given so far....

Wouldn't that also mean that 50 defenders against 8 attackers be considered hording by the defenders?

The shame of it all
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: VonMessa on April 13, 2009, 01:39:54 PM
The Jokers gave a nice example of a horde yesterday with their attack on A44 in orange.  They attacked with dozens and dozens of P-51s and 4-engined bombers, closed the field entirely, did multiple lemming-goon runs on the town, and still failed to take the field.

Ultimately, they attacked with a far greater force than necessary, but failed to take the base because of a lack of tactical coordination.  It was pretty funny to see such a huge force not succeed at their objective. :lol

And I missed it........  :furious
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 13, 2009, 01:40:44 PM

What’s a horde?

A flight with more A/C then necessary to overcome an objective.


Define what is "necessary". Sounds like a "perfect world" term.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Shuffler on April 13, 2009, 01:43:10 PM
Falcon I only read part of the first page of this thread. In only a couple of your posts I can already see that you seem to be what Fug was refering to. If you have no clue as to right and wrong or good and bad there is no sense even worrying about it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 13, 2009, 01:51:06 PM
Honor is dictated by the community.

Uh, no. Things are what they are, outside of what the group thinks. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. The collective opinion of a given community may be honorable, it may be vile, but it is always irrelevant.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Anaxogoras on April 13, 2009, 02:04:24 PM
Uh, no. Things are what they are, outside of what the group thinks. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. The collective opinion of a given community may be honorable, it may be vile, but it is always irrelevant.

Don't forget to read "community" as "small group of self-appointed oligarchs who believe others give a crap what they think." :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 13, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
Falcon I only read part of the first page of this thread. In only a couple of your posts I can already see that you seem to be what Fug was refering to. If you have no clue as to right and wrong or good and bad there is no sense even worrying about it.

 I have come to the conclusion that their is no "GOOD" or "BAD"  gameplay..one mans "GOOD" gameplay is anothers "BAD" gameplay.

 The game is whatever one wants to make it..I dont think this will ever change..There will always be people complaining about one thing or another.because they got shot down,a base got taken,And the complaint about HOW it happened.."I GOT HO'ED","HE WAS SPAWN CAMPING","YOUR BUDDIES HELPED YOU"etc..etc...

  As far as defining bad game-play or even good game-play,opinions vary to the point it will never be "SET" in stone,it is all in the mind of the one playing the game. :salute

     
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 13, 2009, 03:04:14 PM
Falcon if there were no "bad" gameplay, things like ENY balancing and switch time restrictions wouldn't exist.
If I run into a player that doesn't know what he's doing, in a 1:1.. And I just snuff him out in a couple of seconds, that's "worse" gameplay than playing along with his attempts for at least a little while.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 13, 2009, 03:09:24 PM
For every screenshot you can show of a bish mission into a field like that I can show you twice as many of both rook and knight missions. I can always tell when its happening from the 'other' LW arena because bish will have an eny and cannot change arenas because of the cap.

NO body said this was a "bishop" thing, it is a game wide thing. Yes Rooks horde, as well as Knights, and most likely just as much.


Uh, no. Things are what they are, outside of what the group thinks. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. The collective opinion of a given community may be honorable, it may be vile, but it is always irrelevant.


With in the game it most certainly is. The community always dictates the way most things go, honor included. In AW it was "cool" to have kill macros. The community encouraged it. In AH it is not, those displaying them are ridiculed. Again, the community decided. The same hold true with honor. Why do most people complain about HOs? Because its lame/not honorable, it sounds like the community it trying to speak and set a standard. It's still a big topic, and will likely go on going back and forth for years to come, but its how it works.

Don't confuse honor in real life, with honor in this game. People have to learn to keep the game and real life separate. What passes for honor on the other side of this screen may mean much different things to many different people. The same as "they did it in the war" doesn't carry any weight here because this is a game, NOT real life.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2009, 04:34:05 PM
I think a lot of people are solely focusing one a sympton of 'bad game play' and not the root cause.  Until players make the effort to shed the 'Capture the Flag/Air Quake' mentality, game play will always suffer.  To me, a perfect example of the root cause of the bad game play can be seen how the majority fly in the furball area of the DA, which to be honest is just a microcosm of the MA.  It's just more centralized and the affects more readily apparent.

Let's face the fact, the 'hord' is part of the game whether we like it or not.  It's a designed element into the game play and nothing will remove that fact.  If you look at any military, I don't think one advocates attacking a well defended base with anything less than a numerical advantage.  Should we really be that suprised that players are using the same strategy?


ack-ack
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Anaxogoras on April 13, 2009, 04:43:09 PM
Until players make the effort to shed the 'Capture the Flag/Air Quake' mentality, game play will always suffer.  To me, a perfect example of the root cause of the bad game play can be seen how the majority fly in the furball area of the DA, which to be honest is just a microcosm of the MA.

I dislike the furball area of the DA pond, but one thing it should not be compared to is the "capture the flag" aspect of the main arena.  When people say there would not be air combat without land to grab, I point to the DA pond as a counter-example.  Is it a good example of air combat?  Hell no, but at least the scum-pond devotees understand that you don't need real-estate to have fun shooting stuff.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: JunkyII on April 13, 2009, 04:48:51 PM
Define what is "necessary". Sounds like a "perfect world" term.
3 to 1 ratio should be enough to take any base but 2v1 should still be very easy :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Oldman731 on April 13, 2009, 04:51:49 PM
Honor is honesty to one's own beliefs. Notice....one's own beliefs not beliefs imposed on him by others.

Without addressing the rest of your note, this part is just plain wrong.  By this definition people like Hitler, Himmler, Stalin, Doctor President Idi Amin Dada, Jack the Ripper and plenty of others were honorable people.  Honor is very much about living up to a standard admired by the community.

- oldman
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Cthulhu on April 13, 2009, 05:35:01 PM
       Here's the game in a nutshell.

       You start out knowing next to nothing, and invest months to years learning how to play. You will meet good opponents and lousy ones, and even more in between. You'll be in a 51 and frustrated why someone takes a hurri2c and complain that he only HOs you. You'll be in a Hurri2c and complain the 51 only wants to run. You'll be in abomber and get yelled at for dropping hangars, and a little while later you'll be yelling at the fighters that while they were furballing the goon died, and that you should have taken down the hangars.

      You will eventually get pretty good at the game and any fight you lose its not because the other guy outflew you or you made a mistake, its because the guy who shot you did something lame.

      You'll get on 200 to call out another person with the sole intent to make him look small, when in fact doing so reflects back on the original typist.

      Your passion for the game becomes a sort of selfish sickness where the only thing that matters is how you maintain your ego, where everyone is there for your entertainment, and abuse.

      Eventually you either wallow in that sad state of mind, or learn to say screw it and relax and enjoy the game and people in it, or quit, or die.
Couldn't have stated it better myself FiLtH  :aok

Although some behavior may be deemed unsavory by the keepers of the flame, the truth is, if it can be done in-game, it will be done in-game. No amount of hand-wringing or editorializing on the forum will ever change that. For every player who reads your posts, there will be five who never read them. (and most likely an even larger number who will silently tell you to stick it!)

So you're left with three choices:

1) quit
2) continue to spend your time complaining (to no avail)
3) just play the way you choose to, and accept that the other guy is going to do the same

 :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2009, 06:03:06 PM
I dislike the furball area of the DA pond, but one thing it should not be compared to is the "capture the flag" aspect of the main arena.  When people say there would not be air combat without land to grab, I point to the DA pond as a counter-example.  Is it a good example of air combat?  Hell no, but at least the scum-pond devotees understand that you don't need real-estate to have fun shooting stuff.

In retrospect, I should have been a little more clear about the 'Capture the Flag' comparison comment.  I wasn't referring to base captures but rather the game play that is prevailent in most CTF style games.  If anyone has ever played Quake II CTF, TF/2 or any other CTF shooter knows what I'm talking about.  Tactics and skill has taken a back seat to gamey game play in order to acheive the quickest results with as little sacrifice as possible.


ack-ack
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 13, 2009, 06:20:26 PM

With in the game it most certainly is. The community always dictates the way most things go, honor included. In AW it was "cool" to have kill macros. The community encouraged it. In AH it is not, those displaying them are ridiculed. Again, the community decided. The same hold true with honor.

It is either in bad taste or it is not. For instance, there are whole games full of people who  smack-talk like worst gutter trash, and their communities accepts this. This does not make it right. Thankfully AHII is better than most in this regard.

Why do most people complain about HOs? Because its lame/not honorable, it sounds like the community it trying to speak and set a standard. It's still a big topic, and will likely go on going back and forth for years to come, but its how it works.

Why must we make it a matter of some putative "honor" when I can sit here and give perfectly good reasons to avoid HO'ing? If you can understand why HO'ing is generally a bad idea without making it into a commandment, you will try to avoid it as a bad risk under most circumstances. But you won't have an asinine absolute hanging around your neck, like believing it would be "dishonorable" to HO a Spitfire who obligingly flies directly at your 110G.  :devil

Don't confuse honor in real life, with honor in this game. People have to learn to keep the game and real life separate. What passes for honor on the other side of this screen may mean much different things to many different people. The same as "they did it in the war" doesn't carry any weight here because this is a game, NOT real life.

Nope, they are one in the same. If I agree to duel with you with a cold merge and HO on the merge, then I have done something dishonorable. If I meet you randomly in the MA and choose to HO you, I have not done something dishonorable, merely something stupid. I am not dishonored if I fail to follow any rules which I have not agreed to, either explicitly or implicitly by joining the game, as set by HTC. Examples of valid rules of this sort would be no hacking, cable-pulling, shade-vulching, etc.

An example of a rule which is *not* valid and which we have *not* all agreed to follow is the idea of "never disengage from a 1v1 in the MA no matter the circumstances." This is not a matter of honor, it is merely a preference of some players that they wish to inflict on other players, despite the fact that they don't buy the notion.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 13, 2009, 06:27:35 PM
In retrospect, I should have been a little more clear about the 'Capture the Flag' comparison comment.  I wasn't referring to base captures but rather the game play that is prevailent in most CTF style games.  If anyone has ever played Quake II CTF, TF/2 or any other CTF shooter knows what I'm talking about.  Tactics and skill has taken a back seat to gamey game play in order to acheive the quickest results with as little sacrifice as possible.


ack-ack


You said it much better in this post.

I don't think any one is suggesting to take away the base capture element of the game. All we are suggesting is to let everyone play the game. By running NOE's or using hordes your avoiding the fight, your making the game unplayable for the other side, so in turn creating poor game play. I'm going to use that nasty term here..... "Learn" to use tactics and PLAY the game.

This game isn't about running as fast as you can spray your rounds all over the place to take as many down with you, only to respawn and do the same thing again. This game is about "how" you get there as much as getting there. Use some tactics, make some plans, then try to execute them. And no 12 100, 4 niks, and 4 goons running NOE is NOT a plan  :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 13, 2009, 06:39:34 PM
It is either in bad taste or it is not. For instance, there are whole games full of people who  smack-talk like worst gutter trash, and their communities accepts this. This does not make it right. Thankfully AHII is better than most in this regard.

Why must we make it a matter of some putative "honor" when I can sit here and give perfectly good reasons to avoid HO'ing? If you can understand why HO'ing is generally a bad idea without making it into a commandment, you will try to avoid it as a bad risk under most circumstances. But you won't have an asinine absolute hanging around your neck, like believing it would be "dishonorable" to HO a Spitfire who obligingly flies directly at your 110G.  :devil

Nope, they are one in the same. If I agree to duel with you with a cold merge and HO on the merge, then I have done something dishonorable. If I meet you randomly in the MA and choose to HO you, I have not done something dishonorable, merely something stupid. I am not dishonored if I fail to follow any rules which I have not agreed to, either explicitly or implicitly by joining the game, as set by HTC. Examples of valid rules of this sort would be no hacking, cable-pulling, shade-vulching, etc.

An example of a rule which is *not* valid and which we have *not* all agreed to follow is the idea of "never disengage from a 1v1 in the MA no matter the circumstances." This is not a matter of honor, it is merely a preference of some players that they wish to inflict on other players, despite the fact that they don't buy the notion.

This is where I see most people have trouble with separation.

This game is one situation, one community, one set of rules, either written, or implied. Other games are different, you mention some have much worst smack talking. That community allows that to happen, where this one either by ridicule, or by the MODs doesn't. The same goes with what "honor" is expected by its peers. This community is the one we are talking about, not the WoW server, nor the ELKS down on main street, Aces High. Like I was sayinig to Dawger, he might have been a top dog at warbirds, but here he is just another dweeb working his way into the community. Sure he might show better skills quicker, but ...from his post... he will use HO's and such which are frowned on here and he will be called out for it, why, because this community has its rules. It own type of honor.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Boxboy on April 13, 2009, 06:43:43 PM
The game is about how I like to play it on my end of the computer, attempts by anyone save the producers of the game (who can change game play any day they like) to dictate how I or anyone else plays the game is an exercise in futillity (which is what I expect Dawgr was saying although with much more eloquence than me)

Self appointed community police (no matter how much they have done for the game) have no more rights than the guy who logs on for the first time today.

Filth called rightly, as least as far as I am concerned.

I can be on any given day totally different depending on my mood, but the game remains constant and is what it is.  If HTC decides to change it they will, if not they won't but they are the ones who live and die for real with this game.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: sethipus on April 13, 2009, 06:52:50 PM
On a map where each side has several dozen bases, it hardly matters if a horde takes one, or even several.  Most hordes peter out within, say, 1-5 base takes.  In the end, I argue, it simply doesn't matter all that much.  And if a horde does make a push toward winning "the war", the worst that happens is that we go to a new map and do it all over again.  This is really not a big deal here.

Anyhow, if you dislike hordes so much, then look around the map, find a horde doing it's thing, and then up the biggest, baddest, meanest horde-stopping plane you can, and go try to stop them.  I find that to be great fun, actually, and it's true whether I succeed in helping to stop them or not.

It's always funny to see Steve broadcasting his taunts on 200 about how many hordelings he has racked up so far.  Now there's a guy who really gets into the hording spirit - from the side of the defenders.  He really thrives on it, and I'm sure enjoys breaking up horde attacks immensely.

Anyhow, I play a mix of fighters, GVs, bombing when I feel it's necessary, and so forth.  I play the game far too much, more than I should, and I find I encounter good dogfights, bad dogfights (get HOed by the inevitable LA-7 dweeb), good GV fights, bad GV fights (get constantly bombed by some dweeb in an A-20 while we're having a good tank battle), etc.  I see the whole spectrum of fighting styles over the hours I play, and I've come to appreciate that hey, that's the game.  This is the way it is, and I can either accept it and play within that context my own way, or I can whine and snivel about it, cancel my account, or whatever.  It's up to me to make what I will of it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 13, 2009, 06:55:13 PM
This is what I get out of this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 13, 2009, 07:02:54 PM
Boxboy you realize that by giving your opinion you joined the community police?  The tangible effect of anything said on this forum is informative, not authoritative.  There's nothing forcing anyone to do what's written on a virtual forum.  The only way it will happen is if something picked up on the forum leads someone to agree, and there too it's still the reader/player that's making the decision to play one way or another.  

When you take a session with a trainer as a noob, you aren't forced to do anything, the trainer is just demonstrating some stuff for you, that you may or may not find to solve the problems you're having (e.g. "how do I saddle up on someone").  Arguing on this forum is the same.  Competing arguments will breed the fittest rationale, which is precursor to what people do in the game.  The assertion that telling players how to improve their tactics, strategies, ACM, SA, gunnery, etc, is imposing on people to play one way or another, is bogus.  If anything, it's excessive hording that imposes on other players' choices, namely by reducing the degree of freedom they have.  If the MA was 199 players in bish and 1 player in rooks, that'd be imposing and bad gameplay.  Just the same way, although to a less ridiculous degree and in roughly descending order, as 25 guys dogpiling on a single barely defended base, sinking a CV that fed a balanced furball that's strategically benign (e.g. in middle of nowhere - its only reason to exist is to furball), or 6+ guys dogpiling a single bandit, or one guy in a jet picking a 1:1, or stick stirring when one could just as well actually maneuver, or ... purposedly not saluting someone who definitely earned it.  
Exactly where you draw the line of "not fun anymore" is arbitrary, but it's certainly not relative and elastic enough that stick stirring for no reason and running away from any fight without a 5:1 advantage, or denying one guy trying to have a good time, etc, are all "good gameplay".

Quote
Anyhow, if you dislike hordes so much, then look around the map, find a horde doing it's thing, and then up the biggest, baddest, meanest horde-stopping plane you can, and go try to stop them.  I find that to be great fun, actually, and it's true whether I succeed in helping to stop them or not.
That's fine if you're capable of killing 5+ for everyone of your sorties. Is that what average players can expect?  Would you say the arena's keeping your attention more, that it's more fun if it's over 1/2 hording, than if it had reasonably even fights on the fronts?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: sethipus on April 13, 2009, 07:37:44 PM
That's fine if you're capable of killing 5+ for everyone of your sorties. Is that what average players can expect?  Would you say the arena's keeping your attention more, that it's more fun if it's over 1/2 hording, than if it had reasonably even fights on the fronts?
I'm not sure I can answer that, but I will say that if you dislike a horde fight, wait a few minutes, because the gameplay is constantly changing.  Whatever's going on this very minute will likely not be what's going on in 15 or 20 minutes as different mobs form, do their thing, break up, move on, get replaced by different mobs, etc.

Anyhow, I don't know if the average player can expect to down 5+ planes in one sortie trying to break up a horde.  If it's them in an LA-7 against a horde in NOE 110g and some goons, then maybe, maybe not.  But that's no different than the chances of the "average" player beating an above average player in a 1v1 dogfight.  Half the players in this game fall into the lower 50% skillwise, which means, by definition, that for these players, more than half the players out there are going to beat them most of the time.  That's just the way it is.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Boxboy on April 13, 2009, 08:37:31 PM
Well Moot when I read a statement that is made as tho it is fact when indeed it is not fact I don't call that opinion, but rather an attempt to "force by inferance" a certain type of play.  I agree that all opinions should be able to be expressed, but unless HTC changes the game so that certain ways of playing are not accepted, then the game is what it is.

Some the things that are done in the game are IMHO "fixable" and some are not, running to ack has been around as long as there has been ack and planes, refusing a 1 v 1 can be sensible, etc etc etc.

When game play gets too silly I change arena's, as anyone can see my score sucks cause I seldom refuse a fight even when it's 5 or 6 v 1, but that doesn't mean it's smart or right it just means I don't give a hoot about score.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 14, 2009, 10:48:14 AM
 I think the real issue is this isnt just a gameplay issue.Its a people issue.
  Many enjoy the historical aspect of the game. They want to fly the planes in an accurate manner.
  Many more just want to play a game where they can quake air. Theres a lot no doubt still useing mom and dads credit card so its not even like their even gonna care.
 Face it,these 2 different styles will never meet in the middle.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Anaxogoras on April 14, 2009, 10:50:30 AM
Face it,these 2 different styles will never meet in the middle.

One of these styles has already won and doesn't need to meet in the middle.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 14, 2009, 11:11:50 AM
One of these styles has already won and doesn't need to meet in the middle.

Won what?

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: VonMessa on April 14, 2009, 11:19:25 AM
The boobie prize
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 14, 2009, 11:44:30 AM
The boobie prize

 :rofl


This is where I see most people have trouble with separation.

This game is one situation, one community, one set of rules, either written, or implied. Other games are different, you mention some have much worst smack talking. That community allows that to happen, where this one either by ridicule, or by the MODs doesn't. The same goes with what "honor" is expected by its peers. This community is the one we are talking about, not the WoW server, nor the ELKS down on main street, Aces High. Like I was sayinig to Dawger, he might have been a top dog at warbirds, but here he is just another dweeb working his way into the community. Sure he might show better skills quicker, but ...from his post... he will use HO's and such which are frowned on here and he will be called out for it, why, because this community has its rules. It own type of honor.

BNZ was dead on in his post.

What I find most common in these threads is its based upon the few people and the few in the community that think they have some credit or carry some merit in the game.  Total BS. 

Your post above as an example: You even insult a new player by calling him a dweeb.
Is that the community rule and honor you speak of that we all follow to treat newcomers like that?  Hardly.  That community that thinks it thrives by conducting itself that way I will have no part of and therefore carry no weight with me.

If you haven't learned by now that your sole purpose in life no matter in this game or in real life is not to MAKE friends, but to CHOOSE friends.   If this community ever wants to make any improvement you have to treat people or the community by the means you would want to be treated.  Period.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 14, 2009, 12:14:36 PM
Fugi:
I think we agree on quite a few things in practice.

The difference between me and thee *in theory* is that if the "community" ever decided that HO'ing and hording every chance they got, or being insulting vulgarians on 200, etc, was the correct game-play, you would purportedly have to agree that this is the quite right/honorable/"double-plus good" way to play. After all, the "community" has spoken. (As I type this, I realize that the masses *have* spoken on these matters, and neither you nor me likes much of what they have to say. So much for communitarianism, aye Fugi?)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Rich46yo on April 14, 2009, 12:16:07 PM
Things that get me? 1, Bomb and Bailing. 2, Lanc-stuka'ing 3, PT boat up, launch, bailing 30X in a row 4, Stick stirring. 5, Endless teeny babble on range "I like the AH kids but c'mon", 6, The General act on range, "to include misc. whining and sniveling".

7, Is having a problem with somone in the game and then running here to the forum to snitch him out, "sometimes behind the cutesy illusion of a self-improvement thread". Ive had a few, or 6, real beauts with guys in the game but its between me and them. Dont come running to the forum to snitch. On occasion this place is like a High School girls locker room with the gossip.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 14, 2009, 12:22:54 PM
Things that get me? 1, Bomb and Bailing. 2, Lanc-stuka'ing 3, PT boat up, launch, bailing 30X in a row 4, Stick stirring. 5, Endless teeny babble on range "I like the AH kids but c'mon", 6, The General act on range, "to include misc. whining and sniveling".

On occasion this place is like a High School girls locker room with the gossip.

Ya but sadly, it is without the gaggle of teenage girls running around in varying degrees of undress.  I'd much rather this WERE a high school girl's locker room.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 14, 2009, 01:17:30 PM
Fugi:
I think we agree on quite a few things in practice.

The difference between me and thee *in theory* is that if the "community" ever decided that HO'ing and hording every chance they got, or being insulting vulgarians on 200, etc, was the correct game-play, you would purportedly have to agree that this is the quite right/honorable/"double-plus good" way to play. After all, the "community" has spoken. (As I type this, I realize that the masses *have* spoken on these matters, and neither you nor me likes much of what they have to say. So much for communitarianism, aye Fugi?)

I would have to agree that its "their" community and I would no longer be part of it. I think that may be the main reason I'm so vocal on this stuff. I've seen it back when there was an unwriten code, and the majority of people who played, played the game as it was intended... as a combat simulation. Today it has gotten worst, and there is a lot of game play that is well ... lame. If it continues and gets worst to become "that HO'ing and hording every chance they got, or being insulting vulgarians on 200, etc, was the correct game-play" that I would have to leave the game I really enjoy playing.


:rofl


BNZ was dead on in his post.

What I find most common in these threads is its based upon the few people and the few in the community that think they have some credit or carry some merit in the game.  Total BS. 

Your post above as an example: You even insult a new player by calling him a dweeb.
Is that the community rule and honor you speak of that we all follow to treat newcomers like that?  Hardly.  That community that thinks it thrives by conducting itself that way I will have no part of and therefore carry no weight with me.

If you haven't learned by now that your sole purpose in life no matter in this game or in real life is not to MAKE friends, but to CHOOSE friends.   If this community ever wants to make any improvement you have to treat people or the community by the means you would want to be treated.  Period.



We all start this game as a dweeb, Dawger is no different even tho he has a ton of experience in another game. That was the point I was trying to make. I treat everyone the same. I'll show anyone respect untill they prove they don't deserve it. I don't suffer fools gladly, nor do I put up with stupidity. Again, the purpose of this game has nothing to do with real life other than as an entertainment value.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Shuffler on April 14, 2009, 01:50:39 PM
I have come to the conclusion that their is no "GOOD" or "BAD"  gameplay..one mans "GOOD" gameplay is anothers "BAD" gameplay.

 The game is whatever one wants to make it..I dont think this will ever change..There will always be people complaining about one thing or another.because they got shot down,a base got taken,And the complaint about HOW it happened.."I GOT HO'ED","HE WAS SPAWN CAMPING","YOUR BUDDIES HELPED YOU"etc..etc...

  As far as defining bad game-play or even good game-play,opinions vary to the point it will never be "SET" in stone,it is all in the mind of the one playing the game. :salute

     

That is true. Same as in real life... some rob folks not seeing anything wrong with it as long as they come out on top. It takes all kinds and we have all kinds in this game.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 14, 2009, 01:59:07 PM
It takes all kinds and we have all kinds in this game.
What kind are you?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Shuffler on April 14, 2009, 02:01:47 PM
I don't rob.... what kind are you?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 14, 2009, 02:20:09 PM
Many enjoy the historical aspect of the game. They want to fly the planes in an accurate manner.

I've seen it back when there was an unwriten code, and the majority of people who played, played the game as it was intended... as a combat simulation.

Courtly 1v1 duels from a co-alt cold merge where interference from other pilots is frowned on and a crippled bird is spared out of a sense of honor are neither the "accurate manner" in which the real-life planes were flown nor a simulation of aerial combat as it has ever been conducted.

If you feel you must tell everyone else how they ought to play the game and insult everyone who disagrees, I suppose it's your right to do so, but don't delude yourself that it has anything to do with history.

And after reading hundreds of posts on this subject I still have yet to see a satisfactory explanation as to how another player playing in a style you disapprove of constitutes not "letting you play the game". The maps are big enough for anyone to easily avoid the "horde" if they want to. If all the "horde" players left the game tomorrow your gaming experience wouldn't be appreciably different unless you currently CHOOSE to fly with or take on the horde. All you're really doing is whining that other people don't want to do what you tell them.  :cry

That's not to say there is no bad game-play or poor sportsmanship, of course there is. But having different goals and playing styles than what you would prefer isn't it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: eddiek on April 14, 2009, 02:33:58 PM
"Bad" gameplay can usually be categorized as anything that is against what a person is doing at a particular time, or what they're in the mood to tolerate.
Doesn't mean either party is right, or wrong, just a matter of perspective.
Personally, my pet peeve is the NOE raids with huge numbers of participants going against a lightly or undefended target.  Those are designed from the onset to guarantee success, with little or no chance of failure.  The object of the raid, beyond base capture, appears to be to bully the opposition with overwhelming #'s, then pat one another on the back.  To each his own, but for me that would be boring, and I can't see myself participating in one.
I'd rather see those same raiders go and hit a base that was being defended, with equal or close to equal #'s of defenders (wait, I saw that one night last week.....took 3 waves of attackers to finally take the base, even after killing off the FH's... :rofl).  Make the raid exciting, throw in a chance that you might fail, or end in a stalemate, don't keep jumping all over the map hitting undefended bases, especially when your country outnumbers your target base's country 2-3:1 already.  
That's just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  
NOE raids can be fun, I'll give you that.  WAY back when, The Assassins used to stage NOE raids when Zigrat was big into base capture, but we rarely had more than 7-8 squaddies online at any one time, and most NOE raids we would only have 4 or 5 guys take part.  Those type raids are fun for everyone, attacker and defender alike.  It makes the raid a challenge, and I don't recall any raid, success or failure, that both sides didn't send "<S>" out.  Both sides had more than adequate chances to win, neither side tried to or had to send up overwhelming numbers of planes.
Sorry for the wall o text, just throwing my thoughts and opinions out there...........
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 14, 2009, 04:23:24 PM
I'll show anyone respect until they prove they don't deserve it. I don't suffer fools gladly, nor do I put up with stupidity. Again, the purpose of this game has nothing to do with real life other than as an entertainment value.

Without getting too far off topic.

I too will also respect anyone until they prove otherwise.

However, IMO the purpose of this game is not to be human, but it has as much to do with real life as the entertainment value, you are dealing with the human factor each time you play this game, everyones interaction as well as your opponents dictate the outcome of your entertainment, everyones true colors shine in their response to what you see in the game, players can be ignorant, arrogant, abusive, along with honorable, sincere, apologetic, and many true facets of what makes us human. 

You cant find that in a game where you compete against just the computer where there is no interaction, sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing. 
The internet has emboldened a generation of people that feel they don't have to behave in some sense of normalcy or respect since they get the "I'm a thousand miles from nowhere" syndrome and nobody can touch them.  That has come to haunt a few.

For the most part I know there are some good people (notice I didn't say players) in this game, I try to surround myself with people that I enjoy to be around to help make my time in game more enjoyable, negativity is not an option.   

Time to eat, got to go....  :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: smokey23 on April 14, 2009, 05:03:34 PM
Jeeeeeez 6 pages and were still trying to define bad game play??

(1) BAD GAME PLAY.....people playing badly

(2) GOOD GAME PLAY.....people playing goodly  :confused:

nuff said :salute

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 14, 2009, 06:05:17 PM
Courtly 1v1 duels from a co-alt cold merge where interference from other pilots is frowned on and a crippled bird is spared out of a sense of honor are neither the "accurate manner" in which the real-life planes were flown nor a simulation of aerial combat as it has ever been conducted.

Again confusing the "game" with "real life" In a game, whats wrong with that type of honor. Saluting a foe that has fought well and letting them limp home.

Quote
If you feel you must tell everyone else how they ought to play the game and insult everyone who disagrees, I suppose it's your right to do so, but don't delude yourself that it has anything to do with history.

I'm not "telling" anyone how to play the game, and Shuff.... well he's just a grumpy old man   :D First you say things like this didn't happen in history,comparing things to history, then you say this.

Quote
And after reading hundreds of posts on this subject I still have yet to see a satisfactory explanation as to how another player playing in a style you disapprove of constitutes not "letting you play the game". The maps are big enough for anyone to easily avoid the "horde" if they want to. If all the "horde" players left the game tomorrow your gaming experience wouldn't be appreciably different unless you currently CHOOSE to fly with or take on the horde. All you're really doing is whining that other people don't want to do what you tell them.  :cry

That's not to say there is no bad game-play or poor sportsmanship, of course there is. But having different goals and playing styles than what you would prefer isn't it.

Having 10 vulch me when I try to stop an NOE horde stops me from playing the game. If your going to bring that many, let me get my wheels up and some air under my wings. Or I can join the horde and race to kill the few people who up to defend, again stoping me from playing the game because I'm here to fight, not "get there first with my cannons" Sure I look for and find other areas to play, and enjoy every minute that I do. However, if the game play continues to turn into a horde fest, HOing with cannon planes there aren't going to be as many of those spots left.

Without getting too far off topic.

I too will also respect anyone until they prove otherwise.

However, IMO the purpose of this game is not to be human, but it has as much to do with real life as the entertainment value, you are dealing with the human factor each time you play this game, everyones interaction as well as your opponents dictate the outcome of your entertainment, everyones true colors shine in their response to what you see in the game, players can be ignorant, arrogant, abusive, along with honorable, sincere, apologetic, and many true facets of what makes us human. 

You cant find that in a game where you compete against just the computer where there is no interaction, sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing. 
The internet has emboldened a generation of people that feel they don't have to behave in some sense of normalcy or respect since they get the "I'm a thousand miles from nowhere" syndrome and nobody can touch them.  That has come to haunt a few.

For the most part I know there are some good people (notice I didn't say players) in this game, I try to surround myself with people that I enjoy to be around to help make my time in game more enjoyable, negativity is not an option.   

Time to eat, got to go....  :salute



So basically what your saying is that in side this little "world/community" that HTC has made there are people with a certain amount of "honor" and that you prefer to hang out those that you like. I think thats what I was talking about when I said that more people should play this game with honor. Are the guys you fly with the kind of guy that goes for the HO every pass? Do you guys run NOE after NOE in a big group of 110"s? Do you guys run around doing the "lame" things that most people consider poor game play? Thats the question people have to ask themselves, and .....heres the biggy... answer themselves HONESTLY.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 14, 2009, 06:31:38 PM
Are the guys you fly with the kind of guy that goes for the HO every pass?
Do you guys run NOE after NOE in a big group of 110"s?
Do you guys run around doing the "lame" things that most people consider poor game play?
Thats the question people have to ask themselves, and .....heres the biggy... answer themselves HONESTLY.

It would be hard for the majority to say NO to each one of these since we all have been guilty of one of these in some shape or form.  Some of these things were the norm in the past, but as of late NO.

Have I and others improved our game play to conduct ourselves accordingly?  Yes. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 14, 2009, 07:00:43 PM
I don't rob.... what kind are you?
I am the kind of player that enjoys just about everything the game has to offer and I try not to be harshly critical of other players styles and preferences.  Beyond that, anything goes, and frequently does.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 14, 2009, 07:49:52 PM
Again confusing the "game" with "real life" In a game, whats wrong with that type of honor. Saluting a foe that has fought well and letting them limp home.

Nothing's wrong with it, and you're the one who claimed it was a "combat simulation". Good sportsmanship is a fine thing in a game, but it has nothing to do with combat.

So basically what your saying is that in side this little "world/community" that HTC has made there are people with a certain amount of "honor" and that you prefer to hang out those that you like.

We've been through this in other threads, and I don't think "honor" is the correct phrase for what we're talking about, it's sportsmanship and manners. Those are fine things, but failure to observe them is not a violation of honor. HOing everything in sight and running back to base may be the result of ignorance, immaturity, or lack of appreciation of the finer points of the game, but it doesn't indicate a lack of integrity or morals. Immoral or dishonorable behavior in this game would be hacking the program, or somehow contriving to steal HTC's services, i.e. play without paying (other than the free two weeks). I think it diminishes the notion of "honor" if you apply it to mere bad manners.

And I'm happy with the people I fly with, none of whom fit your description in my opinion. I'm glad you find the game enjoyable too. If we find different modes of play enjoyable, so what? Nothing says you have to play my way or vice versa.

I also wish everyone would stop carping on the generation thing. Every generation since Adam and Eve has complained about "kids today". Teens today aren't often brash and clueless because they're different from their parents, they're often brash and clueless because they're the same as their parents, who acted the same way when they were 15. There are plenty of young people today who are generally polite, respectful, and responsible, they just don't draw attention to themselves the way the rude and obnoxious ones do. That was also true 30 years ago when I was a teenager and it was true 3,000 years ago when the village wise men proclaimed the imminent end of civilization because young people had no respect for their elders.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 14, 2009, 07:52:32 PM
Again confusing the "game" with "real life"

Fugi,
This is a *WWII flight simulation* game. If it were verboten in all arenas to do anything except climb to 5K, engage another aircraft in a 1v1 to the finish, repeat, I don't think you would actually like it. WWII pilots used teamwork, energy, and hit-and-run tactics where appropriate. This game would be a limited bastardization if these tactics were forbidden, just as much of a bastardization as the 20v1 mentality you loathe.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 14, 2009, 09:10:02 PM
 I can say the Flying Circus is a group that will rarely if ever take the HO pass on the merge.If out numbered severly maybe.Gotta do what ya gotta do in some situations.
  I guess I dont care how others play,I can voice my displeasure about it but to each his own. I feel alot better in a fight if I know the other guy is gonna NOT head on me and its a serious fight instead of a kill or run ordeal.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 14, 2009, 09:27:35 PM
Nothing's wrong with it, and you're the one who claimed it was a "combat simulation". Good sportsmanship is a fine thing in a game, but it has nothing to do with combat.

We've been through this in other threads, and I don't think "honor" is the correct phrase for what we're talking about, it's sportsmanship and manners. Those are fine things, but failure to observe them is not a violation of honor. HOing everything in sight and running back to base may be the result of ignorance, immaturity, or lack of appreciation of the finer points of the game, but it doesn't indicate a lack of integrity or morals. Immoral or dishonorable behavior in this game would be hacking the program, or somehow contriving to steal HTC's services, i.e. play without paying (other than the free two weeks). I think it diminishes the notion of "honor" if you apply it to mere bad manners.

And I'm happy with the people I fly with, none of whom fit your description in my opinion. I'm glad you find the game enjoyable too. If we find different modes of play enjoyable, so what? Nothing says you have to play my way or vice versa.

I also wish everyone would stop carping on the generation thing. Every generation since Adam and Eve has complained about "kids today". Teens today aren't often brash and clueless because they're different from their parents, they're often brash and clueless because they're the same as their parents, who acted the same way when they were 15. There are plenty of young people today who are generally polite, respectful, and responsible, they just don't draw attention to themselves the way the rude and obnoxious ones do. That was also true 30 years ago when I was a teenager and it was true 3,000 years ago when the village wise men proclaimed the imminent end of civilization because young people had no respect for their elders.

So what your saying, is for the most part you...and your friends play with good sportsmanship. That would mean.... to me any.... way that you avoid going for the HO, you avoid NOE after NOE in a fleets of 110s, you avoid jumping into fight were its already 6 on 1. Basically you avoid lame game play. Thats all I'm suggesting here.

Fugi,
This is a *WWII flight simulation* game. If it were verboten in all arenas to do anything except climb to 5K, engage another aircraft in a 1v1 to the finish, repeat, I don't think you would actually like it. WWII pilots used teamwork, energy, and hit-and-run tactics where appropriate. This game would be a limited bastardization if these tactics were forbidden, just as much of a bastardization as the 20v1 mentality you loathe.


I have never said to do away with squad tactics, or wingman fighting. There is nothing wrong with a well run mission, and the base capture is the cu-di-gra of a well run mission. I'm just suggesting that we all work toward getting the "lame/poor" game play out of the game. Teach the new guys what a mission is about. In stead of the focus being on steam rolling another base, make to focus be on a well run mission with the minumun number of guys needed. Add more dificulty by making a mission a multy pronged attack so that the first wave is just a testing attack to see the response, and drag the defenders away, while 8 minutes after the attack starts the second wing comes ripping in for the main attack.

There are hundreds of ways to run missions, instead we see NOEs with 12 110s , 4 goons, and as many NIK they can get to fill in before the launch. Fighter skills are to race in and HO as fast as you can to beat the horde to the kill.... maneuver? Whats that? GV's its who sees the spawn first  :rolleyes: This is the type of lame/poor game play that I'm talking about.

We don't have enough people who know what a thatch weave IS let alone know how to use it. The same goes for any number of other wingman tactics. This the stuff that should be brought back into the game. In the old days it was about tactics and stratigy, today its about who has the biggest di.... ummm guns  :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 15, 2009, 02:17:37 AM

So basically what your saying is that in side this little "world/community" that HTC has made there are people with a certain amount of "honor" and that you prefer to hang out those that you like. I think thats what I was talking about when I said that more people should play this game with honor. Are the guys you fly with the kind of guy that goes for the HO every pass? Do you guys run NOE after NOE in a big group of 110"s? Do you guys run around doing the "lame" things that most people consider poor game play? Thats the question people have to ask themselves, and .....heres the biggy... answer themselves HONESTLY

So basically what your saying is that in side this little "world/community" that HTC has made there are people with a certain amount of "honor" and that you prefer to hang out those that you like.

Fugitive I read this sentence several times to make sure I understood what I was reading.  Sure I want to hang with the people I like.  I sure don't want to hang with the people I dislike.  I'm not sure what your intended meaning is. As for "honor" even this community can not come up with a real definition of what honor is in this specific game.  The community itself (or at least the forum community) is split in its definition of this simple word, so as I see it honor in this community is ones owns perspective.

Do you guys run around doing the "lame" things that most people consider poor game play?

This is an assumed statement.  What is considered "most people" when it concerns lame game play.  We have players that are vocal in the forums, but I doubt they could be considered "most players" since I believe I read in the forums here somewhere, and I could be corrected on this, that only a small percentage of players in Aces High are registered in the forums.  It goes back to the endless cycle as to what is considered lame game play.  What is lame to me may not be lame to you.

Just some opinions at 2:00 am in the morning.   :salute

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: frank3 on April 15, 2009, 06:35:42 AM
I think it's clear now. We need the H2H back :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: lazydog on April 15, 2009, 07:25:23 AM
G..... a good post the knits should read in midwar a lot of that weak minded play there too
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 15, 2009, 07:37:23 AM
So basically what your saying is that in side this little "world/community" that HTC has made there are people with a certain amount of "honor" and that you prefer to hang out those that you like.

Fugitive I read this sentence several times to make sure I understood what I was reading.  Sure I want to hang with the people I like.  I sure don't want to hang with the people I dislike.  I'm not sure what your intended meaning is. As for "honor" even this community can not come up with a real definition of what honor is in this specific game.  The community itself (or at least the forum community) is split in its definition of this simple word, so as I see it honor in this community is ones owns perspective.

Do you guys run around doing the "lame" things that most people consider poor game play?

This is an assumed statement.  What is considered "most people" when it concerns lame game play.  We have players that are vocal in the forums, but I doubt they could be considered "most players" since I believe I read in the forums here somewhere, and I could be corrected on this, that only a small percentage of players in Aces High are registered in the forums.  It goes back to the endless cycle as to what is considered lame game play.  What is lame to me may not be lame to you.

Just some opinions at 2:00 am in the morning.   :salute

Fred

I like your choice of a sig, sir. :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 15, 2009, 07:50:04 AM
So basically what your saying is that in side this little "world/community" that HTC has made there are people with a certain amount of "honor" and that you prefer to hang out those that you like.

Fugitive I read this sentence several times to make sure I understood what I was reading.  Sure I want to hang with the people I like.  I sure don't want to hang with the people I dislike.  I'm not sure what your intended meaning is. As for "honor" even this community can not come up with a real definition of what honor is in this specific game.  The community itself (or at least the forum community) is split in its definition of this simple word, so as I see it honor in this community is ones owns perspective.

Lets word it like this, and I mean the same thing.... Would you hang out with people who dive bomb CV in Lancs? Would you hang out with people who would rather have 20+ guys in an NOE mission because they don't have the skill or confidence to fight for a base? Would you hang around people who would have no problems jumping in on a fight were 5 guys are already chasing one? 

Quote
Do you guys run around doing the "lame" things that most people consider poor game play?

This is an assumed statement.  What is considered "most people" when it concerns lame game play.  We have players that are vocal in the forums, but I doubt they could be considered "most players" since I believe I read in the forums here somewhere, and I could be corrected on this, that only a small percentage of players in Aces High are registered in the forums.  It goes back to the endless cycle as to what is considered lame game play.  What is lame to me may not be lame to you.

Just some opinions at 2:00 am in the morning.   :salute

Fred

Yes it would have to be an assumed statement because a poll has never "officially" been taken. However I do base my assumption not only on the vocal minority we have here on the boards, but also what I've heard in the game. With the thousands of hours I have played this game over many years, I'm sure I could put together a pretty accurate list of what the majority of players would consider "lame" and by extension, poor game play.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
Lets word it like this, and I mean the same thing.... Would you hang out with people who dive bomb CV in Lancs? Would you hang out with people who would rather have 20+ guys in an NOE mission because they don't have the skill or confidence to fight for a base? Would you hang around people who would have no problems jumping in on a fight were 5 guys are already chasing one? 

I do not pick the people I hang out with by their skill in the game.  I choose to "hang out" with them because they are people I have come to like being around, regardless of their skill.


Yes it would have to be an assumed statement because a poll has never "officially" been taken. However I do base my assumption not only on the vocal minority we have here on the boards, but also what I've heard in the game. With the thousands of hours I have played this game over many years, I'm sure I could put together a pretty accurate list of what the majority of players would consider "lame" and by extension, poor game play.

Having played thousands of hours over 2 years, I have seen a number of the vocal minority you are referring to, including prominent names in the game, do the very things you mention above.  Time after time I have seen one speak against one or another aspect of game play in this forum, and then in the following days, I observe these same players do what they so strongly preach against.  Sort of a two face approach.  It's hard to give creditability to these players when these actions are witnessed.  If I am seeing it, then I know others are seeing it to.

As for putting together an accurate list of so called player who would consider some of the game play you state is "lame".  I'm fairly sure I can film many of the players you list pulling off some of these "lame" acts.

Fugitive I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you, and in many ways, believe it or not, I agree with you.  The problem is I see such a two faced approach to game play by known players that its difficult for me to lend a lot of creditability to what they say, when in the end, I see them doing the very thing they are preaching against.

 :salute

Fred



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 15, 2009, 08:29:55 AM
I like your choice of a sig, sir. :aok

Thanks, my sig is mainly for Bronk, just like poking a bit of fun at him.   :D  Of course it's unaltered, and the link will take you to the actual thread.

It's getting about time to change it anyway.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 15, 2009, 08:32:36 AM
This thread made 7 pages so far?   I stopped reading at page 2.  Play the game how you want, it's that simple.  

However, Fugi is right about one thing.   The Community is no longer what it used to be.   When AH2 came online after Beta, is the exact time frame of the "fracture" in game play.  

Nevermind me, I know nothing, so continue pissing in each others Corn Flakes.  

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 15, 2009, 08:39:30 AM
This thread made 7 pages so far?   I stopped reading at page 2.  Play the game how you want, it's that simple.  

However, Fugi is right about one thing.   The Community is no longer what it used to be.   When AH2 came online after Beta, is the exact time frame of the "fracture" in game play.  

Nevermind me, I know nothing, so continue pissing in each others Corn Flakes.  



How correct you are.  Is anything like it used to be?

By the way, I don't eat Corn Flakes, sort of partial to eggs and bacon myself.

Fred

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 15, 2009, 08:47:24 AM
How correct you are.  Is anything like it used to be?

By the way, I don't eat Corn Flakes, sort of partial to eggs and bacon myself.

Fred



Or piss in each others eggs and bacon. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 15, 2009, 11:07:55 AM
I do not pick the people I hang out with by their skill in the game.  I choose to "hang out" with them because they are people I have come to like being around, regardless of their skill.


Having played thousands of hours over 2 years, I have seen a number of the vocal minority you are referring to, including prominent names in the game, do the very things you mention above.  Time after time I have seen one speak against one or another aspect of game play in this forum, and then in the following days, I observe these same players do what they so strongly preach against.  Sort of a two face approach.  It's hard to give creditability to these players when these actions are witnessed.  If I am seeing it, then I know others are seeing it to.

As for putting together an accurate list of so called player who would consider some of the game play you state is "lame".  I'm fairly sure I can film many of the players you list pulling off some of these "lame" acts.

Fugitive I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you, and in many ways, believe it or not, I agree with you.  The problem is I see such a two faced approach to game play by known players that its difficult for me to lend a lot of creditability to what they say, when in the end, I see them doing the very thing they are preaching against.

 :salute

Fred


I'm not talking about players that are lame, I'm talking about lame game play. This is the line you missed or miss understood...

Quote
I'm sure I could put together a pretty accurate list of what the majority of players would consider "lame" and by extension, poor game play.

I'm saying that the majority of the players in the game would consider...



and so on and so on.

If my squad mate started making these thing "general practice" I'd be preaching to them about not doing it too. If they didn't stop, I won't be in the squad. How can you have fun when the people you are flying with are doing such lame crap? I couldn't so I'd leave.

Those that look at the above list and really don't see anything wrong with doing those things are either not being honest with themselves, or just don't know any better. Thats the way they learned the game so thats the way they play it. As more people learn "that way", the more game play will go down hill.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Haplo81 on April 15, 2009, 11:29:16 AM
People that are way to afraid to push the limits because they are afraid to lose that cartoon life are a big cause to bad gameplay.

It may be because some people don't like the real aspect of the distance to fly from one base to another which, may include spending 15 minutes flying a couple sectors to a fight or base and then getting shot down within 20 seconds once they arrive.  Some who are more interested in instant action games may have a hard time enjoying the climb to alt, having some SA, and then going into an ACM.  They may feel they have done all this work before getting to the fight and don't want it to be over so fast.  Just a neutral thought.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 15, 2009, 11:31:35 AM
It may be because some people don't like the real aspect of the distance to fly from one base to another which, may include spending 15 minutes flying a couple sectors to a fight or base and then getting shot down within 20 seconds once they arrive.  Some who are more interested in instant action games may have a hard time enjoying the climb to alt, having some SA, and then going into an ACM.  They may feel they have done all this work before getting to the fight and don't want it to be over so fast.  Just a neutral thought.

Very insightful, and in my opinion much closer to the mark.   :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Halo46 on April 15, 2009, 12:38:58 PM
The only thing a list of lame play really does is demonstrate that person's definition. I can not agree with some and would add others. Then the next poster will disagree with mine and add their own. As just an average player of mediocre to no skill level, and someone who rarely flies anything other than the special events anymore due to how dissatisfying flying the MAs has become for me personally, I offer these comments solely to show the disparity of our average ideas:

    * HOs lame - I agree, however, it is obviously acceptable because I can guarantee that I have been HOed by every person on these boards who has complained about it or has been singled out as a good stick, and I get HOed (or Low Angle Off Front Quartered if that makes you feel better about yourself) on merge 1-100 over 98% of the time. Being such a poor pilot, I do not understand why people don't even try to get on my six, it is not very hard to do. I am usually the guy in the A5 getting into accelerated stalls.  :noid

    * dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber - concur

    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - do not see this much myself, usually only see the 40 LA7s, Spit 16s and Corsairs trying to vulch. I do not join missions, but I am OK with overwhelming numbers, seems the right way to do it to me if you really want the base. That said, I really care less for base taking, so hopefully do not add to or take away from all the horde discussions.

    * spawn camping lame - do not really understand this one, it is usually done to prevent/defend against an attack, easily countered, OK in my opinion. But, when you get bombed while camping, don't complain about that either.

    * being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame - yes, though if you have been there fighting, you usually are not paying attention or feel you have a right to the guy for whatever reason. If you are dropping alt to join, I heartily agree.

    * suicide dive bombers lame - honestly, I think many of these are pilot error, I know I am guilty of getting compressed from target fixation.

    * bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame - sorry, not sure what this is (see below).

    * hiding captured CVs lame - sorry, don't give a hoot about winning the war so rarely have anything to do with a CV so care less. Besides, can't up an A5 from a CV.

   I add: Shooting chutes that are not actively involved or loitering - I do sometimes like to watch the fight on the way down and if I don't shoot at you, you have no reason to shoot at me, especially when there is a furball going on. If I loiter on the field or walk around, go ahead and shoot. It turns my stomach reading all the posts who find it sporting whether this is just a game or not (Don't worry, play how you like, just don't expect me to have any respect for you).

     Leaving a furball to chase one wounded AC two or three sectors to get them when they try to land their broken AC. Stay with the furball, is it really that important if one gets home? Or are you that lame that you need to vulch rather than fight?

     Any Dump and Jump from any aircraft, boat, or ground vehicle under any circumstance.

   And my number one complaint is the lack of civility - see 100 other threads over this. I am resigned that some people lack the means of controlling themselves. I have been guilty on one occasion last year, but it is still no excuse on my part. While I apologized to this person who took it well, I still find my actions repulsive.

These are not directed at any person specifically, just providing an average players point of view. Charlie Mike.  :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 15, 2009, 01:51:44 PM
How can you have fun when the people you are flying with are doing such lame crap? I couldn't so I'd leave.
That's really lame  :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 15, 2009, 02:00:10 PM
The only thing a list of lame play really does is demonstrate that person's definition. I can not agree with some and would add others. Then the next poster will disagree with mine and add their own. As just an average player of mediocre to no skill level, and someone who rarely flies anything other than the special events anymore due to how dissatisfying flying the MAs has become for me personally, I offer these comments solely to show the disparity of our average ideas:

    * HOs lame - I agree, however, it is obviously acceptable because I can guarantee that I have been HOed by every person on these boards who has complained about it or has been singled out as a good stick,

No you can't.  You can't recall being Ho'd by me and you sure don't have film to back it up
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 15, 2009, 02:54:49 PM
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - do not see this much myself, usually only see the 40 LA7s, Spit 16s and Corsairs trying to vulch.


40 LA-7s!!!

Can i fly with you some night, Ive NEVER seen that many La-7s at the same time!!

Must have been awesome!!

Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever seen 20 of them flying together.

You should buy a lottery ticket the next time you see that many of them, you're a pretty lucky guy!!

I don't know why anyone would fly that plane anyway, Its so dweeby and easy mode.

40!! Really?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 15, 2009, 03:11:28 PM
I pretty much agree with this list. However, the fact that I agree does not make it any more or less true than it was before.  :salute:devil

I'm not talking about players that are lame, I'm talking about lame game play. This is the line you missed or miss understood...

I'm saying that the majority of the players in the game would consider...

  • HOs lame
  • dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber
  • running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame
  • spawn camping lame
  • being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame
  • suicide dive bombers lame
  • bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame
  • hiding captured CVs lame



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 15, 2009, 04:55:02 PM
I'm not talking about players that are lame, I'm talking about lame game play. This is the line you missed or miss understood...

I'm saying that the majority of the players in the game would consider...

HOs lame - sure
dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber - yes, it's also a flaw in the modeling. But then, so are hyper-accurate bombsites and I use those regularly.
running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - not really. Whatever floats your boat. I don't see how they hurt anyone. It would be boring if there was never any decent resistance.
spawn camping lame - a little, I guess, but more "boring" than "lame," and if you don't like it, just don't up where they're camped. It's only really lame if that's all you do.
being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame - definitely
suicide dive bombers lame - depends on what you mean by "suicide". Deliberately augering or bailing after your drop to avoid fighting, yes, extremely lame. Anytime you auger or bail to avoid a fight it's lame. Solo base bombing where the risk is high but you do attempt to live through it, not lame at all.
bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame - yes, but again, this is really a flaw in the game modeling that should be corrected. It's lame using it to resupply on defense too, but everyone seems to do it.
hiding captured CVs lame - not really. Assuming your side has other CVs you're willing to risk in battle, why is it lame? It's just smart game play, if you consider that taking bases is a valid game objective (but not the only objective).

I would also agree that never flying except in a big group and immediately running for home when faced with the prospect of a fight where you don't have both numbers and alt is very lame. What I disagree with is I don't think that's a result of any kind of squad missions. You find people like that skulking above and around the edges of all the huge semi-permanent furballs that seem to form on every map. You can tell you have one when a guy follows you around 5k above but never makes any move to attack you until another enemy shows up to engage you. I also don't think it's because they lack skill - some of them are newbs, but there are also people who have enough skill to win many, maybe even most of their fights, but they don't want to win many of their fights, they want to win all of them. That's not ignorance or desire for instant gratification, it's ego.

So you see, we agree on some and disagree on others. And that's okay, the game is big enough for both of us.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 15, 2009, 05:17:26 PM
HOs lame - sure
dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber - yes, it's also a flaw in the modeling. But then, so are hyper-accurate bombsites and I use those regularly.
running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame - not really. Whatever floats your boat. I don't see how they hurt anyone. It would be boring if there was never any decent resistance.
spawn camping lame - a little, I guess, but more "boring" than "lame," and if you don't like it, just don't up where they're camped. It's only really lame if that's all you do.
being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame - definitely
suicide dive bombers lame - depends on what you mean by "suicide". Deliberately augering or bailing after your drop to avoid fighting, yes, extremely lame. Anytime you auger or bail to avoid a fight it's lame. Solo base bombing where the risk is high but you do attempt to live through it, not lame at all.
bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame - yes, but again, this is really a flaw in the game modeling that should be corrected. It's lame using it to resupply on defense too, but everyone seems to do it.
hiding captured CVs lame - not really. Assuming your side has other CVs you're willing to risk in battle, why is it lame? It's just smart game play, if you consider that taking bases is a valid game objective (but not the only objective).

I would also agree that never flying except in a big group and immediately running for home when faced with the prospect of a fight where you don't have both numbers and alt is very lame. What I disagree with is I don't think that's a result of any kind of squad missions. You find people like that skulking above and around the edges of all the huge semi-permanent furballs that seem to form on every map. You can tell you have one when a guy follows you around 5k above but never makes any move to attack you until another enemy shows up to engage you. I also don't think it's because they lack skill - some of them are newbs, but there are also people who have enough skill to win many, maybe even most of their fights, but they don't want to win many of their fights, they want to win all of them. That's not ignorance or desire for instant gratification, it's ego.

So you see, we agree on some and disagree on others. And that's okay, the game is big enough for both of us.

You agreed with me on everything with a couple of "possible exceptions to the rule" type things on a couple. Except for the hiding of CVs (Its a COMBAT game, use it for combat. The main objective IS combat.)

Whats happening is PLAYER A for what ever reason, has found that if he can get 10 or more guys together and hide under radar he can capture bases. In most cases he doesn't have the skills to do it any other way. So he gets a few other of like skill to join up and they start having success. Next thing you know they decide to become a squad, why not they are always together dodging trees on their missions. Then some new guys log in, and want to be part of the community. These guys are ALWAYS running missions.... its the only thing they can do. So the new guy joins up and "learns" how to run missions from MR NOE and his gang. Next thing, the squad splits, or the new guy makes his own, it doesn't matter, the only skills here are how to fly in between trees. So it continues on.

Yes there are a few game mechanics problem like dive bombing lancs, and the dry spawns, but to use Moms old saying "If Jimmy jumps off the bridge, are you going to also?" If the poor game play things that people can agree on..... like the list posted... can be taught to the community that it is a "frowned on practice" don't you think it would help people to learn more, expand the limited way they play the game?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 15, 2009, 05:47:36 PM
It may be because some people don't like the real aspect of the distance to fly from one base to another which, may include spending 15 minutes flying a couple sectors to a fight or base and then getting shot down within 20 seconds once they arrive.  Some who are more interested in instant action games may have a hard time enjoying the climb to alt, having some SA, and then going into an ACM.  They may feel they have done all this work before getting to the fight and don't want it to be over so fast.  Just a neutral thought.

  Good point.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 15, 2009, 07:35:15 PM
You agreed with me on everything with a couple of "possible exceptions to the rule" type things on a couple. Except for the hiding of CVs (Its a COMBAT game, use it for combat. The main objective IS combat.)

Whats happening is PLAYER A for what ever reason, has found that if he can get 10 or more guys together and hide under radar he can capture bases. In most cases he doesn't have the skills to do it any other way. So he gets a few other of like skill to join up and they start having success. Next thing you know they decide to become a squad, why not they are always together dodging trees on their missions. Then some new guys log in, and want to be part of the community. These guys are ALWAYS running missions.... its the only thing they can do. So the new guy joins up and "learns" how to run missions from MR NOE and his gang. Next thing, the squad splits, or the new guy makes his own, it doesn't matter, the only skills here are how to fly in between trees. So it continues on.

Yes there are a few game mechanics problem like dive bombing lancs, and the dry spawns, but to use Moms old saying "If Jimmy jumps off the bridge, are you going to also?" If the poor game play things that people can agree on..... like the list posted... can be taught to the community that it is a "frowned on practice" don't you think it would help people to learn more, expand the limited way they play the game?

 Fugitive  :salute  ,
  It does not HELP that the people who shoot down the new guy you are speaking of,RUn their mouths off on him on 200 or wherever about his HOing,LACK OF ACM,or his running,The guy has probably not been playing very long,and calling him a NOOB,and other "CHOICE" names does not in any way help what you are trying to accomplish.How often do  ANY of the guys who feel the way you do,EVER take them aside and TRY to teach them something,BEFORE biting his head off about how he didnt PLAY THE GAME RIGHT..

                                           Falcon23 :salute
   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 15, 2009, 09:32:52 PM
Fugitive  :salute  ,
  It does not HELP that the people who shoot down the new guy you are speaking of,RUn their mouths off on him on 200 or wherever about his HOing,LACK OF ACM,or his running,The guy has probably not been playing very long,and calling him a NOOB,and other "CHOICE" names does not in any way help what you are trying to accomplish.How often do  ANY of the guys who feel the way you do,EVER take them aside and TRY to teach them something,BEFORE biting his head off about how he didnt PLAY THE GAME RIGHT..

                                           Falcon23 :salute
  
**2345231211 has collided with you***. you generaly chaulk this up to the guy not knowing any better. The guys that get blasted on 200 are the ones that are pretty well known and should know better.
Much is said to what intentions the other guy has soon after a merge takes place. ( He constantly merges and goes for the HO, or he repeats attempts to pick in his pony, fails, egresses 3k..rinse and repeat) Personaly, I would never berate anyone who tries to give you a good fight and most here wont either.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: olskool2 on April 15, 2009, 10:52:37 PM
The quality of the general population has decreased, at least in my mind, over the past year and a half. I think the game's population has grown past the community's ability to effectively assimilate them. Just go to the Training Arena or Dueling Arena to see the proof. A good majority of our new players skip the TA (why wouldn't they, it's not exactly hard, simmy flying in AH2). The Dueling Arena has degraded to a mere joke of the fun it used to be, now that you have to --constantly-- use SA there to look for the NOE picker, which is exactly what the DA was used to avoid.

They end up following hordes, shying away from combat without an absolute advantage, and generally learning behaviors that the 'old' players call lameness. Eventually, a lot of 'old' hands will leave, leaving the new community's rules as the norm.

This happens in every online game to some extent, at least any I've ever played.

Maybe they'll start work on that WW1 flying game so we can beta test something and start the cycle over.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 15, 2009, 11:05:08 PM
shying away from combat without an absolute advantage

Ya see that all the time, and its usually NOT the new guys.

But the "old hands" call it flying to the planes strengths, or flying "smart".
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: olskool2 on April 15, 2009, 11:08:26 PM
Ya see that all the time, and its usually NOT the new guys.

But the "old hands" call it flying to the planes strengths, or flying "smart".

True enough. Everyone picks up on the new tactics to stay competitive.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 16, 2009, 08:20:00 AM
Fugitive  :salute  ,
  It does not HELP that the people who shoot down the new guy you are speaking of,RUn their mouths off on him on 200 or wherever about his HOing,LACK OF ACM,or his running,The guy has probably not been playing very long,and calling him a NOOB,and other "CHOICE" names does not in any way help what you are trying to accomplish.How often do  ANY of the guys who feel the way you do,EVER take them aside and TRY to teach them something,BEFORE biting his head off about how he didnt PLAY THE GAME RIGHT..

                                           Falcon23 :salute
   

I hope your not refering to me in this post. I very rarely call anyone out over the radio, and when I do it some one I know has been flying for awhile. I'll call out HOs when I get them from people who should know better. The same will go for a cherry pick. It really pisses me off when I'm fighting 2 or 3 already and another guy has to pick me.

I agree that we have some A-holes playing this game. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do about them except to ignore them. They get their jollies off by pissing people off. If you don't get pissed off at them they loose there power. They effect game play, but they are not the cause of poor game play.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 16, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
I hope your not refering to me in this post. I very rarely call anyone out over the radio, and when I do it some one I know has been flying for awhile. I'll call out HOs when I get them from people who should know better. The same will go for a cherry pick. It really pisses me off when I'm fighting 2 or 3 already and another guy has to pick me.  
I agree that we have some A-holes playing this game. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do about them except to ignore them. They get their jollies off by pissing people off. If you don't get pissed off at them they loose there power. They effect game play, but they are not the cause of poor game play.

If you consider picking "lame" game play  Your list just got real short.

Fred 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 16, 2009, 12:49:54 PM
If you consider picking "lame" game play  Your list just got real short.

Fred 

Anyone who jumps in on a 3 vs 1 is lame and is showing poor game play. Are you so hard up for a kill that you would have to do that? I guess when I write things out like that I should say that after a certain number of guys are already in on someone it then turns into a "gang". Do you read these things and think about them or do you just start typing?

If its a wingman picking me off of his wingmans tail then I deserve it for my poor SA. There is still a challenge to a 2 on 1 and in some small percentage of folks a 3 on 1, but making it 4 on 1 for any one is lame.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 16, 2009, 12:52:01 PM
Anyone who jumps in on a 3 vs 1 is lame and is showing poor game play. Are you so hard up for a kill that you would have to do that? I guess when I write things out like that I should say that after a certain number of guys are already in on someone it then turns into a "gang". Do you read these things and think about them or do you just start typing?

If its a wingman picking me off of his wingmans tail then I deserve it for my poor SA. There is still a challenge to a 2 on 1 and in some small percentage of folks a 3 on 1, but making it 4 on 1 for any one is lame.

I actually read quite well, and I stand by my post.  Your list will be very short even including what you stated in this post.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 16, 2009, 12:55:12 PM
I actually read quite well, and I stand by my post.  Your list will be very short even including what you stated in this post.

Fred

so your saying this NOT lame game play, being the 4th or 5th in on a guy?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 16, 2009, 01:03:19 PM
so your saying this NOT lame game play, being the 4th or 5th in on a guy?

No, I'm not offering an opinion either way.  Your the one that took it upon themself to be the judge of what "lame" is.  It was your post and your words that I responded to. Your the one that puts words in someones mouth (in this case text), when they question one of your statements.  Do you read before you type?

I made a simple statement, and I will stand by it.  I have been picked by the biggest names in this game while engaged with more than two other cons.  Do I get upset over it?  Nope, I'm just stupid enough to up another plane and go back in for more.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 16, 2009, 04:40:28 PM
OK, lets go back a bit...

If you consider picking "lame" game play  Your list just got real short.

Fred 

I don't understand how one item mentioned (ganging, or being the 4th or more in on a target) would shorten my list of lame/poor game play? Remember we are tlaking about game play, not game PLAYERS.

I actually read quite well, and I stand by my post.  Your list will be very short even including what you stated in this post.

Fred

Again you post, basically the same post with out trying to clarify what your saying. The post where you made this quote I had clarified that any more in on a 3 on 1 is a lame play. So still not understanding what you mean I ask you strait out if you belive the statment is true? (being the 4th guy in), you replied...

No, I'm not offering an opinion either way.  Your the one that took it upon themself to be the judge of what "lame" is.  It was your post and your words that I responded to. Your the one that puts words in someones mouth (in this case text), when they question one of your statements.  Do you read before you type?

I made a simple statement, and I will stand by it.  I have been picked by the biggest names in this game while engaged with more than two other cons.  Do I get upset over it?  Nope, I'm just stupid enough to up another plane and go back in for more.

Fred

First off, if you have no opinion either way, why are you posting?

Second, I suggested a list of what I thought the majority of players would think are lame/poor game play I didn't try to put any words in your mouth, I just tried to get an idea of what you were trying to say.

Third, seeing as all of this is speculation, and opinion, you can say, and stand by anything you want. Unfortunately, your posts made no sense to me in relation to the quotes you quoted.

Lastly, we are discussing poor game play in this thread. While I agree there are some lame/poor game PLAYERS noobs and vets alike, its not what we are discussing. You said "I have been picked by the biggest names in this game while engaged with more than two other cons.  Do I get upset over it?  Nope, I'm just stupid enough to up another plane and go back in for more." You should get mad about it, its lame game play, and we don't need it. There are plenty of people playing this game to shoot down, tho I'm sure not to many of the are easier target than someone already busy with 2 or 3.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 16, 2009, 05:41:33 PM
OK, lets go back a bit...

I don't understand how one item mentioned (ganging, or being the 4th or more in on a target) would shorten my list of lame/poor game play? Remember we are tlaking about game play, not game PLAYERS.

Game players, game play, can't have one without the other.  So in any discussion concerning game play, the way that players play the game would have to be included.


Again you post, basically the same post with out trying to clarify what your saying. The post where you made this quote I had clarified that any more in on a 3 on 1 is a lame play. So still not understanding what you mean I ask you strait out if you belive the statment is true? (being the 4th guy in), you replied...


Never really been the fourth guy in.  I have been in a group of 4 and even more after a single con.  Sort of works like this.  I spot a con, I start to engage the con, four others join in, I'm getting lined up for the shot, you think I am going to break off because 4 others decided to join in, not me, I will continue what I started.  I have no control over what other players do, so if 4,5, or even 20 want to join in when I am engaged with a con,  then there is nothing I can do about it.  Yet you would consider this lame play.  So be it, but if I had to break off every time a country man joins the fight, I would be flying in a lot of circles.


First off, if you have no opinion either way, why are you posting?


Because I want to.  Is there some rule that I'm not allowed to enter a opinion or make a statement concerning a post?


Second, I suggested a list of what I thought the majority of players would think are lame/poor game play I didn't try to put any words in your mouth, I just tried to get an idea of what you were trying to say.


Well, I thought I was very clear, but I guess I need to spell it out a bit more.  What I am and was saying is the very players you would put on your list, which I sure it would be some very prominent names, do the very things you call "lame".




Third, seeing as all of this is speculation, and opinion, you can say, and stand by anything you want. Unfortunately, your posts made no sense to me in relation to the quotes you quoted.



Can't help that, in my opinion I couldn't make it any clearer.





You right about not understanding the posts because your subject seems to change witht the wind  You speak of lame game play and then include ganging.  I am saying that nearly every one in this game including vets will pick if the opportunity is right, and it doesn't matter how many others are engaged.

Lastly, we are discussing poor game play in this thread. While I agree there are some lame/poor game PLAYERS noobs and vets alike, its not what we are discussing. You said "I have been picked by the biggest names in this game while engaged with more than two other cons.  Do I get upset over it?  Nope, I'm just stupid enough to up another plane and go back in for more." You should get mad about it, its lame game play, and we don't need it. There are plenty of people playing this game to shoot down, tho I'm sure not to many of the are easier target than someone already busy with 2 or 3.

Now you really have me confused,  what exactly are we discussing?  Since one goes with the other how can you exclude one?

Why should I get mad if I get picked or ganged by no matter how many.  It was my choice to up or engage, and it was my SA that was bad.  One other thing I don't get mad because of a game.  One has to keep it in perspective that this is a game, and only a game.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 16, 2009, 07:42:16 PM
I want to see an NOE mission with 12 110's,4 goons,and 6 nikis take a bish base..Thats a lucky NOE mission if it gets accomplished..

And if something was done different,say bombers at altitude,enough to take down base AND town,people would start saying something about that ruining their fun...But I bet there would not be many on the side which took the base complain,if any at all.

 And no fugitive,I was not using you as an example in my last post about people berating others on 200...I respect your opinion,I just dont agree with it whole heartedly. :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 16, 2009, 07:52:07 PM
I want to see an NOE mission with 12 110's,4 goons,and 6 nikis take a bish base..Thats a lucky NOE mission if it gets accomplished..

what would make this so hard?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 16, 2009, 07:54:07 PM
what would make this so hard?

No doubt.  The town would die in 30 seconds from the 110's alone and then cap. 
The niki's heavy could drop any nme GV's easy and cap.

No reason this wouldn't work.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 16, 2009, 09:10:14 PM
I didnt say it wouldnt work,but it  would be very difficult..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 16, 2009, 09:31:25 PM
.....snip

Well, I thought I was very clear, but I guess I need to spell it out a bit more.  What I am and was saying is the very players you would put on your list, which I sure it would be some very prominent names, do the very things you call "lame".

This is where we are having our communication break down. I never mentioned naming ANY players as lame.



Quote
.....snip

Since one goes with the other how can you exclude one?

Why should I get mad if I get picked or ganged by no matter how many.  It was my choice to up or engage, and it was my SA that was bad.  One other thing I don't get mad because of a game.  One has to keep it in perspective that this is a game, and only a game.

Fred

They most defiantly are not the same. Comparing game play, and game players is about the same as comparing apples and oranges. The only thing they have in common are that they are fruit. The same goes for game play and game players.

Game play can be changed, either by rule changes or community/peer pressure. With those changes yes some players will change, but I guaranty that there will ALWAYS be a number of lame game PLAYERS, they will never change. Their game IS to be lame, and nothing more.

You mentioned your senario for being the 4th guy on a bogie. You shouldn't be expected to pull off, nor should you accused of "lame play" the 3rd and most especially 4th guys in on that fight should be tho. Why shouldn't you have your fight? Why should you have to be worried about some loser coming in and stealing your kill? Doesn't it piss you off after fighting with some guy for 5 minutes and finally get him low E, on the deck and about to fall to the mercy of your guns and some one comes screaming in to clear your 12 oclock.?

I want to see an NOE mission with 12 110's,4 goons,and 6 nikis take a bish base..Thats a lucky NOE mission if it gets accomplished..

And if something was done different,say bombers at altitude,enough to take down base AND town,people would start saying something about that ruining their fun...But I bet there would not be many on the side which took the base complain,if any at all.

 And no fugitive,I was not using you as an example in my last post about people berating others on 200...I respect your opinion,I just dont agree with it whole heartedly. :salute

LOL!!! I think with that many guys we could do run after run and take easily 80% of the bases attempted. 5 110s and a single goon would be enough for most bases. I remember we did "Lightning Strikes" missions. 8 38's fully loaded, and a goon. From dar circle to capture our best time was under 3 minutes.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 16, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
No doubt.  The town would die in 30 seconds from the 110's alone and then cap. 
The niki's heavy could drop any nme GV's easy and cap.

No reason this wouldn't work.

Don't forget to include the fact that somebody might actually up and "foil" said NOE. :cry

Personally, I watch the map for those kind of shenanigins all the time. :O

Upping against an NOE or a CV attack is one of my favorite things to do in this game. :rock

So, I keep my eyes on the map. :uhoh

And I'm not alone. :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 16, 2009, 10:13:04 PM
I didnt say it wouldnt work,but it  would be very difficult..
Im not understanding, if what your saying is that its harder to do at a "bish" base. or any base. (looking for fish hooks in this statement somehow).
I can see bish base because they have the highest percentage of real estate grabbers and protecters. Most the time, rook/nit dont care about the real estate part of the deal so thats why you rarely see this pulled off. I think the attitude is just that we only really need 1 base to up and have a good time.
I just certainly hope that your not under any dilusional conceptions that it takes more than that to NOE anything. (22 per mission :huh)
??
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 16, 2009, 10:26:50 PM
I can see bish base because they have the highest percentage of real estate grabbers and protecters. Most the time, rook/nit dont care about the real estate part of the deal so thats why you rarely see this pulled off.
??


I don't believe that for a minute!!

On any given night, it could be ANY side goin apechit taking bases!

And on occasion, its an unstopable force.

Every side does it.

I see it ALL the time.

I believe you're mistaken.

I think they care.

I think they care alot!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 16, 2009, 11:30:38 PM
This is where we are having our communication break down. I never mentioned naming ANY players as lame.

You are correct.  I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. 

I went back and saw that I misread your sentence concerning "the list".  My apology to you sir. 

Then again the list of lame tactics you mention that you could make of what most players would consider lame, those "most" player uses those same lame tactics on a fairly regular basis.


They most defiantly are not the same. Comparing game play, and game players is about the same as comparing apples and oranges. The only thing they have in common are that they are fruit. The same goes for game play and game players.

 

Can't agree here.  In an interactive game such as Aces High, you can't have one without the other.  I would agree with your statement in games where it's person vs computer, but not this game, or similar games to this one.


Game play can be changed, either by rule changes or community/peer pressure. With those changes yes some players will change, but I guaranty that there will ALWAYS be a number of lame game PLAYERS, they will never change. Their game IS to be lame, and nothing more.

You mentioned your scenario for being the 4th guy on a bogie. You shouldn't be expected to pull off, nor should you accused of "lame play" the 3rd and most especially 4th guys in on that fight should be tho. Why shouldn't you have your fight? Why should you have to be worried about some loser coming in and stealing your kill? Doesn't it piss you off after fighting with some guy for 5 minutes and finally get him low E, on the deck and about to fall to the mercy of your guns and some one comes screaming in to clear your 12 oclock.?


I'm not sure a game can be changed by peer pressure alone.  In my opinion, I would think a rules(s) change would have to go along with it. 

I get my kills stolen all the time.  Do I get mad, no, not really, sometimes it can be a bit frustrating, but then again its a game, and I always try to keep that perspective.  Then again, I try to steal certain squad mates kills whenever I can.   :D

 :salute

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 17, 2009, 04:13:34 AM

I don't believe that for a minute!!

On any given night, it could be ANY side goin apechit taking bases!

And on occasion, its an unstopable force.

Every side does it.

I see it ALL the time.

I believe you're mistaken.

I think they care.

I think they care alot!

They do, but they dont..It depends all on what type of mood theyre in when it comes to protecting. Most often I notice is noone would say a word sometimes if a base gets taken.

As far as every country doing the NOE thing? When I was breiefly back fighting on the bish side, I swear you wouldnt go more than 15 mins without someone posting some mission. I noticed nits would do it really late at night. Rooks and Nits usually though, you can go an entire weekend without seeing 1 mission planner up.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 17, 2009, 07:29:44 AM

I'm not sure a game can be changed by peer pressure alone.  In my opinion, I would think a rules(s) change would have to go along with it. 

Agree. Otherwise this topic would no longer be resurrected every week.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 17, 2009, 07:44:29 AM
You are correct.  I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. 

I went back and saw that I misread your sentence concerning "the list".  My apology to you sir. 

Accepted, and no problem. Misunderstandings happen in discussions all the time.

Quote
Then again the list of lame tactics you mention that you could make of what most players would consider lame, those "most" player uses those same lame tactics on a fairly regular basis.

Agreed, most people have fallen into the "Well if they are going to HO everytime, So am I!" attitude.

Quote
Can't agree here.  In an interactive game such as Aces High, you can't have one without the other.  I would agree with your statement in games where it's person vs computer, but not this game, or similar games to this one.

See the above reply. I don't think I'm a lame game player, and police myself very closely, however You can catch me doing lame things now and then when I get fed up and its about time to log.  :)

Quote
I'm not sure a game can be changed by peer pressure alone.  In my opinion, I would think a rules(s) change would have to go along with it. 

Oh I think it could change with peer pressure alone. There haven't been any real rule changes in years, but the game play has definitely changed.

Quote
I get my kills stolen all the time.  Do I get mad, no, not really, sometimes it can be a bit frustrating, but then again its a game, and I always try to keep that perspective.  Then again, I try to steal certain squad mates kills whenever I can.   :D

 :salute

Fred

Stealing a squad mate kill is something all together different  :D However, picture a newb, been flying for a few weeks. Starting to get the hang of things, but 90% of his kills are getting stolen when ever he flys. How frustrating do you think it would be to him/her not having your experience to keep that "perspective"? How many people cancel their subscription due to the frustrations lame game play causes?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 17, 2009, 07:59:11 AM
what I see alot, because I like to drag folks for a 1 vs 1, or engage in 1 vs 1 dogfights.....is a con that looks at the dar, sees a single enemy and a single con fighting, and flies in that direction....two things a clear by this action...

1.  (giving the fella the benefit of the doubt)he says, "maybe the friendly needs help?"    OK, I can handle that, fair enough.

2.  Now, the fella makes it there and sees the friendly with the advantage, and handling the enemy easily.....(if he still attacks...without asking the friendly if he needs help, he is exhibiting bad gameplay...IMHO), if he asked the friendly, and the friendly says, "sure go ahead and make an attempt to interrupt my fight and steal my kill"....then that is fine(I doubt that will happen, but we are giving the situation the benefit of the doubt)

3.  Now, where I find bad gameplay evident, is when the 3rd, and 4th, and 5th fella fly over there....there is no excuse for it...it is milking the community, selfishly, for ...I guess score?....kills?...grief?....what could possibly be good for going to a fight where one enemy already has 2 or 3 on him...I mean what are you going to do?...get the kill?...at the expense of someone who was already there working for the kill?...grief the friendly that has spent time on the enemy, and you show up 4th man in and "steal" the kill?  It just makes no sense to me....and often, I find "vets", or folks who have played a couple of years doing this....it is bad gameplay IMHO.

4.  If me posting this changes even one person to re-evaluate these types of situations, and causes them to "ask" the friendly first...and honor his request, then    (the time it took to type this post)...was spent wisely. :aok













 :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 17, 2009, 08:04:29 AM


Stealing a squad mate kill is something all together different  :D However, picture a newb, been flying for a few weeks. Starting to get the hang of things, but 90% of his kills are getting stolen when ever he flys. How frustrating do you think it would be to him/her not having your experience to keep that "perspective"? How many people cancel their subscription due to the frustrations lame game play causes?
or better yet, how many stop and say....Oh, this is how the game should be played....frustrate and grief friendlies by constantly trying to steal their kills, and interrupt their fun for your own "name in lights" glory.  I expect newbs to come in and try and steal kills, it's people who have been playing awhile, that you know are scorehoring that is repulsing.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dawger on April 17, 2009, 08:17:39 AM
However, picture a newb, been flying for a few weeks. Starting to get the hang of things, but 90% of his kills are getting stolen when ever he flys. How frustrating do you think it would be to him/her not having your experience to keep that "perspective"? How many people cancel their subscription due to the frustrations lame game play causes?

I'd have to say that number would be zero from "Kill Stealing". But maybe I come from an entirely different universe. There is no such thing as kill stealing. There is no Aces High Bureau of Kill Ownership that issues the Title on each kill. And the kill doesn't belong to the guy that gets credit in the buffer. He is just the guy who got the credit.

If you are running around in circles with a bandit and someone else swoops in and blasts the bandit into next week, its your own damn fault for taking so long to arrive at a guns solution. Most new players understand this instinctively. I don't think anyone comes into the game with a sense of entitlement with regards to particular kills.

I have seen players who shoot at the wreckage just to get the credit and it doesn't bother me one bit. But 12 years online and most of them spent training folks will do that to you.

Be happy for the other guy when he gets the kill. You will get more later I'm sure. It is a sad life if you believe there is any such thing as "kill stealing" in Aces High. I can only imagine the sort of mental state of being that can justify thinking that way and I am truly saddened to know such pitiful people exist.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fury on April 17, 2009, 08:20:29 AM
what I see alot, because I like to drag folks for a 1 vs 1, or engage in 1 vs 1 dogfights.....is a con that looks at the dar, sees a single enemy and a single con fighting, and flies in that direction....two things a clear by this action...

1.  (giving the fella the benefit of the doubt)he says, "maybe the friendly needs help?"    OK, I can handle that, fair enough.

2.  Now, the fella makes it there and sees the friendly with the advantage, and handling the enemy easily.....(if he still attacks...without asking the friendly if he needs help, he is exhibiting bad gameplay...IMHO), if he asked the friendly, and the friendly says, "sure go ahead and make an attempt to interrupt my fight and steal my kill"....then that is fine(I doubt that will happen, but we are giving the situation the benefit of the doubt)

3.  Now, where I find bad gameplay evident, is when the 3rd, and 4th, and 5th fella fly over there....there is no excuse for it...it is milking the community, selfishly, for ...I guess score?....kills?...grief?....what could possibly be good for going to a fight where one enemy already has 2 or 3 on him...I mean what are you going to do?...get the kill?...at the expense of someone who was already there working for the kill?...grief the friendly that has spent time on the enemy, and you show up 4th man in and "steal" the kill?  It just makes no sense to me....and often, I find "vets", or folks who have played a couple of years doing this....it is bad gameplay IMHO.

4.  If me posting this changes even one person to re-evaluate these types of situations, and causes them to "ask" the friendly first...and honor his request, then    (the time it took to type this post)...was spent wisely. :aok

I agree 100% with what you say, the amount of times i have been saddled up on someone`s 6 just for some high alt score dweeb to zoom right through and kill my target its lame and people should think twice before doing it.

If i see 2 cons are fighting and the friendly is on the enemy i will not jump in unless its the other way around, what i will do tho is i will circle above the fight and wait until the friendly needs my help but if he doesnt im waiting for the enemys friend to come in i just dont see the point in blowing all my alt just to steal kills its pathetic behaviour and it doesnt help in the long run when we need higher cover for otw enemies.

If you see me on an enemys 6 leave me alone dont come and kill him as i am perfectly capable of doing so myself i like to take my time and conserve ammo this is why it takes a while to kill sometimes as i am waiting for the right shot.

Also those damn shoulder shooters get up my nose too, be patient or break off the con let the guy who is actually on the cons 6 to kill him go get alt or find another con to kill its simple.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: humble on April 17, 2009, 08:23:26 AM
Before you can define "bad game play" I do believe you have to try and attempt to define "good" game play. Anyone who knows me is aware that I favor small scale air combat and so I tend to be a bit of a lone wolf. As a group the squad I belong to rarely interjects itself in a major way into the flow of the "war" overall. However I do think that any real definition of "good" game play does have to be in that context....

So....

going back roughly a year or so we happened to have a pretty good mass of guys up one Sunday (15 or so) and "we" {knights} were just getting pummeled on all fronts. The map in use had a kind of peninsula on one side of our "homeland" with 6-7 air bases and a few Vbases all under enemy control with a wave of red rolling off the coastal base at the base of the peninsula toward our HQ area. Beef, Solar and a few of the guys are actually exceptionally good buff drivers...so we launched a "mizzun" 6 buff formations and 9 escorts to take out the entire peninsula. Driving up the back leg and then back to the key base in a giant "U".

Suprisingly we do get noticed any time we up en mass so we got a few calls on take off, we simply said we're touring the countryside and your welcome to come. We picked up a buff formation or two....after we hit the 1st target (we do 1 pass only coordinated on multiple approach vectors) I asked Redtop for permission to take a couple of guys and cut across the route to the 2nd coastal base to cap it. I knew that the guys would hit the 2nd base before it upped fighters to alt and figured RT Bat and Steff would easily coordinate buff defense vs the base at the bottom of the U.

Meanwhile Solar (if i remember right) detached to hit the 2 Vbases that supported the coastal A bases near the front and Bat and a wingie went with Solar and another buff formation. My 3 got the coastal base all tangled up, RT led the main group around the horn and Solar trashed the Vbases and came screaming in to the base we were "capping" (more like alamoing in reverse) to take out the V hanger. All this allowed the rest of the knights to catch a breath and by the time we even got to the coast we had 2 other squads on vox coordinating (if I recall JG11 was one). They hit the town hard with 4-5 guys while the now 5 of us "fought" the 30+ air cons while solar strafed the runways at 500 ft or so...the base got snuck while Beef, RT and crew were inbound to drop the hangers so we all plowed up the coast to the original target base...

To me "good game play" is strength on strength and tactics, not 10/1 odds and rolling the map. Its 15 or 20 guys vs 50 or 100 and finding a way to overcome the situation at hand. what I see now on all sides is good fights being ruined because missions are launched where the good fight is in the balance and overwhelming numbers are used to sway the outcome. So were before we had an individual fight getting ganged now we have the good group fights getting ganged.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 17, 2009, 08:47:11 AM
I'd have to say that number would be zero from "Kill Stealing". But maybe I come from an entirely different universe. There is no such thing as kill stealing. There is no Aces High Bureau of Kill Ownership that issues the Title on each kill. And the kill doesn't belong to the guy that gets credit in the buffer. He is just the guy who got the credit.

If you are running around in circles with a bandit and someone else swoops in and blasts the bandit into next week, its your own damn fault for taking so long to arrive at a guns solution. Most new players understand this instinctively. I don't think anyone comes into the game with a sense of entitlement with regards to particular kills.

I have seen players who shoot at the wreckage just to get the credit and it doesn't bother me one bit. But 12 years online and most of them spent training folks will do that to you.

Be happy for the other guy when he gets the kill. You will get more later I'm sure. It is a sad life if you believe there is any such thing as "kill stealing" in Aces High. I can only imagine the sort of mental state of being that can justify thinking that way and I am truly saddened to know such pitiful people exist.

Your right, you do come from a different universe... Warbirds  :D Things are different here than they were there. I fly with Savlan and a bunch of his guys in the 475th that came over from WB. Joe's a good guy to hang out with as well as most of his crew. Flying with them I can see a big difference in the way they fly. Their point of view is different. I remember them having trouble in the AvA arena looking to fight the way they had at WB. The AvA "regulars" at the time made it miserable for them. Some quit, and some changed a bit to fit in with how things are done in AH.

Reading "The fury's" post you can see that there are other people who have a problem with kill stealing. At this point of my "flying career"   :D  I like to fight. Not chase some guy down, not pick someone off my wingys tail, tho I will do both, I like to be in the fight, 1 on 1, even 2 on me is fun. The culmination of a fight is dead, I loose, or I kill the other guy I win.  So someone sweeping in and popping the guy I finaly get right where I want him gets me frustrated.

Of the guys just coming into the game, what do you thing is the main reason they are here? My guess would be to "kill the other guy",shoot down planes. If you steal his kill you just took the fun, and his main purpose away from him. If he can't do what he signed up for, ya think he might cancel?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 17, 2009, 09:04:57 AM
Coming from a different sim is no excuse, I can't imagine that in Warbirds or AW, or "flying polygons with guns 1.0" behavior of the sort you seem to defend was looked on any more favorably.



If you are running around in circles with a bandit and someone else swoops in and blasts the bandit into next week, its your own damn fault for taking so long to arrive at a guns solution. Most new players understand this instinctively. I don't think anyone comes into the game with a sense of entitlement with regards to particular kills.


Biggest pile of BS I ever saw. The guy "going around in circles" as you put it, with the bandit on his 12, straining for a gun solution, has put time, energy, and skill into putting the bandit in a position where a random picker can blast through and steal the kill in the first place. This is often especially the case when one b'n'z fighter forces another to engage and slow down to fight, and some picker in a b'n'z airplane will come along and "help" the friendly working the bandit by clearing his 12.

I have seen players who shoot at the wreckage just to get the credit and it doesn't bother me one bit. But 12 years online and most of them spent training folks will do that to you.

Inconceivable...the single lamest behavior in the game, and it doesn't bother you, but people who call such behavior what it is, this does bother you?

Deliberately shooting at falling wreckage to steal the kill goes beyond mere lame gameplay, I'm comfortable calling it a form of cheating.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 17, 2009, 09:09:36 AM
Rooks and Nits usually though, you can go an entire weekend without seeing 1 mission planner up.

Your assuming that the Missions/NOE's that Rooks and Nits are being posted, when in actuality the NOE's that I have busted are usually compromised of an entire squad with a few stragglers, so they may not be posted missions.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 17, 2009, 09:27:09 AM
Coming from a different sim is no excuse, I can't imagine that in Warbirds or AW, or "flying polygons with guns 1.0" behavior of the sort you seem to defend was looked on any more favorably.

Biggest pile of BS I ever saw. The guy "going around in circles" as you put it, with the bandit on his 12, straining for a gun solution, has put time, energy, and skill into putting the bandit in a position where a random picker can blast through and steal the kill in the first place. This is often especially the case when one b'n'z fighter forces another to engage and slow down to fight, and some picker in a b'n'z airplane will come along and "help" the friendly working the bandit by clearing his 12.

Inconceivable...the single lamest behavior in the game, and it doesn't bother you, but people who call such behavior what it is, this does bother you?

Deliberately shooting at falling wreckage to steal the kill goes beyond mere lame gameplay, I'm comfortable calling it a form of cheating.
:aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: crazyivan on April 17, 2009, 01:01:43 PM
SkyRockets in flight. Afternoon delight.  :uhoh
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 17, 2009, 01:21:11 PM
I didnt say it wouldnt work,but it  would be very difficult..

I've taken MANY bases with 1-2 110's and 1 goon.    If 12 110's and 4 goons cannot take a base, they suck.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 17, 2009, 01:26:09 PM
Bad game play is a simple one.........  If I can't shoot today, switch to a bomber.  Thus removing bad game play.


 :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: rvflyer on April 17, 2009, 02:34:29 PM
what I see alot, because I like to drag folks for a 1 vs 1, or engage in 1 vs 1 dogfights.....is a con that looks at the dar, sees a single enemy and a single con fighting, and flies in that direction....two things a clear by this action...



3.  Now, where I find bad gameplay evident, is when the 3rd, and 4th, and 5th fella fly over there....there is no excuse for it...it is milking the community, selfishly, for ...I guess score?....kills?...grief?....what could possibly be good for going to a fight where one enemy already has 2 or 3 on him...I mean what are you going to do?...get the kill?...at the expense of someone who was already there working for the kill?...grief the friendly that has spent time on the enemy, and you show up 4th man in and "steal" the kill?  It just makes no sense to me....and often, I find "vets", or folks who have played a couple of years doing this....it is bad gameplay IMHO.



 :noid

So true SkyRock, I have just about quit this game because of what you describe. You work and work to get into a position on the nme tail for a good clean shot and some
A**H*** dweeb comes screaming in from above with bullets spraying all over the place and gets between you and the plane you are working on about the time you are getting ready to squeeze off a shot. Now you either dead from killshot or at least damaged, while spraying dweeb  is getting "good shot" calls and is really proud of theirself for taking your sure kill. This is even more irritating than a HO IMO
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 17, 2009, 03:34:38 PM
Deliberately shooting at falling wreckage to steal the kill goes beyond mere lame gameplay, I'm comfortable calling it a form of cheating.

I'm not. Incredibly lame is not the same as cheating. The distinction is, IMHO, important.

Would you really want someone banned permanently for shooting at wreckage?

My pet peeve lame behavior this week: boom'n'run. I understand not wanting to get mired in a turn fight in a plane that's bad at that, but people who climb to 20k before getting anywhere near the enemy, take a few clumsy passes from 5k-10 up and then run all the way home because their e advantage is no longer what they'd like it to be are weenies of the first order. Second place goes to people who attack with superior numbers and then run all the way home because their friend gets killed and they're now facing even odds.  :mad:

Those people are much worse for game play than so-called "hordes".
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 17, 2009, 03:40:51 PM
Hey, before you congratulate me SR, that was supposed to read "this is often the case when one fast b'n'z fighter forces another fast b'n'z fighter to engage, and some T'n'B aircraft will swoop in for the easy saddle/pick." There, that gets what I meant to say across.

:aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 17, 2009, 04:51:13 PM
Hey, before you congratulate me SR, that was supposed to read "this is often the case when one fast b'n'z fighter forces another fast b'n'z fighter to engage, and some T'n'B aircraft will swoop in for the easy saddle/pick." There, that gets what I meant to say across.

I know what you are saying....tis why I hate hurri's and zekes, they cant catch anything but a gangbang, and they are the worst about being 3rd, 4th, 5th man in....I often wonder what they are thinking...I mean the con by then is slow, so there is no getting away from the hurri or zeke, and I guess the fella in the hurri/zeke is saying, "Oh, let me get him for you other 4 fellas"  what a waste of gameplay.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 17, 2009, 05:30:45 PM
I should of clarified my statement about the 110 NOE...

 You get defense,you are going to have a tough time taking a base..

 If someone does not up masher,your tactic would work..if you had defensive cons up,it would fail miserably.

 As far as if it is a bish base,I should of typed the wording to say..Used against any OPPOSING COUNTRY...

 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 17, 2009, 07:50:32 PM
Coming from a different sim is no excuse, I can't imagine that in Warbirds or AW, or "flying polygons with guns 1.0" behavior of the sort you seem to defend was looked on any more favorably.

Biggest pile of BS I ever saw. The guy "going around in circles" as you put it, with the bandit on his 12, straining for a gun solution, has put time, energy, and skill into putting the bandit in a position where a random picker can blast through and steal the kill in the first place. This is often especially the case when one b'n'z fighter forces another to engage and slow down to fight, and some picker in a b'n'z airplane will come along and "help" the friendly working the bandit by clearing his 12.

Inconceivable...the single lamest behavior in the game, and it doesn't bother you, but people who call such behavior what it is, this does bother you?

Deliberately shooting at falling wreckage to steal the kill goes beyond mere lame gameplay, I'm comfortable calling it a form of cheating.

 :aok :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 17, 2009, 07:54:04 PM
I should of clarified my statement about the 110 NOE...

 You get defense,you are going to have a FUN time taking a base..

 If someone does not up masher,your tactic would work..if you had defensive cons up,it would fail miserably.

 As far as if it is a bish base,I should of typed the wording to say..Used against any OPPOSING COUNTRY...

 
Fixed for reality.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dawger on April 17, 2009, 09:14:43 PM
Your right, you do come from a different universe... Warbirds  :D Things are different here than they were there. I fly with Savlan and a bunch of his guys in the 475th that came over from WB. Joe's a good guy to hang out with as well as most of his crew. Flying with them I can see a big difference in the way they fly. Their point of view is different. I remember them having trouble in the AvA arena looking to fight the way they had at WB. The AvA "regulars" at the time made it miserable for them. Some quit, and some changed a bit to fit in with how things are done in AH.

Reading "The fury's" post you can see that there are other people who have a problem with kill stealing. At this point of my "flying career"   :D  I like to fight. Not chase some guy down, not pick someone off my wingys tail, tho I will do both, I like to be in the fight, 1 on 1, even 2 on me is fun. The culmination of a fight is dead, I loose, or I kill the other guy I win.  So someone sweeping in and popping the guy I finaly get right where I want him gets me frustrated.

Of the guys just coming into the game, what do you thing is the main reason they are here? My guess would be to "kill the other guy",shoot down planes. If you steal his kill you just took the fun, and his main purpose away from him. If he can't do what he signed up for, ya think he might cancel?

How, exactly, do you steal something that no one owns?

Skyrock throws a tantrum if you fly near any bandit he has decided is "his". Nevermind that you might actually shoot at it. He has a fit on voice if you fly near it. All in the name of "kill ownership". It is quite silly, at least as silly as the guys who shoot wreckage, and from my point of view much sillier.

The whole concept of "earning" a kill and somehow "owning " the kill is quite foreign to my way of thinking.

The constant rules temper tantrum on the boards and in the arena gets pretty old. I suspect HTC loses lots more folks to the tantrum than to the supposed "violations". I know the ONLY reason I still pay money is because of friends I made before I ever came to AH. One day the tantrums will end that too I suppose.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DrDea on April 17, 2009, 09:21:29 PM
 Its not that you "own" the kill.You worked for it and some classless twit that probebly thinks its ok to cut into the front of a line slides in and blasts the guy. personaly Ive seen it far to many times to really care,but its still classless play.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 17, 2009, 09:39:20 PM
I should of clarified my statement about the 110 NOE...

 You get defense,you are going to have a tough time taking a base..

 If someone does not up masher,your tactic would work..if you had defensive cons up,it would fail miserably.

 As far as if it is a bish base,I should of typed the wording to say..Used against any OPPOSING COUNTRY...

 
You just nailed it Falcon.
12-110s, 6 niks and 4 goons and you think your gonna have a tough time taking a base. Now keep in mind that Im not getting on a high horse here, but if our squad is in "base take" mode, the job gets done with half that amount ( if were lucky to have that in our roster)
The attitude that gets me is instead of working on ones own skills to sharpen, they choose the easy route. ( 22 wont do it this mission..so lets get 50 in here to get this base). if 12-110s, 4 goons and 6 niks are a challenge to you, then make that your goal. Get yourself some good trusting people to fly with that know exactly what to do and when to do it and keep trying that tactic until you acheive your goal.
Once you tackle that, then challenge yourself further and try it with 6 110s 1 goon and 2 niks...so on and so on. Its no slap in the face here if you go down, but it helps and shows if you go down TRYING.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: crazyivan on April 17, 2009, 10:02:31 PM
To many complex AH minds in here for me, but if you can't take a base NOE with 12 ,110s, 8 nikis, and 2 goons its a FAIL IMO.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 17, 2009, 10:50:54 PM
To many complex AH minds in here for me
Its strictly a matter of brains on a platter with nothing better to do.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 18, 2009, 12:02:14 AM
Skyrock is Skyrock, whatever, that doesn't mean he can't have a point.

Buddy, engaging a bandit 1v1 costs time, and it costs energy. Energy that a prop plane can't replace easily. If I spend alot of my Energy and time getting on a bandit, have his rear quarter and am working him, and you come along and shoot without asking, without a real good reason, then yeah, you just stole something I bought and paid for.

 Let me tell you, I know there are grey areas in a chaotic furball, but if you happen upon a lone friendly with a lone bandit on his 12, *at least* ask whether he needs help with the bandit, whether the bandit is outdistancing him and he needs you to run it down, etc.

Now, I don't think blatant kill stealing is a huge problem in the MA. (In the furball lake OTOH, I *always* hear pings as my wreckage is spiraling towards the water.) But the fact that you don't see something wrong with blatant kill stealing...that is a head scratcher.

Oh...and if you think real pilots blew right in front of comrades to shoot a bandit that was already being shot up/at, without repercussions, think again. In R/L, the safety issues alone of two friendlies trying to shoot the same bandit simultaneously are daunting.

How, exactly, do you steal something that no one owns?

Skyrock throws a tantrum if you fly near any bandit he has decided is "his". Nevermind that you might actually shoot at it. He has a fit on voice if you fly near it. All in the name of "kill ownership". It is quite silly, at least as silly as the guys who shoot wreckage, and from my point of view much sillier.

The whole concept of "earning" a kill and somehow "owning " the kill is quite foreign to my way of thinking.

The constant rules temper tantrum on the boards and in the arena gets pretty old. I suspect HTC loses lots more folks to the tantrum than to the supposed "violations". I know the ONLY reason I still pay money is because of friends I made before I ever came to AH. One day the tantrums will end that too I suppose.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 18, 2009, 12:19:25 AM
Skyrock is Skyrock, whatever, that doesn't mean he can't have a point.

Buddy, engaging a bandit 1v1 costs time, and it costs energy. Energy that a prop plane can't replace easily. If I spend alot of my Energy and time getting on a bandit, have his rear quarter and am working him, and you come along and shoot without asking, without a real good reason, then yeah, you just stole something I bought and paid for.



bro, I would be called a whiner a million times, for years to come,  and be proud of it.....to be represented by your statement....it is true and to the fact and undeniable....it is against the spirit of all things that are good about games....working hard to compete and fighting to win...only to have "herbert milktoast" come in and Cower your kill for score?     :furious









 :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Boxboy on April 18, 2009, 01:44:46 AM
LOL I thank them for clearing my 12 o'clock :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 08:25:29 AM
You just nailed it Falcon.
12-110s, 6 niks and 4 goons and you think your gonna have a tough time taking a base. Now keep in mind that Im not getting on a high horse here, but if our squad is in "base take" mode, the job gets done with half that amount ( if were lucky to have that in our roster)
The attitude that gets me is instead of working on ones own skills to sharpen, they choose the easy route. ( 22 wont do it this mission..so lets get 50 in here to get this base). if 12-110s, 4 goons and 6 niks are a challenge to you, then make that your goal. Get yourself some good trusting people to fly with that know exactly what to do and when to do it and keep trying that tactic until you acheive your goal.
Once you tackle that, then challenge yourself further and try it with 6 110s 1 goon and 2 niks...so on and so on. Its no slap in the face here if you go down, but it helps and shows if you go down TRYING.


  You guys take bases with half that amount,...6/110's 3 niks,and 2 goons???Well congrats ,and good thing you did not have any resistance..

  I put 15 slots for 110's in my missions,I put 10 slots for fighters,and 4 goons,I do not see where that is horrible..I want the town down as FAST as possible,I dont want to sit there and "FONDLE" it..I want it DOWN,and so do the  people who are with me,..

  You want to see A 50 man mission???? that would be the one with 190a8's,when eny has gone through the roof,literally,,and is over 25..

 ANd tral I never said that 12 110's missions were a challenge to me,you put words in my mouth..but I want to be sure when I launch a mission for a particular target,that it goes down the way it is supposed too..and that is that it gets captured..

                                                                         

       
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 18, 2009, 08:49:16 AM
Falcon, you keep coming up with excuses on every post directed at you.   You don't seem to realize that you only "hear what you want to hear", or do you realize it?   

No offense intended, but it is blatant from the start and one would have to be blind to deny/not see it.   You have every intention "of being right" regardless of any point posted.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Rash on April 18, 2009, 09:17:22 AM
Scrambled eggs and calf brains...good eats, yum.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 18, 2009, 10:03:04 AM

  You guys take bases with half that amount,...6/110's 3 niks,and 2 goons???Well congrats ,and good thing you did not have any resistance..

  I put 15 slots for 110's in my missions,I put 10 slots for fighters,and 4 goons,I do not see where that is horrible..I want the town down as FAST as possible,I dont want to sit there and "FONDLE" it..I want it DOWN,and so do the  people who are with me,..

  You want to see A 50 man mission???? that would be the one with 190a8's,when eny has gone through the roof,literally,,and is over 25..

 ANd tral I never said that 12 110's missions were a challenge to me,you put words in my mouth..but I want to be sure when I launch a mission for a particular target,that it goes down the way it is supposed too..and that is that it gets captured..

                                                                         

       

See Falcon, thats the point we are trying to make and you refuse to see. 6 110's and a goon. NOE, all planes fly with the goons max speed. When you hit the dar circle 110s go full throttle and wep. 3 110 hit the town, 3 the field ack. In 3 passes most of the town is down, and ALL of the ack is down and the goon is in sight. 2 110s cover field, rest finish town, goon drops troops, base capture. The group lands a half dozen kills.

With 7 "skilled" players its VERY easy to capture a base with an NOE. Most fields can be deacked in two passes by two guys as long as you have good approach vectors. Your so worried about over killing your target your creating a horde. You give me 50 guys and I win the map each night we are on.

Do you like WWF Falcon? The whole point of WWF is the show. They have a show leading up to the fight, then two fighters climb into the ring, and "fight it out" for the show. If you were a WWF wrestler you'd be the guy that would drive his car into the ring running over the other fighter. Then you'd jump out saying "I WIN! I WIN!" Well ya, you won, but you had to run the guy over with a car!

The same thing in the game. Ya you took a base with 25 guys, it doesn't impress anyone because you HAD TO USE 25 GUYS!. Learn some skills, learn the best angles to dive into a town and NOT miss with a single round, make each pass count. Learn to do the same mission with less guys.

I ran into the Mighty Rolling Thunder last night. They ran an NOE from A9 to A59. As I flew through the masses shooting up the troops, there was over 20 guys at the field and town. B25s tiffys, and spittys. There was no high cap so I had plenty of time to circle looking for the goon. I'm sure it made him nervous, because instead of landing his goon, he dropped them from the air, which gave me a chance to kill enough that they had to wait for their back up goon. Ya they took the base, but it took 20 guys AND an NOE  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: kvuo75 on April 18, 2009, 10:58:05 AM
See Falcon, thats the point we are trying to make and you refuse to see. 6 110's and a goon. NOE, all planes fly with the goons max speed. When you hit the dar circle 110s go full throttle and wep. 3 110 hit the town, 3 the field ack. In 3 passes most of the town is down, and ALL of the ack is down and the goon is in sight. 2 110s cover field, rest finish town, goon drops troops, base capture. The group lands a half dozen kills.


exactly.. (i doubt the half dozen kills though -- maybe 1 or 2)

could probably do it even easier than that... all 6 110's kill town in 1 pass, and then kill anything that comes out of the field ack while the troops are running...

whatever the case, don't need a dozen 110's... thats gettin into the range where at the end of the fearsome basetake mission you didn't even get to shooot at a stinkin BUILDING because they were all dead already ..

what is the deal with overkill?? Just yesterday bish came to take back a vbase.. I saw at least 5 sets of heavy bombers.. FOR 3 HANGARS?? wtf!?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 11:00:20 AM

  You guys take bases with half that amount,...6/110's 3 niks,and 2 goons???Well congrats ,and good thing you did not have any resistance..

  I put 15 slots for 110's in my missions,I put 10 slots for fighters,and 4 goons,I do not see where that is horrible..I want the town down as FAST as possible,I dont want to sit there and "FONDLE" it..I want it DOWN,and so do the  people who are with me,..

  You want to see A 50 man mission???? that would be the one with 190a8's,when eny has gone through the roof,literally,,and is over 25..

 ANd tral I never said that 12 110's missions were a challenge to me,you put words in my mouth..but I want to be sure when I launch a mission for a particular target,that it goes down the way it is supposed too..and that is that it gets captured..

                                                                         

       
Your not seeing the point here Falcon. Your taking things as a direct attack towards you which in fact it is several people saying the same thing in order to open your eyes and try to teach you something.
You will never get better if you choose quantity over quality. Going into battle with 50 no skilled warriors and loosing to a group of 8 is much more damaging than not even attacking at all.

Point of your thread was "defining bad game play"  and my definition is when you get players that want to get to to point A--->B with no resistence ( They HO, Ram, Kamakazi, Lancstuka, spawncamp etc..etc) Its very obvious also when this is what they use as a crutch to get any sort of gratification.
Take the harder road, be humble and dont get frustrated. I suck yes, but I learn from my suckage and the result is that guy that gets the easy kill on me is gonna be surprised later.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
fugitive for your info,that was supposed to be a fun cv killing mission.where you saw all the b-25's..theyw ere for the cv,although a backup plan was hatched after the cv was dwon to hit a base for capture..

 What u guys dont see,is that I dont run missions to FAIL..It is evidnelty fun enough for people to join and take bases,or whatever needs to be done..

 I dont run missions to take 3 HOURS to take a base...I dont have the time to spend that amount of time taking a base,when it could of happened quicker..I dont WANT to spend 3 hours taking a base,I spend enough time in-game without making it last any longer.<--read WIFE ACK...

 And while I run majority NOE's,,There are some that are run at ALT,and they capture bases as well..

 Evidently missions of ALL KINDS are fun for many people..

  What I see,are you guys trying to tell me how to run missions and take bases the "FUN" way..The way I do them,that you guys are not getting is that they are FUN from my standpoint,and all who join..Do I think it makes for bad game-play? no I do not..Maybe from your perspective,but then you just cant "see" what I am saying either..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Shifty on April 18, 2009, 01:40:59 PM
Well if that doesn't come of sounding a bit like a "Holy than thou" attitude I don't what does!

Dawger, you come in here and push your attitude, and agenda everytime you post something. You came from WB..or where ever.. and yes you were the best trainer/fighter/team player/whatever there, but your in our world now. What applied in your world doesn't necessarily apply in ours. Here we try to train the a HO is a bad thing, yes many people still take it, but most feels that it is a cheap shot and will call you out on it.

I don't know about from where you come from, but here the idea is to fight, or have combat. Turning down a 1 vs 1 means you should go fly Flightsim X because you don't want to fight, so go fly a flight sim where there is no fighting.

Honor is dictated by the community. In the US we have a certain honor, if your a gang banger, you may have a certain honor, but to the rest of society/community your unlawful scum that needs to be locked up. Same goes for the game. you may be honorable with in your squad, but the rest of the game community decide whether that is acceptable.

You came from a different neighborhood, ours works just a bit different.  It doesn't matter how long you have been in flight sim communities, what matters is how long you have been in THIS flight sim community. Anything you earned in other sims is thrown out the window when you switched, just like everyone else. Here you have to start all over, like everyone else. Nobody gets respect just because.... they have to earn it just like everyone else.

You're calling Dawger holier than thou? Dawger is pushing his agenda?  :lol
I've been in this sim since 2001 and wouldn't dream of posting somthing like this...

your in our world now

I wouldn't dream of posting it if I'd been here since day one. I got news for you as long as Dawger pays his monthly
AH bill it's as much his world as it is yours. In fact we're all just renters living in HTCs house.
Lighten up, you're really not near as important as you seem to think you are. Besides you're in Hetech's world now.   :aok


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: caldera on April 18, 2009, 01:43:32 PM
That's good that you enjoy the NOE smash and grab missions, Falcon. Not that much fun to be the smashee, though. My definition of a fight is that both opponents have a chance. An NOE horde that is not discovered in time is akin to a pair of 51s BnZ-ing a single turny plane. The defender cannot go on the attack without being overwhelmed.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 02:02:10 PM
Been on both sides of the coin also caldera..SO I know what you mean,but it is the price we pay I suppose.. :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
fugitive for your info,that was supposed to be a fun cv killing mission.where you saw all the b-25's..theyw ere for the cv,although a backup plan was hatched after the cv was dwon to hit a base for capture..

 What u guys dont see,is that I dont run missions to FAIL..It is evidnelty fun enough for people to join and take bases,or whatever needs to be done..

 I dont run missions to take 3 HOURS to take a base...I dont have the time to spend that amount of time taking a base,when it could of happened quicker..I dont WANT to spend 3 hours taking a base,I spend enough time in-game without making it last any longer.<--read WIFE ACK...

 And while I run majority NOE's,,There are some that are run at ALT,and they capture bases as well..

 Evidently missions of ALL KINDS are fun for many people..

  What I see,are you guys trying to tell me how to run missions and take bases the "FUN" way..The way I do them,that you guys are not getting is that they are FUN from my standpoint,and all who join..Do I think it makes for bad game-play? no I do not..Maybe from your perspective,but then you just cant "see" what I am saying either..



Whats wrong with "fighting" for one base for 3 hours as apposed to sneaking 6 or 7 bases in the same 3 hours?

All those B25s to kill one CV? Whats your hit % on bombing -20 ?? Yes its "fun for you and 20 of your closest friends, but your killing the fun on the other side. Trust me I can see what your saying, I've been there. I thought taking base after base showed how good we were too, but I learned that we were only go enough to do it that way, and ONLY that way. That when we changed and started working complex missions, to draw out the fight. Like someone else posted, if you don't want to fight against anyone you might as will play off line, or move your squad to the EW, I don't think you'll find too much resistance there.

You're calling Dawger holier than thou? Dawger is pushing his agenda?  :lol
I've been in this sim since 2001 and wouldn't dream of posting somthing like this...

your in our world now

I wouldn't dream of posting it if I'd been here since day one. I got news for you as long as Dawger pays his monthly
AH bill it's as much his world as it is yours. In fact we're all just renters living in HTCs house.
Lighten up, you're really not near as important as you seem to think you are. Besides you're in Hetech's world now.   :aok


OK lets put it this way for those who have a hard time keeping up...

Over "here" we play football, but over "there" they play football, but they pass the ball all the time with their feet, they don't wear pads, it looks like way too much work with all that running back and forth, and a good game is scored 1 - 0

What I'm saying about Dawger is he want to pass the ball with his feet! While in his world he's very good at it, it just isn't how its done in "this world". Yes its Hitechs' world, but the community shapes it with in his frame work.

That's good that you enjoy the NOE smash and grab missions, Falcon. Not that much fun to be the smashee, though. My definition of a fight is that both opponents have a chance. An NOE horde that is not discovered in time is akin to a pair of 51s BnZ-ing a single turny plane. The defender cannot go on the attack without being overwhelmed.
Been on both sides of the coin also caldera..SO I know what you mean,but it is the price we pay I suppose.. :salute

Why does it have to be the price paid? Teach your squad how to drop a CV with only 2 B25s, you could have used some more to hit 59 AND 61 starting fights in 3 places. Would the Rooks have defended, maybe, but if your guys can fight in a fighter wouldn't that be fun too?  Remember, dieing doesn't mean you died, just get another plane and get back into the fight. We had a "rule" in my old squad. Went/if you get shot down, wait in the tower for someone else. This way the guys upped in pairs/wings and made it a bit easier to fight, and they NEVER got back to the fight to see everyone was dead, because they had a wingman.

Again, you make excuses why you horde and NOE... its the price you pay.... don't have time for a 3 hour fight... wife ack. Do you get a discounted price for your subscription if you take a certain number of bases? Does your squad pay you per "capture"?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Shifty on April 18, 2009, 02:58:12 PM


What I'm saying about Dawger is he want to pass the ball with his feet! While in his world he's very good at it, it just isn't how its done in "this world". Yes its Hitechs' world, but the community shapes it with in his frame work.



Who appointed you spokesman for the entire community? How do you get to decide how things are done in this world as you put it?
I have never seen an official community rule on any type of game play. I have seen self appointed cartoon politicians complaining about how the other people
play the game in an effort to feel superior. Just fly and fight, quit worrying about what everybody else is doing.






Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 18, 2009, 03:15:57 PM
Who appointed you spokesman for the entire community? How do you get to decide how things are done in this world as you put it?
I have never seen an official community rule on any type of game play. I have seen self appointed cartoon politicians complaining about how the other people
play the game in an effort to feel superior. Just fly and fight, quit worrying about what everybody else is doing.

I don't decide, the community decides.  I'm not telling any how to play, I'm just trying to remind people, and explain to the newer players how it use to be. It use to much more fun, and the only real frustration anyone had was getting shot down, and THEY KNEW they could have done better, frustration with yourself. I wasn't because the 5 guys got you before you could finish off your kill.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 05:12:59 PM
fugitive for your info,that was supposed to be a fun cv killing mission.where you saw all the b-25's..theyw ere for the cv,although a backup plan was hatched after the cv was dwon to hit a base for capture..

 What u guys dont see,is that I dont run missions to FAIL..It is evidnelty fun enough for people to join and take bases,or whatever needs to be done..

 I dont run missions to take 3 HOURS to take a base...I dont have the time to spend that amount of time taking a base,when it could of happened quicker..I dont WANT to spend 3 hours taking a base,I spend enough time in-game without making it last any longer.<--read WIFE ACK...

 And while I run majority NOE's,,There are some that are run at ALT,and they capture bases as well..

 Evidently missions of ALL KINDS are fun for many people..

  What I see,are you guys trying to tell me how to run missions and take bases the "FUN" way..The way I do them,that you guys are not getting is that they are FUN from my standpoint,and all who join..Do I think it makes for bad game-play? no I do not..Maybe from your perspective,but then you just cant "see" what I am saying either..

Why be the OP of this thread then if you dont want to care about what others think.  Its not about telling you to play a certain way or that people whine that you take bases with overwhelming force. The object here is to open your mind and try things you havent tried before, or at least think about it.
Ive been on that side of the fence...its BORING and keep in mind..thats my own opinion. Give it time and these roster on mega squads that focus on base taking are going to be in and out as soon as they get half the skills they need to survive to be half decent.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 18, 2009, 05:33:16 PM
but your killing the fun on the other side. Trust me I can see what your saying, I've been there.
There is NO WAY everyone can have "fun" (to each his/her own definition) all the time in a game as dynamic as this one is.

I have discovered that there are times online in AH when I have an absolute blast, and other times when NOTHING goes my way and I just log off and go do something more worthwhile........

If these guys doing these missions are having fun then good for them.  If you are NOT having fun trying to support or defeat their mission then do something else.  The game is large enough to support tens of dozens of other things.  If there is nothing else that interests you then go mow the lawn, or change the oil in your car......are take you partner out to eat...or do something. 

But to try and manage other people in pursuit of what they want to do for their fun in order for YOU to have fun is imo, a waste of time and thought.

As far as the way AH used to be, forget it.  different game.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Shifty on April 18, 2009, 05:54:38 PM
There is NO WAY everyone can have "fun" (to each his/her own definition) all the time in a game as dynamic as this one is.

I have discovered that there are times online in AH when I have an absolute blast, and other times when NOTHING goes my way and I just log off and go do something more worthwhile........

If these guys doing these missions are having fun then good for them.  If you are NOT having fun trying to support or defeat their mission then do something else.  The game is large enough to support tens of dozens of other things.  If there is nothing else that interests you then go mow the lawn, or change the oil in your car......are take you partner out to eat...or do something. 

But to try and manage other people in pursuit of what they want to do for their fun in order for YOU to have fun is imo, a waste of time and thought.

As far as the way AH used to be, forget it.  different game.

Well said.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 05:57:33 PM
 I opened this thread and have come to the conclusion that good or bad gameplay is relative to the one playing and paying...I did care,until everyone started trying to ram down my throat how my missions are bad for gameplay..I did not define what the posters were saying was bad gameplay or good gameplay..

 Fugitive,why so many?? that was a CV which was HIDDEN from our port,rooks hid it,and yes all sides do it,but I wanted to make sure it got back..It was good gameplay,as many got involved in it.

 Up 2 b-25h's and take back a cv??? give me a break,really?? is that your SOP when it comes to killing a cv,do you get on country and tell everyone NO MORE THAN 2 B-25's are to KILL THAT CV??? NO,you dont...we were looking to get our cv back.By any means..

                                          
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 18, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
I don't decide, the community decides. 

Fugi, I said it once and I'll say it again. The "community" HAS decided. Majoritarianism sucks.


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 18, 2009, 06:11:14 PM
There is NO WAY everyone can have "fun" (to each his/her own definition) all the time in a game as dynamic as this one is.

Of course there isn't...and that is really the point. When overall game play seeks new depths of lameness....the group of people that are disenfranchised by that lameness begins to grow. Perhaps it is a "different game". That does not mean it has to (or should) stay that way.

In point of fact, the creator of the game has dealt with this issue numerous times. Each time, the weak sisters of the game find new ways to do what they do with out risking failure. What we get when this happens are things like the perk point mod and the ENY mod. If the community refuses to deal with the issue themselves, we will get more of the same.  :frown:

Quote from: falcon23
I opened this thread and have come to the conclusion that good or bad gameplay is relative to the one playing and paying...I did care,until everyone started trying to ram down my throat how my missions are bad for gameplay..I did not define what the posters were saying was bad gameplay or good gameplay..

....and this goes right to the crux of the issue. Good game play is what is good for the majority of the players, not just you. You complain about folks here trying to "ram" their ideas down your throat....well perhaps, like you, they dont "run" their ideas to fail. While others around you are trying to find ways to make the game better for everyone, you continue with your myopic "by any means" 'tude.  :frown:

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 06:45:19 PM
Let me use a term that is blasphamy in the NOE base takers vocabulary: SPY. We all know they are lame and get called out by 99% of the community.
If I had that same attitude of " by all means and by all force" to get my gratification in this game, well my type of fun would be to bust up any NOE attack..I mean why not, you have 20+ low targets. Why not have someone on the other side just calling out your missions?. It is under the parameters of the game right? Meaning that anyone can access that information and give it off if they really wanted to.

Why dont we all do that then?..because its lame and its gamey. Even playing with the tools that HTech gives to us, there is some sort of honor code that we all go by and some that dont go by that get called out. You cant have a perfect game, there will always be someone that exploits some aspects of it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
  Good game-play for me and my squad is whatever is needed to help out Bishop...That means porking,bombing,strategizing,taking bases,and helping others to do as much.It is not about ME,it is about how can we help the bishop to accomplish whatever is needed at the time to get an objective accomplished,As well as all bishop who are fighting..

 Dont you do whatever is needed to get he job done on your side of the map??
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 07:49:18 PM
  Good game-play for me and my squad is whatever is needed to help out Bishop...That means porking,bombing,strategizing,taking bases,and helping others to do as much.It is not about ME,it is about how can we help the bishop to accomplish whatever is needed at the time to get an objective accomplished,As well as all bishop who are fighting..

 Dont you do whatever is needed to get he job done on your side of the map??

No sir..not whatever is needed.
And let me give you an example. Just a while ago we upped from a feild and spotted a cv not too far off with noone taking off from it and noone manning the guns. Do we A) launch a bunch of lancs to reach 5k only to release a salvo of fury while doing a nosedive. B) get the squad together and maybe do something fun yet challenging by upping stukas to sink it. ( I choose B)
The job gets done, its fun and even though half the squad probably dies in the auto ack before they get to release, we took a harder route.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 18, 2009, 07:51:56 PM
No sir..not whatever is needed.
And let me give you an example. Just a while ago we upped from a feild and spotted a cv not too far off with noone taking off from it and noone manning the guns. Do we A) launch a bunch of lancs to reach 5k only to release a salvo of fury while doing a nosedive. B) get the squad together and maybe do something fun yet challenging by upping stukas to sink it. ( I choose B)
The job gets done, its fun and even though half the squad probably dies in the auto ack before they get to release, we took a harder route.

This is an easy one,,, B   :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 08:02:39 PM
No sir..not whatever is needed.
And let me give you an example. Just a while ago we upped from a feild and spotted a cv not too far off with noone taking off from it and noone manning the guns. Do we A) launch a bunch of lancs to reach 5k only to release a salvo of fury while doing a nosedive. B) get the squad together and maybe do something fun yet challenging by upping stukas to sink it. ( I choose B)
The job gets done, its fun and even though half the squad probably dies in the auto ack before they get to release, we took a harder route.

 AHHH yes,but it still got the job done..And that was my point..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 08:03:40 PM
This is an easy one,,, B   :)
which is my point exactly :aok. Others around you also pick up on that sort of stuff.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 08:09:07 PM

 Up 2 b-25h's and take back a cv??? give me a break,really?? is that your SOP when it comes to killing a cv,do you get on country and tell everyone NO MORE THAN 2 B-25's are to KILL THAT CV??? NO,you dont...we were looking to get our cv back.By any means..
                                          

and why not 2 b25s? it all takes but 1 to sink a cv if your good. you cant retract your opinions here :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 08:13:23 PM
B-25h's...only using the HE and 110's...the ship was almost 2 sectors away...would of taken too long flying back and forth with only 2 b25's.. And it was NOT being used,it was being hidden...does hiding the CV come under the definition of bad gameplay,or does it fall under..WHATEVER is needed for ones country..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 18, 2009, 08:18:08 PM
B-25h's...only using the HE and 110's...the ship was almost 2 sectors away...would of taken too long flying back and forth with only 2 b25's.. And it was NOT being used,it was being hidden...does hiding the CV come under the definition of bad gameplay,or does it fall under..WHATEVER is needed for ones country..
Does 10 B25s come home faster than 2?
My views on hidden cvs are that if you fought that hard for ports and kill that cv as some squads will do, youve earned that right.
Besides, you cant guard that cv forever before someone will set it on a destruction course.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 18, 2009, 08:29:32 PM
  And that is your right as the opposing country,to do with the cv as you wish..Although many would disagree with you.It is a tactic which is used in-game,( to hide the opposing countrys cv)..But I did not want to spend ,and neither did the bish who were in the mission,want to spend alot of time flying back and forth,when we could just fly over and take it in much less time than you speak of by using only 2 planes,and use it ourselves,plus with that many,we can usually take down ALL the other ships with it,and along with getting the cv back,people learn how to use a plane they may not of flown before,and get a greater appreciation for it..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 18, 2009, 11:06:59 PM
  And that is your right as the opposing country,to do with the cv as you wish..Although many would disagree with you.It is a tactic which is used in-game,( to hide the opposing countrys cv)..But I did not want to spend ,and neither did the bish who were in the mission,want to spend alot of time flying back and forth,when we could just fly over and take it in much less time than you speak of by using only 2 planes,and use it ourselves,plus with that many,we can usually take down ALL the other ships with it,and along with getting the cv back,people learn how to use a plane they may not of flown before,and get a greater appreciation for it..

The CV in question I had turned to run west to help at 61, someone took it to hide it again, so this time I took control and turned it again. While my rank isn't always enough to keep it, had some one took it again I would have broadcast the location to the Bishops every 5 minutes until it was sunk, or used. CV are mobile fields to be used to create COMBAT. I use it, if I can't I'll call out were it is so some one else will use it.

Hiding a CV is lame game play. If you take it, use it. Much like a field, if you take it, use it, defend it. Most NOEs are just that, grab the base and move off someplace else. 15 minutes later the base is recaptured, why not the CV too.

Falcon, you asked for opinions, and when people give them, you get upset because they are not the responses you wanted to hear. Maybe the old saying "the truth hurts" is in play.  I think its possible you might even thing your "part of the horde" but were hoping people wouldn't think so. Now your stuck, because your eyes are wide open, but you don't know how to get out of the horde ,so you defend you style of game play by saying "you will do what ever it takes to help the bishops." The only time it seem that any one picks on you is when you admit it takes 6-8 B25s to sink a CV, or 12 110s 4 goons and assorted fighters to take a base, or that most of your missions are NOE.

I don't know about other who play, but win or lose isn't that big a deal.... well ok winning is better  :D but to me if I could get descent fights when I fly I'm happy and having fun. I can't have fun trying to get the kill of the only bad guy around be chased by 5 other guys, nor can I have fun getting vulched by 6 guys while 12 110s are trying to take the town down.

Today your having fun with your NOE missions, and doing what ever it takes to help the bish. What happens tomorrow when two new squads show up. One is rook, the other is Knight. they both have squad night on Saturday night, and they both get 20-30 player in a mission. Ohhh and the last bit... they both loath the Bishops. I'm thinking with good planning and if they stick to hitting the Bish... because of chess piece loyalty you know they do what ever they can to help their teams..... they would have the Bish down to their uncapturable bases in a few hours. I bet that would be a fun Saturday night for the bish right? Fun is fun after all.

Thats how it going to go eventually you know. First it was "this" type of game play, then it was "that" type of game play, whats to be next? Maybe people who are skilled who run multible NOE at the same time. Priding themselves on take bases in "pairs" as fast as they can... WOW !!! won't that be fun !  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: kvuo75 on April 19, 2009, 02:14:52 AM

 What u guys dont see,is that I dont run missions to FAIL..


fail at what?


our squad (maybe 5-6 strong at the time) had fun earlier today flying 25+ ENY planes into a protracted battle (some folks might call it a furball, i call it a protracted battle) against superior planes and superior numbers.. we were happy to get any kills at all. we ended up with many. in planes we'd never really flown.... now THAT was fun...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: grizz441 on April 19, 2009, 05:03:38 AM
does hiding the CV come under the definition of bad gameplay,or does it fall under..WHATEVER is needed for ones country..

They're not countries, they're chess pieces and they are chess pieces for a reason.  So people wouldn't build up blind loyalties to a certain side and sacrifice gameplay for 'the good of country' argument.  Didn't work though.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 19, 2009, 08:14:24 AM
B-25h's...only using the HE and 110's...the ship was almost 2 sectors away...would of taken too long flying back and forth with only 2 b25's.. And it was NOT being used,it was being hidden...does hiding the CV come under the definition of bad gameplay,or does it fall under..WHATEVER is needed for ones country..

Still not understanding you. but if your that impatient. AR234s.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 19, 2009, 08:28:44 AM
AHHH yes,but it still got the job done..And that was my point..
Its not getting to point B..its how you get there. The "by all means" attititude gives a bad example to you and also to any new guy that comes in. Just because you pay your 15$ a month doesnt warrant yourself feeling free to do whatever you wanted.
Common sense will tell you that if you have been here long enough, you should know what is "bad game play" and what is not.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 19, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
The CV in question I had turned to run west to help at 61, someone took it to hide it again, so this time I took control and turned it again. While my rank isn't always enough to keep it, had some one took it again I would have broadcast the location to the Bishops every 5 minutes until it was sunk, or used. CV are mobile fields to be used to create COMBAT. I use it, if I can't I'll call out were it is so some one else will use it.

Hiding a CV is lame game play. If you take it, use it. Much like a field, if you take it, use it, defend it. Most NOEs are just that, grab the base and move off someplace else. 15 minutes later the base is recaptured, why not the CV too.

Falcon, you asked for opinions, and when people give them, you get upset because they are not the responses you wanted to hear. Maybe the old saying "the truth hurts" is in play.  I think its possible you might even thing your "part of the horde" but were hoping people wouldn't think so. Now your stuck, because your eyes are wide open, but you don't know how to get out of the horde ,so you defend you style of game play by saying "you will do what ever it takes to help the bishops." The only time it seem that any one picks on you is when you admit it takes 6-8 B25s to sink a CV, or 12 110s 4 goons and assorted fighters to take a base, or that most of your missions are NOE.

I don't know about other who play, but win or lose isn't that big a deal.... well ok winning is better  :D but to me if I could get descent fights when I fly I'm happy and having fun. I can't have fun trying to get the kill of the only bad guy around be chased by 5 other guys, nor can I have fun getting vulched by 6 guys while 12 110s are trying to take the town down.

Today your having fun with your NOE missions, and doing what ever it takes to help the bish. What happens tomorrow when two new squads show up. One is rook, the other is Knight. they both have squad night on Saturday night, and they both get 20-30 player in a mission. Ohhh and the last bit... they both loath the Bishops. I'm thinking with good planning and if they stick to hitting the Bish... because of chess piece loyalty you know they do what ever they can to help their teams..... they would have the Bish down to their uncapturable bases in a few hours. I bet that would be a fun Saturday night for the bish right? Fun is fun after all.

Thats how it going to go eventually you know. First it was "this" type of game play, then it was "that" type of game play, whats to be next? Maybe people who are skilled who run multible NOE at the same time. Priding themselves on take bases in "pairs" as fast as they can... WOW !!! won't that be fun !  :rolleyes:

   I am sorry but you guys will never convince ME,nor MANY others in the other countrys that running missions is BAD game-play..Just as I will not convince YOU,nor MANY others that it is GOOD-game-play..So we are stuck....And must agree to disagree.. :salute

 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 19, 2009, 08:55:06 AM
   I am sorry but you guys will never convince ME,nor MANY others in the other countrys that running missions is BAD game-play..Just as I will not convince YOU,nor MANY others that it is GOOD-game-play..So we are stuck....And must agree to disagree.. :salute

 

OK I'll type slow I NEVER SAID RUNNING MISSIONS IS BAD GAME PLAY
however the type of mission you run could fall under that category.


Good Mission ( my be a bit boring)

Upping 12 110s, 4 goons, and 6 Niks. 6 110s 2 goons and 3 Nik head to A59 at 12k,  6 110s 2 goons and 3 Nik head to A61 at 12k. At each base 110s split between town and field, Niks cover, goons capture.

Lame Mission

Upping 12 110s, 4 goons, and 6 Niks. NOE to A59 annihilate town and base.

See the difference? Same planes, different missions. By hitting two bases at once you are still having fun with your squad, but you let the enemy have a chance to play too. Whats wrong with that?


Thats what I'm saying, a lot of people are stuck doing missions like the mass NOEs because its the only mission they "KNOW", as well as the only mission that they can do consistently. They never learned any other mission, or the skills to MAKE other missions work. I LOVE MISSIONS !! Ever hear the saying "I love it when a plan comes together"? Well missions are like that. If you pull it off its almost as good as that first kill! Lame NOEs one after the other is nothing but lame, but building and planning a complex mission and having it succeed, is a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bj229r on April 19, 2009, 09:18:28 AM
   I am sorry but you guys will never convince ME,nor MANY others in the other countrys that running missions is BAD game-play..Just as I will not convince YOU,nor MANY others that it is GOOD-game-play..So we are stuck....And must agree to disagree.. :salute

 
I don't think anyone said missions, in and of themselves are BAD, just the dweeby 50 plane noe runs, suicide lancs, etc type raids---most missions in those categories have encounters with airplanes/GV's of other countries at the absolute BOTTOM of their list of priorities, smacking undefended fields/buildings at the top---massive gameplay of the latter category is, IMO, the biggest thing that makes long-time members delete Aces High and cancel their accounts
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 19, 2009, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: oTRALFZo
..its how you get there.

This is golden and really gets to the crux of the problem. The problem isn't about strategy, winning the war, missions and all of that stuff. It's about HOW you chose to get there. Falcon, you and folks of your ilk, chose the fast 'n' easy way. What you can't seem to understand is the point of all of this is not getting to the destination, it's all about the ride that gets you there.

This is not war.

This is entertainment.

If you REALLY want to do the win the war stuff, you and your buds should try scenarios.....what you do in the MA's is better typified by....nope....not gonna go there.  :devil

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ramon on April 19, 2009, 09:53:00 AM
Sounds like everyone is convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that their way is the right way.  Since everyone plays for their own enjoyment...they are ALL right!  How about that!  ROFLMAO
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 19, 2009, 10:12:38 AM
   I am sorry but you guys will never convince ME,nor MANY others in the other countrys that running missions is BAD game-play..Just as I will not convince YOU,nor MANY others that it is GOOD-game-play..So we are stuck....And must agree to disagree.. :salute

 

Sooner or later you will come out of that  bubble.  Sometimes you cant always win at winning but you can always win at loosing. I would much rather watch a pro hockey, football etc.. team that plays their heart out but looses rather than a team that wins by exploiting rules.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 19, 2009, 10:14:19 AM
When I put together missions, I don't stick to any one mission style. I love buffs, Jug jabos, NOE's, all sorts. I'm bound to p!ss someone off out of the myriad of players in here. Oh, well. Brush it off and go on.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 19, 2009, 10:20:55 AM
When I put together missions, I don't stick to any one mission style. I love buffs, Jug jabos, NOE's, all sorts. I'm bound to p!ss someone off out of the myriad of players in here. Oh, well. Brush it off and go on.
Egg, Ive been in your missions before and on the other side of them.  They are fun on both sides. You dint play that "sneaky Pete", take the base by all means necessary attitude and thats what is different. 25, even 30 jugs taking off 3 sectors away gives everyone involved a fighting chance which equates to fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 19, 2009, 10:38:35 AM
........rather than a team that wins by exploiting rules.

What rules might that be?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 19, 2009, 05:38:59 PM
Sooner or later you will come out of that  bubble.  Sometimes you cant always win at winning but you can always win at loosing. I would much rather watch a pro hockey, football etc.. team that plays their heart out but looses rather than a team that wins by exploiting rules.

Which pro hockey and football teams play with less than the allowed number of players on the ice or field because it's more of a challenge that way? "Gosh, these power plays aren't hard enough, let's put one of our players in the penalty box too!"

I like teams that play their hearts out too, I just may define that differently than you do.

Sometimes fighting against overwhelming odds is fun too, as long as it isn't all night. I'm learning to like being on the short side of of long odds now and then. That's different from being rammed by a guy trying to HO you, which is never fun or interesting. I just don't see running missions with a large group as inherently lame the way a lot of the other stuff discussed here is. If you NEVER get any serious opposition, sure, that would get boring, but that doesn't happen very often - usually a horde moving across the map gobbling up bases attracts attention fairly quickly.

And how does flying a mission with a dozen 110s "exploit the rules"?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 19, 2009, 06:54:45 PM
Well in pro hockey the goalies use to do the same thing. It wasn't a rule that all the jerseys had to be the same size with in reason, but when Roy started wearing jerseys that looked like it was big enough for two or three players they had to make a rule so he didn't have "wings" to help him stop the puck. The same with the blocker and catching gloves. Once they started making light weight leg pads they started to grow in size too.

Honor/good gamesmanship said you used the normal sizes, but once it became obvious everyone started doing it and then the league had to step in.

Using 3 or 4 110 is more than enough to take a VB, 12 is pushing good gamesmanship. Its not breaking a rule...yet... but if enough people start complaining to HTC, or start canceling subscriptions because they are tired of lame/poor gamesmanship, you can bet there will be a new rule. How do you think the ENY, and split arena came about? 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 19, 2009, 07:52:08 PM
Which pro hockey and football teams play with less than the allowed number of players on the ice or field because it's more of a challenge that way? "Gosh, these power plays aren't hard enough, let's put one of our players in the penalty box too!"

I like teams that play their hearts out too, I just may define that differently than you do.

Sometimes fighting against overwhelming odds is fun too, as long as it isn't all night. I'm learning to like being on the short side of of long odds now and then. That's different from being rammed by a guy trying to HO you, which is never fun or interesting. I just don't see running missions with a large group as inherently lame the way a lot of the other stuff discussed here is. If you NEVER get any serious opposition, sure, that would get boring, but that doesn't happen very often - usually a horde moving across the map gobbling up bases attracts attention fairly quickly.

And how does flying a mission with a dozen 110s "exploit the rules"?


There is no sport that allows you to outnumber your opponant 5 to 1 or even 2 to 1. The OP of this thread was challenged when he stated that its very difficult to run a NOE mission with 12 110s, 6 nikis and 4 goons. ( count 22 total). To the average player/squad here..that is MORE than enough to accomplish the mission.
The OP however elects that it is righteous to double those #s instead of working on his/their skills and challenging themselves. How is this bad game play you ask?

How many people care enough to ditch their planes to come to the rescue of a 30 man NOE raid?..5-6 maybe?. Thats still giving the offensive the 5-6 to 1 ratio.  That means 5-6 nikis that spray the defenders in the face for what? NO challenge, no skill involved. 
It is also a horrible message to whats being sent to the new guys. "if you wanna win, you gotta be with the #s).
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 19, 2009, 08:09:07 PM
ROFLOL...You guys crack me up..trying to define what makes a good mission and what doesnt..tell you what,you keep running your missions the way you want,and I will keep running mine the way I want..

 Tral,you used to be in the top 3 for running the missions you now say shouldnt be run...Just because you stopped does not automatically mean everyone should stop also..

 "RULES" being broken..What a bunch of fluff...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 19, 2009, 10:14:45 PM
Falcon, you admitted you got tired of a furball going on at A9 for 5 hours so you got your horde together and killed it, then you went on and only 25-30 of you hit and took A10. My guess is there was a bunch of people having a blast in that furball and you decide to take all that fun away.... for what... the good of the Bish?


Talk about Lame game play.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 19, 2009, 10:53:26 PM
back in the old days we used to have these things called records and we played them on these machines called record players.  Occasionally a record would have a scratch that caused the needle on the record player to skip.  This caused the record being played to repeat the same small part over and over again.  This phenomenon resulted in a cultural phrase for things that were no good but kept repeating themselves.  Sounds like a broken record.

Which is what this thread has devolved into.

"and only 25-30 of you hit and took A10. My guess is there was a bunch of people having a blast in that furball and you decide to take all that fun away."

Sounds to me like 25-30 guys getting together and having fun for themselves.  The game is about a lot more that furballing. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 19, 2009, 11:22:33 PM
ROFLOL...You guys crack me up..trying to define what makes a good mission and what doesnt..tell you what,you keep running your missions the way you want,and I will keep running mine the way I want..

 Tral,you used to be in the top 3 for running the missions you now say shouldnt be run...Just because you stopped does not automatically mean everyone should stop also..

 "RULES" being broken..What a bunch of fluff...

The very first reply in this whole thread just about sums things up.   It's over kill on a vbase.  An eastern block mentality to a game.  Lets have a closer look.

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc288/lynx-AH/ahss41-1.jpg)

There are approximately 20 red dots.

1 of those was the mission planner. What on earth was he thinking?
The first 6 in should have closed the hangers and dealt the likely gv resistance. 
Perhaps 2 goons leaving 12 to fiddle with there errm thumbs.

Of those 20 we have an over zealous mission planer.   Why?  A "what ever it takes" attitude?  So what happens if all three sides end up with less than "SPORTING" mission planners?  Split areans perhaps.  ENY perhaps.  Maybe something else because HTC can't code out stupidity.  Maybe it'll be 3 roaming packs of skilless 2weekers with 3 equally skilless mission planers.  3 over inflated ego's to worried by failure.

I look at those dots and guesstimate that 6 of them actually have the skill and know how as to what to do.  About 8 of those red dots have stall limiter off.  5 don't even know what stall limiter is and the rest can't fly with it off so they leave it on.

In plain simple words .....skilless bunch of eastern block mentality roaming red dots.  Oh sure their "having fun".  I used to drop house bricks on frogs that was fun too.  Basically it's a skilless and lets face it, a lazy tactic to sledge hammer your way around the map.  It doesn't promote learning any fighter skills for those that need it.  It doesn't promote any decent fights.  It doesn't promote a SPORTING CHANCE.

Now getting back to the fun part.  How much fun would it be for you if I was to take a bloody minded attitude to capturing all your vbases / ports with 20+ man missions?   How much fun is it going to be in here in 2 years time when these stupid over kill missions become the norm?  Are you going to bail your ride to up a wirlie against 20+ fully loaded P47's or are you going to have your FUN and stick with what you were doing?  <not a trick question>

As a strat player "over kill" is not the way forward.  Missions are OK and even NOE missions are OK.  Hiding cv's is OK if your a strat player.  Hiding them forever isn't necessary either <depending on the map>.   

Bomb n bail.  Pork n auger.  Suiciding bombers on cv's.  Carpet bombing gvs.  Have all become to common an occurrence.  It's frowned upon by the majority but still occurs.  Don't let these over kill mission become common occurrence too.  It'll be the down fall of an otherwise enjoyable FUN game for ALL of us.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 20, 2009, 12:10:41 AM
A195 (or is that 185?...the arena I play in doesn't have nearly that many bases) looks close enough to provide a good "furball" within 3 minutes flight time yet...there are no green dots.

Oh well........smaller arena caps are the best and easiest solution.  Perhaps the only solution.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 20, 2009, 04:18:19 AM
Falcon, you admitted you got tired of a furball going on at A9 for 5 hours so you got your horde together and killed it, then you went on and only 25-30 of you hit and took A10. My guess is there was a bunch of people having a blast in that furball and you decide to take all that fun away.... for what... the good of the Bish?


Talk about Lame game play.
Exactly why I lost respect to those mission generals. They see furballs as eyesoars and make it their job to crush the fun out of the game.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 20, 2009, 07:16:49 AM
There are approximately 20 red dots.

1 of those was the mission planner. What on earth was he thinking?

Close Lynx...but, the real question should be "What were the other 19 guys thinking?". There was a time when many such missions would simply be ignored as having an entertainment/boredom ratio that was simply too high.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 20, 2009, 07:36:54 AM
The very first reply in this whole thread just about sums things up.   It's over kill on a vbase.  An eastern block mentality to a game.  Lets have a closer look.

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc288/lynx-AH/ahss41-1.jpg)

There are approximately 20 red dots.

1 of those was the mission planner. What on earth was he thinking?
The first 6 in should have closed the hangers and dealt the likely gv resistance. 
Perhaps 2 goons leaving 12 to fiddle with there errm thumbs.

Of those 20 we have an over zealous mission planer.   Why?  A "what ever it takes" attitude?  So what happens if all three sides end up with less than "SPORTING" mission planners?  Split areans perhaps.  ENY perhaps.  Maybe something else because HTC can't code out stupidity.  Maybe it'll be 3 roaming packs of skilless 2weekers with 3 equally skilless mission planers.  3 over inflated ego's to worried by failure.

I look at those dots and guesstimate that 6 of them actually have the skill and know how as to what to do.  About 8 of those red dots have stall limiter off.  5 don't even know what stall limiter is and the rest can't fly with it off so they leave it on.

In plain simple words .....skilless bunch of eastern block mentality roaming red dots.  Oh sure their "having fun".  I used to drop house bricks on frogs that was fun too.  Basically it's a skilless and lets face it, a lazy tactic to sledge hammer your way around the map.  It doesn't promote learning any fighter skills for those that need it.  It doesn't promote any decent fights.  It doesn't promote a SPORTING CHANCE.

Now getting back to the fun part.  How much fun would it be for you if I was to take a bloody minded attitude to capturing all your vbases / ports with 20+ man missions?   How much fun is it going to be in here in 2 years time when these stupid over kill missions become the norm?  Are you going to bail your ride to up a wirlie against 20+ fully loaded P47's or are you going to have your FUN and stick with what you were doing?  <not a trick question>

As a strat player "over kill" is not the way forward.  Missions are OK and even NOE missions are OK.  Hiding cv's is OK if your a strat player.  Hiding them forever isn't necessary either <depending on the map>.   

Bomb n bail.  Pork n auger.  Suiciding bombers on cv's.  Carpet bombing gvs.  Have all become to common an occurrence.  It's frowned upon by the majority but still occurs.  Don't let these over kill mission become common occurrence too.  It'll be the down fall of an otherwise enjoyable FUN game for ALL of us.

(http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/10.gif)I missed you, too.(http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/13.gif)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 20, 2009, 08:33:40 AM
back in the old days we used to have these things called records and we played them on these machines called record players.  Occasionally a record would have a scratch that caused the needle on the record player to skip.  This caused the record being played to repeat the same small part over and over again.  This phenomenon resulted in a cultural phrase for things that were no good but kept repeating themselves.  Sounds like a broken record.

Which is what this thread has devolved into.

"and only 25-30 of you hit and took A10. My guess is there was a bunch of people having a blast in that furball and you decide to take all that fun away."

Sounds to me like 25-30 guys getting together and having fun for themselves.  The game is about a lot more that furballing. 

Nice quote twist there, did you read the part where he said he was "tired" of the furball that was going on so he decided to end it?

and then they needed to finish off the island to totally stop any fight in that area...

(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/Image1.jpg)

This a few minutes into the film. I'll admit there was a few more friendlies out in GVs, but as you can see, even exceptional GVers wouldn't have stood a chance.

I chatted with FALCON after this and he couldn't understand how "this" was ruining my fun. Sorry, but fighting 10 to 1 isn't fun, I just can't spot the fun in that anywhere. When a horde attacks 90% of the defenders look at it the same way, "where's the fun in that?" and move on to something else. So now, those IN the horde have lost their "targets", so they MUST fight over the few that do stick around. The only skill they are learning is how NOT to kill shoot themselves! Its like playing basketball, but these guys think its more fun to all play on one team in stead of splitting into two. As one team, they are guarantied to win, defense will be non existent, and they don't need any skill, eventually someone in their group will get a basket. WOW !!! won't THAT be fun  :rolleyes:

Close Lynx...but, the real question should be "What were the other 19 guys thinking?". There was a time when many such missions would simply be ignored as having an entertainment/boredom ratio that was simply too high.




No I place the blame fully on the "leaders" of these hordes. The others are just sheep and follow blindly. They don't know any better, and of course that is what they are training themselves to be come...sheep. They don't get better at the game because there is no reason to. They are lead to believe that the "horde capture" is the ONLY end result in the game that matters. If it takes 10 guys to take down a hanger, thats ok, the hanger is down.

Why are the leaders leading this way? Why can't they see the lack of skill? Why do they plan their missions around horde type numbers? Because, todays leaders are yesterdays sheep, its all they know. They are as skill less as the sheep that follow them. They must hide in their numbers to survive. Today they defend themselves and their style of game play, tomorrow they will be the ones complaining how bad it is..... future AAR..... "today we upped 25 guys to hit a V base, but as luck would have it our NOE ran into an enemy NOE and they out numbered us 3 to 1 again. The fight was short and nasty. Our entire force was wiped out, but 7 of them where augers so the fight might have gone the other if those guys had stayed in the air. We did manage to kill 10 of them, and only 3 of them were augers. We regrouped on the other side of the map to see if we could sneak a base from the other guys."

 

 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 20, 2009, 08:42:20 AM
(http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/10.gif)I missed you, too.(http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/13.gif)

Of cause you "missed" me.  Looking at your score statistics which generally typifies an "average mediocre" player it's no wonder......is it?   Those state of yours scream a thousand words in all aspects of this thread.

So now we've exchanged pissy remarks would you care to interject on my remarks which prompted your reply.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 20, 2009, 08:47:06 AM
This is definitely not my main hobby. I do get outside a lot to take care of other responsibilites. The "score/rank/hours played" thing is a very poor basis on which to classify me.
In other words, I don't care.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 20, 2009, 09:08:05 AM
Close Lynx...but, the real question should be "What were the other 19 guys thinking?". There was a time when many such missions would simply be ignored as having an entertainment/boredom ratio that was simply too high.


I understand what your saying.  Who wants to be the last guy arriving in that lot.  However I'll stick with it being the mission planners "buck".

The planner has to select the ride but more importantly the amount of slots.  As for the 19 others I'll wager 1/3 to 1/2 are newbies who wouldn't know any better.  Of those that do know better I'd say their on the mediocre end of skill set.  You know the score....3 to 5 percent hit rate.  More fighter sorties than kills.  Have problems hitting the VH let alone a moving GV.

The blind leading the blind......but hey!  It's all fun for them  :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Roscoroo on April 20, 2009, 09:33:25 AM
one of these days some of these Hoard /noe/sheep may discover the "white knuckle,sweaty palms,super adrenalin rush of a dogfight...and then and only then will they get past the sheep stage.

it 1st starts out by beating a better opponent 1 vs 1 ...then you look for better and better guys ...next thing its head for the large red dar bar (3 vs 1 ----- 4 vs 1---hell I've gone to 15 vs 1 and survived "Without firing a single Ho shot",, Talk about a rush )


Also theres' things called Fighter sweeps ,were you get together w/ squadies/friends ect and go hunting.

There's lots of other ways to play vs the boring kill some toolsheds and beat the AI ack for a base .

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 20, 2009, 09:48:24 AM
This is definitely not my main hobby. I do get outside a lot to take care of other responsibilites. The "score/rank/hours played" thing is a very poor basis on which to classify me.
In other words, I don't care.

It really irks me when folk are hard of understanding.  STAT-IST-ICS.   Your stats scream a thousand words.  I ALSO don't care about your SCORE but the STATS say it all.  Frankly they typified the sum of you and your ilk.

Your not following this are you.  I can see it now.  Sat there going ..."whats score got to do with it".  Pretty much the same way that you don't understand the potential erosion to game play.  I'll tell you....score has nothing to do with it even if u played 3 hours or 3000 hours.  The stats say everything though.

Hit percentage.... average to crap.  Kills to death ....crap.  More sorties to kills and so and so on.  Dude...really! Its not a wonder you seek Solis in a 20+ man mission.  You can't survive or get things done without them. 

This TYPIFIES what I was saying in my first post here.   "missed"...the Air con, the hanger, the Gv, the ack but most of all missed the bleedin plot...jesus H  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: wrag on April 20, 2009, 10:50:39 AM
Ya but sadly, it is without the gaggle of teenage girls running around in varying degrees of undress.  I'd much rather this WERE a high school girl's locker room.

<sigh> memories  :D :D :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 20, 2009, 11:45:50 AM
 :rofl

This is just too funny,
Fug talking about bish taking back bish bases that for 3 days straight were stolen in the middle of the night by a rook horde, NOE STYLE. Then after many hours of effort during the day to get it back even while hiding CV's that were taken, Bish shut it down and took it back after every attempt failed by air land and sea because it was so defended, in the meantime rooks lost many bases on the knit front because 90% of the resources were at 9, 10 doing exactly what you criticized Falcon for "Doing what it takes at all expenses"  There were IL2's at 17k, many fighters or flying tanks that were above 20k-30k, many to stop anything at all cost from getting into the base.  Less not forget the suicidal dive bombing 234's, 24's, 110's, B-25's, lancstukas, and countless others that were doing everything at all cost to kill that cv.  :lol

And you want to cry about it.  Give me a break.  Your lucky that we were nice enough to tolerate it for as long as we did, we easily could have run NOE's to your undefended bases in the rear since rooks were so fixated on keeping OUR base and CV.

Once we got them back we didnt push deeper into rook land, we enjoyed the equality of everyone having the equal bases.  Dont expect for bish to play fair or your way when stealing cv's or occupying deep into bish land that you wont get a fight back in any form or fashion that you may not agree with. 

I still dont see what Rules have been exploited through all of this.  Other than its not what you agree with or not playing your way.   This applies and its simple:  You want it your way and when you have the advantage only, typical.

IMO   

 :rofl

Nice quote twist there, did you read the part where he said he was "tired" of the furball that was going on so he decided to end it?

and then they needed to finish off the island to totally stop any fight in that area...

Do you think they "Rooks" were looking for a fight when they took it to begin with?  Especially hiding the cv, isnt that avoiding the fight also? 

You also failed to mention that the fight in that area lasted well over 8 hours trying to get it back. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 20, 2009, 01:11:57 PM
:rofl

This is just too funny,
Fug talking about bish taking back bish bases that for 3 days straight were stolen in the middle of the night by a rook horde, NOE STYLE. Then after many hours of effort during the day to get it back even while hiding CV's that were taken, Bish shut it down and took it back after every attempt failed by air land and sea because it was so defended, in the meantime rooks lost many bases on the knit front because 90% of the resources were at 9, 10 doing exactly what you criticized Falcon for "Doing what it takes at all expenses"  There were IL2's at 17k, many fighters or flying tanks that were above 20k-30k, many to stop anything at all cost from getting into the base.  Less not forget the suicidal dive bombing 234's, 24's, 110's, B-25's, lancstukas, and countless others that were doing everything at all cost to kill that cv.  :lol

And you want to cry about it.  Give me a break.  Your lucky that we were nice enough to tolerate it for as long as we did, we easily could have run NOE's to your undefended bases in the rear since rooks were so fixated on keeping OUR base and CV.

Once we got them back we didnt push deeper into rook land, we enjoyed the equality of everyone having the equal bases.  Dont expect for bish to play fair or your way when stealing cv's or occupying deep into bish land that you wont get a fight back in any form or fashion that you may not agree with. 

I still dont see what Rules have been exploited through all of this.  Other than its not what you agree with or not playing your way.   This applies and its simple:  You want it your way and when you have the advantage only, typical.

IMO   

 :rofl

Do you think they "Rooks" were looking for a fight when they took it to begin with?  Especially hiding the cv, isnt that avoiding the fight also? 

You also failed to mention that the fight in that area lasted well over 8 hours trying to get it back. 


THATS THE POINT OF THE GAME !!! FIGHT !!! One that last 8 hours is a GREAT FIGHT!! Heck ya the rooks were looking for a fight! If they were looking for territory a few buffs to A12 would have stopped the fight at A9 and moved it to the port. Bish would have been upping from A6 until the CV respawed...for as long as that would last.

You people think I'm just picking on the Bish. You are so blinded by your "loyalty to a chess piece" that you fail to see that I've called out Rooks and Knights well. This is a community issue, not a BISH issue. Its not all about you !! I mention FALCON because he is here trying to defend this type of poor game play. YES the Rooks do it too, YES the knights do it too. GET OVER YOURSELVES !!

Falcon told me that the fight had been going on for 5 hours, I don't know, I logged in a few minutes before A9 fell and saw the stupidity at A10. Falcon is also the one who said "he decided to stop the fight at A9" Seeing as the idea of the game is to fight, I think lame game play would be trying to STOP a fight. So that is why I posted that. I'm not making this crap up, I'm just reporting what was given me.

Not that you would EVER switch sides, but should you ask around. I call out the Rook idiots that are yelling for more guys in their missions when they already have 20 in the mission. I've have and will continue to call out CVs that are hidden. I hate flying in a horde more than flying against one. The lame game play has got to stop, and its up to everyone to work on it, Rook, Knight, and even Bish. If everyone keeps flying with the attitude "well they do it too" its just going to get worst.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 20, 2009, 01:20:55 PM
Close Lynx...but, the real question should be "What were the other 19 guys thinking?". There was a time when many such missions would simply be ignored as having an entertainment/boredom ratio that was simply too high.

I'll never forget back in about 2003, when I started out with Nazgul, there was an armchair general planning a mission.   Mind you this mission was out to get A26 from the Bish and had no importance in their "quest for a reset".   Also, it had over 60 participants.   The 81st wasn't happy about what I did and BFD even remembered that night at the 2003 Indy Con.    :devil

Meanwhile, to win the reset, I hired Mutley, Goth, Boxboy28 and AX to hit the Center island.   We took all bases ourselves and they never even got close to taking A26.

Some folks on here over the years have all of a sudden "become the best mission planners", but a lot of them lack a simple grasp of frontal tactics.   "Let's swarm a base, take it, but quickly lose it, because we left supplies and the VH up at a base to it's rear."   

But, if some sleep better thinking they're the shizzle, I guess. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 20, 2009, 01:26:18 PM
Then may I suggest that before you use "someone else" as an example, you should start on YOUR side that your on which ever that may be.  

When have you ever put out on 200 the location of a hidden cv?   Try PM me that next time and I will take your word on that one.

You were not there for the previous umteen hours of "fighting" so you dont have a leg to stand on, you just saw the END of the fight and you pissed all over yourself trying to place blame using your "example" on Falcon, when in fact the BISH worked together to get back the bases that was taken by YOUR side in a lame way.....   I think Falcon, the Bish, everyone involved worked together to make it right for everyone.  Hero's of the cartoon world.   IMO    :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 20, 2009, 01:27:48 PM
It really irks me when folk are hard of understanding.  STAT-IST-ICS.   Your stats scream a thousand words.  I ALSO don't care about your SCORE but the STATS say it all.  Frankly they typified the sum of you and your ilk.

Your not following this are you.  I can see it now.  Sat there going ..."whats score got to do with it".  Pretty much the same way that you don't understand the potential erosion to game play.  I'll tell you....score has nothing to do with it even if u played 3 hours or 3000 hours.  The stats say everything though.

Hit percentage.... average to crap.  Kills to death ....crap.  More sorties to kills and so and so on.  Dude...really! Its not a wonder you seek Solis in a 20+ man mission.  You can't survive or get things done without them. 

This TYPIFIES what I was saying in my first post here.   "missed"...the Air con, the hanger, the Gv, the ack but most of all missed the bleedin plot...jesus H  :rolleyes:

B.S. it does. I do not have time to treat Aces High like a paying career. When it really gets down to it, this is the most trivial thing to devote hours upon hours to. Silly wabbit.
Meanwhile, Boxboy's quote in my sig is where I stand.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Stang on April 20, 2009, 02:16:38 PM
It's not even worth posting anymore.

2% of you get it, the rest are just idiots.  You wouldn't even get it, if I may quote someone here, if you got run over by a bus with it.

Kinda sounds like the breakdown of intelligence in the real world, shocking...

Carry on.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 20, 2009, 02:24:15 PM
It's not even worth posting anymore.

2% of you get it, the rest are just idiots.  You wouldn't even get it, if I may quote someone here, if you got run over by a bus with it.

Kinda sounds like the breakdown of intelligence in the real world, shocking...

Carry on.

Watch the movie "Idiocracy" and tell me if you see any parallels to in here.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: A8TOOL on April 20, 2009, 02:26:52 PM
Defining bad game-play http://bbs.hitechcreations.comREMOVED/smf/index.php/topic,.html       This is one example of MANY  (http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_evil.gif)

IMO, vet sim pilots should be here to take new pilots under their wing, help when they can and set examples throughout the arenas they fly in condemning (to a certain extent) bad behavior.

On another note: I Hate seeing 3-4 guys on one or 5 guys following one damaged plane thats already being chased by 2-3 noobs or vets. I also hate how 10 guys at a base can all get stuck flying at low alt over it because of one enemy con above it.  Instead of being scared to leave your ack you should proceed ahead to meet the rest of the incoming enemy cons because once they get there your all gonna be dead.


I've got a good score and i don't work hard at it all all. I hardly make it home and normally can be found on CH trying to point out these mistakes while trying to rally players toward a common goal.

 Meet the enemy and kill them. Try to keep your alt, ask someone for help if needed, give check 6's and don't run to the deck and away from help! Most of all, KEEP ADVANCING TOWARD THEIR BASE. Why give them the upper hand by waiting for them to come to you?


All in all we have a lot of Very good players here. I don't expect everyone to fly the same but do encourage working as a team to accomplish certain objectives.


 :salute


Edited to remove a link I put in here to bash a vet player for being a dweeb on film. Crazyivan  helped me realize I was being a dweeb myself by posting it in that way.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 20, 2009, 02:33:53 PM
Watch the movie "Idiocracy" and tell me if you see any parallels to in here.



When I watched the movie, the first thing that ran through my mind was "Gee, whoever wrote this must play AH".


ack-ack
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 20, 2009, 02:44:27 PM
HT, Please create a map that has 1 Base each at an alt of 15k 1 sector apart so the ones interested can bang away at each other to their hearts content, this will eliminate the base capture complaints two fold, and satisfy the needs of the wanna be aces in this game.  The MA has way to many facets of game style and play that some cannot or will not fathom nor accept.  Problem solved.   :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 20, 2009, 03:20:28 PM
Then may I suggest that before you use "someone else" as an example, you should start on YOUR side that your on which ever that may be.  

When have you ever put out on 200 the location of a hidden cv?   Try PM me that next time and I will take your word on that one.


I have reported hidden CVs many times, I'm sorry about you NOT being logged on at the time, but the fact remains that I have.


Quote
You were not there for the previous umteen hours of "fighting" so you dont have a leg to stand on, you just saw the END of the fight and you pissed all over yourself trying to place blame using your "example" on Falcon, when in fact the BISH worked together to get back the bases that was taken by YOUR side in a lame way.....   I think Falcon, the Bish, everyone involved worked together to make it right for everyone.  Hero's of the cartoon world.   IMO    :lol

ahhh to make it right I see... were the taxes due and the bish short on "land" so they couldn't collect as much? If you loose to many base they take away your women? I couldn't care lees if the fight is for A9, or A51 on the coast. The point is there was a fight, and those guy went out of their way to kill it. Did they attack 51 after taking the island to continue the fight, nope they had their land back, no need.  :rolleyes:

 
HT, Please create a map that has 1 Base each at an alt of 15k 1 sector apart so the ones interested can bang away at each other to their hearts content, this will eliminate the base capture complaints two fold, and satisfy the needs of the wanna be aces in this game.  The MA has way to many facets of game style and play that some cannot or will not fathom nor accept.  Problem solved.   :aok

My guess is this conversation is just way to far over your head Dadsguns, either that or you haven't read along, and just jumped in here to spout off. I have mentioned a number of types of missions and plans that would be great game play. I don't think any one has said to get rid of missions or captures, its how people are going about those missions and captures that are lame. FALCON admitted "he" was tired of the furball, and "he" decided to get everyone together to end it once and for all. 8 hours, 5 hours, it doesn't matter, it was a battle where people were having fun. IF they were NOT having fun don't you think they would have left....oh like maybe when the "horde" shows up and most of the defenders leave.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dawger on April 20, 2009, 03:28:20 PM


Oh...and if you think real pilots blew right in front of comrades to shoot a bandit that was already being shot up/at, without repercussions, think again. In R/L, the safety issues alone of two friendlies trying to shoot the same bandit simultaneously are daunting.


Two friendlies attacking from the same direction is a rookie level mistake. The entire purpose of 2 versus 1 tactics is to create a more complex problem for the bandit, not simplify it by piling everybody in trail on the bandit.

Double attack, done right, will have the two friendlies operating 90 degrees off plane from each other. When the engaged fighter calls off, the free fighter will engage from a direction that is out of plane with the fight and unseen by the bandit if he is positioning correctly.

Loose Deuce resembles this "kill stealing" a little better. The entire purpose of Loose Deuce tactics is to get the bandit predictable by applying offensive pressure but not so much pressure that the bandit goes panic defensive. This allows a competent loose deuce wing man to set up a high blind side attack. In a classic Heart Attack merge against a Loose Deuce pair the bandit will come under guns from his belly side at about 180 degrees into his first post merge break. The bandit will be defending against the engaged fighter pressuring from the control zone but not pushing hard for a shot and the free fighter will maneuver to shoot while the bandit is thus distracted.

I fly Loose Deuce with my squaddies but the really great thing about Loose Deuce is your wing man doesn't even have to know he is flying Loose Deuce for it to be effective. Its quite effective in a flat fight on the deck that is anchored. It is a simple matter of positioning over the bandit post and swooping in for a hi-lo belly side attack and the bandit is concentrating on the bandit in his control zone. Then you can swoop away. With proper planning you are on a good heading and wont need to waste energy turning to get a good heading for building back the energy bank. A quick scan and its easy to pitch back in or egress as necessary.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 20, 2009, 03:35:14 PM
ahhh to make it right I see... were the taxes due and the bish short on "land" so they couldn't collect as much? If you loose to many base they take away your women? I couldn't care lees if the fight is for A9, or A51 on the coast. The point is there was a fight, and those guy went out of their way to kill it. Did they attack 51 after taking the island to continue the fight, nope they had their land back, no need.  :rolleyes:

No nothing due, just ours to get back.  What you fail to see is that it was a fight for over 8+ hours, 8+ HOURS..... you showed up in the last 10 min when it was lost and it ruined YOUR fun.  :rolleyes:   I think it was fun for ALL during those 8+ hours, you just missed it.  The fight shifted to the southern bases where MORE fun was had.  So are you crying over spilled milk?  we took back what was ours to begin with, and the fight moved south?  

 
My guess is this conversation is just way to far over your head Dadsguns, either that or you haven't read along, and just jumped in here to spout off. I have mentioned a number of types of missions and plans that would be great game play. I don't think any one has said to get rid of missions or captures, its how people are going about those missions and captures that are lame. FALCON admitted "he" was tired of the furball, and "he" decided to get everyone together to end it once and for all. 8 hours, 5 hours, it doesn't matter, it was a battle where people were having fun. IF they were NOT having fun don't you think they would have left....oh like maybe when the "horde" shows up and most of the defenders leave.

If it makes you feel any better, I admit myself was on earlier that morning hence 8+ hours of fighting, I can assure you that I had my fill and so did many others by that point.  
Would it make you feel better if you rooks will let us push into your side taking some bases, and at that point you guys dont push back, but just furball?  Dont attempt to take any bases back, just up for fun?  Would you think that Rooks would do that....  think about it...   :cool:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on April 20, 2009, 03:37:15 PM
Pssst....75% of the guys on this forum own a copy of Shaw. Nice attempt at obfuscation though!

And two guys winging together is not even what we are talking about, and you know it. We are talking about happening upon a fight, and taking advantage of the fact that someone else has spent time and E putting a bandit in a vulnerable position, where he is an easy pick, and padding your score with his work. Or just whaling a way at a falling plane.

Sorry, you defended the single lamest AHII behavior repeatedly and specifically, you're just gonna have to live with it.


Two friendlies attacking from the same direction is a rookie level mistake. The entire purpose of 2 versus 1 tactics is to create a more complex problem for the bandit, not simplify it by piling everybody in trail on the bandit.

Double attack, done right, will have the two friendlies operating 90 degrees off plane from each other. When the engaged fighter calls off, the free fighter will engage from a direction that is out of plane with the fight and unseen by the bandit if he is positioning correctly.

Loose Deuce resembles this "kill stealing" a little better. The entire purpose of Loose Deuce tactics is to get the bandit predictable by applying offensive pressure but not so much pressure that the bandit goes panic defensive. This allows a competent loose deuce wing man to set up a high blind side attack. In a classic Heart Attack merge against a Loose Deuce pair the bandit will come under guns from his belly side at about 180 degrees into his first post merge break. The bandit will be defending against the engaged fighter pressuring from the control zone but not pushing hard for a shot and the free fighter will maneuver to shoot while the bandit is thus distracted.

I fly Loose Deuce with my squaddies but the really great thing about Loose Deuce is your wing man doesn't even have to know he is flying Loose Deuce for it to be effective. Its quite effective in a flat fight on the deck that is anchored. It is a simple matter of positioning over the bandit post and swooping in for a hi-lo belly side attack and the bandit is concentrating on the bandit in his control zone. Then you can swoop away. With proper planning you are on a good heading and wont need to waste energy turning to get a good heading for building back the energy bank. A quick scan and its easy to pitch back in or egress as necessary.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 20, 2009, 03:51:58 PM
 we took back what was ours to begin with  


Oh dear
 :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 20, 2009, 03:52:18 PM
HT, Please create a map that has 1 Base each at an alt of 15k 1 sector apart so the ones interested can bang away at each other to their hearts content, this will eliminate the base capture complaints two fold, and satisfy the needs of the wanna be aces in this game.  The MA has way to many facets of game style and play that some cannot or will not fathom nor accept.  Problem solved.   :aok

Says the guy who can't even fathom where someone like Stang is coming from.  He's been where you are at (many moons ago) but you have yet to come even close to where is skillwise.  You can't pass any sort of judgment on him because you are unable to even understand his perspective.  And unless you make some huge leap in skill over the next few years you might never.  He can see where you are comging from, heck, any noob with a year or two under their belt can see that.  Maybe in a few years, if you practice diligently, you WILL see where he is coming from and fully understand what Stang is saying.  Until you reach that point I would humbly suggest less typey typey, more practicey practicey.  Of course you can always stay at the lower echelons of skill and be perfectly happy there.  I'm ok w/ it if you are.

Something said earlier in this thread got me thinking.

The reason many of the missions discussed here are lame is because the people who run them are lacking skill.  Most can't fight at all, or are at best "ok".  I know beyond all shadow of a doubt you can't fight worth a hoot dads.  I also know falcon23 isn't much to speak of as a  fighter either.  Being only mediocre or even "poor" fighters, y'all lack the perspective of how accomplish goals based on skill.  You and yours don't capture the number of bases you do because you are particularly "good" at it (read: skilled).  You capture them using raw numbers alone because you lack the ability to do anything else but (read: unskilled).  A base take where I might need 10-12 pilots you need twice that to get the same results.

Until you and yours log the hours/days/months/years it takes to reach that level of skill and attain the perspective you gain at said level, you will always "think" what you are doing is "skillfull" or "good", but the reality of the situation is usually just the opposite.

Might I add by teaching other players, mostly noobs, to do as y'all do, you are dragging down the gameplay as opposed to bettering it.  With your way of doing things you end up with huge masses of players that are unable to fight their way out of a wet paper bag.  Do tell how your methods improve the gameplay.  Seems to me all it does is promote skilless noobs to stay skilless noobs.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 20, 2009, 04:05:27 PM
Says the guy who can't even fathom where someone like Stang is coming from.  He's been where you are at (many moons ago) but you have yet to come even close to where is skillwise.  You can't pass any sort of judgment on him because you are unable to even understand his perspective.  And unless you make some huge leap in skill over the next few years you might never.  He can see where you are comging from, heck, any noob with a year or two under their belt can see that.  Maybe in a few years, if you practice diligently, you WILL see where he is coming from and fully understand what Stang is saying.  Until you reach that point I would humbly suggest less typey typey, more practicey practicey.  Of course you can always stay at the lower echelons of skill and be perfectly happy there.  I'm ok w/ it if you are.

Something said earlier in this thread got me thinking.

The reason many of the missions discussed here are lame is because the people who run them are lacking skill.  Most can't fight at all, or are at best "ok".  I know beyond all shadow of a doubt you can't fight worth a hoot dads.  I also know falcon23 isn't much to speak of as a  fighter either.  Being only mediocre or even "poor" fighters, y'all lack the perspective of how accomplish goals based on skill.  You and yours don't capture the number of bases you do because you are particularly "good" at it (read: skilled).  You capture them using raw numbers alone because you lack the ability to do anything else but (read: unskilled).  A base take where I might need 10-12 pilots you need twice that to get the same results.

Until you and yours log the hours/days/months/years it takes to reach that level of skill and attain the perspective you gain at said level, you will always "think" what you are doing is "skillfull" or "good", but the reality of the situation is usually just the opposite.

Might I add by teaching other players, mostly noobs, to do as y'all do, you are dragging down the gameplay as opposed to bettering it.  With your way of doing things you end up with huge masses of players that are unable to fight their way out of a wet paper bag.  Do tell how your methods improve the gameplay.  Seems to me all it does is promote skilless noobs to stay skilless noobs.



 :rofl

For the record, Where did I pass any judgement on him?  But since you brought it up.

Stang?  Like I am supposed to know who he is?   Is he a great one too like yourself?    :rofl

I rarely if at all see some of you in this game much less have even fought you I think?   :rofl

Does that mean people like me cant beat you at all because we dont have any skill? 

The funny thing is, YOU cant beat what your up against without getting down and dirty, like I said before, many, probably including you and the great one stang, will only fight when the advantage is yours. This may be why for as long as I have played I cant say that your a regular.  Your a rarity.  Am I wrong?  Doubt it.

Now, there are some that you see regularly on, and I know they put up one heck of a fight, I just cant say that about the rest.

Oh by the way, we get it.  Its everyones fault on the Bish, they have the most dweebs, newbs, skilless players around, and they land grab, and dont play fair, and do NOE's and everything else you dont agree with, and we are so far behind some of you uber sticks in skill that we dont know our arse from a hole in the ground,,,, yeah we get it.....  :rolleyes:

 :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 20, 2009, 05:38:01 PM
:rofl



If by "Down and dirty" you mean fight weenie hoards like you and yours and generally racking up 10-20 kills vs. a death or two then I  get down and dirty lots actually.  May I add that I have a blast doing so.  (too bad you can't and probably never will be able to say the same)

If I only die once or twice and rack up 10-20 kills doing so, I "win".  It doesn't matter if the base is saved or captured by the nme, I "won".

What gives me a chuckle is how many times you mass the dweebs, have every advantage possible, and fail.  Y'all fail quite often actually.  For every few bases take you get, I can think of one you failed at.  I will even give you a quasi-compliment that you have become more efficient at taking a base and ensuring little to no Resistance.  You have learned how to achieve success in spite of your shortcomings. 

That would be a compliment if it wasn't for the WAY you have learned to achieve said success.  Dive bombing lancs?  (check)  Kill the FH/VH/BH BEFORE you launch the mission?  (check)  Constant noe mass hoard raids vs. fields that no nme is at?  (check)  You name a lame game style and I have seen you and yours do it time and time again.  Heck, you've refined it. 

If there is a glitch in the game, say dry spawning lvt's, you have gone out of your way to figure out how to pull off that glitch and you use it every chance you can.

It's a shortcut to perceived success.  As I stated above, you might take the base (perceived success) but if you die in droves doing so vs. an opponent you vastly outnumbered in my book that is a failure.

What you remind me of is a pack of 30 6 year olds that ambushed and beat up Mike Tyson because of raw numbers alone.  You jumped him when he wasn't looking and swarmed him.  You then talk smack about it, and go on and on about how "good" you are because you beat up Tyson.  That is until Mr. Tyson catches any of you alone, or in a small group.  Then you are all dead, and dead quick.  Same thing with you and yours in Aces High..  SURE you can brag about what great (snicker) "base takers" you are, but alone or in small numbers you are fodder.  That is the reality of the situation.  You go on and on about something that is skilless, and try to spin it like what you do is difficult or takes something beyond a rudimentary grasp on the game to pull off.

It isn't, and you don't.  Nothing that you do is new, unique, or hasn't been done time and again for 10-20yrs before you ever heard of WW2 flight sims.

And yes, I would place Stang up there with the "Great Ones".  Someone who has forgotten more than you will probably learn about this game.  Somebody you should prob. shut up and listen to.  Someone that earned the respect of the community many times over.  The mere fact that YOU don't know who Stang is is quite telling to me.  It shows me how little you really know.

I will add that the reason we have hardly fought is twofold.  1) You will never man up and fight me in the DA 1 on 1.  It's been offered countless times, and you chicken out every time.  (which is a shame 'cause I could actually show you how to fight)  2) You avoid fighting like the plague.  If the fight is at all "Even" you are generally no where to be found.

Me?  I look for the base with the large nme dar bar and small friendly dar and up.  You?  You avoid that large nme dar bar at all costs.  (which is sad because you never will learn how to fight by avoiding one.  All you are doing is perpetuating your mediocrity)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 20, 2009, 05:41:14 PM
Must be tough sitting on top of that mountain.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 20, 2009, 05:54:17 PM
Must be tough sitting on top of that mountain.

Fred

The sitting is the dull part. 

It's GETTING there that is fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: rvflyer on April 20, 2009, 06:07:09 PM
Watch the movie "Idiocracy" and tell me if you see any parallels to in here.



Just watched that movie this last weekend. Sad because of the dumbing down of education that is where we are heading in real life
it seems like to me.

I like to play for fun, been playing for a few years but still not good enough to really care about score. I am a real life pilot and fly
aerobatics in my airplane all the time but still cannot fly these toon airplane that well.
I wish I could get some of the players like Stang, Lynx, Pacerr, SHawk  and some of the other really great AH players to train 1 on 1 with
but so far i only get shot down by them. :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bj229r on April 20, 2009, 06:16:51 PM
Watch the movie "Idiocracy" and tell me if you see any parallels to in here.


(http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZFGZVSdAvV1mGM:http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1610/idiocracy10qg3.png)

Whordes have what AH needs, because...AH needs whordes...they have, electrolytes

Quote
The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.
Quote
There was a time when reading wasn't just for studmuffins. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies. Movies with stories, that made you care about whose bellybutton it was and why it was farting. And I believe that time can come again!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 20, 2009, 06:32:24 PM


The reason many of the missions discussed here are lame is because the people who run them are lacking skill.  Most can't fight at all, or are at best "ok".  I know beyond all shadow of a doubt you can't fight worth a hoot dads.  I also know falcon23 isn't much to speak of as a  fighter either.  Being only mediocre or even "poor" fighters, y'all lack the perspective of how accomplish goals based on skill.  You and yours don't capture the number of bases you do because you are particularly "good" at it (read: skilled).  You capture them using raw numbers alone because you lack the ability to do anything else but (read: unskilled).  A base take where I might need 10-12 pilots you need twice that to get the same results.




Well, here's a double edged sword. Let's say these guys are average players. Let's say it takes more average players to take a base than the skilled players you talk about.  Are the average players to refrain from taking bases because they are not elite? Let's say you can take the base with half as many players...that's great but........ so what? You have the benefit of getting in the game sooner than many of the average players. Because they are further down the learning curve, are they somehow less entitled to try to take bases? If they need the numbers to have a good chance at success, should they be deprived of this fun?

You can argue that they need to get better.... OK.  Why can't they try to take bases in the mean time?  While this is going on the skilled pilots can continue to encourage these folks to improve.  The vets can offer advice, training, etc.

 Lute, you know I hold you in high regard but, IMHO, your position smacks of elitism. We need a continuing influx of players to keep the game alive. Discouraging noobs will contribute to the demise of the game.  Yes, I understand you are trying to "show them the way" to improve.. I get it. I think that many of these hordelings are people who enjoy teamwork and the comraderie of a group objective. Many of them would also get slaughtered if they ventured outside the cozy confines of the horde. Some will evolve, some will quit, others will be hordelings for life. I just don't think we should belittle them overmuch... just enough perhaps to encourage them to fly from the nest (horde).   :salute

Lifetime hordelings cannot be cured, they can only be shot down, again, and again, and again.    :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: newz on April 20, 2009, 06:59:51 PM
Many of them would also get slaughtered if they ventured outside the cozy confines of the horde. Some will evolve, some will quit, others will be hordelings for life. I just don't think we should belittle them overmuch... just enough perhaps to encourage them to fly from the nest (horde).   :salute

Lifetime hordelings cannot be cured, they can only be shot down, again, and again, and again.    :aok
Well said Steve :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 20, 2009, 07:00:11 PM
WOW,a day at work and people get worked up...


 Any side would of fought to get those bases back..WHY?? because while the FB is going on,there are some rooks somewhere in that mass who are trying to get the port and get the CV back again,they are on every side..This is why bish needed to get back 9 and 10 to protect the areas west of those bases..WHY?? because rooks have people on their side just as every side does who wants to take bases..We are protecting our interests,dont rooks and nits??I bet they do..


 As far as what I said to you fugitive..I have the screenshot of 99% of the convo.

 I never said anything about trying to break up the FB,only that the base needed to be taken back..If taking bases and holding them is not rook priority,then why ruin GV'ers fun by keeping V10,which was just as down and dirty fighting as was at A9..when,if rooks would of given it up,there could of been some "FUN" gv fighting by rooks and bish,But that is not the reason why you guys took 9,and why rooks kept 10...It is because it is LAND which you did not own prior..If the furball between the CV and A9 was such a big deal,and such "FUN"why did rooks keep killing the "FUN" by killing the CV??I know why:
      Because of the natural propensity of sides to MOVE into other territory which they do not own..


    You were only on for that long as you say and then PM me that I am ruining your fun??And that if it is the same in the north,which BTW you guys were fighting nits,that you were going to log off?? and THANKS to ME for ruining your fun???...

  Not ONE BISH was upset that we got 9 and 10 back..why is that?? because it was a detriment for you guys to be that close to our mainland in that area..


  And for the record here is the screenshot I took of our convo...

 Where I am telling you all sides do that,you had spoken to me about not needing that many to take a VBASE,and my reply was that I have no control over the bish,and that a mission had not been posted..

 You guys holler about there not being enough furballs,or AvA combat..it is all over the map if that is your true gripe..If it is just that there are many in a mission,well,it is nothing out of the norm for any side to run missions of that sort.. :salute

                                  


 (http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k393/FALCON23_album/ahss41.jpg)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 20, 2009, 07:09:07 PM
 :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: killnu on April 20, 2009, 07:14:21 PM
good post Lute...and follow up Steve.  I first read this post and figured it to be a troll so the OP could justify his lameness...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 20, 2009, 07:18:19 PM
If by "Down and dirty" you mean fight weenie hoards like you and yours and generally racking up 10-20 kills vs. a death or two then I  get down and dirty lots actually.  May I add that I have a blast doing so.  (too bad you can't and probably never will be able to say the same)

If I only die once or twice and rack up 10-20 kills doing so, I "win".  It doesn't matter if the base is saved or captured by the nme, I "won".


 SO lute we each see we have our own defintion of "I WON"

Quote
What gives me a chuckle is how many times you mass the dweebs, have every advantage possible, and fail.  Y'all fail quite often actually.  For every few bases take you get, I can think of one you failed at.  I will even give you a quasi-compliment that you have become more efficient at taking a base and ensuring little to no Resistance.  You have learned how to achieve success in spite of your shortcomings. 

That would be a compliment if it wasn't for the WAY you have learned to achieve said success.  Dive bombing lancs?  (check)  Kill the FH/VH/BH BEFORE you launch the mission?  (check)  Constant noe mass hoard raids vs. fields that no nme is at?  (check)  You name a lame game style and I have seen you and yours do it time and time again.  Heck, you've refined it. 

 WOW lute,you just posted about what every country does..

Quote
If there is a glitch in the game, say dry spawning lvt's, you have gone out of your way to figure out how to pull off that glitch and you use it every chance you can.

  AGAIN,you quote what every country does..

Quote
It's a shortcut to perceived success.  As I stated above, you might take the base (perceived success) but if you die in droves doing so vs. an opponent you vastly outnumbered in my book that is a failure.

What you remind me of is a pack of 30 6 year olds that ambushed and beat up Mike Tyson because of raw numbers alone.  You jumped him when he wasn't looking and swarmed him.  You then talk smack about it, and go on and on about how "good" you are because you beat up Tyson.  That is until Mr. Tyson catches any of you alone, or in a small group.  Then you are all dead, and dead quick.  Same thing with you and yours in Aces High..  SURE you can brag about what great (snicker) "base takers" you are, but alone or in small numbers you are fodder.  That is the reality of the situation.  You go on and on about something that is skilless, and try to spin it like what you do is difficult or takes something beyond a rudimentary grasp on the game to pull off.

It isn't, and you don't.  Nothing that you do is new, unique, or hasn't been done time and again for 10-20yrs before you ever heard of WW2 flight sims.


 10-20 years it has been going on,so now everyone just expects it to stop?? It will always happen,missions with many,missions with few..rooks,nits,bish,all fly missions regularly,and some % fails..That is nothing new either..

Quote
And yes, I would place Stang up there with the "Great Ones".  Someone who has forgotten more than you will probably learn about this game.  Somebody you should prob. shut up and listen to.  Someone that earned the respect of the community many times over.  The mere fact that YOU don't know who Stang is is quite telling to me.  It shows me how little you really know.

I will add that the reason we have hardly fought is twofold.  1) You will never man up and fight me in the DA 1 on 1.  It's been offered countless times, and you chicken out every time.  (which is a shame 'cause I could actually show you how to fight)  2) You avoid fighting like the plague.  If the fight is at all "Even" you are generally no where to be found.

Me?  I look for the base with the large nme dar bar and small friendly dar and up.  You?  You avoid that large nme dar bar at all costs.  (which is sad because you never will learn how to fight by avoiding one.  All you are doing is perpetuating your mediocrity)

   NOw we get to the real reason for the attack on dadsguns,you are getting personal,that he wont fight you in the DA...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 20, 2009, 07:20:39 PM
Cool we can now PM folks directly to let them know that they are the reason I no longer enjoy Aces High.  PUH-LEEEZE.... Logging because of one person that you have behaviors you do not care for, is crazy.  I sincerely do not understand it.  It comes off as poutish to say the least.  Maybe it is time to move on to something else, or change your own game play.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 20, 2009, 09:15:40 PM
Check Rule Something......



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 20, 2009, 09:19:22 PM
(http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k393/FALCON23_album/ahss41.jpg)

What is missing:

"MOM!!!!!!!!! So-and-so pooped in the bathtub!!!!"

In essence, all three of my sons have less articulate, but similar arguments.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: kilo2 on April 20, 2009, 09:27:37 PM
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g256/BloodyBandage/dance_off_large_image4.gif)

its gettin crazy in here :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 20, 2009, 09:33:24 PM
Nothing that you do is new, unique, or hasn't been done time and again for 10-20yrs before you ever heard of WW2 flight sims.

Good, then its nothing new.  You can now get some sleep for a change.  See you in the friendly skies......  :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 20, 2009, 09:43:07 PM
WOW,a day at work and people get worked up...


 Any side would of fought to get those bases back..WHY?? because while the FB is going on,there are some rooks somewhere in that mass who are trying to get the port and get the CV back again,they are on every side..This is why bish needed to get back 9 and 10 to protect the areas west of those bases..WHY?? because rooks have people on their side just as every side does who wants to take bases..We are protecting our interests,dont rooks and nits??I bet they do..


 As far as what I said to you fugitive..I have the screenshot of 99% of the convo.

 I never said anything about trying to break up the FB,only that the base needed to be taken back..If taking bases and holding them is not rook priority,then why ruin GV'ers fun by keeping V10,which was just as down and dirty fighting as was at A9..when,if rooks would of given it up,there could of been some "FUN" gv fighting by rooks and bish,But that is not the reason why you guys took 9,and why rooks kept 10...It is because it is LAND which you did not own prior..If the furball between the CV and A9 was such a big deal,and such "FUN"why did rooks keep killing the "FUN" by killing the CV??I know why:
      Because of the natural propensity of sides to MOVE into other territory which they do not own..


    You were only on for that long as you say and then PM me that I am ruining your fun??And that if it is the same in the north,which BTW you guys were fighting nits,that you were going to log off?? and THANKS to ME for ruining your fun???...

  Not ONE BISH was upset that we got 9 and 10 back..why is that?? because it was a detriment for you guys to be that close to our mainland in that area..


  And for the record here is the screenshot I took of our convo...

 Where I am telling you all sides do that,you had spoken to me about not needing that many to take a VBASE,and my reply was that I have no control over the bish,and that a mission had not been posted..

 You guys holler about there not being enough furballs,or AvA combat..it is all over the map if that is your true gripe..If it is just that there are many in a mission,well,it is nothing out of the norm for any side to run missions of that sort.. :salute

                                  



I believe the PM I sent you was congrats on killing another fight.  You replied that "you were tired of the FB "so you set out to take the base. I did give you crap about taking the VB, but not because "you took it" I couldn't care less whos base it is, it was the WAY you take the bases that is the issue. I just don't understand how you people don't get this.

Taking bases = GOOD !
Running Mission = GOOD !

This.......

(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/Image1.jpg)


.... BAD !!

Can you understand that? 20 vs 3 is poor game play?

The other thing you guys are a riot about is this "It is because it is LAND which you did not own prior..." !! Give me a break!! ITS PIXELS !!! ITS A GAME !!! THERE REALLY IS NO WAR !!

Yes you "ruin my fun" and many others as well. With your game play, and defense of this poor game play, as well as leading other towards this game play you are ruining what was once a great game. To you it might be great now, but it is only mediocre game these days, it has lost its greatness some time ago. As long as their are players who defend this type of play, and their main reason in defense of it is "well they do it too!" The game will never get better, unless HTC steps in. AND YES THE KNIGHTS RUIN IT AS WELL AS THE ROOKS.

I'll keep to my guns, and call for better game play and if 1 of every 100 that reads these boards looks to get better, and avoid lame play I'd be very happy. Someday even you ....if you stay around in the game long enough will see the light. See I've been there before, leader of a big squad (bish squad btw), had to capture as many bases as we could for the war effort, thought that was the only fun there was...ruining others fun just to grab another base. I learn eventually that the fun was the game itself, flying and fighting, winning WAS the battle. Plans changed, and became more challenging, hence more fun, for both sides. For now its more important for you guys to "own the land" than it is to play the game. Its like the guy who flys a spit all the time NEVER trying another ride. Sure hes having fun, but he is also missing out on some much more the game has to offer.

Yes I will still fly against your horde. Yes I'll get frustrated and look elsewhere for a "good" fight. And yes on many a night I'll log off in stead of dealing with the stupidity of lame game play. After all this IS a game and I play it to have fun.  

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 20, 2009, 10:24:58 PM

   NOw we get to the real reason for the attack on dadsguns,you are getting personal,that he wont fight you in the DA...


Why not get in the DA with him? As "elitist" as Lute may seem, hes a good guy given you dont give him a pissant attitude. I gaurantee that you will come out of it with a wealth of information and new found respect for eachother.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 20, 2009, 10:45:08 PM
Why not get in the DA with him? As "elitist" as Lute may seem, hes a good guy given you dont give him a pissant attitude. I gaurantee that you will come out of it with a wealth of information and new found respect for eachother.

Oh don't be silly. They know everything they need to know. Outnumber & capture. What else is there?? :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 20, 2009, 11:07:26 PM
B.S. it does. I do not have time to treat Aces High like a paying career. When it really gets down to it, this is the most trivial thing to devote hours upon hours to. Silly wabbit.
Meanwhile, Boxboy's quote in my sig is where I stand.

This is it right here.  Did I hit the nail on the head or what.   :rofl  The fact that you've missed the point between score (rank) and STATISTICS.....again :(  is beside the point right now.   

So what your inferring above is and correct me if I'm wrong, you don't have a lot of time to play Aces High.  So by default this explains your poor skills in this combat sim game.  So!.... if that's correct this means the time you have isn't used to improve your game.  Learning the ins & outs of combat maneuvers combined with situation awareness and gunnery.  It's used solely to mission up

Do you not see the irony here.  The fact you lack the skills or can't be bothered to learn them you deem it, in your own mind as a mission planner, necessary to swamp a place like a port with 20+ P47's (enough to take a large field) in the name of team work, camaraderie and fun. 

Oh well!  I suppose when you've given up learning there isn't much else for you to do.  What worries me is the new guys that come here have less and less skilled folks to set an example.   :uhoh

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 20, 2009, 11:10:08 PM
Bish and squad get along with me fine. Comradery is fun. That's why I play, when I play. Sorry if it spoils your sandbox.

If and when Hitech stops me, that is when you will be happy.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: AH Vet on April 21, 2009, 12:14:35 AM
  What worries me is the new guys that come here have less and less skilled folks to set an example.   :uhoh



What woorries me is the new guys come along and see LYNX setting an example as a skilled player who they look upto and want to reach the same uberness and skill level.  Then they will quit there job and give up on life so they can play aces high every hour god sends so they can be super uber like there hero LYNX.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 21, 2009, 12:40:20 AM
Bish and squad get along with me fine. Comradery is fun. That's why I play, when I play. Sorry if it spoils your sandbox.   This in its self doesn't spoil my sand box. 

If and when Hitech stops me, that is when you will be happy.  On the contrary.  I'll be most pissed off if that happens because the punitive messures that HTC takes, if at all to be fair to add, will affect US ALL.

I have no objections to missions or the occasional NOE missions.  I'm a strat player like yourself.  What I object to is these rather pathetic skilless over kill missions that have been occurring of late.  I say of late because that's bang on.  I'm not sat here saying "in ye olden days it was like this blah blah".  I've been here since 2002 and the only time I witnessed a mission like these was over 4 years ago.  A 30 man Lgay mission by, of all people, GHI.  The first eastern block mission planner  :D 

These types of over kill missions are becoming a little to frequent.  I would hate them to become acceptable.  I would loath them to be adapted by all sides.  I think there bad for game play on the whole but using your Hitech example neither of us know what their thinking.  So lets hypothesis.  Say they do change something like making the mission planner have a maximum of 12 players per mission from any given field.  What would you do then.  Roll with the punches as in the case of ENY, split arenas, the same small maps for months on end.  Would you adapt or just say "oh heck the games not fun anymore.  I'm outta here"
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 21, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
What woorries me is the new guys come along and see LYNX setting an example as a skilled player who they look upto and want to reach the same uberness and skill level.  Then they will quit there job and give up on life so they can play aces high every hour god sends so they can be super uber like there hero LYNX.

Hey shade boy.  Instead of being facetious.  Why not interject or hypothesis :rolleyes: about the topic?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 21, 2009, 04:52:24 AM
Well, here's a double edged sword. Let's say these guys are average players. Let's say it takes more average players to take a base than the skilled players you talk about.  Are the average players to refrain from taking bases because they are not elite? Let's say you can take the base with half as many players...that's great but........ so what? You have the benefit of getting in the game sooner than many of the average players. Because they are further down the learning curve, are they somehow less entitled to try to take bases? If they need the numbers to have a good chance at success, should they be deprived of this fun?

You can argue that they need to get better.... OK.  Why can't they try to take bases in the mean time?  While this is going on the skilled pilots can continue to encourage these folks to improve.  The vets can offer advice, training, etc.

 Lute, you know I hold you in high regard but, IMHO, your position smacks of elitism. We need a continuing influx of players to keep the game alive. Discouraging noobs will contribute to the demise of the game.  Yes, I understand you are trying to "show them the way" to improve.. I get it. I think that many of these hordelings are people who enjoy teamwork and the comraderie of a group objective. Many of them would also get slaughtered if they ventured outside the cozy confines of the horde. Some will evolve, some will quit, others will be hordelings for life. I just don't think we should belittle them overmuch... just enough perhaps to encourage them to fly from the nest (horde).   :salute

Lifetime hordelings cannot be cured, they can only be shot down, again, and again, and again.    :aok
Great post Steve. Like most here, my AH time is sometimes limited to a sortie or 2 or 20. I dont have time  to run missions or what have you.  During those times, Ill scope the map and look  for the nearest furball or head into tank town for a brief enjoyment. Those armchair generals that are in question the ones that wanna win da War3 at all cost are the ones that look at places like tanktown or furballs as a "waste in resourses". that the ones that are in there arent helping the "ultimate cause". So what do they do?..they bomb it, obliterate it AT ALL COST to make sure their countrymates have nothing else to do but help in reseting the maps. Ive seen it.
Shoot them down you say?..Id love too. Have you ever played hopscotch with these guys around the map on a night?..they do EVERYTHING to avoid me shooting them down. You stop the NOE at say A35. Give it 2 minutes before you see wayyyy off a base flashing with 50 GVs trying to camp the feild. rinse and repeat. This goes on and on all night trust me
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: frank3 on April 21, 2009, 05:09:21 AM
Can you understand that? 20 vs 3 is poor game play?

How can it be bad gameplay? Because your team didn't menage to up enough players to counter the attack? Or because the enemy did go through the trouble of working as a team?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 21, 2009, 07:30:19 AM
Maybe if I advertised where our mission is (despite the darbar that stays visible for minutes on end) on ch.200 it'll help the other side get organized and (GASP!) it will create a fight.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 07:44:55 AM
Maybe if I advertised where our mission is (despite the darbar that stays visible for minutes on end) on ch.200 it'll help the other side get organized and (GASP!) it will create a fight.

 :rofl  Been done already,,, still didnt stop it.  They didnt even show up.

How can it be bad gameplay? Because your team didn't menage to up enough players to counter the attack? Or because the enemy did go through the trouble of working as a team?

Which this is the result.


Fug, your snapshot says more than just bish attacking your town, there were as many rooks if not more around that base, where were they?  20k+ above the base, NW of the base attacking the CV preventing any aircraft getting in, several at the V-base covering for any bombers, EVERYTHING was covered, except your own base.  We took advantage of this, its that simple.

As for lynx saying he is seeing MORE of these missions, Your out of touch or your making it up, As for Bish goes, I see less of these missions than the last several years and many longtime bish will agree with that.  I do recall seeing many missions posted over and over with missions in the past, there is nowhere near that amount going on now.

Maybe running them more often and at the same pace as the past will jog your memory and give you a warm and fuzzy.

Shoot them down you say?..Id love too. Have you ever played hopscotch with these guys around the map on a night?..they do EVERYTHING to avoid me shooting them down. You stop the NOE at say A35. Give it 2 minutes before you see wayyyy off a base flashing with 50 GVs trying to camp the feild. rinse and repeat. This goes on and on all night trust me

Is this kind of like the day I shot you down 3 times in a row to kill some tents at an airfield, taking them down at all cost..... and then hide in the "BIG RED DAR"  Is that the kind of avoidance you speak of, help me understand what you mean by avoiding YOU shooting THEM down.   :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 21, 2009, 08:17:24 AM
:rofl  Been done already,,, still didnt stop it.  They didnt even show up.

Which this is the result.
(http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/33.gif)I'll have to test this out then (again) Friday night. I'll post a "Lead the Rook By The Nose" mission. I mean, what's the worst that can happen? More of this? I'm still alive and kicking so far.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 08:30:24 AM
(http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/33.gif)I'll have to test this out then (again) Friday night. I'll post a "Lead the Rook By The Nose" mission. I mean, what's the worst that can happen? More of this? I'm still alive and kicking so far.

Sounds good. 
Whats going to be funny is the type of resistance that shows up, everything from under the kitchen sink that can peel a tater......  :lol  if anything at all.

Alive and well myself, as a matter of fact getting ready for summer, got the Jetski and Boat ready, tents weather proofed, camping gear, got a 2 week camping trip planned out....   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 21, 2009, 08:36:25 AM
:rofl  Been done already,,, still didnt stop it.  They didnt even show up.

Which this is the result.


Fug, your snapshot says more than just bish attacking your town, there were as many rooks if not more around that base, where were they?  20k+ above the base, NW of the base attacking the CV preventing any aircraft getting in, several at the V-base covering for any bombers, EVERYTHING was covered, except your own base.  We took advantage of this, its that simple.

As for lynx saying he is seeing MORE of these missions, Your out of touch or your making it up, As for Bish goes, I see less of these missions than the last several years and many longtime bish will agree with that.  I do recall seeing many missions posted over and over with missions in the past, there is nowhere near that amount going on now.

Maybe running them more often and at the same pace as the past will jog your memory and give you a warm and fuzzy.

Is this kind of like the day I shot you down 3 times in a row to kill some tents at an airfield, taking them down at all cost..... and then hide in the "BIG RED DAR"  Is that the kind of avoidance you speak of, help me understand what you mean by avoiding YOU shooting THEM down.   :lol

The point of that picture is first its a VEHICLE BASE, and the Bish felt they needed 20 to 3 numbers to capture it. At the time of that shot, there were no other rooks around. In FALCON's picture you can see the dar bar a minute after my screen shot.

(http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k393/FALCON23_album/ahss41.jpg)

The problem was, the fight was killed, and the horde was at the VB. No fun here so everyone left. You can spread your BS all you want, there was only the "horde".

The point is these missions are becoming the norm. Everything in this game is geared toward one thing...combat. These type of missions don't bring combat, they chase it away, and there by avoid it. It also creates a spot for players to hide in. Why are they hiding? Because they are not very good alone. So in stead of spending time to learn HOW to play the game, they hide behind all of the numbers. In my screen shot...not counting me... there are 3 of those 20 with a positive k/d (more kills than deaths) and two of them are single flights under one heading which they no longer fly just to keep the score. Why should these people try to improve? They can hide behind the horde. The downside is with no skills the only way they CAN play AND "WIN" is hiding in a group.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 21, 2009, 08:39:39 AM
Sounds good. 
Whats going to be funny is the type of resistance that shows up, everything from under the kitchen sink that can peel a tater......  :lol  if anything at all.

Alive and well myself, as a matter of fact getting ready for summer, got the Jetski and Boat ready, tents weather proofed, camping gear, got a 2 week camping trip planned out....   


Dads.. check your PM, please. :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 09:11:38 AM
The point is these missions are becoming the norm. Everything in this game is geared toward one thing...combat. These type of missions don't bring combat, they chase it away, and there by avoid it. It also creates a spot for players to hide in. Why are they hiding? Because they are not very good alone. So in stead of spending time to learn HOW to play the game, they hide behind all of the numbers. In my screen shot...not counting me... there are 3 of those 20 with a positive k/d (more kills than deaths) and two of them are single flights under one heading which they no longer fly just to keep the score. Why should these people try to improve? They can hide behind the horde. The downside is with no skills the only way they CAN play AND "WIN" is hiding in a group.

Your assuming that ANYONE involved in missions or with a k/d (more deaths than kills) cant fight or have skill?  Your wrong.  There are many facets to playing this game and some of these guys are rather good.  
Remember this, this score system means nothing if score means nothing to the player.  You take it as FACT no matter what you see.
Some of you will never know, since these players dont choose to fight YOUR fight and fly to 20k and fight someone that will choose to run to buds, or dive to ack, or avoid a death at all cost when an advantage is placed on them even during a 1 on 1,  thats not a fight.  We all seen these players, they will avoid the fight with a passion if a threat of them getting shot down arises.  Period.  You know who some of these guys are as well as the rest of us.  You cant deny that people want to fight, but the instant someone has an advantage especially if its over a higher ranking guy, their ghost.  

So who is avoiding a fight?  Its been shown over and over again that usually when your dealing with someone that cares about their score, they wont fight unless its an absolute advantage, by ALT, by E, by numbers (horde),, Yes there are fighter hordes too,,,  so in a furball, who usually is at the highest altitude?  higher ranking players.... Am I wrong?    They climb out for a sector and a half come back in and look for the easy picks where others are engaged in 1v1.  Am I wrong?

So when you say that someone is avoiding a fight, you cant be more wrong, they just dont want to be bullied or pad someones score because they have to fight a fight only when they have a disadvantage.  

IMO, As for NOE's, they are effective.  Usually the ones that dont care about score are in them, why?  k/d dont mean anything to them.  Most can still fly and handle their own in a 1 on 1, but most of you wouldnt know that, some of you are never alone yourself to find out because your at the safe harbor of your friendly dar in a furball.  More often than not most of us are out and alone fighting not in base take mode but looking for a good fight.  Its very hard to find 2v2's 3v3's or even 5v3's with or without advantage.  But I dont take any pride in RTB'ing with someone on my six, I am usually in it till one of us is shot down.  THATS the true SCORE, who will fight to the death.  

Venture out and look for a fight, I find them all the time.  ALONE.    Fly something that cant go 25k, Shooting down TBM's all day with a TEMP has got to get old, but its not about that, its about having the advantage at all cost and your precious k/d.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 21, 2009, 10:18:14 AM
Your assuming that ANYONE involved in missions or with a k/d (more deaths than kills) cant fight or have skill?  Your wrong.  There are many facets to playing this game and some of these guys are rather good.  
Remember this, this score system means nothing if score means nothing to the player.  You take it as FACT no matter what you see.
Some of you will never know, since these players dont choose to fight YOUR fight and fly to 20k and fight someone that will choose to run to buds, or dive to ack, or avoid a death at all cost when an advantage is placed on them even during a 1 on 1,  thats not a fight.  We all seen these players, they will avoid with the fight with a passion if a threat of them getting shot down arises.  Period.  You know who some of these guys are as well as the rest of us.  You cant deny that people want to fight, but the instant someone has an advantage especially if its over a higher ranking guy, their ghost.  

So who is avoiding a fight?  Its been shown over and over again that usually when your dealing with someone that cares about their score, they wont fight unless its an absolute advantage, by ALT, by E, by numbers (horde),, Yes there are fighter hordes too,,,  so in a furball, who usually is at the highest altitude?  higher ranking players.... Am I wrong?    They climb out for a sector and a half come back in and look for the easy picks where others are engaged in 1v1.  Am I wrong?

So when you say that someone is avoiding a fight, you cant be more wrong, they just dont want to be bullied or pad someones score because they have to fight a fight only when they have a disadvantage.  

IMO, As for NOE's, they are effective.  Usually the ones that dont care about score are in them, why?  k/d dont mean anything to them.  Most can still fly and handle their own in a 1 on 1, but most of you wouldnt know that, some of you are never alone yourself to find out because your at the safe harbor of your friendly dar in a furball.  More often than not most of us are out and alone fighting not in base take mode but looking for a good fight.  Its very hard to find 2v2's 3v3's or even 5v3's with or without advantage.  But I dont take any pride in RTB'ing with someone on my six, I am usually in it till one of us is shot down.  THATS the true SCORE, who will fight to the death.  

Venture out and look for a fight, I find them all the time.  ALONE.    Fly something that cant go 25k, Shooting down TBM's all day with a TEMP has got to get old, but its not about that, its about having the advantage at all cost and your precious k/d.


Yes the scoring is.... well different, but used as a general ruler its easy to see what type of player and what kind of skill they have. I used k/d because its an easy one to maintain, you kill one guy before you die, not to tough. But to make you happy look at the hit % under the "attack" mode of those players. It shows most of them can't hit what they are aiming at with bombs. Again, no need to learn how to do it dead on each time, 6 other guys are assigned the same target so someone else is bound to get lucky. Dive bombing isn't that tough to learn, an hour or so in your favorite plane and you'll be hitting 90% of the time when you drop.

The horde is their crutch. They don't have to learn to fight in a fighter because odds are good someone will get the lone attacked before they can get to them inside the group. They don't have to learn to dive bomb because dropping 12 1k bombs in and around a hanger is just as good as one guy hitting with both of his.

Skilled players don't fly at 20k. Most fighting happens from 10k and down, so that is where you'll find them. Those players that circle over a furball are those no confidence, or point mongers. But even then, these guys are fighting, even if it is on their terms. Those that hide in the horde know they can't handle a fight so they hide. In the old days this use to bring about a certain drive in a person... the will to want to get better. Today they don't seem to have the will to get better, because...what the heck, they are capturing base after base now... What could be better?

NOEs are effective YES I have said it a million times. The reason they are effective is because you have 3 minutes from the time dar starts flashing to drop what your doing and run over there before the capture is done. The point is it shouldn't be ALL ABOUT THE CAPTURE. The game is combat, not capture. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how many bases you "own" because when you log in the next day it will all be different again. The one thing that should always be there is combat. Yes you can find small pockets with even fights, but those are become to few and far between. Hordes are becoming the norm because today's player want instant satisfaction, and with the big learning curve of this game the only way to quick satisfaction is the horde because skill is NOT a pre-requisite.

If a group of 6 to 10 "skilled" players put together a squad and made it their mission to bust up "hordes" and lame play didn't bother them, what do you think would happen? Spies would tell then where they were upping, and where they were going. The "Super Shark" squad would roll in and decimate any horde due to the lack of skills in the horde, and they would return to base landing hundreds of kills a night. You know it would be a blast for the killers, clubbing baby seals all night and laughing about it. I'm thinking it wouldn't be that much fun for the "horde" flyer tho. I'm thinking they would get pretty tired of getting killed all the time. Tired of not capturing that base again and again. Pretty frustrated with their "leaders" for not solving this problem for them.... cause you know they can't do it by them selves.

You know why you don't see that type of game play? Because most of the "skilled players" wouldn't use "spy information" because they couldn't care less about what "the other side is doing". In most cases they would spend the next 15 minutes trash talking the "spy" on the radio for being lame. They also wouldn't team up like that because they look for people who fight, not baby seals. There is no challenge killing baby seals, so no fun.

The horde is going to kill this game. It caused the arena spit and I'm sure there will be more things to come from it. You want to fly and grab land with 50 of your closest friends go for it, but sent 8 to one base 4 each in two groups as sweeps, 12 on another base, 5 on a porking run, 5 as high cap at the main target, and have the other 12 stand by 15 minutes to be the second wave at each of the bases your attacking. You still have your missions, your still working as a group, your still fighting for your country, your still actively trying to grab bases, but you ARE NOT A HORDE.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 21, 2009, 11:03:17 AM
SNIP


As for lynx saying he is seeing MORE of these missions, Your out of touch or your making it up, As for Bish goes, I see less of these missions than the last several years and many longtime bish will agree with that.  I do recall seeing many missions posted over and over with missions in the past, there is nowhere near that amount going on now.

Maybe running them more often and at the same pace as the past will jog your memory and give you a warm and fuzzy.


 :rolleyes:  You know something dads?  I wonder sometimes if English is your first language.  Your reading skills or lack of  comprehension is tiresome.  I know your language is based on mine and that some words mean different things on the other side of the pond (see dictionary in sig) but where on earth have you confused the words "over kill missions" and "missions".  I mean really!  Take a deep breath, slow down, put your glasses on if you have to and read my previous posts properly.

I'm not posting here about "mission" per sa (spelling).  I'm posting about "over kill missions" in context to the OP thread about poor game play, to places like ports and vbases.  As much as you've confused or dismissed that FACT my observations stand true.  As your good bud thndregg will testify. 

You Sir need to read more slowly.

Following quotes by me.

Quote
The very first reply in this whole thread just about sums things up.   It's over kill on a vbase.  An eastern block mentality to a game.  Lets have a closer look.

Quote
Now getting back to the fun part.  How much fun would it be for you if I was to take a bloody minded attitude to capturing all your vbases / ports with 20+ man missions?   How much fun is it going to be in here in 2 years time when these stupid over kill missions become the norm?  Are you going to bail your ride to up a wirlie against 20+ fully loaded P47's or are you going to have your FUN and stick with what you were doing?  <not a trick question>

Quote
Bomb n bail.  Pork n auger.  Suiciding bombers on cv's.  Carpet bombing gvs.  Have all become to common an occurrence.  It's frowned upon by the majority but still occurs.  Don't let these over kill mission become common occurrence too.  It'll be the down fall of an otherwise enjoyable FUN game for ALL of us.

Quote
I have no objections to missions or the occasional NOE missions.  I'm a strat player like yourself.  What I object to is these rather pathetic skilless over kill missions that have been occurring of late.  I say of late because that's bang on.  I'm not sat here saying "in ye olden days it was like this blah blah".  I've been here since 2002 and the only time I witnessed a mission like these was over 4 years ago.  A 30 man Lgay mission by, of all people, GHI.  The first eastern block mission planner   

These types of over kill missions are becoming a little to frequent.  I would hate them to become acceptable.  I would loath them to be adapted by all sides.  I think there bad for game play on the whole but using your Hitech example neither of us know what their thinking.  So lets hypothesis.  Say they do change something like making the mission planner have a maximum of 12 players per mission from any given field.  What would you do then.  Roll with the punches as in the case of ENY, split arenas, the same small maps for months on end.  Would you adapt or just say "oh heck the games not fun anymore.  I'm outta here"

See the underlining theme here "OVER KILL MISSION"...not your poxy every day mission win or fail.  I'm talking 20+ to a vbase / port.  If you don't see that as over kill.  If you don't see that as detrimentle to the game.   Talk about out of touch....dude you take the biscuit.


P.S whats a warm and fuzzy?

P.P.S whats this then?  An every day mission, Scotch mist or over kill.

 (http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc288/lynx-AH/ahss41-1.jpg)



 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 12:34:55 PM
I'm not posting here about "mission" per sa (spelling).  I'm posting about "over kill missions" in context to the OP thread about poor game play, to places like ports and vbases.  As much as you've confused or dismissed that FACT my observations stand true.  As your good bud thndregg will testify. 

See the underlining theme here "OVER KILL MISSION"...not your poxy every day mission win or fail.  I'm talking 20+ to a vbase / port.  If you don't see that as over kill.  If you don't see that as detrimentle to the game.   Talk about out of touch....dude you take the biscuit.

"Dude", um if thats how you prefer, Any mission that you would consider to be overkill can only be justified upon arrival of a base, having too little to accomplish or too many to accomplish the goal in said mission can be dictated by the unknown.  That unknown is dictated by the resistance encountered.  So, high en site is 20/20, knowing if it was overkill is something determined after the fact. 

Bases can be taken with as little as 1 to as many as infinite, its dictated by the resistance or potential of resistance of what may be encountered. 

This snapshot has been used many times, and I for one was not involved and am not aware of the outcome of that mission. However, had I been I would have attacked the remaining bases in that area, if this was the result of this mission, bravo for them, if it wasnt then its was a poor use of the resources that mission planner had. Nothing more.


These types of over kill missions are becoming a little to frequent.  I would hate them to become acceptable. 

There is nothing wrong with my engrish, I pretty much understood what you said here, that they are becoming a little to frequent, Again, my comment stated the opposite.  You still disagree?   I will post it for you.....

As for lynx saying he is seeing MORE of these missions, Your out of touch or your making it up, As for Bish goes, I see less of these missions than the last several years and many longtime bish will agree with that.  I do recall seeing many missions posted over and over with missions in the past, there is nowhere near that amount going on now.

Maybe running them more often and at the same pace as the past will jog your memory and give you a warm and fuzzy.

So which is it, out of touch, or just making it up, your comprehension?   :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 21, 2009, 01:07:42 PM
(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8126/bishopmissions.jpg)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 21, 2009, 01:09:18 PM
So the horde complaints have now spawned political cartoon artists?  Falcon sir, your fame is growing!

 :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 01:15:59 PM

Cute, You could actually plug many different things into that cartoon,,,,, But way to go Falcon, you have officially hit the Bigtime....  :lol


Riddle me this one......


(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/Fallen-Tree-Watson-Lake-L.jpg)

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 21, 2009, 01:22:37 PM
Cute, You could actually plug many different things into that cartoon,,,,, But way to go Falcon, you have officially hit the Bigtime....  :lol


Riddle me this one......


(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/Fallen-Tree-Watson-Lake-L.jpg)



Nope you can't hear it! :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 01:24:21 PM
Nope you can't hear it! :rofl

 :rofl

True, but not what I had in mind, a little more deeper than that.......    :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 01:31:17 PM

(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/Fallen-Tree-Watson-Lake-L.jpg)

Think of it like this.   You ever seen what appears to be a tall, strong, tree near a river bed or lake, the tree seems healthy and strong with its roots firmly planted in the ground, eventually over time its roots become exposed, and over more time the gentle waves splash upon the roots slowly but surely eroding and exposing the roots of that massive tree.  Eventually the soil is gone to an extent that the big ol tree cannot sustain its posture and it falls to the effects of the gentle waves below. 

Some of these Long Standing players that have grown to be this Tall overbearing tree are withering slowly but surely to the waves of change.  They don't like it, they sense it, but cant do anything about it.  The root of their arguments are getting weaker and weaker, and sure enough it wont be long till they fall.   ;)


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 21, 2009, 01:33:12 PM
I couldn't wait. In my old job, I used a chainsaw and a chipper.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 21, 2009, 01:36:10 PM
Oh i get it!

The tree is V192, toppled under the weight of many heroes. The forrest in the background represents the multitude of other bases to be captured, running endlessly into the distance. The water is obviously there to facilitate easier NOE flying without the risk of tree strikes.

very profound, i like it Dads :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 21, 2009, 01:38:13 PM
Egads!  I was thinking quite shallow! :lol  I understand your point Dad.  It has grown quite tiresome.  I do know this...The only constant thing in life is change.  You either embrace it, or you can try to fight it until it grinds you under.  There is no disrespect meant to any of these folks, but the way things were, will never be again.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 01:48:06 PM
There is no disrespect meant to any of these folks, but the way things were, will never be again.

Agreed, it isn't about disrespecting them, its helping them understand that we understand as well, that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few that think someone elses game play is lame because THEY said so.

Change:its a daily part of our lives that at times can be hard to face
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 21, 2009, 02:26:11 PM
Agreed, it isn't about disrespecting them, its helping them understand that we understand as well, that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few that think someone elses game play is lame because THEY said so.

Change:its a daily part of our lives that at times can be hard to face

Change? 

What does anything that you or yours do have the slightest thing about change?

As was already pointed out there is nothing that you do that is either new, unique or special.  Griefers and dweebs have done exactly what you do for decades now.  Don't try to come across as some sort of innovator or a harbinger of what is the "future" of the game.

You are no different than any noob who for the past 30 ish years has tried to take shortcuts and thinks they have a clue.  They ALL thought as you do and considered themself "special" and what they were doing "unique".

They weren't, you aren't, and it isn't.

You are at a stage.

A point in the learning curve.

Pure and simple.

Most players eventually see the limitations of that stage and grow out of it.

Hopefull you will as well, but unfortunately not all do.

There will be another along soon enough that thinks they are reinventing the wheel who will do exactly as you are doing and think it is "the future of the game!!!"  (lmao @ change)

I'll give you a perfect example.  A few years back, a similar cartoon was posted on the BBS.  It was about the BOPs.  Going back much further I can cite certain Az squads that flew AOL AirWarrior that probably had a similar cartoon posted about them.  I am equally sure if one was to go back to AirWarrior on GENIE we can find another group.  This conversation we are having has happened time and again on forums like this one going back to the late 1980's.

It has all been done before.  It's not change, it is more of the same. It is a very typical stage that many noobs have gone through from the inception of online ww2 flight sims.  I find it hilarious (and somewhat sad) that you think that you are unique in any way what so ever in this matter. 

You sir, are not. 

You are just another in a long line of players that think they have a clue, but in reality don't. 

Some day you might grow out of this limited stage of the AcesHigh learning curve you find yourself  at, look back at some of the garbage you have posted, and laugh at what a weenie clueless noob you were.

It has happened countless times in the past, and will happen countless times in the future.

*snicker* change......    :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on April 21, 2009, 02:42:56 PM
 :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 21, 2009, 03:58:57 PM
Quote from: WMLute
I am equally sure if one was to go back to AirWarrior on GENIE we can find another group. 


The Aggies (Aggressors). Wadda hoot. Funny you should bring it up Lute, I was just thinking about the Aggies making similar arguements....and being similarly clueless as to how they appeared to everyone else.  :rofl


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 21, 2009, 04:01:24 PM
If it has all been done before, then why are folks complaining?  Has'nt that been done before also?  Based on your premise, it will all occur again anyway(sounds kinda like the Matrix LOL). 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DCCBOSS on April 21, 2009, 04:26:50 PM
To all the nay Sayers IE: the Lute & lynx type people, who really cares what you guys think, we do not pay our money to you and I'm sorry to say your version of all events that happen in the AH world are not the end all or be all of what should or should not take place. My take is this if you don't like the way we take your bases, you don't like the way we fight (not within your tiny little acceptance area) then come and stop us, you claim to be so good at what it should be all about then put up or shut up, this redundant whining from you people is getting ridiculous.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 04:53:49 PM
Change? 

I know your alot slow, but the change that I was referring to is as stated in the rest of my quote that you failed to acknowledge, its along the lines of acceptance, it is what it is and for 20 years now you have posted your lame responses to anything indifferent and its got you nowhere..... Accept it.   :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 21, 2009, 05:03:37 PM
To all the nay Sayers IE: the Lute & lynx type people, who really cares what you guys think, we do not pay our money to you and I'm sorry to say your version of all events that happen in the AH world are not the end all or be all of what should or should not take place. My take is this if you don't like the way we take your bases, you don't like the way we fight (not within your tiny little acceptance area) then come and stop us, you claim to be so good at what it should be all about then put up or shut up, this redundant whining from you people is getting ridiculous.   

If only it was that easy.

You left out the fact that these types go to great lengths to avoid any type of opposition what so ever.  It is not so much "come and stop us" as "when the scary bad men show up we give up and find another empty piece of real estate".  Heck, their whole gameplay "style" is to avoid the nme at all cost. 

Dads is the only one whining here.  All I have done is point out the reality of the situation.  He is the one jumping up and down with his fingers in his ears screaming "i'm special! I'M SPECIAL!!  Listen to Me!!!!  My ideas are new and unique!!!"

Heck, I get a kick out of it.  It's like watching a child trying to be "sneaky" and and all the adults are laughing behind their hands because it is obvious to them what the kid is trying to do.  They have seen it a million times, it's hillariously obvious, but the child thinks they are being slick and pulling the wool over everybodies eyes.


Waystin, I am not, have not, or will not complain about anything in this thread.  I have merely pointed out the obvious.  "'Dems da' facts" as it were.  Not the facts from my perspective.  Not my opinion.  It's the reality of the situation.

I am sure I will have this same conversation with dozens of other players in the future.  Just as I have had this conversation with dozens of players in the past.  As was already posted it's a cycle.  All I can do is lead the horse to water.  Whether they choose to drink is up to them.


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 21, 2009, 05:09:08 PM
I know your alot slow, but the change that I was referring to is as stated in the rest of my quote that you failed to acknowledge, its along the lines of acceptance, it is what it is and for 20 years now you have posted your lame responses to anything indifferent and its got you nowhere..... Accept it.   :)

I know I are alot slow too mmmmm hmmm....  ('taters)

My "lame responses to anything indifferent"?  Do pray tell where 'indifference' came into anything we have been discussing.  I am not quite sure I can make heads or tails of what you just posted, or what you were going for when you posted it.

(quick sidebar:  If you are going to infer that someone is not very bright, you just MIGHT want to make sure your post is at least somewhat coherent.  You COULD go w/ the "it is obvious I'm not very intelligent" approach but I don't really think that "fits" in this particular situation.  Up to you though)

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: smokey23 on April 21, 2009, 05:16:47 PM
Theres nothing new here at all, im with lute on this its the same old way of doing things just that the sheep have a new shepperd. Change?? leave the change to obama and the rest of the washington scum. I was at V10 the night in question and couldnt help but laugh at the 25 or so planes hordeing the base and couldnt take it. I spent most of the time driveing around avoideing falcon23 in his divebombing B-24's.Those divebombing sets of large bombers is a topic that has been brought up in many threads(gamey). The reason they couldnt take the base is because those dweebs attempting to clear the base augered more times than the actually knocked out a vehicle.NOOBS?? i'll let others decide.The only reason the base was even takein was because they horded both bases A9 and V10 with a cv and ground based aircraft. After they took 9 they horded V10 with 30 tanks and 30 planes how can anyone consider that a fun fight. The fact still stands that the whole 30+ horde gameplay is just a landgrabbers way of feeling superior and the leaders of such missions are looking for the accalades from the uninformed new players.Once the newbs get better and see the light they may come to the realization that resetting maps gets old after a while and theres more to this game than that.Thats the reason falcon left the mob was because we didnt choose to up NOE lancasters every 5 minutes and we werent into constant landgrabbing just for the sake of resetting a givin map.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 21, 2009, 05:50:36 PM
IN response to your earlier post tral..You may not know this,but you imply it in your post,that I want TT's  or FT's taken..nothing could be further from the truth..You guys need to stop putting words in peoples mouths...

 I want the FB going on,it keeps other bases free when we go in to take them..I appreciate the FB'ers... :aok And TT'ers :aok

  Fugitive,you keep referring to the MEGA-SQUADS as the ones who HORDE,and nothing could be further from the truth..99% of my missions are country missions..That means you have a problem with the COUNTRY,not the squads..Inserting the MEGA-SQUADS into your posts is merely propaganda...


  Smokey23,25 planes coming into a Vbase that had at least as many defenders as we had coming over..not to mention the ones flying from A9 to help you all out..You guys did a great job,kept it for quite a few hours..But the defense was just as great as the offense..
  That is why one does not see a dar bar at 10 after we took 9...GV's dont show up on the DAR..there were many,but we got them wiped out and took back the base..


  You guys at V10 going to say it wasnt fun defending at V10??landing those WW and ostie kills???You going to say it wasnt a "FUN" fight?? Because if it wasnt fun for you,then why did you stay and defend so vigorously???


  Again,not ONe bish was upset we got those bases back..

 And if,as many of you say,it isnt about taking bases,then why waste your time coming and taking bases like A9 and V10????? If you want a fight and furball,then why dont you guys just fight it out at a closer base on the map,and not take any bases????

                               
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Stang on April 21, 2009, 05:58:44 PM
If it has all been done before, then why are folks complaining?  Has'nt that been done before also?  Based on your premise, it will all occur again anyway(sounds kinda like the Matrix LOL). 
Because back in the day, the arenas were smaller and the community much closer knit.  Tards were shamed mercilessly, constantly, as they should be.  There was no annonymity in numbers.  Pacerrs would stick out like sore thumbs and be castigated for their dweebish behavior. 

Now tards can hide in the crowd and get away with it.  Worse is there's less of those who truly get it vs the hordes of suck, so the hordes of suck infuence newer players much more than those interested in good combat.  TonyJoey's are rare, they become what the become because they aspire to fly and fight better, to improve themselves.  The other just thinks "improvement" is the moving of the country flag from one chess piece to another. 

Do you think the game would be better if we had 1,000 TonyJoey's, or 1,000 falcon's whatever number I've never heard of the guy?...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 21, 2009, 06:03:30 PM
if we had 1000 tonyjoeys i would quit, Its bad enough trying to play koth with one of him.

but otherwise, amen stang.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 21, 2009, 06:04:25 PM
wow, net was freezing up cliicked a bit much.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 21, 2009, 06:05:06 PM
..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 21, 2009, 06:12:09 PM
Do you think the game would be better if we had 1,000 TonyJoey's, or 1,000 falcon's whatever number I've never heard of the guy?...

I think a good mix of both is what makes the game interesting.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 21, 2009, 06:30:23 PM
Agreed, it isn't about disrespecting them, its helping them understand that we understand as well, that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few that think someone elses game play is lame because THEY said so.

Change:its a daily part of our lives that at times can be hard to face

Thats a great statement, to bad you can't adhere to it. If you could you wouldn't be supporting the hordes you fly in/with.

IN response to your earlier post tral..You may not know this,but you imply it in your post,that I want TT's  or FT's taken..nothing could be further from the truth..You guys need to stop putting words in peoples mouths...

 I want the FB going on,it keeps other bases free when we go in to take them..I appreciate the FB'ers... :aok And TT'ers :aok

  Fugitive,you keep referring to the MEGA-SQUADS as the ones who HORDE,and nothing could be further from the truth..99% of my missions are country missions..That means you have a problem with the COUNTRY,not the squads..Inserting the MEGA-SQUADS into your posts is merely propaganda...


  Smokey23,25 planes coming into a Vbase that had at least as many defenders as we had coming over..not to mention the ones flying from A9 to help you all out..You guys did a great job,kept it for quite a few hours..But the defense was just as great as the offense..
  That is why one does not see a dar bar at 10 after we took 9...GV's dont show up on the DAR..there were many,but we got them wiped out and took back the base..


  You guys at V10 going to say it wasnt fun defending at V10??landing those WW and ostie kills???You going to say it wasnt a "FUN" fight?? Because if it wasnt fun for you,then why did you stay and defend so vigorously???


  Again,not ONe bish was upset we got those bases back..

 And if,as many of you say,it isnt about taking bases,then why waste your time coming and taking bases like A9 and V10????? If you want a fight and furball,then why dont you guys just fight it out at a closer base on the map,and not take any bases????

                               


hmmm last time I looked you could set the totals slots open in a mission. 15 Rt's on, you make 15 slots. By opening the mission to 50 people you are advancing poor game play creating a spot for a horde to get together.

if we had 1000 tonyjoeys i would quit, Its bad enough trying to play koth with one of him.

but otherwise, amen stang.

I'd rather tony handing my butt to me all night instead of having to deal with even one horde.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 21, 2009, 06:32:34 PM
NO,I am sorry fugitive,but many times all of RT who are on do not join posted missions..You are assuming again..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 21, 2009, 06:34:39 PM
NO,I am sorry fugitive,but many times all of RT who are on do not join posted missions..You are assuming again..

The point still stands, 15 slots means 15 people. 50 slots means HORDE!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 21, 2009, 06:36:33 PM
So we have come to a defintion..50 is an official "HORDE"?????
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 21, 2009, 06:41:16 PM
So we have come to a defintion..50 is an official "HORDE"?????

A hoard is defined by the amount of opponents.

Three or four planes can be a hoard if there is only one bad guy.

If you run a 50 player mission against a field that has a massive enemy presence it is not a hoard.

It's is not how many players YOU have, it is how many opponents you are attacking.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 21, 2009, 06:45:24 PM

I'd rather tony handing my butt to me all night instead of having to deal with even one horde.


what about a horde of joeys?  :O

(oh and by the way, call him joey he shares the account with his dad, tony)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 21, 2009, 06:46:09 PM
A hoard is defined by the amount of opponents.

Three or four planes can be a hoard if there is only one bad guy.

If you run a 50 player mission against a field that has a massive enemy presence it is not a hoard.

It's is not how many players YOU have, it is how many opponents you are attacking.

To be an opponent, you must choose to oppose. As said before. Darbar is plenty notice that something is on the way. Do we need to lead you by the nose on 200 and say, "Here we are!"?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 21, 2009, 06:46:13 PM
A hoard is defined by the amount of opponents.

Three or four planes can be a hoard if there is only one bad guy.

If you run a 50 player mission against a field that has a massive enemy presence it is not a hoard.

It's is not how many players YOU have, it is how many opponents you are attacking.

 Then,by this defintion lute,the mission onto A9 the other day,which was LESS than 50 BTW was NOT a horde,as there was a MASSIVE enemy presence.... :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on April 21, 2009, 06:50:46 PM
Ah those responses were so predictable. But I'm going to sit this one out.. Yep..Yep...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 21, 2009, 06:53:39 PM
So we have come to a defintion..50 is an official "HORDE"?????



LOL!!! WOW That comment was so funny... whew that was a good laugh !


Maybe thats the issue, you just don't know what a horde is?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 21, 2009, 06:59:11 PM


LOL!!! WOW That comment was so funny... whew that was a good laugh !


Maybe thats the issue, you just don't know what a horde is?

 SO,you telling me that lute didnt post the "RIGHT" specs for a HORDE???

 You mean it  is all relative,and that many people have  their own definition of what A horde is,depending on if their the ones defending,or on the offensive side???? 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 21, 2009, 07:01:44 PM
If you ask me it all comes down to chosing the wrong arena for the right gameplay.

The MA is not a dueling arena. Despite the fact that i am 100% a furballer, dogfighter and generaly have nothing to do with base captures.....I actualy think this one is winging to the land grabbers side, hear me out.


1) A horde is only a horde if there is no opposition. You cannot expect a squad to split onto two sides and fight each other just because the other team doesnt care about the base.

2) If you do not care about bases, then let them take it. What does it matter? It does not hurt anyone if they take an undefended base.

3) If you get caught and 'dishonourably' dispatched by the horde that is your own fault for flying there.

4) Anyone who lies and says they have never once been at a huge advantage and shot at anything with a red icon can stop posting all toether.

5) Its simulated warfare in the MA. When the horde gets you, it is time to rally the troops and fight back not complain that they did not line up for orderly 1 v 1 till you lost.

6) this whole debate is so old even the arguments on the side i agree with, furballing and dogfighting, are getting extremely boring.

7)And finally: Who is it that is being annoyed the most here? Furballers and lone wolfs that is who.
 We are annoyed that sometimes our fights are shut down, land grabbers are annoyed that our fighting serves no purpose but the fight itself. But truly, In this forum debate the furballers are now just plain whining.
It's boring, the MA is what it is, please everyone shut the hell up about it or at the very least get some new material.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 21, 2009, 07:02:50 PM
"Dude", um if thats how you prefer, Any mission that you would consider to be overkill can only be justified upon arrival of a base, having too little to accomplish or too many to accomplish the goal in said mission can be dictated by the unknown.  That unknown is dictated by the resistance encountered.  So, high en site is 20/20, knowing if it was overkill is something determined after the fact. 

Bases can be taken with as little as 1 to as many as infinite, its dictated by the resistance or potential of resistance of what may be encountered. 

So which is it, out of touch, or just making it up, your comprehension?   :lol

In your justification for defending detrimental game play / over kill missions to vbases & ports you appear to be contradicting yourself.  You mention "hindsite" (kinda) in one paragraph and "potential resistance" in the other.  So what your condoning is every mission should expect the worse and cater to that fact.  Letting hindsite be the judge of things after the event.  Do the words "reasonable deduction" strike a cord when pondering, if at all,   :rolleyes: the potential resistance?   .....Comprehend?

This game isn't rocket science  :rolleyes:  .....for some.  A vbase or a port on these terrains are the easiest things to capture UNLESS it's been a standing battle for hours which they weren't I hassen to add.   It really is as SIMPLE as that.  Bearing in mind I've been a first hand witness to one of these missions I say again....it's nothing more than over kill, skilless, weak let alone a completely lazy eastern block tactic.  Throw everything in including the unarmed...read skilless, which unfortunately includes some of the mission makers.  What you can't achieve through skill of this game will fall under the might hammer and sickle of shear numbers. 

This ethos seems out of touch to the advert that brought many new players here--->  "Learn the skills and maneuvers to become an ace".  Tis on the front page if you want to view it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 21, 2009, 07:08:02 PM


LOL!!! WOW That comment was so funny... whew that was a good laugh !


Maybe thats the issue, you just don't know what a horde is?




Does anyone?   3 on 1 is a horde, 20 on 10 is a horde, 50 on 5 is a horde, 25 on 20 is a horde.

A hoard is defined by the amount of opponents.

Three or four planes can be a hoard if there is only one bad guy.

If you run a 50 player mission against a field that has a massive enemy presence it is not a hoard.

It's is not how many players YOU have, it is how many opponents you are attacking.

Y'all can't even decide what a horde is.  Appears to be a horde is whenever the oppsite side doesn't have an advantage, so then it must be a horde.  I guess one has to be psychic to know how many are going to defend, so one would know how many need to attack.  


Fred



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 07:10:40 PM
Agreed, it isn't about disrespecting them, its helping them understand that we understand as well, that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few that think someone elses game play is lame because THEY said so.

Yep, your slow, took you long enough to read the whole post and then you forgot the key note in it... Taters...   :lol

Your excuses are as old as this topic.  I hope I can ruin your fun more often.  My satisfaction will be seeing you continue your rants on here for the next 20 yrs.....  :rofl





Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 21, 2009, 07:13:24 PM
If you ask me it all comes down to chosing the wrong arena for the right gameplay.

The MA is not a dueling arena. Despite the fact that i am 100% a furballer, dogfighter and generaly have nothing to do with base captures.....I actualy think this one is winging to the land grabbers side, hear me out.


1) A horde is only a horde if there is no opposition. You cannot expect a squad to split onto two sides and fight each other just because the other team doesnt care about the base.

2) If you do not care about bases, then let them take it. What does it matter? It does not hurt anyone if they take an undefended base.

3) If you get caught and 'dishonourably' dispatched by the horde that is your own fault for flying there.

4) Anyone who lies and says they have never once been at a huge advantage and shot at anything with a red icon can stop posting all toether.

5) Its simulated warfare in the MA. When the horde gets you, it is time to rally the troops and fight back not complain that they did not line up for orderly 1 v 1 till you lost.

6) this whole debate is so old even the arguments on the side i agree with, furballing and dogfighting, are getting extremely boring.

7)And finally: Who is it that is being annoyed the most here? Furballers and lone wolfs that is who.
 We are annoyed that sometimes our fights are shut down, land grabbers are annoyed that our fighting serves no purpose but the fight itself. But truly, In this forum debate the furballers are now just plain whining.
It's boring, the MA is what it is, please everyone shut the hell up about it or at the very least get some new material.



A big  :aok to you mechanic, this all kidding aside, has to be the most intelligent post of the thread.

 :salute

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 21, 2009, 07:17:03 PM
If you ask me it all comes down to chosing the wrong arena for the right gameplay.

The MA is not a dueling arena. Despite the fact that i am 100% a furballer, dogfighter and generaly have nothing to do with base captures.....I actualy think this one is winging to the land grabbers side, hear me out.


1) A horde is only a horde if there is no opposition. You cannot expect a squad to split onto two sides and fight each other just because the other team doesnt care about the base.

2) If you do not care about bases, then let them take it. What does it matter? It does not hurt anyone if they take an undefended base.

3) If you get caught and 'dishonourably' dispatched by the horde that is your own fault for flying there.

4) Anyone who lies and says they have never once been at a huge advantage and shot at anything with a red icon can stop posting all toether.

5) Its simulated warfare in the MA. When the horde gets you, it is time to rally the troops and fight back not complain that they did not line up for orderly 1 v 1 till you lost.

6) this whole debate is so old even the arguments on the side i agree with, furballing and dogfighting, are getting extremely boring.

7)And finally: Who is it that is being annoyed the most here? Furballers and lone wolfs that is who.
 We are annoyed that sometimes our fights are shut down, land grabbers are annoyed that our fighting serves no purpose but the fight itself. But truly, In this forum debate the furballers are now just plain whining.
It's boring, the MA is what it is, please everyone shut the hell up about it or at the very least get some new material.



+1
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 21, 2009, 07:17:21 PM
See Rule Something....

See Rule Something....

Okay, now that I'm done saying all that...

I don't know where you get your intel from, but a FALCON23 mission with more then 15 is far more rare then you might think.  Once every other month there is a horde of 50...  But that will still bring me, personally, back to the point that Bishop's do not control the Rook/Knit actions.  When I am in one of those missions of 13 people, I'm usually disappointed that you don't come out.  Yet, ever notice when you folk try the same thing, we up?
The point still stands, 15 slots means 15 people. 50 slots means HORDE!

As stated above Fugitive... He's right....... When I'm not on one of those missions, I'm off being horded in my 109 by 4 of you elsewhere... Guess it really is how you see your glass...
NO,I am sorry fugitive,but many times all of RT who are on do not join posted missions..You are assuming again..

Do you?  Ask the same question to five hundred different people, you will get five hundred and one different responses.
Maybe thats the issue, you just don't know what a horde is?



But that's all neither here, there, nor anywhere that is important.  There is a good argument on every side of the debate, yet nobody realizes that every single person that plays the game, gets what they want out of it.  And there isn't much anybody else can do about that.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 21, 2009, 07:33:55 PM
Agreed, it isn't about disrespecting them, its helping them understand that we understand as well, that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few that think someone elses game play is lame because THEY said so.

Change:its a daily part of our lives that at times can be hard to face

Makes me think of Alice, wonder land, and an over sized top hat for some reason.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 07:36:22 PM
Makes me think of Alice, wonder land, and an over sized top hat for some reason.

More jibberish.......  :rolleyes:




So what your condoning is every mission should expect the worse and cater to that fact. 


YES
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 21, 2009, 07:38:18 PM

Is this kind of like the day I shot you down 3 times in a row to kill some tents at an airfield, taking them down at all cost..... and then hide in the "BIG RED DAR"  Is that the kind of avoidance you speak of, help me understand what you mean by avoiding YOU shooting THEM down.   :lol
Lmao..you got 1 proxie on me while I was porking the feild then knowing I had 1 tent left, you and the other 6 spixteens met me at 20k in which 6 of you attacked my heavy typh. in which I did salute you. Please post film if you must.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 21, 2009, 07:40:58 PM
Did you record me killing your bombers last week sir?  I'd really like that film.   :salute

Lmao..you got 1 proxie on me while I was porking the feild then knowing I had 1 tent left, you and the other 6 spixteens met me at 20k in which 6 of you attacked my heavy typh. in which I did salute you. Please post film if you must.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 07:43:49 PM
Lmao..you got 1 proxie on me while I was porking the feild then knowing I had 1 tent left, you and the other 6 spixteens met me at 20k in which 6 of you attacked my heavy typh. in which I did salute you. Please post film if you must.

Tral, that was 1 proxie and 2 kills in the same sortie, I refueled and waited for your return, the last return, there were other cons there on the way to the v bases, 2 sqaudies were there because I told them I just got the proxie on you, and that you would come back since there was 1 tent left,,,, and you did..  I landed 3 kills all from you.  

But you got it at all cost, which I would have done, you were trying to keep the troops disabled, we quickly resupplied and had them back up faster than you could take them down.  

I dont have film of it, but you can easily see that in the score page.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 21, 2009, 07:44:52 PM
In your justification for defending detrimental game play / over kill missions to vbases & ports you appear to be contradicting yourself.  You mention "hindsite" (kinda) in one paragraph and "potential resistance" in the other.  So what your condoning is every mission should expect the worse and cater to that fact.  Letting hindsite be the judge of things after the event.  Do the words "reasonable deduction" strike a cord when pondering, if at all,    the potential resistance?   .....Comprehend?


NO


Fixed
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Lusche on April 21, 2009, 07:45:53 PM
<- Waiting for the final "This is done." post by you-know-who  :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 21, 2009, 07:46:40 PM

  You guys take bases with half that amount,...6/110's 3 niks,and 2 goons???Well congrats ,and good thing you did not have any resistance..

  I put 15 slots for 110's in my missions,I put 10 slots for fighters,and 4 goons,I do not see where that is horrible..I want the town down as FAST as possible,I dont want to sit there and "FONDLE" it..I want it DOWN,and so do the  people who are with me,..

  You want to see A 50 man mission???? that would be the one with 190a8's,when eny has gone through the roof,literally,,and is over 25..

 ANd tral I never said that 12 110's missions were a challenge to me,you put words in my mouth..but I want to be sure when I launch a mission for a particular target,that it goes down the way it is supposed too..and that is that it gets captured..

                                                                         

       

HORDE^^^^^^^^^
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: jollyFE on April 21, 2009, 07:53:32 PM
please end this thread and all others like it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 07:53:45 PM
In your justification for defending detrimental game play / over kill missions to vbases & ports you appear to be contradicting yourself.  You mention "hindsite" (kinda) in one paragraph and "potential resistance" in the other.  So what your condoning is every mission should expect the worse and cater to that fact.  Letting hindsite be the judge of things after the event.  Do the words "reasonable deduction" strike a cord when pondering, if at all,    the potential resistance?   .....Comprehend?

So what are you asking?  Here was my post.

"Dude", um if thats how you prefer, Any mission that you would consider to be overkill can only be justified upon arrival of a base, having too little to accomplish or too many to accomplish the goal in said mission can be dictated by the unknown.  That unknown is dictated by the resistance encountered.  So, high en site is 20/20, knowing if it was overkill is something determined after the fact.  

Bases can be taken with as little as 1 to as many as infinite, its dictated by the resistance or potential of resistance of what may be encountered.  

This snapshot has been used many times, and I for one was not involved and am not aware of the outcome of that mission. However, had I been I would have attacked the remaining bases in that area, if this was the result of this mission, bravo for them, if it wasnt then its was a poor use of the resources that mission planner had. Nothing more.


There is nothing wrong with my engrish, I pretty much understood what you said here, that they are becoming a little to frequent, Again, my comment stated the opposite.  You still disagree?   I will post it for you.....

So which is it, out of touch, or just making it up, your comprehension?   :lol

Point out again where you see any contridiction here.  Its pretty clear to me.  I will gladley explain it if your confused.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 21, 2009, 07:55:45 PM
Tral, that was 1 proxie and 2 kills in the same sortie, I refueled and waited for your return, the last return, there were other cons there on the way to the v bases, 2 sqaudies were there because I told them I just got the proxie on you, and that you would come back since there was 1 tent left,,,, and you did..  I landed 3 kills all from you.  

But you got it at all cost, which I would have done, you were trying to keep the troops disabled, we quickly resupplied and had them back up faster than you could take them down.  

I dont have film of it, but you can easily see that in the score page.
Nope, 1 kill. The first was a proxie from ack. and NOPE there were 6 of you chasing a heavy typh, 3 of which were high about 20k circling the base when I came in. would you like me to post the gangbang and look foolish? you got 1 pick on me the other day at 62 in which I did reply good shot.  Stats dont tell gangbangs remember. 1 guy porking is a far cry from what your saying. maybe I should of asked 50 other guys to come with me and plow the town...that would of been more of an ALL COST sortie.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 21, 2009, 07:58:58 PM
Did you record me killing your bombers last week sir?  I'd really like that film.   :salute

Lol..that was good..I admit..nice shooting
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 21, 2009, 08:00:36 PM
When will the madness stop!!!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 21, 2009, 08:00:46 PM
<SALUTE>
Lol..that was good..I admit..nice shooting
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 21, 2009, 08:01:33 PM
Nope, 1 kill. The first was a proxie from ack. and NOPE there were 6 of you chasing a heavy typh, 3 of which were high about 20k circling the base when I came in. would you like me to post the gangbang and look foolish? you got 1 pick on me the other day at 62 in which I did reply good shot.  Stats dont tell gangbangs remember. 1 guy porking is a far cry from what your saying. maybe I should of asked 50 other guys to come with me and plow the town...that would of been more of an ALL COST sortie.

Post what you feel you must, But I have 3 kills of a Typh that was flown by you.  1 proxie, 2 kills, landed 3.   :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 21, 2009, 08:09:23 PM
  No opinion on the subject lusche??? just curious if you have one.. :salute

 Why shut it down? It has stayed relatively civil..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Oldman731 on April 21, 2009, 08:12:35 PM
4) Anyone who lies and says they have never once been at a huge advantage and shot at anything with a red icon can stop posting all toether.

...well...er...but I'm still stuck on that tree thing....

So if I understand the point of the tree picture, it's that creeping rot is a good thing...is that it...?

- oldman (haven't been so confused since 10th grade English class)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 21, 2009, 09:56:50 PM
So no replies to This Post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262689.msg3275278.html#msg3275278) ? I'm surprised. maybe I made sense in that one.

I know what a horde is, and I'm sure you do as well, not that any of you will admit it. You can continue on using your sledge hammers where a tack hammer will do. You continue to take the combat out of the game. More and more new player will emulate you and plan the same mission. Eventually thats all it will be, who can launch the biggest group, who can get to the bases fastest. The hordes will avoid one another again because they can't fight so it won't happen, besides if you were to loose a couple of players you might not have enough to steam roll the base.

Eventually you'll all get board with that, or COD 5 will come out and HTC will loose a bunch of subscribers and then He'll put his foot down to "fix" things again. Then we will have 6-12 months of people complaining about the fixes... and on and on it will go. I was hoping to see some people stand up and say ya know, that is kinda lame. or maybe, ya we can do better, but I guess mediocre is all you were aiming for and ya'll have hit the target well.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 22, 2009, 12:35:37 AM
Surprise surprise surprise. This issue hasn't been settled  :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TwentyFo on April 22, 2009, 01:51:29 AM
Tral, that was 1 proxie and 2 kills in the same sortie, I refueled and waited for your return, the last return, there were other cons there on the way to the v bases, 2 sqaudies were there because I told them I just got the proxie on you, and that you would come back since there was 1 tent left,,,, and you did..  I landed 3 kills all from you.  

But you got it at all cost, which I would have done, you were trying to keep the troops disabled, we quickly resupplied and had them back up faster than you could take them down.  

I dont have film of it, but you can easily see that in the score page.

You should really think about leaving the RT. Why are u still there?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: kilo2 on April 22, 2009, 04:32:55 AM
"Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine".
-Ralph Waldo Emerson-

Many of you should really think about this quote. :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: diaster on April 22, 2009, 04:33:18 AM
Simple.
1. All you guys, your word is yours alone, make it impeccable.
2. Don't take it personal - a HO attempt or horde as anyone defines it is a reflection on the other guy, not you.
3. Don't make assumptions - Ask questions
4. Always do your best.
5. Put your ego away, do not let it run you.
 Do these things and 200 will get quiet. Non horders will fly in remoter areas (or DA), looking for glory. Horders will be looking for glory in the pack.

You see guys, following the West Point Way of Leadership, if you are not in a position to change things, shut up until you are (start your own MMO fighter plane game thingy). Anything else is just stirring the pot. If you don't like it here, leave. Your wishes or beliefs can not, will not and must not be forced on others. Think Islamic Jihad or Crusades or the Inquisition, all think they were right, non were (by my definition).

You see, it's simple. All you unhappy with bad game play guys, u r the problem... If you are dying, you did something wrong, else you wouldn't be dead. You either didn't reverse right, check six every few, failed to avoid a losing fight, took on a horde (enemy too numerous for you) or you didn't turn from the HO (even for me a simple thing to avoid). Don't blame anyone else, you are dead. dead is dead. Blame yourself!


I will fight my fight as best I can, no amount 200 based noodling will get me to fight yours. If you don't want me to HO ( I will after the first merge, if that angle is my best bet) then don't shoot at me. I will not "pick" unless someone calls for help (after all this is a team based game) If I am in a heavy fast plane, I will not turn fight with a spit. If I am in a NIK I will not try to go into the vertical with a zoomer. But both enemy pilots will groan about it on 200 though :-)

Well, For now many of you can kill me in short order. That will not always be the case (I hope). I do enjoy the many facets of this game. When the enjoyment stops I will leave it, not bellyache about it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 22, 2009, 05:33:09 AM
You should really think about leaving the RT. Why are u still there?


Why do you care?

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: A8TOOL on April 22, 2009, 05:54:32 AM



(http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:xsMJPiFDX7qwBM:http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj167/Dwendel23/Shepley-Rolling-Eyes-10-2--7-775807.jpg)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:dGgM9-fUZyf5bM:http://fearlessblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/soapbox.jpg)

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 22, 2009, 06:28:34 AM
C,mon guys, I'm beggin ya!

Start arguing about somethin else , will ya?

(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1783/103659g001fm4.jpg)

Its been an absolutley riveting 2000 pages of intelligent conversation.

But like a good furball, it can't last forever.






Or can it??  :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 22, 2009, 07:03:27 AM
I just find it funny that there are people in this thread who think that mission planners should somehow know how many enemy planes will up to defend, then plan the mission accordingly...

Or maybe once they get to the enemy base, count how many enemy planes up to defend and send an appropriate number of friendlies home...

"C'mon guys....  I need eight volunteers to go home or bail out...  Wouldn't want to be a horde here..."   :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TequilaChaser on April 22, 2009, 08:18:35 AM
Agreed, it isn't about disrespecting them, its helping them understand that we understand as well, that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few that think someone elses game play is lame because THEY said so.

Change:its a daily part of our lives that at times can be hard to face

I am just now starting to read this long thread, and will come back and reply after siphering thru it all.........

but what stands out at this immediate time is your post, Dadsguns, talking about:
that as a community, TOGETHER, have to work at improving game play, participation, growth, for the benefit of the game, but do it with responsibility, where Everyone can enjoy the game, not dictated by a few


you speak it, as if you understand what needs to happen.........but you do not take into consideration why HTC ( hitech, pyro, skuzzy etc..) have made the past game changes to try and curtail the current actions of what some squads/groups/unearthly gang ups, keep on insisting is the so called proper way to play!

they stopped the fuel from being killed/knocked down to 25% at bases, they have made squad limits to be a set 32 members, they have ended up making Arena splits to divide and spread out the LARGE GROUPS to make it more even battlefield and they changed the landscape and base capture rules to winning the wargame........

HTC will keep on coming up with new ways to try and curtail the insistent actions that these groups keep on insisting is improving game play, insisting is participation growth ( for whom your side only?), insisting it is responsible better game play........

don't cry when HTC decides to limit the arenas to lets say 100 or 64 or 32 people max........and takes away capturing countries or sides.........

you already said it yourself.........
Quote
Change:its a daily part of our lives that at times can be hard to face

so accept what comes from the makers when it happens and don't cry wolf or foul about it , if it happens.........

I'll still be here teaching proper etiquette and proper game play as my elders taught me "20 years ago"   :salute

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 22, 2009, 08:26:22 AM
I just find it funny that there are people in this thread who think that mission planners should somehow know how many enemy planes will up to defend, then plan the mission accordingly...

Or maybe once they get to the enemy base, count how many enemy planes up to defend and send an appropriate number of friendlies home...

"C'mon guys....  I need eight volunteers to go home or bail out...  Wouldn't want to be a horde here..."   :rolleyes:



No there is no way of knowing "how many", but thats suppose to be part of the fun. There is also common sense which a lot of these people show very little of.  20 guys for most bases, I'd take 25 for a large base. That is the max, bringing 50, AND hiding them in the trees the whole way is over kill, and lame.

20 guys means you have to co-ordinate, plan out the attack, and use some skill to take out what your assigned to take out, This make people more responsible... because the rest of the team is counting on them... so they strive to get better. Also there is no guaranty that your team will win, which adds excitement to the mission. You get a small touch of being in the war, the bit of the sweaty palm syndrome, your heart beats a bit faster the closer you get to battle. As corky jr says "...for just a couple minutes you loose your self in the game".

Of course many of you have no idea what I'm talking about, or think you do, but never have experienced it so your version is a pale substitute. As long as you hide in the horde you'll never know this type of fun because as a horde you really can't loose. Sure a bunch of you get sent to the tower, but "you did capture another base", good for you. If you stay in the horde, you'll never become anything more than mediocre at anything in the game. For those few of you that might read these "debates" and start thinking "I'll prove them wrong" and start learning more, practicing at things to get better, you'll find yourself getting to the "battle" and find you can't use those skills you worked so hard to build because the other 30+ guys in the mission flatten everything....again.

Thats when you'll finally step out of the horde. You'll know there is more that you can do in this game and you'll want to do it. The rest of us who have already done so await your revelation, for some of you there IS hope.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 22, 2009, 08:43:24 AM
I am mediocre to very bad in some areas of AH, but to improve on that is not why I play. Other priorities in real life matter to me more than improving my game play here. So I choose not to devote time-on-end to this. That's what I do with my $15. This is just a weekend hobby when I'm that damn bored.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 22, 2009, 09:24:24 AM
In your justification for defending detrimental game play / over kill missions to vbases & ports you appear to be contradicting yourself.  You mention "hindsite" (kinda) in one paragraph and "potential resistance" in the other.  So what your condoning is every mission should expect the worse and cater to that fact.  Letting hindsite be the judge of things after the event.  Do the words "reasonable deduction" strike a cord when pondering, if at all,    the potential resistance?   .....Comprehend?

So what are you asking?  Here was my post.

"Dude", um if thats how you prefer, Any mission that you would consider to be overkill can only be justified upon arrival of a base, having too little to accomplish or too many to accomplish the goal in said mission can be dictated by the unknown.  That unknown is dictated by the resistance encountered.  So, high en site is 20/20, knowing if it was overkill is something determined after the fact. 

Bases can be taken with as little as 1 to as many as infinite, its dictated by the resistance or potential of resistance of what may be encountered.  

Point out again where you see any contridiction here.  Its pretty clear to me.  I will gladley explain it if your confused.

OK....long and protracted explanation is needed here.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp other than your oppsing opinion being in conflict with mine.  However, facts are facts and as much as you are Rumfeld-esk about known unknowns of the unknown etc I'll spell my standpoint out.

I'm not making comments on the everyday missions, NOE or otherwise, that some have commented on earlier.  I'm talking about over kill missions in context to this thread. 

You cannot deny that ports and vbases are the easiest bases to capture.  Yes! you can go "ah but" ships in port with dry spawn or the battle been raging at the vbases for ages.  To which I would say "fair enough" let slip the dogs of war.  BUT this is NOT what I'm talking about or more to the point been WITNESS to.  I'm talking about 20+ guys on a vbase / port that's had little to no activity.  This is my standpoint when we consider poor game play. 

You on the other hand condone the method above with "potential resistance".  As pointed out this game isn't rocket science.  When assessing prior to the attack one checks for dar bars at and around the intended target.  Is this not correct?  One see's if friendly air or Gv's are already there.  Is this not correct?.  One has a reasonable assessment of the potential resistance and caters for it.  Is this not correct?   Yet you wrote ....

Quote
Any mission that you would consider to be overkill can only be justified upon arrival of a base, having too little to accomplish or too many to accomplish the goal in said mission can be dictated by the unknown.  That unknown is dictated by the resistance encountered.  So, high en site is 20/20, knowing if it was overkill is something determined after the fact.


The contradiction lays here.  I'm afraid hindsite , if I coulda, woulda, shoulda is not part of the equation when putting slots in a mission.  Over kill missions are premeditated.  The over kill mission has already assessed the potential resistance by means of reasonable deduction but sledge hammers the lightly defended base any way.   Again...this is weak, skilless, lazy and a tad eastern block.  It's land grabbing for the sake of it.  These mission builders may as well host a LAN.  They can at least be assured of no resistance as they troop merrily around having fun  :rolleyes:

Do you not see this as poor game play? 





Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 22, 2009, 09:28:14 AM
LYNX, sadly they don't.   They'll always have to "be correct".
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 22, 2009, 09:55:47 AM
I am mediocre to very bad in some areas of AH, but to improve on that is not why I play. Other priorities in real life matter to me more than improving my game play here. So I choose not to devote time-on-end to this. That's what I do with my $15. This is just a weekend hobby when I'm that damn bored.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  Many do exactly the same on a weekend.  However game play issues do concern me.  I've seen the powers to be change things over the past....to curb game play issues and of cause to preserve and expand uppon their revenue.

by me
Quote
using your Hitech example neither of us know what their thinking.  So lets hypothesis.  Say they do change something like making the mission planner have a maximum of 12 players per mission from any given field.  What would you do then.  Roll with the punches as in the case of ENY, split arenas, the same small maps for months on end.  Would you adapt or just say "oh heck the games not fun anymore.  I'm outta here"

Would you care to comment on the above quote?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 22, 2009, 10:17:01 AM
LYNX, sadly they don't.   They'll always have to "be correct".

"They", can be a bit two sided, don't you think?

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 10:17:08 AM

When assessing prior to the attack one checks for dar bars at and around the intended target.  For the most part, Yes.  Having a dar bar or not does not prevent such an attack, it may determine the approach, but not a go/no go criteria.

One see's if friendly air or Gv's are already there.  Usually NO, Sometimes Yes,  but not a requirement either way.

One has a reasonable assessment of the potential resistance and caters for it.  No.  As stated below.  At any time you can have 1 person up to defend or 50, you never will know.     

Yet you wrote ....

"Any mission that you would consider to be overkill can only be justified upon arrival of a base, having too little to accomplish or too many to accomplish the goal in said mission can be dictated by the unknown.  That unknown is dictated by the resistance encountered.  So, high en site is 20/20, knowing if it was overkill is something determined after the fact.  

Bases can be taken with as little as 1 to as many as infinite, its dictated by the resistance or potential of resistance of what may be encountered."


The contradiction lays here.  I'm afraid hindsite , if I coulda, woulda, shoulda is not part of the equation when putting slots in a mission.  Over kill missions are premeditated.  The over kill mission has already assessed the potential resistance by means of reasonable deduction but sledge hammers the lightly defended base any way.   Again...this is weak, skilless, lazy and a tad eastern block.  It's land grabbing for the sake of it.  These mission builders may as well host a LAN.  They can at least be assured of no resistance as they troop merrily around having fun  :rolleyes:

Do you not see this as poor game play?  No.  

IMO, As for the example mission used its not poor game play, the poor thing about it is the poor use of the resources in that mission.  I am not defending the action of all those guys hitting the V-Base only, I am identifying the fact that the mission planner did not use what he had in the mission properly.  

As for what is perceived as an over kill mission, because any mission could be perceived or has a potential of being as seen as overkill, I have stated that they are determined to be over kill after the mission arrives depending on the probability of resistance they may encounter.  All it would take is for someone to spot an NOE or an inbound mission and the resistance will escalate, so that probability or potential of a response in escalation is what has to be factored.

I have ran missions myself and have seen it done many times before where the intent was to have a few bombers or fighters and once it was posted more than needed were joining,  But by modifying the mission so that all 20 people hit multiple bases or dictate roles that would further use those assets that would not be wasted on a v base as this example illustrates is the key.

I hope this clarifies it a bit.    


No there is no way of knowing "how many", but thats suppose to be part of the fun. There is also common sense which a lot of these people show very little of.  20 guys for most bases, I'd take 25 for a large base. That is the max, bringing 50, AND hiding them in the trees the whole way is over kill, and lame.

20 guys means you have to co-ordinate, plan out the attack, and use some skill to take out what your assigned to take out, This make people more responsible... because the rest of the team is counting on them... so they strive to get better. Also there is no guaranty that your team will win, which adds excitement to the mission. You get a small touch of being in the war, the bit of the sweaty palm syndrome, your heart beats a bit faster the closer you get to battle. As corky jr says "...for just a couple minutes you loose your self in the game".

I agree with you for the most part of your statement, what I dont agree with is what you assuming these missions are 50 man missions.  I rarely see them near 25 even for a large base, much less than that for a V-base.  50 would have to be some crazy one time mission.   

No disrespect intended when I say this, but we cannot make a mountain out of a mole hill by stating that 30+ man missions are the norm, they are a rarity
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 22, 2009, 10:39:27 AM
"They", can be a bit two sided, don't you think?

Fred

Not in this case.   This thread is still continuing via the same stupidity and ignorance on Page 2.   The same three squad members haven't begun to decipher fact from their own "fantasy".   

But, please continue. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Stang on April 22, 2009, 10:40:21 AM
WOOOO how's that Brawndo taste, ya'll???


 :confused:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 10:48:35 AM
  I hope I can ruin your fun more often.  My satisfaction will be seeing you continue your rants on here for the next 20 yrs.....  :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 22, 2009, 11:04:55 AM
Questions-Does HTC enable this so called bad game play by making it possible to have so many slots available in a planned mission?  Would it change the behavior if HTC limited mission slots?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: sunfan1121 on April 22, 2009, 11:10:57 AM
Questions-Does HTC enable this so called bad game play by making it possible to have so many slots available in a planned mission?  Would it change the behavior if HTC limited mission slots?
It's not a gameplay problem, it's a mind set. you can't change natural human behavior no matter how hard u try.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 22, 2009, 11:19:39 AM
Not quibbling with you one bit on this one Suns, I agree about the mindset thing.  My thought is that if HTC does not make these limits then they tacitly approve of said super horde missions.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 22, 2009, 11:28:58 AM
Questions-Does HTC enable this so called bad game play by making it possible to have so many slots available in a planned mission?  Would it change the behavior if HTC limited mission slots?

Limiting the number of slots isn't really what I meant to say, because in reality it could be possible to have large numbers in A mission. Its the scope of the missions, mission plans that is the issue.

I remember one night as a Bish a number of years ago. Tzr was CO of the Mafia and put together a "Bish" squad night. There was 6-7 squads involved, as well as a bunch of singles that tagged along. He was hitting 3, 4, sometimes 5 bases at a time. He co-ordinated everything from the tower, and had a bunch of "field commanders" for lack of a better word. As people towered they called in for instructions and were given new orders..."you three swing in with hvy fighters and help out the Bucc's at A147, they got a bit more resistance there" or a squad would finish a battle and regroup for a new attack, either on the same base because the first faltered, or on a new one because they captured. Whole squads ran supplies to bring a field back up quick. It was a fun night for friend and foe alike.

Could he have taken everyone and hit a single base one after the other all night? Sure ! but it wouldn't have nearly as much fun, and the enemy fields would have dropped one after the other with ease. The players on the opposing team wouldn't have had any fun being crushed over and over again, and would have logged in discuss.

Numbers isn't the problem, it how they are used. 20 guys hiding under an NOE for a V base is about as lame as it gets, but 5 guys running NOE for a V base isn't such an issue. 5 guys chasing a single bogie is Lame, but a pair of wingman working a single guy isn't.  
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 11:29:09 AM
Not quibbling with you one bit on this one Suns, I agree about the mindset thing.  My thought is that if HTC does not make these limits then they tacitly approve of said super horde missions.

It is within the parameters of the game, you could have 100 in a mission if you wanted.  
Even if you limited it to 10 in a mission, you would still be able to coordinate 10 more on another.  It appears to be more along the lines of responsible and reasonable mission planning, but that is the human factor, how would you control that?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DCCBOSS on April 22, 2009, 11:29:35 AM
No there is no way of knowing "how many", but thats suppose to be part of the fun. There is also common sense which a lot of these people show very little of.  20 guys for most bases, I'd take 25 for a large base. That is the max, bringing 50, AND hiding them in the trees the whole way is over kill, and lame.

20 guys means you have to co-ordinate, plan out the attack, and use some skill to take out what your assigned to take out, This make people more responsible... because the rest of the team is counting on them... so they strive to get better. Also there is no guaranty that your team will win, which adds excitement to the mission. You get a small touch of being in the war, the bit of the sweaty palm syndrome, your heart beats a bit faster the closer you get to battle. As corky jr says "...for just a couple minutes you loose your self in the game".

Of course many of you have no idea what I'm talking about, or think you do, but never have experienced it so your version is a pale substitute. As long as you hide in the horde you'll never know this type of fun because as a horde you really can't loose. Sure a bunch of you get sent to the tower, but "you did capture another base", good for you. If you stay in the horde, you'll never become anything more than mediocre at anything in the game. For those few of you that might read these "debates" and start thinking "I'll prove them wrong" and start learning more, practicing at things to get better, you'll find yourself getting to the "battle" and find you can't use those skills you worked so hard to build because the other 30+ guys in the mission flatten everything....again.

Thats when you'll finally step out of the horde. You'll know there is more that you can do in this game and you'll want to do it. The rest of us who have already done so await your revelation, for some of you there IS hope.


Well I understand your assumption that when we ( RT ) up a mission it is always in large numbers, this is not true, although on occasion we do have large missions we do normally operate somewhat along the lines of what you are saying on a smaller scale mainly using squadmates and not all who are on line at that time are in the mission, like you said they may be running proactive / supporting sorties all part of our planning process to other bases, so when you really get down to it we are not that far off of what you may consider good game play. Now as far as fur balls I can attest to the fact we do get into and will stay engaged in a fur ball and you have shot me down a few times, I can speak for 99% of our squad will not run from a fight we will however extend to gain altitude to deal with the astronauts, I also have to say that most of our long term members have been getting better at ACM tactics, we train every Tuesday in the TA just for that purpose, this also would follow along with what you saying if we are training in ACM tactics surely that would not be for running horde missions would it.

That all being said you longer term members to AH have become very good at ACM tactics so your opponents seem more and more to be lacking the right skills to satisfy your needs of what you want to see from them but everbody advances on different curves some are slower than others, now I can only speak for myself, my skills are getting better but not as good as some of the uber sticks yet, I will get there but in the meantime I will not run from a fight and that I can say about anyone of my squadmates and I will fight till I die or you do, we are not score mongers so for the most part we don't care if we get killed of course we prefer not to die but it all part of the deal, you can't make a omelet without breaking some eggs.  
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 22, 2009, 11:31:39 AM
Not in this case.   This thread is still continuing via the same stupidity and ignorance on Page 2.   The same three squad members haven't begun to decipher fact from their own "fantasy".   

But, please continue. 

You consider this the real world?

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 11:41:32 AM
It's not a gameplay problem, it's a mind set. you can't change natural human behavior no matter how hard u try.
The dweeb is strong with this one!  Sunsfan - open your mind to the immense potential of acmlessness and absolutely indiscriminate field porking and steamrolling dorkness, to the ways of the horde! Now!!  Repent your ways as an elitist bent on perfidious evangelism for so-called "balanced" and "quality" dogfights, and JOIN the might of our awesome amoebic land grabbing powers!!  Renounce their subversive "fighting" agenda!  Be ONE with the lemming hive mind, let it guide your joystick not with pretentious tacticism but with inspired stick stirs and negative G, spray and pray, and HO-rams for the gregarious good of your amoebic brethren!  Do not burden yourself with SA but glide on blissfully uninterrupted parabolic trajectories from CV to field and deliver the horde's package to those damned Fighter Hangars!! 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 11:44:38 AM
The dweeb is strong with this one!  Sunsfan - open your mind to the immense potential of acmlessness and absolutely indiscriminate field porking and steamrolling dorkness, to the ways of the horde! Now!!  Repent your ways as an elitist bent on perfidious evangelism for so-called "balanced" and "quality" dogfights, and JOIN the might of our amoebic and awesome land grabbing powers!!  Renounce their subversive "fighting" agenda!  Be ONE with the lemming hive mind, let them guide your joystick not with pretentious tacticism but with inspired stick stirs and negative G, spray and pray, and HO-rams for the gregarious good of your amoebic brethren!   

Our Messiah has come........   :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 11:46:56 AM
Down with dogfighting!  Down with air combat!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 11:48:34 AM
Down with the HTC collision model conspiracy!!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DCCBOSS on April 22, 2009, 11:50:21 AM
The dweeb is strong with this one!  Sunsfan - open your mind to the immense potential of acmlessness and absolutely indiscriminate field porking and steamrolling dorkness, to the ways of the horde! Now!!  Repent your ways as an elitist bent on perfidious evangelism for so-called "balanced" and "quality" dogfights, and JOIN the might of our awesome amoebic land grabbing powers!!  Renounce their subversive "fighting" agenda!  Be ONE with the lemming hive mind, let it guide your joystick not with pretentious tacticism but with inspired stick stirs and negative G, spray and pray, and HO-rams for the gregarious good of your amoebic brethren!  Do not burden yourself with SA but glide on blissfully uninterrupted parabolic trajectories from CV to field and deliver the horde's package to those damned Fighter Hangars!! 

I hate to say don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, sir I have been subjected too and witnessed too you zooming and picking off people when they clearly engaged on a 1v1 acm fight so don't sit there on a pedestal claiming your profound wisdom when it comes to this subject.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 11:51:57 AM
I admit I was possessed by the evil spirit of unrepentant pwn, and by the grace of your shining example of tactical, strategic, and technical savvy, I now see the light!  I will henceforth adress people whom I wish to Befriend and Sooth, or BS, by the title of Sir, because that changes everything.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: eddiek on April 22, 2009, 11:59:03 AM
Wow, this has turned into a long thread.  Here's my thoughts:
NOE missions can be fun for both attackers and defenders alike, IF there are similiar #'s on both sides.  I've had my share of fun trying to up in time to thwart such an attack several times.  Unless I'm in the tower when (or IF) the call comes that an NOE raid has been detected, I have a reasonably good chance of getting airborne.  90% of the time, I am already fighting elsewhere, and when or if I die, it's too late to help at the base being attacked.  You have limited choices in that situation, usually:  a)sit in the tower and laugh at the 20 or more planes swarming the base to make sure NO defense gets up, or; b) spawn a plane or GV and get vulched("whatever it takes, at all costs") so you can't defend.
What I don't understand, is why go attack a base that has NO activity there?  Sure, it makes great tactical sense, IF YOU WANT TO AVOID COMBAT AND RISK.  
Face it, the hordes typically attack an undefended base or port in large numbers because they: 1)don't want to have to fight, and 2) if they do have to fight, they know they better have overwhelming #'s to succeed.
Wanna have your fun and probably NO ONE will have much negative to say?  Take your NOE mission and go to a base that has activity, that has planes taking off and landing.  Go TO the fight and don't do "whatever it takes at all costs" to avoid combat and you will find your style of play more positively accepted.
Years ago, Mathman used to log into the arena and greet everyone in there with a message saying something like "Greetings esteemed enemies, the Bish now declare war" and you KNEW he was forming a mission.  Difference is, it was usually a long one, with gobs of buff and as many escorts, all at 20K or above, flying from several sectors away.  He formed missions that INVITED a fight, let you know he was up to something, let you know he wanted you to try and defend against it.
Nowadays, the norm seems to be to sneak a base if you can(again, great tactics if you want to avoid fights), but just in case you can't, make sure you take, oh....at least 20 guys with you just in case someone actually spots you and tries to fight back.
Disclaimer:  Large numbers are not needed if the pilots involved have any skill whatsoever.  Week before last I spotted a NOE raid inbound to a base in the far corner of a map.  Turned out to be 3-4 110's and two F4U's (one was H5117) and the goon.  That was it.  Yeah, my sucky flying (and frustration from fighting off NOE hordes most of the evening prior to this) allowed them an easy capture, but the point is, you don't have to have a large group to accomplish a base capture.  
Take your entourage of pilots and go hit a base that you know will be defended.  See what happens.  Come back here and tell how THAT goes.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 22, 2009, 12:13:43 PM
You consider this the real world?

Fred

You lose. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DCCBOSS on April 22, 2009, 12:13:58 PM
I admit I was possessed by the evil spirit of unrepentant pwn, and by the grace of your shining example of tactical, strategic, and technical savvy, I now see the light!  I will henceforth adress people whom I wish to Befriend and Sooth, or BS, by the title of Sir, because that changes everything.

I never said I was the strategic giant or that I have technical savey that exceeds you, "so you can it", why not just be honest in your self assessment before you stand out on the stage and preach to us lower forms of AH members.  
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 12:19:32 PM
Preach on brother Sir!  Down with non-existant giants and non-existant class warfare!  The cat is out of the bag on the truth about the collision model!  Down with no-nonsense factual argumentism! It's time for the truth to come out about higher and lower forms of AH members!!  The people must know about the ACM/SA hoax!!  It's all made up!  We pay 15$, we deserve the truth!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 22, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
I hate to say don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, sir I have been subjected too and witnessed too you zooming and picking off people when they clearly engaged on a 1v1 acm fight so don't sit there on a pedestal claiming your profound wisdom when it comes to this subject.


BS.    Post a film or it never happened
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TwentyFo on April 22, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
Why do you care?

Fred

I'm just saying that he seems to not really be involved in the whole mission horde thing anymore.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TwentyFo on April 22, 2009, 12:24:47 PM
Why do you care?

Fred

I'm just saying that he seems to not really be involved in the whole mission horde thing anymore.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 12:25:33 PM
Take your entourage of pilots and go hit a base that you know will be defended.  See what happens.  Come back here and tell how THAT goes.

Been done many times, this thread discusses just that event.  Not only by our squad, but others as well just to prove that it can be done even if its defended.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 22, 2009, 12:28:14 PM


Theres several million bases on a large map, and you guys are complaining about a large group of people occasionally taking one of them??

Again the very vocal minority speaks and speaks and speaks.

Like a nagging wife,these guys won't shut up until you agree with them.

I know these same guys will ASSUME that I am part of these large groups that occasionally form, but I'm not.

I don't like being over run or going home with a pocket full of assists either.

But I don't see the problem being as large as they say.

The way these guys are talking, this "problem" is happening every 10 minutes. Its not.

The way these guys are talking, the community at large is unhappy with bases being over run occasionally. They're not.

There are many many other things in this game that are more annoying than one of my precious bases being over run by a bunch of people having fun.

I agree with the people who say, if you don't pay attention to the radar you will have a pretty good chance of being caught with your pants down.

If you're too "busy" to drop what you're doing to up and defend, thats too bad. Thats life.

If you're so worried about these base takes, you and ALLLLLL your buddies would pay a little more attention to the map.

From what I've been hearing, it would only take 2 or 3 of yas to squash the "skill less" horde. Then do it !!

I watch the map all the time, to me its part of the game.

I will up and investigate a flashing base.

I obviously can't investigate them all, but hey, it ain't life threatening.

Sometimes I catch em , sometimes i don't. No big deal, theres plenty to do on such large maps.

And PLEASE don't try playing the "avoiding combat" card on me.

Thats a crock.

You and I both know there are more guys avoiding fighting alot of other ways than there are guys that occasionally over run a base.

Thanks for incessantly pointing out that I'm not having fun and you could show me how to have "better" fun, but I'm all set thanks.

Well gotta go climb to 20k now so I can get picked off by some dweeb who's at 25k.  :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 12:28:41 PM
Take your entourage of pilots and go hit a base that you know will be defended.  See what happens.  Come back here and tell how THAT goes.

Been done many times, not only by RT but other squads as well just to prove that it can be done, even if defended as well.  Missions were announced ahead of time for the benefit of defense.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 12:30:28 PM

Theres several million bases on a large map, and you guys are complaining about a large group of people occasionally taking one of them??

Again the very vocal minority speaks and speaks and speaks.

Like a nagging wife,these guys won't shut up until you agree with them.

I know these same guys will ASSUME that I am part of these large groups that occasionally form, but I'm not.

I don't like being over run or going home with a pocket full of assists either.

But I don't see the problem being as large as they say.

The way these guys are talking, this "problem" is happening every 10 minutes. Its not.

The way these guys are talking, the community at large is unhappy with bases being over run occasionally. They're not.

There are many many other things in this game that are more annoying than one of my precious bases being over run by a bunch of people having fun.

I agree with the people who say, if you don't pay attention to the radar you will have a pretty good chance of being caught with your pants down.

If you're too "busy" to drop what you're doing to up and defend, thats too bad. Thats life.

If you're so worried about these base takes, you and ALLLLLL your buddies would pay a little more attention to the map.

From what I've been hearing, it would only take 2 or 3 of yas to squash the "skill less" horde. Then do it !!

I watch the map all the time, to me its part of the game.

I will up and investigate a flashing base.

I obviously can't investigate them all, but hey, it ain't life threatening.

Sometimes I catch em , sometimes i don't. No big deal, theres plenty to do on such large maps.

And PLEASE don't try playing the "avoiding combat" card on me.

Thats a crock.

You and I both know there are more guys avoiding fighting alot of other ways than there are guys that occasionally over run a base.

Thanks for incessantly pointing out that I'm not having fun and you could show me how to have "better" fun, but I'm all set thanks.

Well gotta go climb to 20k now so I can get picked off by some dweeb who's at 25k.  :salute

 :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 12:34:19 PM
I'm just saying that he seems to not really be involved in the whole mission horde thing anymore.

And you would stand corrected, I am all about everything this game offers.  Including missions.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 22, 2009, 12:39:59 PM
Been done many times, not only by RT but other squads as well just to prove that it can be done, even if defended as well.  Missions were announced ahead of time for the benefit of defense.
:lol  system 200:  we are hitting A12, with 59 tiffies.... :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 22, 2009, 12:42:53 PM
:lol  system 200:  we are hitting A12, with 59 tiffies.... :rofl

... and we are at 20k.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on April 22, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
What? The average guy won't up against that?
Blame the defender!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 22, 2009, 12:47:22 PM
Tiffies are easy kills, I'd love to see that many at one base.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 12:49:37 PM
Next, you Sirs will preatend that so-called ACM or SA would make any difference in such a situation,

or that it would enhence gameplay!

I'm deaply sorry but please dont cast stones in a glass house!!!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 22, 2009, 12:50:27 PM
Tiffies are easy kills, I'd love to see that many at one base.   


I'm an easy kill, and I'd still up against it.

Repeatedly. :cry
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 22, 2009, 12:53:00 PM
I for one don't do anything but record all day looking for m00t............... Dopus


BS.    Post a film or it never happened
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 22, 2009, 12:54:10 PM
I do.

What? The average guy won't up against that?
Blame the defender!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 12:56:14 PM
What? The average guy won't up against that?
Blame the defender!

All the time..... oh wait, Im not average... nevermind...  :lol
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 22, 2009, 12:57:07 PM
I have to admit I would up one way or another to face such a large group. :uhoh
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 01:04:20 PM
I for one don't do anything but record all day looking for m00t............... Dopus

But Sir

If you did, and had film of it

It would easily prove that the arguement put forth by this m00t guy

Has to be wrong!!  B/c If he him self sometimes deveates, it MUST mean that his argument is VOID!  He isn't even in the sector of truth! We could call that something fancy to mock their fancy ACM and SA terminelogy, like "non sequitur"!!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 22, 2009, 01:10:49 PM
B/c If he him self sometimes deveates

Happens to the best of em'   :aok

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 22, 2009, 01:21:05 PM
I for one don't do anything but record all day looking for m00t............... Dopus


Pssst autofilm.  Why did your parents name you Dopus?  Strange name.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 22, 2009, 01:33:57 PM
Tiffies are easy kills, I'd love to see that many at one base.   

Just wait.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 22, 2009, 01:40:52 PM
n/m
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 22, 2009, 01:49:53 PM
 :D

Why did your parents name you Dopus?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 22, 2009, 01:51:28 PM
You lose. 

How so?

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DCCBOSS on April 22, 2009, 02:37:52 PM
Next, you Sirs will preatend that so-called ACM or SA would make any difference in such a situation,

or that it would enhence gameplay!

I'm deaply sorry but please dont cast stones in a glass house!!!

You rant about the skill level of the players, the type of engagements and so on but if anybody hold you accountable for your actions you spout jibberish, and you're right in that situation ACM or SA would not make any difference when people dweebly B&Z others that are engaged in a "turn fight" which is what everbody wants but the same people don't practise what they preach do they.

I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy

Only you people can spell out what is and what is not, there is no other view point, well I don't think so!

I'll say this we don't talk out of both sides of our mouths unlike you people, you say this you do that " did you have a bad childhood or something"  
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: sunfan1121 on April 22, 2009, 02:47:22 PM
You rant about the skill level of the players, the type of engagements and so on but if anybody hold you accountable for your actions you spout jibberish, and you're right in that situation ACM or SA would not make any difference when people dweebly B&Z others that are engaged in a "turn fight" which is what everbody wants but the same people don't practise what they preach do they.

I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy

Only you people can spell out what is and what is not, there is no other view point, well I don't think so!

I'll say this we don't talk out of both sides of our mouths unlike you people, you say this you do that " did you have a bad childhood or something"  
What are u trying to prove? How would m00ts dweebieness effect yours? and if it doesn't effect you, why even bring it up?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 22, 2009, 02:59:28 PM
I'll say this we don't talk out of both sides of our mouths unlike you people, you say this you do that " did you have a bad childhood or something"

I'll never do such a thing.   In fact I despise those who do.   I will say what is on my mind and stick to it, without question.  I realize you weren't directing this at me per se.   But, I'm just letting this Community know where "Karaya stands".   A few people in the past have done this and they just "get ignored".    I don't come in here and "ZOMFG!!!!!", I let it go.   However at times, if someone attempts to play the role of "Saint", they'll get a response.   

I'll also NEVER start a thread directed at ANYONE or ANYTHING as a result of "game play."    Go ahead and search.   Personally, I find these threads to be "done like dinner" by the end of the first page.   

I had a recent thread directed at me that was so riddled with holes and deceit, I deliberately never posted in it out of principle.  There are those "who you will never be able to please", "will never be able to met on an even keel/plane", "never be able to get along for whatever idiotic reason they come up with."    All you can do is try to be a productive member to this Community and your own in RL.   But, there are those in life, that get worried when this happens.   

But when any of you roll that 60 Tiffie mission, I'll shoot down plenty and land.   Tis fact, not make believe.   Just PM me ahead of time, so I can log in and "let the virtual guns do the talking."
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: usvi on April 22, 2009, 03:16:02 PM
Bish-Rook truce...70 rooks,65 bish,50 knights...drop arena cap to 100 = ?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DCCBOSS on April 22, 2009, 03:19:48 PM
What are u trying to prove? How would m00ts dweebieness effect yours? and if it doesn't effect you, why even bring it up?

You're right :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 22, 2009, 03:20:46 PM
You rant about the skill level of the players, the type of engagements and so on but if anybody hold you accountable for your actions you spout jibberish, and you're right in that situation ACM or SA would not make any difference when people dweebly B&Z others that are engaged in a "turn fight" which is what everbody wants but the same people don't practise what they preach do they.

I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy

Only you people can spell out what is and what is not, there is no other view point, well I don't think so!

I'll say this we don't talk out of both sides of our mouths unlike you people, you say this you do that " did you have a bad childhood or something"  
Let it all out Sir.  I learn more in one of these posts than in any 50 page "debate".
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 22, 2009, 06:55:56 PM
When A mission is posted for a base,one never knows how many will be there to counter it..Sometimes there are not any at all,sometimes there are 15+ defending from a mission..Does not matter if it is a base on the front-lines,or a base out of the way..

 We took A9 a few days ago that had LOTS of rooks flying in and out of it...We fought at V10 for hourse before finally taking it after taking A9...There were at least 20 defenders at V10..And they got lots of kills,and so did we,and yet not ONE of them has replied to the post I posted when I asked if it was not fun??? I know they had a blast,just as we did trying to take it.

 So why wont they respond about it???I feel they are trying to keep a negative light on missions,and God-Forbid someone would actually say they had fun fighting a mission of the sort that they constantly complain about..

  WHy do the furballers care if bases are taken???I dont mean bases which affect your furballing,although sometimes this is the case,but why do you insist that another side taking bases is detrimental to game-play??DO you guys,who have been playing this game much longer than others,really run out of people to fight when missions are going on???

  I mean if all of a sudden bish dropped of the radar,you always have nits to hit.This statement applies  bish,nits,or rooks...It is a 3 sided game.You will never run out of people to shoot down..

 SO why is taking bases With as many or as few people as is in any respective mission so detrimental to YOUR gameplay???

 On a large map,hundreds of bases,and you are going to get upset when a mission takes one??And then really get upset that the mission took a base that is not even close to where you are getting your action from??

 If it is not a big deal,taking bases as many of you furballers and ACM guys claim,then why the outcry for CHANGE!!!!!!!!!

 It may be because you up at the base to defend,and get killed,or maybe others on your side are not helping so you get frustrated..I really dont know..Not every mission takes the base.I have seen missions from all 3 sides with HUGE NUMBERS not take a base,so your argument that ONLY numbers take a base is wrong..It helps,but it guarantees nothing.

 Evidently there are numerous people on ALL 3 sides which TAKE BASEs WITH MISSIONS,and I just bet,that when a mission on your side takes a base,you are just as happy as any other side which takes bases also..


   This "HORDE" mission that you guys speak of is not the 50 man mission you guys so proudly speak of..
  When I post a mission it averages about 20...TO some that is a "HORDE".to some it is only a "HORDE" if the defenders which up do not equal the same which are in the mission.

    So,evidently all 3 sides feel the need to take bases.Because it is movement,it stops stagnation in an area,which does happen..it opens up new avenues for furballers,gv'ers and bombers,and mission planners on ALL 3 sides,this is why base-taking is good for gameplay.Wheteher it is done NOE,or at ALT...

 
  Why is it whenever a CV pulls up next to an enemy base,the first thing that starts happening,after the initial 5-10 min FB,the other team starts trying to kill the CV??

 I know why,because if left alone,eventually the side with the CV would attempt to take the base..And more than likely,it is 99% of the reason the CV is there..The furballs are fun with CV's by enemy bases,but they do come to an end by any of the 3 sides which are represented in the game,and it is understood that it is usually proper to KILL the cv before it can take the base..





                                                   


   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TequilaChaser on April 22, 2009, 07:21:15 PM
You rant about the skill level of the players, the type of engagements and so on but if anybody hold you accountable for your actions you spout jibberish, and you're right in that situation ACM or SA would not make any difference when people dweebly B&Z others that are engaged in a "turn fight" which is what everbody wants but the same people don't practise what they preach do they.

I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy

Only you people  can spell out what is and what is not, there is no other view point, well I don't think so!

I'll say this we don't talk out of both sides of our mouths unlike you people, you say this you do that " did you have a bad childhood or something"  

whatchu mean buy "You People"   :devil
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 22, 2009, 09:10:57 PM

  You guys take bases with half that amount,...6/110's 3 niks,and 2 goons???Well congrats ,and good thing you did not have any resistance..

  I put 15 slots for 110's in my missions,I put 10 slots for fighters,and 4 goons,I do not see where that is horrible..I want the town down as FAST as possible,I dont want to sit there and "FONDLE" it..I want it DOWN,and so do the  people who are with me,..

  You want to see A 50 man mission???? that would be the one with 190a8's,when eny has gone through the roof,literally,,and is over 25..

 ANd tral I never said that 12 110's missions were a challenge to me,you put words in my mouth..but I want to be sure when I launch a mission for a particular target,that it goes down the way it is supposed too..and that is that it gets captured..

                                                                         

       

THIS^^^ is in response to the short term memory loss when you say THIS:



  When I post a mission it averages about 20...TO some that is a "HORDE".

  
Few pages ago, you were whining that its hard to take a base with only 12 110s, 6 nikis and 4 goons. **Again count 22**. Why is it that these "mega squads" that can average 20 with a scrolly bar filled on the roster feel the need to post public missions on country?
You as the CO, if base taking is "the thing to do" with your squad..so be it..have fun. Do it as a squad. I dont know if you do what you do thinking that the other "teams" pop blood vessles and shake fists whenever you take a base, in reality..half the time they dont even care that you did.
The worry here and though your too thickheaded and stubborn to realize is that you are poisoning minds on new guys that come in. Imagine what a game it would be and how fast it would be shut down if thats all that countries did was have a race to reset the maps. Rooks, nits and bish all racing to attack undefended feilds ALL seeking that reset "high". I sure as %^$% would cancel my account very rapidly.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 22, 2009, 09:22:34 PM
When A mission is posted for a base,one never knows how many will be there to counter it..Sometimes there are not any at all,sometimes there are 15+ defending from a mission..Does not matter if it is a base on the front-lines,or a base out of the way..

 We took A9 a few days ago that had LOTS of rooks flying in and out of it...We fought at V10 for hourse before finally taking it after taking A9...There were at least 20 defenders at V10..And they got lots of kills,and so did we,and yet not ONE of them has replied to the post I posted when I asked if it was not fun??? I know they had a blast,just as we did trying to take it.

V10 was about 15 minutes not hours. A9 was hours. I got there from 51 and made a few passes and then it was captured. The problem with V10 was the overwhelming force that was used.... It a vehicle base ! Common sense would tell you the only air support that could come would be from 51. You didn't need that force.

Quote
So why wont they respond about it???I feel they are trying to keep a negative light on missions,and God-Forbid someone would actually say they had fun fighting a mission of the sort that they constantly complain about..

  WHy do the furballers care if bases are taken???I dont mean bases which affect your furballing,although sometimes this is the case,but why do you insist that another side taking bases is detrimental to game-play??DO you guys,who have been playing this game much longer than others,really run out of people to fight when missions are going on???

  I mean if all of a sudden bish dropped of the radar,you always have nits to hit.This statement applies  bish,nits,or rooks...It is a 3 sided game.You will never run out of people to shoot down..

 SO why is taking bases With as many or as few people as is in any respective mission so detrimental to YOUR gameplay???

To a furballer loss of a base means the end of a fight, but in most case a new fight should start back up. The problem is the fights either start out completely over balanced by a horde, or a quick NOE, so fights don't start as often as they could, or should. Then when a fight finally gets going the base gets taken, but thats ok a new fight should be starting soon. But it doesn't, most go run off to find anouther undefended, or lightly defended area.

 
Quote
On a large map,hundreds of bases,and you are going to get upset when a mission takes one??And then really get upset that the mission took a base that is not even close to where you are getting your action from??

 If it is not a big deal,taking bases as many of you furballers and ACM guys claim,then why the outcry for CHANGE!!!!!!!!!

The only change we are talking about here is to get rid of the lame game play.... dive bombing lancs, 20+ NOE ... hordes hitting bases.... 5 guys diving on a single bogie.

Quote
It may be because you up at the base to defend,and get killed,or maybe others on your side are not helping so you get frustrated..I really dont know..Not every mission takes the base.I have seen missions from all 3 sides with HUGE NUMBERS not take a base,so your argument that ONLY numbers take a base is wrong..It helps,but it guarantees nothing.

 Evidently there are numerous people on ALL 3 sides which TAKE BASEs WITH MISSIONS,and I just bet,that when a mission on your side takes a base,you are just as happy as any other side which takes bases also..


   This "HORDE" mission that you guys speak of is not the 50 man mission you guys so proudly speak of..
  When I post a mission it averages about 20...TO some that is a "HORDE".to some it is only a "HORDE" if the defenders which up do not equal the same which are in the mission.

    So,evidently all 3 sides feel the need to take bases.Because it is movement,it stops stagnation in an area,which does happen..it opens up new avenues for furballers,gv'ers and bombers,and mission planners on ALL 3 sides,this is why base-taking is good for gameplay.Wheteher it is done NOE,or at ALT...

 
  Why is it whenever a CV pulls up next to an enemy base,the first thing that starts happening,after the initial 5-10 min FB,the other team starts trying to kill the CV??

 I know why,because if left alone,eventually the side with the CV would attempt to take the base..And more than likely,it is 99% of the reason the CV is there..The furballs are fun with CV's by enemy bases,but they do come to an end by any of the 3 sides which are represented in the game,and it is understood that it is usually proper to KILL the cv before it can take the base..  

Again, its not the taking of bases thats a problem is the manner in which they are taken.

Late this afternoon, and I really hate that I'm using this example, but.... I was helping to defend a shoreline base, it started out with just 3 of us,  against 5 or 6 enemy. They were hitting the base from a CV, but snuck in some GVs as well. I got to town in a GV just in time to kill the troops and the GV before the capture, but the fight was on now! They started upping off the CV which was close, almost spwaning GVs feet dry. Next think you know there are alot more planes in the air, and LVTs spawning left and right, PT boats and all. The battle lasted a good 45 minutes, and had a good 40 people fighting it out.

Eventually the CV was sunk, and the fight disappeared. The thing I hate about this fight was I have to give credit to the Jokers  :aok . They fought well, and didn't use any lame crap and the fight was a blast. That was old style game play. This time we held them off, next time maybe not, but that isn't what important, the fight is what was important.

The point I keep trying to make here is just be honest with your self, put your self in the position of the guy on the other side. Yes this is a game, but it is NOT WAR. If you loose a base you won't have to start learning a new language, or how to use the metric system. The guy on the other side is playing and trying to have fun too. Think if this mission was run at you what would you think about it? Just a bit of common sense, a little fair game play. Is that so hard to work with?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 22, 2009, 10:05:22 PM
In LWO a bit ago, I posted yet another 20 Jug Mission intended for a Rook medium airfield 1.5 sectors away. On our way there, the intended base was taken, so we overflew it to the next one in line, a small field (A79) about another sector out. Our darbar was visible to the Rooks for a good long time. Plenty of time for Rooks to collectively investigate.

We encountered one curious 262 at 15K.

When we got to our target, resistance was still light, suggesting Rooks overall were not interested in finding us and putting up a fight before we got to the base. We were laiden with ord and not moving real quick. Rooks could've had a field day had they upped early on. My point is, we were a very ominous mission for several minutes on the map. Rooks either were completely oblivious to the situation despite the map advertisement, or chose to ignore what was happening.

We arrived, blew up the FH's, VH and downed what few Rooks chose to defend. In short order, not suprisingly, the base was ours.

In that instance, undefended to me means the enemy makes the conscious choice not to defend against something completely advertised (short of calling it out on open channel).
Had we have been intercepted earlier, A   F I G H T would have errupted, which would result in everyone overall having fun, even though the mission itself would not have succeeded.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 23, 2009, 07:39:38 AM
One see's if friendly air or Gv's are already there.   Usually NO, Sometimes Yes,  but not a requirement either way. "usually NO"... forgive me for what you may perceive as a slap in the face but that smacks of poor planning, unless you have 15, 20 or 30 blokes at hand and just want to throw them at something.


IMO, As for the example mission used its not poor game play, the poor thing about it is the poor use of the resources in that mission.  I am not defending the action of all those guys hitting the V-Base only, I am identifying the fact that the mission planner did not use what he had in the mission properly.  semantics my dear fellow.  Poor planning = poor game play does it not?

As for what is perceived as an over kill mission, because any mission could be perceived or has a potential of being as seen as overkill, I have stated that they are determined to be over kill after the mission arrives depending on the probability of resistance they may encounter. All it would take is for someone to spot an NOE or an inbound mission and the resistance will escalate, so that probability or potential of a response in escalation is what has to be factored.  Honestly we can argue "if I woulda shoulda coulda" all day long.  What your advocating here is maximum numbers even if the probability of resistance is low.  A quick scan of the map is all that's needed for a reasonable assessment.

I have ran missions myself and have seen it done many times before where the intent was to have a few bombers or fighters and once it was posted more than needed were joining,  determind by how many slots you allocate

But by modifying the mission so that all 20 people hit multiple bases or dictate roles that would further use those assets that would not be wasted on a v base as this example illustrates is the key.  EXACTLY.

I hope this clarifies it a bit.    
 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 23, 2009, 08:37:24 AM
Just wait.

Thndregg
 
I've seen the powers to be change things over the past....to curb game play issues and of cause to preserve and expand upon their revenue.

ENY was brought in to kerb the Sunday RJO's (rook joint opporations).  It all got a bit silly when Rooks on a Sunday would have as many players as Bish and Knights put together.  Defectors for want of a better word would switch to the winning side (rooks) on the Sunday.  ENY did what it was developed to do and RJO's are a thing of the past.

25% fuel porkage is also a thing of the past.  So as to keep the fight going I presume.

Acks, ammo's barracks were increased presumably to stop one guy porking a whole field or a string of front line fields.  This in my opinion is the single most factor that gives us the base taking hoards of today but that's besides the point.  It's done.  The monster is unleashed.

Split arenas.  To kerb game play issues.  "slum behaviour" I think they termed it.  This actually and with some help from TV advertising increased subscriber's.  Strange ?

Small maps for months on end.  Presumably to localise the fighting.

Anyways you get the point.  HTC is on the ball where game play and revenue are concerned.  Here's the kicker.  All of those changes have affected each and every one of us.  Some folk have quit the game  because of these changes.  Many have rolled with the punches so's to speak.

I've asked this question of you twice with no response.  Giving you the benefit of doubt I'll ask again............


Say they do change something like making the mission planner have a maximum of 12 players per mission from any given field.  What would you do then.  Roll with the punches as in the case of ENY, split arenas, the same small maps for months on end.  Would you adapt or just say "oh heck the games not fun anymore.  I'm outta here"

Would you care to comment?
 
 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 23, 2009, 11:18:18 AM
THIS^^^ is in response to the short term memory loss when you say THIS:
Few pages ago, you were whining that its hard to take a base with only 12 110s, 6 nikis and 4 goons. **Again count 22**. Why is it that these "mega squads" that can average 20 with a scrolly bar filled on the roster feel the need to post public missions on country?
You as the CO, if base taking is "the thing to do" with your squad..so be it..have fun. Do it as a squad. I dont know if you do what you do thinking that the other "teams" pop blood vessles and shake fists whenever you take a base, in reality..half the time they dont even care that you did.
The worry here and though your too thickheaded and stubborn to realize is that you are poisoning minds on new guys that me in. Imagine what a game it would be and how fast it would be shut down if thats all that countries did was have a race to reset the maps. Rooks, nits and bish all racing to attack undefended feilds ALL seeking that reset "high". I sure as %^$% would cancel my account very rapidly.

Like he stated before, WE ARE NOT ALL IN THE MISSION. 
The second  bold part is they dont, your "the world is gonna end" promises are not going to scare anyone to believing that its as bad as some of you paint it out to be.  Would they do something if it were?  Yes. 
But for the simple few of you that continually and admittedly for 20 years  :lol  think the world evolves around your style of play alone and what you consider to be good or bad play is ludicrous. 


V10 was about 15 minutes not hours. A9 was hours. I got there from 51 and made a few passes and then it was captured. The problem with V10 was the overwhelming force that was used.... It a vehicle base ! Common sense would tell you the only air support that could come would be from 51. You didn't need that force.

I didnt want to say this, but your out right lying.  You already admitted you were not there, period.  For the 8+ hours that I was there the entire time and that you recently had logged in as it was being captured, there were multiple attacks on that base, hangers taken down several times, cv attacked it, etc. etc. both bases were equally defended by air and GV's, both of those bases were attacked and were heavily defended.  But you wouldnt know that, since you were not there.  Your credibility sir is wearing thin.

The point I keep trying to make here is just be honest with your self,

How about starting with YOU   :O

Falcon told me that the fight had been going on for 5 hours, I don't know, I logged in a few minutes before A9 fell and saw the stupidity at A10.

 :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 23, 2009, 11:25:14 AM
IN :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 23, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
Thndregg
 
I've seen the powers to be change things over the past....to curb game play issues and of cause to preserve and expand upon their revenue.

ENY was brought in to kerb the Sunday RJO's (rook joint opporations).  It all got a bit silly when Rooks on a Sunday would have as many players as Bish and Knights put together.  Defectors for want of a better word would switch to the winning side (rooks) on the Sunday.  ENY did what it was developed to do and RJO's are a thing of the past.

25% fuel porkage is also a thing of the past.  So as to keep the fight going I presume.

Acks, ammo's barracks were increased presumably to stop one guy porking a whole field or a string of front line fields.  This in my opinion is the single most factor that gives us the base taking hoards of today but that's besides the point.  It's done.  The monster is unleashed.

Split arenas.  To kerb game play issues.  "slum behaviour" I think they termed it.  This actually and with some help from TV advertising increased subscriber's.  Strange ?

Small maps for months on end.  Presumably to localise the fighting.

Anyways you get the point.  HTC is on the ball where game play and revenue are concerned.  Here's the kicker.  All of those changes have affected each and every one of us.  Some folk have quit the game  because of these changes.  Many have rolled with the punches so's to speak.

I've asked this question of you twice with no response.  Giving you the benefit of doubt I'll ask again............


Say they do change something like making the mission planner have a maximum of 12 players per mission from any given field.  What would you do then.  Roll with the punches as in the case of ENY, split arenas, the same small maps for months on end.  Would you adapt or just say "oh heck the games not fun anymore.  I'm outta here"

Would you care to comment?

After last night watching your squaddie DREDger lead the charge in taking all of the center islands.   Which he has done time and time again, because he enjoys ruining other people's fun.   One must ask themselves, "What are we really trying to achieve?"
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 23, 2009, 11:43:15 AM
After last night watching your squaddie DREDger lead the charge in taking all of the center islands.   Which he has done time and time again, because he enjoys ruining other people's fun.   One must ask themselves, "What are we really trying to achieve?"

 :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 23, 2009, 11:44:59 AM
After last night watching your squaddie DREDger lead the charge in taking all of the center islands.   Which he has done time and time again, because he enjoys ruining other people's fun.   One must ask themselves, "What are we really trying to achieve?"

Get another base exaclt the same to the one they had.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 23, 2009, 12:26:47 PM
Like he stated before, WE ARE NOT ALL IN THE MISSION. 
The second  bold part is they dont, your "the world is gonna end" promises are not going to scare anyone to believing that its as bad as some of you paint it out to be.  Would they do something if it were?  Yes. 
But for the simple few of you that continually and admittedly for 20 years  :lol  think the world evolves around your style of play alone and what you consider to be good or bad play is ludicrous. 


I didnt want to say this, but your out right lying.  You already admitted you were not there, period.  For the 8+ hours that I was there the entire time and that you recently had logged in as it was being captured, there were multiple attacks on that base, hangers taken down several times, cv attacked it, etc. etc. both bases were equally defended by air and GV's, both of those bases were attacked and were heavily defended.  But you wouldnt know that, since you were not there.  Your credibility sir is wearing thin.

How about starting with YOU   :O

 :rofl


Your so high and mighty about jumping in just to argue!

 A9 is the airfield on the south side of the island where the fight had been going on for ever, V10 is the Vehicle base on the north side of the island that didn't get going untill A9 was finished. I logged in and upped A9 in a spit, and barely got my wheels up before I was killed, then the base was captured. I upped A51 in a pony and went strait to V10 because that is the next logical place to fight. That is where I ran into the "stupidity" I saw. Dive bombing lanc, stick stirring Chogs that have no other move than the HO, making 3 guys over shoot my pony at the same time because they have no clue how to fly, and the biggest of all, more than 20 people to take a vehicle base.

Ask FALCON for the screen shot of the one a minute before the one he posted where he stated he was tired of the FB so he made a mission. HE dictated a way to play the game, not me. Everything I posted was what HE told me up until the capture of A9, I witnessed the rest. So I'm NOT lying, I'm just repeating what I was told.

I'm brutally honest, I call it as I see it. Do I vulch yes I do! Do I dive in to a fight with out asking, no I don't, Do I bomb HQs and factories, Yes I do, but not often, towns are closer, and more often than not someone will try to shoot you down there. Do I HO? nope. DO I bomb and bail? Nope I always try to RTB, in my fighters as well.

You keep saying we talk about changing everyone to "our game play" If that were the case we would be looking to get rid of the GVs, and the heavy bombers. All us fighter types need are fighter type planes. No we are talking about.....wait for it..... LAME GAME PLAY!

Heres that list I posted way back again....


    * HOs lame
    * dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame
    * spawn camping lame
    * being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame
    * suicide dive bombers lame
    * bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame
    * hiding captured CVs lame


Can you honestly say that all those things on that list ARE NOT LAME?

Do you see anywhere on that list capturing bases?... running missions?... working together with your squad?.... saving your "country" from the evil empire?

Again, this is NOT a BISH problem, its an Aces High COMMUNITY problem. There is lame play on all sides. I call it out when I see Rooks doing it, do you when you see your teamates do it, or do you just join in?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 23, 2009, 01:24:00 PM
Hold on a second everybody.....









































..... I gotta make more popcorn.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 23, 2009, 01:30:56 PM
Say they do change something like making the mission planner have a maximum of 12 players per mission from any given field.  What would you do then.  Roll with the punches as in the case of ENY, split arenas, the same small maps for months on end.  Would you adapt or just say "oh heck the games not fun anymore.  I'm outta here.

I don't necessarily need the mission planner. And no, I wouldn't quit. The comradery I've enjoyed with the BOPs over the past 5 years is priceless. I don't soley put missions together as my mainstay in this game. I'm also not at all apprehensive about throwing missions together with less than uber planes. Those actually are the most fun. :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 23, 2009, 01:33:58 PM
Here is one of my pet peeves for over 7 years of playing this game.

Folks are always griping, sniping at each other because "We're losing the war!"   I have on many occasions listened to them grumble and say "Well, you see where their darbar is at, hit the field and goes away."

10 times out of 10 this is the response.  "Well can someone make a mission?"    I mean really folks, are people this inept that they NEED a fuggin mission to get a few guys together and communicate?

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 23, 2009, 01:35:53 PM
I believe there is some incorrect information working its way into this conversation.

The fight had been going on over A9, V10, and the Bishop CV for hours.  The furball formed early in the day when a very small mission attempted to take V10 and failed.  Throughout the day, A9 and V10 had been bombed closed several times.  Also, the Bishop CV had been sunk several times.

There was no mission posted to take V10 when it finally fell.  A9 had been taken and a number of Bishop players spawned in on the ground to V10.  I was one of them.  I killed 2 defenders before being killed myself.

So, essentially, the fight at A9 and then V10 was merely a protracted fight that had begun much much earlier in the day.  It was essentially the taking of a defended pair of bases.  Because of said defense, it took about eight hours.


Is the issue here that the furball died when the bases were taken?  The way I see it, the furball went on for hours.  Much much longer then most.  Most furballs are born out of missions that fail, you know.  Are you (Fugitive) arguing that all missions should be designed to fail, so a furball will form?  Or is the issue that Falcon tweaked your nose in the game when you got all butt hurt that the base fell right as you got there?

People keep going back to the "HUGE" mission that took V10, which is pretty funny really.  Since there wasn't a mission to take it at all.

You know, I can see the side of the argument that doesn't like big NOE missions that are designed to roll over a base without opposition.  If I'm in a mission, I like it when the enemy ups ot defend.  But you know what, I don't believe that there are nearly as many big NOE missions going on as there were just a few months ago.  And not nearly enough of them to seriously impact gameplay in a macro sense.  This is all, much ado about nothing really.  

Something else that I think is being totally overlooked here is that large country missions have a place in the social structure of the game.  I was a new player about a year or so ago (maybe a bit longer).  First time I logged on, I was randomly placed on the Knights.  This isn't my first flight combat game, so I wasn't totally helpless (just mostly helpless, much like i am today)...  I played for a couple hours.  I was totally unimpressed with the way I was treated by my so-called "team-mates".  So, I switched countries to see if it was any different on the other side.  Just so happens, I switched to Bishop.  Somebody was advertising that a mission was forming so I joined, to check it out.  Guess what.  I had fun.  It was fun to be part of something.  It was good to be able to follow somebodies else lead for a little while.  I didn't really know what I was doing, so I followed and paid attention.

I continued to join missions.  Learning all the time.  Getting to know people a little.  Getting contact and experience I never would have gotten outside the missions.  Was I learning ACM by joining missions?  Nope.  I was learning the GAME.  Only after I was hooked on THE GAME, did I have enough interest to start learning how to use my airplane correctly.  If it hadn't been for those missions, I probably wouldn't have given AH2 enough of a chance to catch my interest.  Then I was invited to fly with RT for a couple of weeks, that's when I really got hooked on AH2.  Great bunch of guys, spend a large part of my AH2 time laughing at what is going on over dquad vox.  I'm sure most of you can say the same about your squad.

Now, what happens if all the sudden only the smaller missions are allowed?  Say HTC comes up with a way to prevent large missions.  Would open country missions die?  Probably...  If I can only have a set number of folks in a mission, I'm going to take people who I think are good pilots.  Not noobs...  So, you'll have a bunch of new players who get ZERO guidence early in their gaming experience.  In fact, their gaming experience is going to consist mostly of getting picked by all you experienced guys until they get frustrated, bored, and then quit the game.  Guess what, the game will die.  Without a constant influx of noobs, AH2 will go away.  Large missions are necessary to assure the inclusion of new players.  I think HiTech knows it.  Maybe he doesn't like it, maybe that's part of what he was trying to accomplish with CT.  Some alternative way to work new players into the system.  Maybe, maybe not.  Either way, it's irrelevant now.  CT is dead.  For better or worse, this is the game we have.

My advice, to those of you who keep moaning over the supposed degradation of game play...  Quit berating anyone who doesn't play the way that you think is best.  Quit whining and start contributing new ideas.  Ideas that will help work the new guys into the system in a FUN way.  If you don't want large missions (you're also going to be ruling out open country missions), figure out something productive then to keep the game moving, keep the player base growing.   And no, simply forcing them into the TA for X amount of time before they can log into the MA won't work.  The Training Corps isn't large enough or organized in a way that could handle that.  Get your egos out of the forums and off of channel 200.  You aren't changing anything by being tools to anyone who plays differently than you.

I say, if you're all worried about improving game play, do something about it.  Imagine the difference it would make if the experienced "elite" squads made a concerted effort to "adopt" a few new guys EVERY tour.  Teach them ACM.  Teach them what they need to know.  Open the doors to your elite halls and let a noob in once in awhile.  Quit crying over the degrading state of the game.

Maybe the answer is that every single squad, as payment for its continued existance be required to take on X number of new players (placed in the squad automatically without the squad having any choice in the selection.  At the end of the tour, the new guys are asked to fill out a quick survey to determine whether or not the squad is doing its duty in training new players.  If the squad gets failing marks, then it is disbanded and all squad members are banned from joining another squad for X amount of time.  I get tired of so much complaining about the state of "game play", when so few of you do anything even remotely substantive to actually contribute.  Sure, I'll bet you all assuage your conscience by telling yourself, "I'll help anyone who asks."  Big whoop!  Make an effort to actually go out there and FIND somebody who needs help.  Then after you get him off on the right track.  DO IT AGAIN!  It should be an ongoing process that never ends.  Imagine what would happen if 100 more experienced players each helped 1 new guy per tour.  I mean take the new guy to the TA/DA for a couple hours a week.  Imagine what would happen.  And it doesn't have to be 100 Trainer Corps qualified players...  Just people who know a little ACM.  You wouldn't have to make each noob into a terror of the skies, just somebody who can survive for a little while in the MA.

Unless you are willing to actually do something about it, you shouldn't be in here whining about the state of game play today.

Whatever...  That's all I have to say at the moment.  Take it for what it's worth.




Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 23, 2009, 02:16:18 PM
After last night watching your squaddie DREDger lead the charge in taking all of the center islands.   Which he has done time and time again, because he enjoys ruining other people's fun.   One must ask themselves, "What are we really trying to achieve?"

Karaya!  Quite frankly you suprise me.  I'll tell you what "WE" are really trying to achieve here.  You are trying to relive an old Tank Town argument with Dredger through me.  I'll tell you now I take exception to it.  For someone who many times has said he's a straight talker...spades a spades ethos, you let yourself down. 

Why you chose to quote my straight forward question to thndregg, without letting him answer, then putting this spiel (quoted above) to it shows me you haven't been following the thread, or you're myopic.  One of the two.



Putting this aside I'll take a moment to explain a few things to you.  Dredger mission don't contain...

Low level Lancaster's.
Suiciding CV bombers.
Bomb and bailers.
Auguring rinse & repeat porkers.
They are not overkill missions.
95% of his missions don't include hanger banging.
Rarity if the mission contains more than 15 which includes a c47 or 2.

Karaya you'd do best by letting Thndrgg answer the question and take up any petty beef you have with Dredger directly.


 




Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Edgar on April 23, 2009, 02:45:24 PM
I believe there is some incorrect information working its way into this conversation.

The fight had been going on over A9, V10, and the Bishop CV for hours.  The furball formed early in the day when a very small mission attempted to take V10 and failed.  Throughout the day, A9 and V10 had been bombed closed several times.  Also, the Bishop CV had been sunk several times.

There was no mission posted to take V10 when it finally fell.  A9 had been taken and a number of Bishop players spawned in on the ground to V10.  I was one of them.  I killed 2 defenders before being killed myself.

So, essentially, the fight at A9 and then V10 was merely a protracted fight that had begun much much earlier in the day.  It was essentially the taking of a defended pair of bases.  Because of said defense, it took about eight hours.


Is the issue here that the furball died when the bases were taken?  The way I see it, the furball went on for hours.  Much much longer then most.  Most furballs are born out of missions that fail, you know.  Are you (Fugitive) arguing that all missions should be designed to fail, so a furball will form?  Or is the issue that Falcon tweaked your nose in the game when you got all butt hurt that the base fell right as you got there?

People keep going back to the "HUGE" mission that took V10, which is pretty funny really.  Since there wasn't a mission to take it at all.

You know, I can see the side of the argument that doesn't like big NOE missions that are designed to roll over a base without opposition.  If I'm in a mission, I like it when the enemy ups ot defend.  But you know what, I don't believe that there are nearly as many big NOE missions going on as there were just a few months ago.  And not nearly enough of them to seriously impact gameplay in a macro sense.  This is all, much ado about nothing really.  

Something else that I think is being totally overlooked here is that large country missions have a place in the social structure of the game.  I was a new player about a year or so ago (maybe a bit longer).  First time I logged on, I was randomly placed on the Knights.  This isn't my first flight combat game, so I wasn't totally helpless (just mostly helpless, much like i am today)...  I played for a couple hours.  I was totally unimpressed with the way I was treated by my so-called "team-mates".  So, I switched countries to see if it was any different on the other side.  Just so happens, I switched to Bishop.  Somebody was advertising that a mission was forming so I joined, to check it out.  Guess what.  I had fun.  It was fun to be part of something.  It was good to be able to follow somebodies else lead for a little while.  I didn't really know what I was doing, so I followed and paid attention.

I continued to join missions.  Learning all the time.  Getting to know people a little.  Getting contact and experience I never would have gotten outside the missions.  Was I learning ACM by joining missions?  Nope.  I was learning the GAME.  Only after I was hooked on THE GAME, did I have enough interest to start learning how to use my airplane correctly.  If it hadn't been for those missions, I probably wouldn't have given AH2 enough of a chance to catch my interest.  Then I was invited to fly with RT for a couple of weeks, that's when I really got hooked on AH2.  Great bunch of guys, spend a large part of my AH2 time laughing at what is going on over dquad vox.  I'm sure most of you can say the same about your squad.

Now, what happens if all the sudden only the smaller missions are allowed?  Say HTC comes up with a way to prevent large missions.  Would open country missions die?  Probably...  If I can only have a set number of folks in a mission, I'm going to take people who I think are good pilots.  Not noobs...  So, you'll have a bunch of new players who get ZERO guidence early in their gaming experience.  In fact, their gaming experience is going to consist mostly of getting picked by all you experienced guys until they get frustrated, bored, and then quit the game.  Guess what, the game will die.  Without a constant influx of noobs, AH2 will go away.  Large missions are necessary to assure the inclusion of new players.  I think HiTech knows it.  Maybe he doesn't like it, maybe that's part of what he was trying to accomplish with CT.  Some alternative way to work new players into the system.  Maybe, maybe not.  Either way, it's irrelevant now.  CT is dead.  For better or worse, this is the game we have.

My advice, to those of you who keep moaning over the supposed degradation of game play...  Quit berating anyone who doesn't play the way that you think is best.  Quit whining and start contributing new ideas.  Ideas that will help work the new guys into the system in a FUN way.  If you don't want large missions (you're also going to be ruling out open country missions), figure out something productive then to keep the game moving, keep the player base growing.   And no, simply forcing them into the TA for X amount of time before they can log into the MA won't work.  The Training Corps isn't large enough or organized in a way that could handle that.  Get your egos out of the forums and off of channel 200.  You aren't changing anything by being tools to anyone who plays differently than you.

I say, if you're all worried about improving game play, do something about it.  Imagine the difference it would make if the experienced "elite" squads made a concerted effort to "adopt" a few new guys EVERY tour.  Teach them ACM.  Teach them what they need to know.  Open the doors to your elite halls and let a noob in once in awhile.  Quit crying over the degrading state of the game.

Maybe the answer is that every single squad, as payment for its continued existance be required to take on X number of new players (placed in the squad automatically without the squad having any choice in the selection.  At the end of the tour, the new guys are asked to fill out a quick survey to determine whether or not the squad is doing its duty in training new players.  If the squad gets failing marks, then it is disbanded and all squad members are banned from joining another squad for X amount of time.  I get tired of so much complaining about the state of "game play", when so few of you do anything even remotely substantive to actually contribute.  Sure, I'll bet you all assuage your conscience by telling yourself, "I'll help anyone who asks."  Big whoop!  Make an effort to actually go out there and FIND somebody who needs help.  Then after you get him off on the right track.  DO IT AGAIN!  It should be an ongoing process that never ends.  Imagine what would happen if 100 more experienced players each helped 1 new guy per tour.  I mean take the new guy to the TA/DA for a couple hours a week.  Imagine what would happen.  And it doesn't have to be 100 Trainer Corps qualified players...  Just people who know a little ACM.  You wouldn't have to make each noob into a terror of the skies, just somebody who can survive for a little while in the MA.

Unless you are willing to actually do something about it, you shouldn't be in here whining about the state of game play today.

Whatever...  That's all I have to say at the moment.  Take it for what it's worth.






 :aok
Bravo Dave!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 23, 2009, 02:59:14 PM
Karaya!  Quite frankly you suprise me.  I'll tell you what "WE" are really trying to achieve here.  You are trying to relive an old Tank Town argument with Dredger through me.  I'll tell you now I take exception to it.  For someone who many times has said he's a straight talker...spades a spades ethos, you let yourself down. 

Why you chose to quote my straight forward question to thndregg, without letting him answer, then putting this spiel (quoted above) to it shows me you haven't been following the thread, or you're myopic.  One of the two.



Putting this aside I'll take a moment to explain a few things to you.  Dredger mission don't contain...

Low level Lancaster's.
Suiciding CV bombers.
Bomb and bailers.
Auguring rinse & repeat porkers.
They are not overkill missions.
95% of his missions don't include hanger banging.
Rarity if the mission contains more than 15 which includes a c47 or 2.

Karaya you'd do best by letting Thndrgg answer the question and take up any petty beef you have with Dredger directly.

DREDger is a minion and resorts to juvenile comments when not even so much as leaned on.   All I'm saying as I have ALWAYS said, I don't beat around the bush.   I've been a Rook how long?   I know EXACTLY what goes on, come on.   You are nuts if you think none of that goes on.   

I'm not trying to "relive anything".   It's just that 99% of the Community doesn't go out of their way to ruin fun for others.   Great you Bish/Rooks were gang banging Knights last night.    You forgot to look at the Country Statuses for your "reset attempts".   

But where many have ALWAYS drawn the line is taking center map bases.   It serves no purpose other than to not allow GV'ers a "quick one or two hop".   Instead all of you like minded, failure to see the light zombies get your rocks off hogging all of the bases.   If there was a snowballs chance of a reset, if you're that weak, then take em.   But when ALL countries are around 33% of each countries base quota, you're not taking them because "we rule and didn't whorde." 

It is a mindset LYNX.   That and that alone is the crux of this VERY THREAD.   It's a shame that some just sell themselves for a score.   

I'll ALWAYS sound off against center bases being taken.   I'm not a hypocrite and despise those who are.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 23, 2009, 03:38:08 PM
:aok
Bravo Dave!

+1
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 23, 2009, 05:12:42 PM
Karaya you'd do best by letting Thndrgg answer the question and take up any petty beef you have with Dredger directly.

My answer is a little ways back.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 23, 2009, 06:34:44 PM

Your so high and mighty about jumping in just to argue!

 A9 is the airfield on the south side of the island where the fight had been going on for ever, V10 is the Vehicle base on the north side of the island that didn't get going untill A9 was finished. I logged in and upped A9 in a spit, and barely got my wheels up before I was killed, then the base was captured. I upped A51 in a pony and went strait to V10 because that is the next logical place to fight. That is where I ran into the "stupidity" I saw. Dive bombing lanc, stick stirring Chogs that have no other move than the HO, making 3 guys over shoot my pony at the same time because they have no clue how to fly, and the biggest of all, more than 20 people to take a vehicle base.

Ask FALCON for the screen shot of the one a minute before the one he posted where he stated he was tired of the FB so he made a mission. HE dictated a way to play the game, not me. Everything I posted was what HE told me up until the capture of A9, I witnessed the rest. So I'm NOT lying, I'm just repeating what I was told.

I'm brutally honest, I call it as I see it. Do I vulch yes I do! Do I dive in to a fight with out asking, no I don't, Do I bomb HQs and factories, Yes I do, but not often, towns are closer, and more often than not someone will try to shoot you down there. Do I HO? nope. DO I bomb and bail? Nope I always try to RTB, in my fighters as well.

You keep saying we talk about changing everyone to "our game play" If that were the case we would be looking to get rid of the GVs, and the heavy bombers. All us fighter types need are fighter type planes. No we are talking about.....wait for it..... LAME GAME PLAY!

Heres that list I posted way back again....


    * HOs lame
    * dive bombing lancs lame or any heavy bomber
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs lame
    * spawn camping lame
    * being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy lame
    * suicide dive bombers lame
    * bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn lame
    * hiding captured CVs lame


Can you honestly say that all those things on that list ARE NOT LAME?

Do you see anywhere on that list capturing bases?... running missions?... working together with your squad?.... saving your "country" from the evil empire?

Again, this is NOT a BISH problem, its an Aces High COMMUNITY problem. There is lame play on all sides. I call it out when I see Rooks doing it, do you when you see your teamates do it, or do you just join in?

 The only thing I did fugitive was to make a mission to take A9...If we had not of taken a9,rooks would of moved in for the kill on the bases within the sector to take them..It was an OFFENSIVE movement to finally take back A base in our area..

 It took more than 20 to take the Vbase since there were more than 20 on the ground defending it..WW's are a force to be dealt with in the game nowadays and get plenty of kills..

 And fugi,the list you post is what every side does.IN a perfect world I suppose they would never happen,but since it isnt,we just have to deal with them..I dont find those a deal-breaker on if I play AH or not..

     The maps are big enough to support all game-play..Missions,big and small,FB's big and small,GV battles,big and small..There truly is something for everyone in this game..

   We cannot dictate what others do in this game..And it is like pfactor said.If one wants to change the mindset,one has to be PRO-active..

  Running missions helps people to learn where troops go,I cannot tell you how many times missions have been run,only to end up as base ack fodder,or how people learned just how slow LVTA2's are..

  Whats funny is I am not in any way trying to discourage people from furballing to their hearts content,or GV'ing as well,but many seem to want to discourage me from running my missions..

  I ran a mission just last night on the uterus map into A29,a rook base,a GV mission which didnt get the capture,but I am sure it was "FUN" for everyone invlolved..and it had big numbers,maybe 20,I dont recall exactly,so again the argument that NUMBERS in missions are ruining the game-play for some I really see as a MOOT point..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 23, 2009, 08:35:07 PM

 And fugi,the list you post is what every side does.IN a perfect world I suppose they would never happen,but since it isnt,we just have to deal with them..I dont find those a deal-breaker on if I play AH or not..

   


And again the excuse comes through..... Well they do it !!! 


If you don't do it, thats one

If you stop your squad from doing it, thats another 60

If you help stop the bishops from doing it, thats another 2000-3000 !

It has to start someplace. I work on it as a Rook, and try to spread the word here on the boards.

You can either man up and help clear up the problem, or you can be part of the problem, as always, its up to you.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 23, 2009, 09:20:42 PM
I am not a babysitter in-game,and dont try to tell people how to play it the way they want too..If someone is dry spawning troops into a field bish want to capture,it is not my place to tell them to stop. I am not going around monitoring people who HO...Or anything else on that list..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 23, 2009, 10:15:46 PM
I am not a babysitter in-game,and dont try to tell people how to play it the way they want too..If someone is dry spawning troops into a field bish want to capture,it is not my place to tell them to stop. I am not going around monitoring people who HO...Or anything else on that list..

It really is amazing how little of this you really understand.  :frown:

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Edgar on April 23, 2009, 10:27:04 PM
It really is amazing how little of this you really understand.  :frown:



Not really hard to understand...

Fly the way that the Uber-stick gods of AHII deem appropriate or become a Dweeb, Noob, Ho-Tard, Tardlet or whatever else they can think of calling you on 200 while simultaneously thumping their chests and receiving accolades from their little minions...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 23, 2009, 11:22:41 PM
Any winners yet?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TequilaChaser on April 24, 2009, 12:07:25 AM
Any winners yet?
Y of course.....the winners are the ones who eventually evolve beyond being Lemming tardlings and learn that flying with 8+ others to cover their incompetent abilities in the monkeyhumping horde is ruining the fun of most everyone else........

when lets say in a 1 vs 1 fight, or 2 vs 2 fight (  1vs 1 = you fighting 1 with 7 + of his teamates ready to pick you off at any given time, or 2 vs 2 = 2 winging fighting back 2 others with 12+ or more corraling you both for iminent death of cartoon life )

or when a mission is planned and the mission planner holds and waits and continously keeps resetting the launch time of the mission, until he sees that their is a close undefended field that can be SWARMED with ungodly numbers in force.....

the ones who evolve and see the light of ACES HIGH, that learn that fair gameplay, good sportsmanship, Good etiquette, and participating in all the different special events , tournaments, scenarios that Aces High has to offer........or even learning proper BFM/ACM mechanics and then paying this help one has received forward to other newcomers of this community is what it really is all about.....

when that lightbulb switch flips on in their heads, and they understand what all their elders / pillars before them have repeated continously without exhaustion of what should be expected of them..........this is how "this" community should be molded.....this is how it was molded in the past............and by God, this will be how it is going to be molded in the future........ I was thinking about a scripture........but will end with you throw out the bad seed from all of the good...so it does not infect the whole crop........carry on...... I am most certian everyone at some point in their Online Flight Sim Community time will "Get It"........it just takes some a longer time than most ...give or take 3 or 4 years <grin>
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kev367th on April 24, 2009, 03:05:00 AM

And again the excuse comes through..... Well they do it !!! 


If you don't do it, thats one

If you stop your squad from doing it, thats another 60

If you help stop the bishops from doing it, thats another 2000-3000 !

It has to start someplace. I work on it as a Rook, and try to spread the word here on the boards.

You can either man up and help clear up the problem, or you can be part of the problem, as always, its up to you.

Trawled or should that be trolled through 29 pages   :O -

Had a feeling that would come as an answer to Falcons post.

Same self appointed AH police with their "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong".

Guess what - No-ones way of playing the game is more or less valid than ANYONE elses, including yours.

Is AH perfect - No.

Does HT fix what he considers problems - Yes, these problems you perceive existed in 2004 when I joined, guess what - they are still here.

Just remember one thing - All the players you are so fond of ridiculing contribute towards HT's funding for continued development of the game. Then again I guess you'd be more than happy if AH went back to what it was 10 years ago.

I will be returning to AH sometime in May, and I will play the game the way I WANT TO.
Not to yours, or anyone elses view of how they think it should be played.

@Tequilachaser - Disagree, the game is not all about learning ACM/BFM or anything else for that matter, it's about HAVING FUN!
Your whole elders / pillars part of your post really shows just how arrogant and self righteous your small minority is. It about FUN, whether thats furballing, GV'ing, buffs or however the person get his jollies, your way is not the be all and end all of AH.

Flame away

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Rich46yo on April 24, 2009, 04:01:28 AM
That Bish B-24 mission to 73 in LWO yesterday made me giggle. I never saw so many perfectly good bombers falling from the sky. They started bailing right after their one hangar bang run where they probably dropped 8 1,000 lb bombs to drop a hangar. Then they still couldnt take the base. :lol

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 24, 2009, 04:34:15 AM
Trawled or should that be trolled through 29 pages   :O -

Had a feeling that would come as an answer to Falcons post.

Same self appointed AH police with their "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong".

Guess what - No-ones way of playing the game is more or less valid than ANYONE elses, including yours.

Is AH perfect - No.

Does HT fix what he considers problems - Yes, these problems you perceive existed in 2004 when I joined, guess what - they are still here.

Just remember one thing - All the players you are so fond of ridiculing contribute towards HT's funding for continued development of the game. Then again I guess you'd be more than happy if AH went back to what it was 10 years ago.

I will be returning to AH sometime in May, and I will play the game the way I WANT TO.
Not to yours, or anyone elses view of how they think it should be played.

@Tequilachaser - Disagree, the game is not all about learning ACM/BFM or anything else for that matter, it's about HAVING FUN!
Your whole elders / pillars part of your post really shows just how arrogant and self righteous your small minority is. It about FUN, whether thats furballing, GV'ing, buffs or however the person get his jollies, your way is not the be all and end all of AH.

Flame away


Kev, I disagree.
Having fun?
 What lines do you draw and finally decide that the fun you are having is from pissing off or greifing the other guy rather than truely having fun from what your doing?
YES its fun to bring 50 guys to a base and completly anhaliate it. OH the comradary!!! Heck I pay 15$ a month, I have every right to call 50 guys over and do what I want. HTC lets us do it right?
How much fan mail would I get if one night I set out to comepletly destroy these 30+ NOE missions by having someone rat out their missions? Is it cheating? NO. Is it lame?..YES. Would it be fun?..OH YES!!  Even some of the ones that loath these sneaky tactics will still rat out the one that rat out these missions.
I still havent recieved any responses to this question yet.  Point is...Most of us are grown up here, you can still have fun in this game and not greif a majority of the other players.

I know Falcon as well as Dads, We flew together and came on just about the same time. I know how they fly and what their philosophy is. been there, done that. When I offer suggestions, and it comes back to me as " YOUR TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY THE GAME", thats nothing but false. Stop being stubborn, try having an open mind and dont be so uptight.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: grizz441 on April 24, 2009, 04:34:47 AM
I don't get it yet.

It's okay Kev, read Tequila's post again.  It sums it up nicely.  No big deal though if you don't want to learn BFM/ACM and effectively own pilots 2v1,3v1,4v1.  Outfly and kill spits in planes that have three times less the turn rate.  Yeah, that skill set is overrated.  It's much more fun to roll the dice in that head on...kind of like playing roulette at the casino.  Win some, lose some.  You're right however, it's all about having fun.  Imo it's a lot more fun and satisfying to fly efficiently and not like a total dweeb who has zero clue.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 04:40:33 AM
Trawled or should that be trolled through 29 pages   :O -

Had a feeling that would come as an answer to Falcons post.

Same self appointed AH police with their "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong".

Guess what - No-ones way of playing the game is more or less valid than ANYONE elses, including yours.

Is AH perfect - No.

Does HT fix what he considers problems - Yes, these problems you perceive existed in 2004 when I joined, guess what - they are still here.

Just remember one thing - All the players you are so fond of ridiculing contribute towards HT's funding for continued development of the game. Then again I guess you'd be more than happy if AH went back to what it was 10 years ago.

I will be returning to AH sometime in May, and I will play the game the way I WANT TO.
Not to yours, or anyone elses view of how they think it should be played.

@Tequilachaser - Disagree, the game is not all about learning ACM/BFM or anything else for that matter, it's about HAVING FUN!
Your whole elders / pillars part of your post really shows just how arrogant and self righteous your small minority is. It about FUN, whether thats furballing, GV'ing, buffs or however the person get his jollies, your way is not the be all and end all of AH.

Flame away


SIr that is totally right, nothing to gain from ACM SA BFWHATEVER!  Fun is crashing on take off, HOing, ramming, spraying ammo and capturing bases with mass troop dropps, yes sir!  No fun in surivivng, I give my heart of a SEAL life for my buddies everytime I take out a plane thats the only way to have fun, aint gon be no one to tell me otherwise cause its my 15$!  Yestrday this gyu was taking forever to finish his fight so I was like come on do it do it, and he wouldnt do it so i flew in front of him and emptyed my ammo on dat red sucker and he blew up good after barely 5 seconds of hits, and after that the green guy was flying without his tail, he was so mad that he probably yank his stick doing fancy ACM and broke his tail off on ehis own!  Vets are crazy!!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kev367th on April 24, 2009, 05:40:57 AM
Tralfz - Grizz - Moot

My point was your views that ACM etc are the be end and end all of AH is your point of view, not right, not wrong, just your point of view. As I said it's not ALL about, never said nothing to do with or nothing to gain.

Not everyone apparently plays the game to become a virtual elite pilot, some just want to log on and have fun.

I've been away for some time and no doubt will get my virtual butt handed to me numerous times on my return.
Doesn't matter, not gonna fret over it, just going to have fun.
Doesn't matter if I get back to my previous level or not, just going to have fun.
Not going to fret over what other people are doing, just going to have fun.
Common theme here?

Funny how you seem to take every little thing that happens in the game as a deliberate attempt to piss you off, I think you over estimate your own importance.
People don't sit around in the tower watching the map thinking, hmmm theres a furball I'd better go and kill it off. Talk about a persecution complex, lol.

Not saying I disagree with some of the points brought up, my problem is the overbearing, arrogant, denigrating attitude that most of you exhibit in your posts.
It does absolutely nothing for your 'crusade'. If anything it harms it.

I'm sorry, it most definately is a "PLAY THE GAME MY WAY OR YOUR WRONG" standpoint. Thats obvious from the content of the majority of posts in this thread. May not come out and explicity state that, but thats most definately the tone.


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 05:55:47 AM
BS.. Where, show us WHERE does anyone IMPOSE that ACM and SA, etc, be sharpened to top five percentile perfection??  The argument is and has always been the same rationale that HTC and anyone with a modicum of sense backs, that is, to make the players more CAPABLE so that they may better do whatever it is they want to do.  Namely, move their vehicles around in the virtual space of Aces High. For the purpose of being able to survive, being able to kill, etc.  From this is the direct consequence that flying in hordes is inherently less fun than in well-balanced circumstances because it reduces the actual gameplay that's taking place.  It NEITHER says that flying in well-balanced circumstances is the ONLY way to fly, or that we INSIST that everyone fly that way, or that it couldn't be fun to do it. 
The only slant in our rants is from players wrecking good gameplay for no good reason.  It's got nothing to do with elitism.  Working to help HTC establish a better network to link capable tutors to new players is elitist, is it now?  And how exactly is anyone forcing anything to happen?  Everything on this forum is just text on a virtual message board.  Nothing written on here ever forces anyone to do anything unless the reader actually agrees with something he's exposed to.

That's a separate argument and while it does bias towards longer and richer gameplay at the cost of "winning the war at all costs" strategic perspective, nowhere is it pretentious.. Unless maybe e.g. Guppy saying that since no one dies in the game, that the fight is the real reward.. unless that right there is supposed to be snobbish?

You say you've waded thru this whole thread, but did you miss this post?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262689.msg3267281.html#msg3267281

Quote
"Funny how you seem to take every little thing that happens in the game as a deliberate attempt to piss you off, I think you over estimate your own importance."
Where the hell did you pull this one out of ??
Quote
"I'm sorry, it most definately is a "PLAY THE GAME MY WAY OR YOUR WRONG" standpoint. Thats obvious from the content of the majority of posts in this thread. May not come out and explicity state that, but thats most definately the tone. "
In your head maybe.  Check your eyes for dirt.
Quote
"People don't sit around in the tower watching the map thinking, hmmm theres a furball I'd better go and kill it off. Talk about a persecution complex, lol."

Actually, yes it happens.  It ain't the crux of the argument here, but since you bring it up.. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262689.msg3276493.html#msg3276493  Plenty of historical examples.. People killing CVs just to kill a furball that wasn't going anywhere.. People getting on vox saying they're shutting down hangars because the war needs to be won, when the map isn't anywhere near a decisive moment, when the front lines are 10 fields deep and wide away from HQ, when plenty of players are having a blast doing whatever it is they're doing.. Hording or furballing properly.  The same kind of lame "gameplay" that has people capturing or vulching bases in the DA furball lake. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 06:03:35 AM
Kev BTW... Tell me, was it elitism everytime I've gone to the TA/DA with all sorts of players who wanted to get better at the game?  Do you think that was because they wanted to have less fun out of it?  Cause one of em was Falcon23.. Maybe you could talk to him about being such an elitist blow hard, for having the gall to try and improve his game?  Surely he must be out of his mind if he sees some corelation between fun and actually being able to do what the game was meant for - air combat?  How dare he take at face value the offer from some player like me to help him out?

Your argument is totally bogus.  I do all the game has to offer.. Vulch, strat/tactical play on the ground and in the air, team work, lone wolfing, historical setups, BSing with squaddies to the point of missing opportunities for good fights, playing as cover for the hordes' massive bomber missions, or flying as a goon or Me110 in the NOE raids... 

My point was your views that ACM etc are the be end and end all of AH is your point of view, not right, not wrong, just your point of view.
That right there's BS.  ACM/SA/etc are the building blocks of air combat, which is precisely what the game's all about.  It's the one common point between anyone that plays this game, whether they're the old friends BSing totally drunk on a late evening after work, or they're naive noobs to warbirds who cream their pants just flying formation in their fav plane, or whether they're playing the game just for the competitive aspect, or whether they get their socks off purely from the tactical/strategic riddle-solving aspects... It's all centered around air combat.  So yes, in fact, the building blocks of air combat are the be all end all of AH, if there ever was one.  Which no one but guys like you have ever pretended.. When I log on I don't start spamming the channel with armchair general all-caps directives.. I've never pretended anything was the be-all end-all in the game.  Only guys like you want to pretend it's our intention.  It's a convenient straw man.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TequilaChaser on April 24, 2009, 07:35:00 AM
Trawled or should that be trolled through 29 pages   :O -

Had a feeling that would come as an answer to Falcons post.

Same self appointed AH police with their "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong".

Guess what - No-ones way of playing the game is more or less valid than ANYONE elses, including yours.

Is AH perfect - No.

Does HT fix what he considers problems - Yes, these problems you perceive existed in 2004 when I joined, guess what - they are still here.

Just remember one thing - All the players you are so fond of ridiculing contribute towards HT's funding for continued development of the game. Then again I guess you'd be more than happy if AH went back to what it was 10 years ago.

I will be returning to AH sometime in May, and I will play the game the way I WANT TO.
Not to yours, or anyone elses view of how they think it should be played.

@Tequilachaser - Disagree, the game is not all about learning ACM/BFM or anything else for that matter, it's about HAVING FUN!
Your whole elders / pillars part of your post really shows just how arrogant and self righteous your small minority is. It about FUN, whether thats furballing, GV'ing, buffs or however the person get his jollies, your way is not the be all and end all of AH.

Flame away

Good Day Kev,
sorry if I could not determine exactly if you was replying solely to my last post, or just the part of what I said....please let me quote what you think I said...then I will quote myself ( something I really do not care for, I am merely here to help! Help others have fun, and get my fun from doing it! )

Kev, here is your preceived thoughts of me:
@Tequilachaser - Disagree, the game is not all about learning ACM/BFM or anything else for that matter, it's about HAVING FUN!
Your whole elders / pillars part of your post really shows just how arrogant and self righteous your small minority is.

Kev, here is exactly how I put it!

TC's reply in answering Getback's ? are their any winners yet?
Quote
the ones who evolve and see the light of ACES HIGH, that learn that fair gameplay, good sportsmanship, Good etiquette, and participating in all the different special events , tournaments, scenarios that Aces High has to offer........or even learning proper BFM/ACM mechanics and then paying this help one has received forward to other newcomers of this community is what it really is all about.....  

next, here is what I said about those who evolved to become winners,
Quote
when that lightbulb switch flips on in their heads, and they understand what all their elders / pillars before them have repeated continously without exhaustion of what should be expected of them..........this is how "this" community should be molded.....this is how it was molded in the past............and by God, this will be how it is going to be molded in the future........

and yes sir, Kev...........everyone of us have our own right to agree and disagree as we choose to do so........

I just needed to put my posted comments back in to the proper context I meant them........which again is....learning to have fun and enjoying your comradery with your fellow cartoon pile its .......and learning what all is available to one, once they step outside the box ( cube, horde mentality is what I mean with this statement )

Good Day all........I got to go for now  :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kev367th on April 24, 2009, 07:52:28 AM
Kev BTW... Tell me, was it elitism everytime I've gone to the TA/DA with all sorts of players who wanted to get better at the game?  Do you think that was because they wanted to have less fun out of it?  Cause one of em was Falcon23.. Maybe you could talk to him about being such an elitist blow hard, for having the gall to try and improve his game?  Surely he must be out of his mind if he sees some corelation between fun and actually being able to do what the game was meant for - air combat?  How dare he take at face value the offer from some player like me to help him out?

Your argument is totally bogus.  I do all the game has to offer.. Vulch, strat/tactical play on the ground and in the air, team work, lone wolfing, historical setups, BSing with squaddies to the point of missing opportunities for good fights, playing as cover for the hordes' massive bomber missions, or flying as a goon or Me110 in the NOE raids... 
That right there's BS.  ACM/SA/etc are the building blocks of air combat, which is precisely what the game's all about.  It's the one common point between anyone that plays this game, whether they're the old friends BSing totally drunk on a late evening after work, or they're naive noobs to warbirds who cream their pants just flying formation in their fav plane, or whether they're playing the game just for the competitive aspect, or whether they get their socks off purely from the tactical/strategic riddle-solving aspects... It's all centered around air combat.  So yes, in fact, the building blocks of air combat are the be all end all of AH, if there ever was one.  Which no one but guys like you have ever pretended.. When I log on I don't start spamming the channel with armchair general all-caps directives.. I've never pretended anything was the be-all end-all in the game.  Only guys like you want to pretend it's our intention.  It's a convenient straw man.

For you the game is all about air combat.
There are guys who play the game who rarely set a virtual foot in a fighter.
AH has evolved so far beyond being an air combat game only. Fields are taken without any air combat, (but plenty of ground combat) all the time.
It was even changing in 2004 when I joined.

I suppose how you feel depends on what side of the fence you sit on. I see it as so much more.

Never mentioned 'elite' anything.

Tequila - Yes having fun is what it is all about. But as I said above the game is now so much more than air combat alone. There are probably as many reasons as there are players why people play the game. Sorry if I picked up certain passages incorrectly in your post.

I just see it as people will play the game to have fun, doing it there way. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just their way. If they choose to join the hoard, then fine, as long as they have fun.
If they join NOEs, then fine, as long as they have fun.

No skin off my nose, I have just as much fun trying to stop them.


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TequilaChaser on April 24, 2009, 07:53:05 AM
Wait a minute............

ah  no problem...Kev we all have our senior moments of hair falling out.......

Edit: Kev, I really do need to go to work. but ned to ask this one question....

Would you Agree, that the AH Community must police itself to some degree, for if not self policed ( this is refering to the boards as well as in the Arena online ).......this game would have long ago turned for the worst.........and would become more of a "in your face squalk box 1st person shoot em up, and all those types of games bring with it?

besides........Scenarios, Snapshots, FSO's, KOTH's, AHERL, is what the real game is here...everything else including the MA's is just practice anyhows

ok got to really go........
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 24, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
I believe there is some incorrect information working its way into this conversation.

The fight had been going on over A9, V10, and the Bishop CV for hours.  The furball formed early in the day when a very small mission attempted to take V10 and failed.  Throughout the day, A9 and V10 had been bombed closed several times.  Also, the Bishop CV had been sunk several times.

There was no mission posted to take V10 when it finally fell.  A9 had been taken and a number of Bishop players spawned in on the ground to V10.  I was one of them.  I killed 2 defenders before being killed myself.

So, essentially, the fight at A9 and then V10 was merely a protracted fight that had begun much much earlier in the day.  It was essentially the taking of a defended pair of bases.  Because of said defense, it took about eight hours.


Is the issue here that the furball died when the bases were taken?  The way I see it, the furball went on for hours.  Much much longer then most.  Most furballs are born out of missions that fail, you know.  Are you (Fugitive) arguing that all missions should be designed to fail, so a furball will form?  Or is the issue that Falcon tweaked your nose in the game when you got all butt hurt that the base fell right as you got there?

People keep going back to the "HUGE" mission that took V10, which is pretty funny really.  Since there wasn't a mission to take it at all.

You know, I can see the side of the argument that doesn't like big NOE missions that are designed to roll over a base without opposition.  If I'm in a mission, I like it when the enemy ups ot defend.  But you know what, I don't believe that there are nearly as many big NOE missions going on as there were just a few months ago.  And not nearly enough of them to seriously impact gameplay in a macro sense.  This is all, much ado about nothing really.  

Something else that I think is being totally overlooked here is that large country missions have a place in the social structure of the game.  I was a new player about a year or so ago (maybe a bit longer).  First time I logged on, I was randomly placed on the Knights.  This isn't my first flight combat game, so I wasn't totally helpless (just mostly helpless, much like i am today)...  I played for a couple hours.  I was totally unimpressed with the way I was treated by my so-called "team-mates".  So, I switched countries to see if it was any different on the other side.  Just so happens, I switched to Bishop.  Somebody was advertising that a mission was forming so I joined, to check it out.  Guess what.  I had fun.  It was fun to be part of something.  It was good to be able to follow somebodies else lead for a little while.  I didn't really know what I was doing, so I followed and paid attention.

I continued to join missions.  Learning all the time.  Getting to know people a little.  Getting contact and experience I never would have gotten outside the missions.  Was I learning ACM by joining missions?  Nope.  I was learning the GAME.  Only after I was hooked on THE GAME, did I have enough interest to start learning how to use my airplane correctly.  If it hadn't been for those missions, I probably wouldn't have given AH2 enough of a chance to catch my interest.  Then I was invited to fly with RT for a couple of weeks, that's when I really got hooked on AH2.  Great bunch of guys, spend a large part of my AH2 time laughing at what is going on over dquad vox.  I'm sure most of you can say the same about your squad.

Now, what happens if all the sudden only the smaller missions are allowed?  Say HTC comes up with a way to prevent large missions.  Would open country missions die?  Probably...  If I can only have a set number of folks in a mission, I'm going to take people who I think are good pilots.  Not noobs...  So, you'll have a bunch of new players who get ZERO guidence early in their gaming experience.  In fact, their gaming experience is going to consist mostly of getting picked by all you experienced guys until they get frustrated, bored, and then quit the game.  Guess what, the game will die.  Without a constant influx of noobs, AH2 will go away.  Large missions are necessary to assure the inclusion of new players.  I think HiTech knows it.  Maybe he doesn't like it, maybe that's part of what he was trying to accomplish with CT.  Some alternative way to work new players into the system.  Maybe, maybe not.  Either way, it's irrelevant now.  CT is dead.  For better or worse, this is the game we have.

My advice, to those of you who keep moaning over the supposed degradation of game play...  Quit berating anyone who doesn't play the way that you think is best.  Quit whining and start contributing new ideas.  Ideas that will help work the new guys into the system in a FUN way.  If you don't want large missions (you're also going to be ruling out open country missions), figure out something productive then to keep the game moving, keep the player base growing.   And no, simply forcing them into the TA for X amount of time before they can log into the MA won't work.  The Training Corps isn't large enough or organized in a way that could handle that.  Get your egos out of the forums and off of channel 200.  You aren't changing anything by being tools to anyone who plays differently than you.

I say, if you're all worried about improving game play, do something about it.  Imagine the difference it would make if the experienced "elite" squads made a concerted effort to "adopt" a few new guys EVERY tour.  Teach them ACM.  Teach them what they need to know.  Open the doors to your elite halls and let a noob in once in awhile.  Quit crying over the degrading state of the game.

Maybe the answer is that every single squad, as payment for its continued existance be required to take on X number of new players (placed in the squad automatically without the squad having any choice in the selection.  At the end of the tour, the new guys are asked to fill out a quick survey to determine whether or not the squad is doing its duty in training new players.  If the squad gets failing marks, then it is disbanded and all squad members are banned from joining another squad for X amount of time.  I get tired of so much complaining about the state of "game play", when so few of you do anything even remotely substantive to actually contribute.  Sure, I'll bet you all assuage your conscience by telling yourself, "I'll help anyone who asks."  Big whoop!  Make an effort to actually go out there and FIND somebody who needs help.  Then after you get him off on the right track.  DO IT AGAIN!  It should be an ongoing process that never ends.  Imagine what would happen if 100 more experienced players each helped 1 new guy per tour.  I mean take the new guy to the TA/DA for a couple hours a week.  Imagine what would happen.  And it doesn't have to be 100 Trainer Corps qualified players...  Just people who know a little ACM.  You wouldn't have to make each noob into a terror of the skies, just somebody who can survive for a little while in the MA.

Unless you are willing to actually do something about it, you shouldn't be in here whining about the state of game play today.

Whatever...  That's all I have to say at the moment.  Take it for what it's worth.





logged on yesterday for a 20 min stint...found a base with many enemies...upped off the runway....looked up and saw no less than 7 tiffs hovering the lopsided fight...6 ponies....and spits hurri's f4u's and zekes abound....tried to get wheels up and was HO'd on the runway by a hog....still got off the runway and was immediately jumped by 3 ponies and a tiff coming in at 550.....after a few reversals...was HOd by a jug and crashed...

re-upped, dodged a couple of vulches...got out a bit cause pony dove and extended so far I got air under my wings, pony kept attacking, hog came over to help him, jug followed in, and I got HO'd 3 times in a 1 vs 3 finally losing my vert stab trying to dodge the last HO attempt by the jug.....

re-upped, got HOd by that same jug as I passed him trying to get gear up, and got jumped by a hurri and 2 ponies right off the field, reversed the hurri, got into a semi-rolling scissors with him while dodging attacks from the ponies...saw a ponie coming in, avoided a head on pass and he got my tail as he flew by...(PFactorDave)

re-upped, dodged another HO by a spit and a hog at the same time....got wheels up, tried to get over 150mph...got tail snapped by passing pony....

Now, there was enemy at least 7 to 1 there, and no less than 11 ponies and tiffs were bnz cherrying the lopsided fight................and most every plane there was HOing at any chance they got...yes...even with the planes they were HOing in 1 vs 3,4,5 and barely wheels up.........apparently, many of the folks there were looking for no-fight kills, possibly for score padding...................... ............................. ...........................LA ME!!!! :aok

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 24, 2009, 08:06:01 AM
btw, lotta looks at this thread.....
























 :noid
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 08:06:52 AM
For you the game is all about air combat. [...]
Uh duh.... The point is obviously that you're supposed to fight in the game, whether that's
on the ground [or] in the air [etc]
You haven't read my reply to your previous post anymore than you've read this thread or the ones preceding and leading to it, and so you're nowhere near impartial and informed here when you jump right in telling some guys that they're imposing on others that they play their way... The simple fact is that the fun in this game is from playing it... The same way it's more fun to play soccer when you're able to hit the ball where you mean to or have the stamina to play longer.  And the rest of the argument follows, that there's nothing elitist in spreading knowledge about what tactics work and which ones don't, and making players better so that they don't resort to crappy substitutes for gameplay like bomb&bail or stick stirring or spray and pray, or so that they don't run from fights that they could enjoy 100% of their potential fun if only they knew e.g. how to maneuver right.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Oldman731 on April 24, 2009, 08:23:54 AM
Not everyone apparently plays the game to become a virtual elite pilot, some just want to log on and have fun.

Heh.

When I go to the amusement park I get a kick out of suddenly yelling at little kids, usually they'll drop their ice cream cones on the ground.  Also, I find it's fun to tell them that there are monsters in the tunnel they're going into, and that lots of kids never come out.  You should see how some of them start screaming, it's really a laugh and a lot of fun.  Sometimes their parents get really mad, too.

The amusement park has a lot more to offer than lots of people think.

- oldman
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 24, 2009, 08:27:28 AM
I am not a babysitter in-game,and dont try to tell people how to play it the way they want too..If someone is dry spawning troops into a field bish want to capture,it is not my place to tell them to stop. I am not going around monitoring people who HO...Or anything else on that list..


OK so you have decided to stay part of the problem....

Not really hard to understand...

Fly the way that the Uber-stick gods of AHII deem appropriate or become a Dweeb, Noob, Ho-Tard, Tardlet or whatever else they can think of calling you on 200 while simultaneously thumping their chests and receiving accolades from their little minions...


....and another one joins the ranks of those who wish to be part of the problem.


Trawled or should that be trolled through 29 pages   :O -

Had a feeling that would come as an answer to Falcons post.

....and it is the answer FALCON himself posted

Quote
Same self appointed AH police with their "if you don't play the game my way, you're wrong".

Guess what - No-ones way of playing the game is more or less valid than ANYONE elses, including yours.

No ones trying to take any ones way of playing the game away, unless you think bombing and bailing is a good way to play, or that running an NOE mission with 20+guys is good.... We would just like to see the lame game play removed, and replaced with good game play, like missions with a plan, defense of the base they just took instead of running off to find some undefended spot on the map to get another base with out fighting for it.

Quote
Is AH perfect - No.

Does HT fix what he considers problems - Yes, these problems you perceive existed in 2004 when I joined, guess what - they are still here.

....are they are running rampant now as apposed to just being an annoyance then.

Quote
Just remember one thing - All the players you are so fond of ridiculing contribute towards HT's funding for continued development of the game. Then again I guess you'd be more than happy if AH went back to what it was 10 years ago.

I will be returning to AH sometime in May, and I will play the game the way I WANT TO.
Not to yours, or anyone elses view of how they think it should be played.

Yes we can get all of these new planes and vehicles with this great new terrains, so that the horde will look good as it rolls over base after base. If people don't start being accountable for the game play and continue to contribute to lame game play eventually that will be the only game play left.

Quote
@Tequilachaser - Disagree, the game is not all about learning ACM/BFM or anything else for that matter, it's about HAVING FUN!
Your whole elders / pillars part of your post really shows just how arrogant and self righteous your small minority is. It about FUN, whether thats furballing, GV'ing, buffs or however the person get his jollies, your way is not the be all and end all of AH.

Flame away


How can it be fun when you take the time to climb up over your base to defend and the buffs all bail after dropping their loads? How can it be fun when your squad gets together to defend a base and the 6 or 7 of you are rolled over by 20-30 enemy horde that comes in? How can it be fun to re up 4 and 5 times to finally beat back an attack, and as you wait for the next wave <--- an old term used to define the follow-up attack on a base......you see the base 4 sectors over start flashing, its the guys you beat back, running an NOE for a free base?

Originally this game was all about Air Combat. HTC has added a lot of stuff to help fill out the game. Now the game is about ground combat, and sea combat as well, but the common factor here is COMBAT. Today more and more people play to avoid combat either by hiding in the horde, or these continuous NOEs. Todays "leaders" are low on skill and so teach the same type of play to the new players just coming in. Like TC said, some rise above that and realize that there is so much more to the game and do learn to get better. Those that play the game with skill always have fun and succeed at which ever facet of the game they want to excel at. There are some guys who are VERY good at bombing.... a certain "numbers guy" comes to mind, as well as some great GVers. Dr7 doesn't have to sit at a spawn point, he'll pick you off from almost any where. These guys are exceptional at what they do, but neither .... well lets just say they don't spend much time in fighters  :) . This is about better game play, and having more fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 24, 2009, 08:45:08 AM
My answer is a little ways back.

yes sorry.  Got caught out half way threw responding Karaya.  Finished the post after having dinner.

Quote
I don't necessarily need the mission planner. And no, I wouldn't quit. The comradery I've enjoyed with the BOPs over the past 5 years is priceless. I don't soley put missions together as my mainstay in this game. I'm also not at all apprehensive about throwing missions together with less than uber planes. Those actually are the most fun.

Ive bumped into a few fun mission.  Hurri 1 comes to mind.  They are fun for friend and foe alike.  Quite amusing having your arse tickled by all those 303's and trying to turn with the bleeders, eventually ending up low an slow with em  :uhoh

Tis also fun being in a less than uber ride head shooting P38's and the like .

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc288/lynx-AH/darkiesPS.jpg)

It's not a suprise now that you don't need the mission planner.  Your in 1 of AH's multi winged squads.  However, in keeping with the thread all I could ask is that when you set country missions to keep in mind the sporting aspects when capturing ports and vbases.  There really isn't a need to dog pile those places. 


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 09:00:26 AM
Or when you do show up with a couple dozens and the target is scantily or not defended, have the sense to divert a part of the group to one or more other targets.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kev367th on April 24, 2009, 09:22:13 AM
Tequila - I think HT does a very good job of policing the game.

Moot - Interesting anology to soccer. Not being as young as I once was, I don't have the stamina anymore. Does that mean I no longer enjoy a kick around on the green as much. Hell no!
I could also say that it is also possible the more skilled you get, the more seriously you take the game. The more seriously you take it, the more chance things annoy you, the more chance you don't enjoy it as much. (Hypothetically)
I would agree on diverting parts of a mission to another objective, once the main objective is relatively secure. Easy if its a squad, more difficult if its a general mission.

Fugitive -
Bish Tiffy missions were common (infamous) back in 2004. With the lower overall MA population back then I would guess the odds were more in favour of the mission than they are now.
Simple answer to an undefended base - DEFEND IT. I would agree it's probably more difficult on a large map.
Yup, is 999000 the bombers guy, and probably Tunes also? (I've Been away a while)
Dr7 and Whels are a nightmare in tanks.
Bombing and bailing - Don't agree with bombing and bailing over the field, or if being chased. Then again does it really 'hurt' anyone?
NOE's I have no problem with - Easier to defend against than a similar mission coming in at 20k or more. Yes I know you have little warning, but at least you can be on an equal speed footing with an NOE very quickly.

Skyrock - This is something I can never understand. I thought you would have known better than to up from a capped/vulched field. Thought you would have gone to the next closest field and upped from there? (I assume it wasn't an attempted capture)
Me - I'd of grabbed an IL-2 and ho'd them right back, soon thin them out :) .

General - What ever happened to the anti-hoard - hoard that was much talked and vaunted about?

Oops - For 2004, read 2002, just realised when I started, time flies.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Edgar on April 24, 2009, 10:01:46 AM

Not really hard to understand...

Fly the way that the Uber-stick gods of AHII deem appropriate or become a Dweeb, Noob, Ho-Tard, Tardlet or whatever else they can think of calling you on 200 while simultaneously thumping their chests and receiving accolades from their little minions...





....and another one joins the ranks of those who wish to be part of the problem.



Not looking to be a part of anyone's problem, but like it or not, that is the way a lot of you come off on the bulletin board and in the game.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 24, 2009, 10:02:40 AM
DREDger is a minion and resorts to juvenile comments pot kettle black 1st & 4th words when not even so much as leaned on.   All I'm saying as I have ALWAYS said, I don't beat around the bush.   I've been a Rook how long?   I know EXACTLY what goes on, come on.   You are nuts if you think none of that goes on.   If your talking about Rooks as a whole ...yes these things do go on.  With reference to a dredger mission your wrong and out of context

I'm not trying to "relive anything".  really? It doesn't look like that in the next paragraph It's just that 99% of the Community doesn't go out of their way to ruin fun for others.  really? Great you Bish/Rooks were gang banging Knights last night.    You forgot to look at the Country Statuses for your "reset attempts".   now this does make perfect sense.  I can't see the point of griefing 1 country back to a few bases when you still need 40% of another.

But where many have ALWAYS drawn the line is taking center map bases.   Have you even looked at Oranges map?  With the exception of TT map this idea here is total bollocks  It serves no purpose other than to not allow GV'ers a "quick one or two hop".   There is no TT in the orange terrain.  Those center Island BASES in orange are just the same as any other base on the WHOLE FREAKIN MAP.  They are to be contended and contested just like any other.  Honestly, your arguing over TT when there isn't one. Instead all of you like minded, failure to see the light zombies get your rocks off hogging all of the bases.   If there was a snowballs chance of a reset, if you're that weak, then take em.   But when ALL countries are around 33% of each countries base quota, you're not taking them because "we rule and didn't whorde." 

It is a mindset LYNX.   That and that alone is the crux of this VERY THREAD.   Yep and not petty arguments about none existant tank towns It's a shame that some just sell themselves for a score.   

I'll ALWAYS sound off against center bases being taken.   Even when there is NO TT?  I'm not a hypocrite and despise those who are.   

I'm done with this off topic side bar.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 24, 2009, 10:05:36 AM
I'm done with this off topic side bar.

I never said "TT Bases".    I said "Center bases".    But the "mindset" is what this THREAD has been about and few get that point.   Maybe on page 40, some people will finally grasp that word.

Regarding your "pot kettle black" comment.   In the 7+ years I've been playing, I've never insulted someone across channel by means of a personal nature.   You know damn well what I'm talking about, don't even compare me DREDger.   I don't "turn a blind eye" to ignorance and try to twist other people's words.   Some in this game do.

Make fun of my 250lb body weight all you want.   It makes you look ignorant, whether you "say it", or "refuse to deal with it."   I find it amusing that folks in here pretend to be "a friend" and stab you in the back every chance they get.   This isn't the first time weak minded folks do it and it will not be last time.

With that being said.   I'm done with this "sidebar, word twisting to suit my angle BS" as well.   I will continue posting to those posts which skirt the "word" involved.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 24, 2009, 10:28:37 AM
Not looking to be a part of anyone's problem, but like it or not, that is the way a lot of you come off on the bulletin board and in the game.

Did you read the post.... well the ones on topic anyway...? The point is that too much lame game play is happening. I for one am asking the rest of the community to help clean it up. I'm not trying to stop anyone from playing the game the way that they want to unless they,


    * HO
    * dive bombing lancs or any heavy bomber
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs
    * spawn camping
    * being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy
    * suicide dive bombers
    * bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn
    * hiding captured CVs

If you think all of these things are OK, then you are part of the problem.

If you think these are lame, at least control yourself and avoid doing them, if you lead a squad instill the same qualities into your squad mates, if you lead country wide missions (which means that the players on your team look up to you at least enough to follow you) in still those qualities into them. A little bit goes a long way.

Again, which type of game play do you promote.... be honest now  :)


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 24, 2009, 10:36:45 AM

    * HO
    * dive bombing lancs or any heavy bomber
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs
    * spawn camping
    * being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy
    * suicide dive bombers
    * bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn
    * hiding captured CVs

If you think all of these things are OK, then you are part of the problem.



And what we are trying to tell you is that you are wrong. 
These are things that YOU find to be lame.  You are saying that this is the standard by your accounts.
I can agree with some of them being lame, but not all of them.
Someone else will also disagree with some of them and be completely different from our perceptions. 

Is this the official results of a concensus from the community, no, its your opinion of what lame play is.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 24, 2009, 10:39:35 AM
btw, lotta looks at this thread.....

4,788 views as I post this.  Would be cool if just a few % of the viewers stopped doing the crappy stuff.  Unfortunately 2 things come to mind.

1) apparently only a minority of subscribers read the boards.

2) There's no way in hell I or some others will stop doing what others perceive to be crappy stuff.  For an example....while the other sides are capable of spawning LVT dry I'll do likewise.  If there's just cause I'll hide CV's but I'll also push them forward when it's appropriate. 

One mans Taliban is another mans Mujaheddin
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 24, 2009, 10:41:15 AM
Some one said that ENY killed RJO. Now I find that funny. Because if Bish's ENY is high they simply use a higher ENY plane to get the job done.

How I play, oh yeah my 15 bucks part. I like lone wolfing it. Anyone who really knows me will back me up. I like it when it's quiet and when all I think about is the next ACM, the attack, how I imagine it's going to unfold, and of course the what ifs. I think about the limits of my plane, the set up of my controls, my speed, and maybe I can learn something new or perhaps become a better shot.

On the other hand missions are fun and winning the map is a fun, triumphant moment.

Ironically, I have been criticized for both and sometimes from my own squad.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 10:46:04 AM
4,788 views as I post this.  Would be cool if just a few % of the viewers stopped doing the crappy stuff.  Unfortunately 2 things come to mind.

1) apparently only a minority of subscribers read the boards.

2) There's no way in hell I or some others will stop doing what others perceive to be crappy stuff.  For an example....while the other sides are capable of spawning LVT dry I'll do likewise.  If there's just cause I'll hide CV's but I'll also push them forward when it's appropriate. 

One mans Taliban is another mans Mujaheddin
What Fugitive probably means is keeping the CVs out in the boonies for no good reason and/or when they could be put to use (fun).  All these cases are mostly shades of grey.  What he's talking about aren't some platonisms but common occurences in the game.  Characteristics of which can be bullet-ed like he did.
e.g. #2 is debatable, but 5 and 6 are almost never defendable.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 24, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
by kev
Quote
Bombing and bailing - Don't agree with bombing and bailing over the field, or if being chased. Then again does it really 'hurt' anyone?

Well... for sure no one actually dies.  No one is plugged into the PC power supply to get a pisser when they "virtually" die but by your ethos would it hurt the bomber to actually fight his way out of it? 

It's like pulling a gun on an unarmed man but throwing your gun down and running away, as the unarmed walks over to his gun cabinate.

This rinse and repeat gamey play is ridicules especially when they miss a CV or a hanger. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 24, 2009, 11:00:19 AM
4,788 views as I post this.  Would be cool if just a few % of the viewers stopped doing the crappy stuff.  Unfortunately 2 things come to mind.

1) apparently only a minority of subscribers read the boards.

2) There's no way in hell I or some others will stop doing what others perceive to be crappy stuff.  For an example....while the other sides are capable of spawning LVT dry I'll do likewise.  If there's just cause I'll hide CV's but I'll also push them forward when it's appropriate. 

I would consider this a contradiction, others may not.  IMO, I could not think of any reason to hide a CV, but thats me.
What I am pointing out is that "Defining lame play" would need to be determined by a consensus of what everyone would perceive that to be.


Why not start with this what has been listed.  Add what you may think is missing, once we get a list finished and agreed upon, each person would copy and post a yes or no beside it and talley it up..... 

    1. HO
    2. dive bombing lancs or any heavy bomber
    3. running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs
    4. spawn camping
    5. being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy
    6. suicide dive bombers
    7. bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn
    8. hiding captured CVs
    9.
   10.
   11.
   12.


Just a thought.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 11:18:12 AM
It's not black and white enough to laundry list it like that. Unless you start making each item a paragraph or two giving the full context. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 24, 2009, 11:25:25 AM
It's not black and white enough to laundry list it like that. Unless you start making each item a paragraph or two giving the full context. 

I agree, that would be the next step.  I would expect that most would agree with the majority of whats on the list and some would be self explanatory of why they have been listed without much explanation.
Identifying what one would consider to be lame is a start.  No explanation needed at this time. 


Why not start with this what has been listed.  Add what you may think is missing, once we get a list finished and agreed upon, each person would copy and post a yes or no beside it and talley it up..... 

    1. HO
    2. dive bombing lancs or any heavy bomber
    3. running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs
    4. spawn camping
    5. being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy
    6. suicide dive bombers
    7. bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn
    8. hiding captured CVs
    9.
   10.
   11.
   12.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 24, 2009, 11:28:15 AM



re-upped, got HOd by that same jug as I passed him trying to get gear up, and got jumped by a hurri and 2 ponies right off the field, reversed the hurri, got into a semi-rolling scissors with him while dodging attacks from the ponies...saw a ponie coming in, avoided a head on pass and he got my tail as he flew by...(PFactorDave)

re-upped, dodged another HO by a spit and a hog at the same time....got wheels up, tried to get over 150mph...got tail snapped by passing pony....

Now, there was enemy at least 7 to 1 there, and no less than 11 ponies and tiffs were bnz cherrying the lopsided fight


Now Skyrock...  I don't have anything against you.  In fact, I've had very little contact with you at all.  Why did you bother to quote my post and then say what you said?  Are you trying to ping my credibility or something?

Well, as long as we're talking....  Why don't we at least tell the truth.  I pulled up the film of when I killed you.  I count about 31 players in the area.  Twelve are Rook, 19 are Bishop.  Of the Rooks, 6 are in the air flying while the other 6 are in GVs defending and trying to sink the very close CV with tank fire....  There are 19 Bishops, 17 of which are in fighters...  One is in B17s leaving the area, the last is in an LVT...  So, the numbers were 17 Bishop fighters against 6 Rook Fighters...  Hardly 7-1...  Not quite 3-1 in PFactor Math...

Now, I think you are confusing some sorties together...  Because what happened to you the time that I shot you down didn't happen like you claimed...  Watch the film that I have provided.  You may have been HO'd coming off the runway, but I see no other HO's on you....  Period...  I do see you trying to up out of a heavily contested base.  I do see you trying to sneak away, probably to grab some altitude and E before coming back in to wreak havoc among the mere mortals.  Then I do see two P51Ds each make a failed run at you, not from the HO angle by the way.  Then I see your manuevering place you pretty much right in front of my guns.  It occurs to me, that at this point there should be a loud chorus of folks posting to tell you that you should have upped from a different base so that you could come in at altitude with some E to spend.  It occurs to me that your death, in this case at least, had more to do with you being arrogant enough to think that your finely honed skills would be enough to get you loose from the combat at that base.  Wonder what will happen if I look at my entire film from your cockpit?  Will I find all of these HO's that you claim?

You see, the event that you are talking about, in my mind has NOTHING AT ALL to do with this conversation in this thread.  This was actually mostly a furball....  It wasn't the filthy horde that is so reviled and the topic of discussion in this thread.    

To my knowledge, this is the only time I have ever shot you down.  Most likely will BE the only time I EVER shoot you down.  I concede that you are much better at this then I am ever likely to be.  

Here is a snip of film to prove everything that I just said, don't worry....  It's very short.

 http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ea9273c6ecfdbe5d7069484bded33bcd8b2a99cdab868332

But sir, if you are going to try to belittle what I had to say...  At least do me the kindness of telling the truth and being honest.  You may apologize to me here or via PM if you are man enough to admit your mistake.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 24, 2009, 11:31:05 AM
Some one said that ENY killed RJO. Now I find that funny. Because if Bish's ENY is high they simply use a higher ENY plane to get the job done.

It was me that said it.  You had to be there to see it.  A little before your time I expect.  Reset was knocking 1 side down to 3 bases.  RJO's were multi winged high alt bombers and escorts.  Jabo / fighter squads.  Often they would take strats / field strats out across an entire front.  Remember there were only 2 barracks 2 ammos 2 fuels per any size field then.  Oh not forgetting 25% fuel porkage and 2/3 less field acks with no lgay7's and the like.  To top that of the Rooks would have as many if not more players than the other 2 sides put together.  90 % of those players would be hitting the Bish more often than not.  I was Bish back then and Cooley367th and I would pork rook fronts 30 min prior to RJO's so they would go after the Knights instead or have to run multi supplies.

When ENY was introduced they weren't bombing the crap out of us in TBM's and Bostons.  They weren't killing our 25% fuel porkers or B17's, in their Hurri 1's and D3a's and without fuel they could not advance......funny that.

Gawd bless the mighty Bish  :rolleyes:

 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 24, 2009, 11:34:51 AM

And what we are trying to tell you is that you are wrong. 
These are things that YOU find to be lame.  You are saying that this is the standard by your accounts.
I can agree with some of them being lame, but not all of them.
Someone else will also disagree with some of them and be completely different from our perceptions. 

Is this the official results of a consensus from the community, no, its your opinion of what lame play is.

No "my" list is not an official list by any means, but it is a short list of things I have been hearing people complain about, both here and in the game. I'm not trying to put words into HT's mouth here, but I don't think anything on the list might be stuff he envisioned when he build the game.

Yes there is a "grey area" with this list, like all other things.

    * HO- #1 move all new players, because its the easyest to do. Teaching the new player BCM and ACMs will get them away from it. In the old days you new guys train out of it. Then 30% you got HOed, today 95% of the time you get HOed.
    * dive bombing lancs or any heavy bomber- If you want to dive bomb use on designed for it, but if its got a bombsite, shouldn't you use it? Never saw it in the old days.
    * running NOEs with 12 110s, 4 goons, and a half dozen or so NIKs- Waste of resourses, and kills the fun for the opposing side, really doesn't enhance the fun on the team doing the run either. NOE does have it place, but not as a country wide mission.Yes we had them in the old days, but there forces were much smaller.
    * spawn camping- Again, new guys first thought. The point however of a spawn is to cut down the drive time between bases, not as a chum spot for easy kills. Yes they had it in the old days, but I also remember them sitting much farther back, to day there are so many fighting for the spawner "first" that a single bomb can kill a couple of them.
    * being the 6th guy in on a single bad guy- The only time I can see this is if the one guy is after your goon, but even then those NOT closing should peel off so as to avoid a kill shooter situation.
    * suicide dive bombers-  The is strait out of FPS game style. Rinse and repeat mentality. In the old days you were embarrassed "lawn darting" and were teased by everyone, friend and foe alike. You learned to get better and tried to stay alive to help the fight AFTER you dropped your bombs
    * bringing a CV close enough to dry spawn- This one is pretty new, maybe is a glitch that popped up in the more recent maps, but its lame all the same. The intent was to "launch" LVTs from your ship, not to drop the LVT's on shore.
    * hiding captured CVs- The only reason I could see for this to happen was if you lost the port, then you would like to hide the CV from those who had captured its home port. Personally I look at it as a tool for game play, so use it. It happened in the old days too, but not as ramrant as it happens now. Maybe its because with the bigger maps we have more CVs so you just see the instance show more often.

The only "real" list you could go by would be one posted by HTC. I don't think you'll ever see that tho. HTC seems to "let the boys play" untill things get out of hand then he comes in with his big stick  :D Also as stated by someone earlier only a small percentage of people visit the boards so again you will be getting the same people who have been discussing this stuff over and over. I'm game to keep with it tho, so everyone join in !
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 11:37:11 AM
I agree, that would be the next step. 
Identifying what one would consider to be lame is a start.  No explanation needed at this time.  ...
I don't see how bad gameplay is a democratic arbitrary.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 24, 2009, 11:48:49 AM
I don't see how bad gameplay is a democratic arbitrary.

This is by no means a way to dictate to anyone including HTC of what it is. 
Its a way for "we the community" to identify with and help sort out amongst ourselves of what is and is not lame and hopefully live by some sort of "code of conduct".
For the most part many things identified will not be contested, some will.  Being constructive is the idea.
 
Choosing to do so, well thats on the end user.  But at least we have a basis or something to agree on to determine if the act or practice in question is lame or not.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 24, 2009, 12:03:05 PM
Some one said that ENY killed RJO. Now I find that funny. Because if Bish's ENY is high they simply use a higher ENY plane to get the job done.

How I play, oh yeah my 15 bucks part. I like lone wolfing it. Anyone who really knows me will back me up. I like it when it's quiet and when all I think about is the next ACM, the attack, how I imagine it's going to unfold, and of course the what ifs. I think about the limits of my plane, the set up of my controls, my speed, and maybe I can learn something new or perhaps become a better shot.

On the other hand missions are fun and winning the map is a fun, triumphant moment.

Ironically, I have been criticized for both and sometimes from my own squad.

Actually, ENY was based on gripes from the RJO's.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 12:13:03 PM
This is by no means a way to dictate to anyone including HTC of what it is. 
Its a way for "we the community" to identify with and help sort out amongst ourselves of what is and is not lame and hopefully live by some sort of "code of conduct".
For the most part many things identified will not be contested, some will.  Being constructive is the idea.
 
Choosing to do so, well thats on the end user.  But at least we have a basis or something to agree on to determine if the act or practice in question is lame or not.
I'd be game if I hadn't seen your complete lack of lucidity in the collision model disussions.  
I'd rather discuss how to improve players.  Debate the finer points of tactics and strategy.  I'll let others get the ball rolling on this magic one-size-fits-all commandments and point out where it's wrong.  In the end it'll be back to the real principles at work rather than endlessly nit pick at specific instances.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 24, 2009, 12:33:10 PM
It was me that said it.  You had to be there to see it.  A little before your time I expect.  Reset was knocking 1 side down to 3 bases.  RJO's were multi winged high alt bombers and escorts.  Jabo / fighter squads.  Often they would take strats / field strats out across an entire front.  Remember there were only 2 barracks 2 ammos 2 fuels per any size field then.  Oh not forgetting 25% fuel porkage and 2/3 less field acks with no lgay7's and the like.  To top that of the Rooks would have as many if not more players than the other 2 sides put together.  90 % of those players would be hitting the Bish more often than not.  I was Bish back then and Cooley367th and I would pork rook fronts 30 min prior to RJO's so they would go after the Knights instead or have to run multi supplies.

When ENY was introduced they weren't bombing the crap out of us in TBM's and Bostons.  They weren't killing our 25% fuel porkers or B17's, in their Hurri 1's and D3a's and without fuel they could not advance......funny that.

Gawd bless the mighty Bish  :rolleyes:

 

I was there. Know who started it and some big players in the RJO like Drone when Airmegeddon was in force. I remember all of that. I mean it probably caused everything you named. I know one time a group went around and killed every single barrack of the opposing sides when each base on a small map only had 2 barracks. From what I understand Hitech stepped in on that one.

Bish have changed since those days considerably. I went to bish for a while in those days and about puked. They were awful. Not that way these days. They have some excellent fighters and superior mission planners. More importantly, they have some hard nosed players. I admire that more than anything.

Still you have to admit they seem to be a bit more resilient these days. That's mho.

Now when I return I'm going to come back as Rook and disregard winning the war for a while. I want to lone wolf it for a bit. Then I'm going to look up my buds Warloc, Jed, and gus.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dadsguns on April 24, 2009, 12:44:04 PM
I want to lone wolf it for a bit.

Stop by some time, I would like to drive a sector or two with you again.....   :lol

 :salute

Moot, your entitled to your opinion. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: A8TOOL on April 24, 2009, 01:04:11 PM
How do you unsubscribe to a thread?  Not to be disrespectful but I thought that was something you could do.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 24, 2009, 01:05:28 PM
Stop by some time, I would like to drive a sector or two with you again.....   :lol

 :salute

Moot, your entitled to your opinion. 

 :rofl :rofl :rofl Forgot about some of my exploits.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 01:08:26 PM
Stop by some time, I would like to drive a sector or two with you again.....   :lol

 :salute

Moot, your entitled to your opinion. 
I never thought of that..

You can debate some specific instances, but in the end it'll come back to the fundamental principles at the source of those instances. Call me back when you get there.


How do you unsubscribe to a thread?  Not to be disrespectful but I thought that was something you could do.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=20170;sa=notification
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 1Boner on April 24, 2009, 01:41:46 PM
 
I'd rather discuss how to improve players.


What if I don't want to be "improved"!! ;)

Are you guys looking to create "stepford" players??

Now you're startin to scare me. :uhoh
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 24, 2009, 01:43:50 PM
If you don't want to be improved, you probably are past the stage where you need help to be able to play the game as you wish to.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 24, 2009, 02:27:15 PM

What if I don't want to be "improved"!! ;)

Are you guys looking to create "stepford" players??

Now you're startin to scare me. :uhoh
the horde creates stepford players....we just want a decent fight in a game about fighting....
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Hap on April 24, 2009, 02:31:14 PM
The simple fact is that the fun in this game is from playing it... The same way it's more fun to play soccer when you're able to hit the ball where you mean to or have the stamina to play longer.

I agree Moot!  

I wish AH had a characteristic that many games share a winner.  I doubt we'll ever see "winning" as a part of AH.  I'm not talking theoretically either.  Will resets still occur?  Surely.

In some games, "ties" occur when time runs out.  Or in cardgames, first one to 1,000 pts wins.  

There was always an arcade aspect to AH.  But no near as fleshed out and fully devolped as we see today.  

Oh well, if I were HTC, I might very well say "yes" to what we have today.  I assume it's much more profitable than it used to be.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 24, 2009, 06:41:23 PM
I will try to reply to many of the posts I read after being at work all day..

 I did train with moot for a bit in the TA..he asked about people wanting to get better in the 109's I believe..And so I trained for a bit with him..I am always willing to get better in dogfighting..I have been doing pretty good in a KI lately and am enjoying it..


 Rt trains on many different things on tuesdays,you will almost always find us in the TA or the DA..It is not mandatory at all..

  Fugitive you have many more issues than just MISSIONS,but let me ask you,if someone put up a CV mission,and had the LVT's in it,when it upped and you spawned feet dry,would you keep on going into town or would you ditch out??I wouldnt ditch out..

  Skyrock,your post about upping from a base happens to all sides all the time.Nothing new there..

 Fugitive,you made a post about the LAME moves you posted and how people on country get upset with them..I hear it on bish side,and do it myself.I smile just thinking about how sometimes I hear myself saying.."MAN I WISH THEY WOULD FIX THIS LVT SPAWNING FEET DRY ISSUE",and really only complain when it is another side doing it.Otherwise,if I find out they can spawn feet dry,I let people know about it,and use it to its NTH degree..As every side does..

  HO'ing,I as many used to HO when I first started,and now try to avoid it,but I still do it sometimes when many around,or a guy is coming straight at me,yea,yea, I could avoid it,but many times trying to avoid it,gets me killed,and it is my way by trying to show by example,that a HO only has a 50/50 survival rate..And I will use it if engaged with more than one enemy..AS many do in-game..

 Whats the first thing someone trys to do when they see a 262 in the area and coming for them??? A HO SHOT...you know it is true,so are we going to say it is OK in that instance but not in every other instance??

  As far as missions with say 25 people in it taking bases,someone said how can it be fun,or something along those lines,and well,evidently it is or these missions would not happen ON EVERY SIDE...

 And fugitive,you said something about taking a base and then just leaving it undefended and the missions moving somewhere else..It does not happen as often as it once did,but I would think that would make you HAPPY as it would mean your  side could come in and take it back easily..SO I dont understand the complaint..

   The lame game-play as you have posted about fugitive,the hoing the dry lvt's etc,etc,,is just something EVERY SIDE has to live with..I honestly do not think it cuts into my fun if someone is spawning lvt's dry into A56,and I am wayyyy down south at A10 FB'ing...
 
 DOnt get me wrong,I COMPLAIN about it too if things are not going my way in something I am trying to accomplish,But then I realize that some time soon,the same thing will be used to give us an advantage and it will be used at that time..LIKE IT IS USED ON EVERY SIDE..

   The maps are PLENTY BIG ENOUGH to allow EVERYONE their own type of "FUN" when in-game.. :aok


 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 24, 2009, 07:25:50 PM

  Fugitive you have many more issues than just MISSIONS,but let me ask you,if someone put up a CV mission,and had the LVT's in it,when it upped and you spawned feet dry,would you keep on going into town or would you ditch out??I wouldnt ditch out..

Personally, If I was incharge of the mission, I'd be in charge of the CV, so I wouldn't take the CV in that close. Easy enough fix, but to many people know about the "glitch" and game the game.

 

 
Quote
Fugitive,you made a post about the LAME moves you posted and how people on country get upset with them..I hear it on bish side,and do it myself.I smile just thinking about how sometimes I hear myself saying.."MAN I WISH THEY WOULD FIX THIS LVT SPAWNING FEET DRY ISSUE",and really only complain when it is another side doing it.Otherwise,if I find out they can spawn feet dry,I let people know about it,and use it to its NTH degree..As every side does..

But if you say "we ain't going to do this lame crap any more", and Lynx says" we ain't going to do this crap anymore", and any time you see someone pull a lame move you call them out for it, eventually people will stop doing it.

 
Quote
Whats the first thing someone trys to do when they see a 262 in the area and coming for them??? A HO SHOT...you know it is true,so are we going to say it is OK in that instance but not in every other instance??

Here's a tip for ya, a 262 has a big bellybutton cannon that shoots out the front, why would you ever TRY to put yourself in front of it? Try snap shots, same damage, less danger.

 
Quote
As far as missions with say 25 people in it taking bases,someone said how can it be fun,or something along those lines,and well,evidently it is or these missions would not happen ON EVERY SIDE...

Missions are not the problem, overwhelming odds in a mission is. With a bit of planning 10 guys is enough to take any base, unless your attacking one that all ready has a fight going at it, then you might like to have an extra goon.

 
Quote
And fugitive,you said something about taking a base and then just leaving it undefended and the missions moving somewhere else..It does not happen as often as it once did,but I would think that would make you HAPPY as it would mean your  side could come in and take it back easily..SO I dont understand the complaint..

The complaint is everyone leaves, not everyone like to take an undefended base, alot of us like to FIGHT !!

 
Quote
 The lame game-play as you have posted about fugitive,the hoing the dry lvt's etc,etc,,is just something EVERY SIDE has to live with..I honestly do not think it cuts into my fun if someone is spawning lvt's dry into A56,and I am wayyyy down south at A10 FB'ing...
 
 DOnt get me wrong,I COMPLAIN about it too if things are not going my way in something I am trying to accomplish,But then I realize that some time soon,the same thing will be used to give us an advantage and it will be used at that time..LIKE IT IS USED ON EVERY SIDE..

   The maps are PLENTY BIG ENOUGH to allow EVERYONE their own type of "FUN" when in-game.. :aok

...and this is how we have gotten to where we are at now. You saw very little of this "lame play" 5 years ago. If everyone continues with the same attitude "oh well thats the way it is", or"well they do it to us", imagine what it could be in another 5 years.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kev367th on April 25, 2009, 06:11:12 AM
...and this is how we have gotten to where we are at now. You saw very little of this "lame play" 5 years ago. If everyone continues with the same attitude "oh well thats the way it is", or"well they do it to us", imagine what it could be in another 5 years.

Was a thread titled "Rose tinted" or something like that.
Didn't post in it, but agreed with the concensus that looking back at how AH used to be we do tend to use Rose Tinted Glasses.

Only thing I don't remember from years ago is dry spawn LVTs, but CV's had other problems then -
a) Schitzophrenic - people see it in different places.
b) Amphibious - could steam through the land masses.

But i digress.

Can quite clearly remember (2002) -
Hoing
Picking
Vulching

and all the other things you say were less prevalent than they are now. It may be less players = seemed to be less prevalent, but it happened and it happened a lot.

The only thing I really consider lame is exploiting any bugs that crop up from time to time.
Remember these-
a) Tempest - could get to a specific alt, get rid of drops and have unlimited fuel.
b) One of the CV planes had a alt bug which made it fly at horrendous speeds.
c) Hiding GV's in ther shore battery.

Exploiting these (and many others) was lame.

[edit] leaving a base you just took undefended (esp if there is a couter attack) isn't lame - its stupid.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 25, 2009, 09:12:20 AM

and all the other things you say were less prevalent than they are now. It may be less players = seemed to be less prevalent, but it happened and it happened a lot.

Yes I did mention that, if only 20 guys are doing it over the whole map and the is only 100 guys on the map its still a fifth of the people flying, like the 100 people out of the 500 that are flying now.


Quote
[edit] leaving a base you just took undefended (esp if there is a couter attack) isn't lame - its stupid.

....and considering that these people are all about capturing the bases for their country, really stupid.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SunBat on April 25, 2009, 12:34:58 PM
I'll settle this once and for all. Bad game play is picking up the Monopoly board and throwing it across the room because you landed on Boardwalk again.


The thread can be closed now.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 25, 2009, 12:46:36 PM
After last night watching your squaddie DREDger lead the charge in taking all of the center islands.   Which he has done time and time again, because he enjoys ruining other people's fun.   One must ask themselves, "What are we really trying to achieve?"

That is a blatent falsehood.  I wasn't involved with the center island takes, when I logged on they were already taken, and then next day taken back by the bish.  The maps are stalemate maps anyway, so who cares.  Karaya aka masherbum is trying to relive the old tank town arguments from 2 years ago.

DREDger is a minion and resorts to juvenile comments when not even so much as leaned on.   

I'll ALWAYS sound off against center bases being taken.   I'm not a hypocrite and despise those who are.   

Whatever, I've said nothing to you so I have no idea where this is coming from.  Good for you if you are against center island takes.

Only think I've noticed about karaya aka masherbum is that he types more than he plays.   This is his social scene.  He should try getting some exercise.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SirLoin on April 25, 2009, 01:23:35 PM
yawn
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 25, 2009, 01:26:19 PM
That is a blatent falsehood.  I wasn't involved with the center island takes, when I logged on they were already taken, and then next day taken back by the bish.  The maps are stalemate maps anyway, so who cares.  Karaya aka masherbum is trying to relive the old tank town arguments from 2 years ago.

Whatever, I've said nothing to you so I have no idea where this is coming from.  Good for you if you are against center island takes.

Only think I've noticed about karaya aka masherbum is that he types more than he plays.   This is his social scene.  He should try getting some exercise.

Should I post the film of your comments about my weight?   Quit lying and grow up.   

Even more so, I was winging the CH's at the time you were gloating about "Rooks holding all of the center islands".   You're just another pathological liar in this game DREDger.   I know damn well you were involved because that is the only way you "try to win t3h war", as well as others that have replied to me.   :t   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 25, 2009, 01:46:50 PM
Should I post the film of your comments about my weight?   Quit lying and grow up.   

Even more so, I was winging the CH's at the time you were gloating about "Rooks holding all of the center islands".   You're just another pathological liar in this game DREDger.   I know damn well you were involved because that is the only way you "try to win t3h war", as well as others that have replied to me.   :t   

Oh yeah, I think I recall......You said I worked at the McDonalds drive through.  And I said based on the pictures I saw, you eat there too much!!  (Please do post the film)

You 'know' damn well nothing of the sort.  I made a comment that rooks hold the center isles, you then inferred I was involved with it.  I wasn't, I had just logged on.

And even if I was, soooooo what?  Why are you so interested in how I play or what I do?  I couldn't be less interested in the goings on of your gameplay.  Nor did I bring your name up in these posts.

So why don't you drop dead tubby. :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 25, 2009, 02:14:33 PM
Nor did I bring your name up in these posts.

Yet another lie.

Only think I've noticed about karaya aka masherbum is that he types more than he plays.   This is his social scene.  He should try getting some exercise.

Buy a Dictionary while you're at it.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BiPoLaR on April 25, 2009, 02:18:21 PM
Yet another lie.

Buy a Dictionary while you're at it.   


will you buy me one?
i get so confused :(
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 25, 2009, 02:18:54 PM
will you buy me one?
i get so confused :(

Sup Brian!   Where you been lately?   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BiPoLaR on April 25, 2009, 02:22:07 PM
Sup Brian!   Where you been lately?   
Been doing my thing bro

Hows things going for you?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 25, 2009, 02:36:26 PM
Yet another lie.

LOL, the old liar liar pants on fire?

So seriously, why do you care how I play the game masherbum?  I didn't raise your name in this post, but you did mine.

Do you really care how bases are captured on these maps..they get reset every week.

Buy a Dictionary while you're at it.   

go buy a couple big macs.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BiPoLaR on April 25, 2009, 02:44:31 PM
LOL, the old liar liar pants on fire?

So seriously, why do you care how I play the game masherbum?  I didn't raise your name in this post, but you did mine.

Do you really care how bases are captured on these maps..they get reset every week.

go buy a couple big macs.
IMHO.
players like you have ruined this game.
but thats my opinion. it doesnt count
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 25, 2009, 02:54:17 PM
IMHO.
players like you have ruined this game.
but thats my opinion. it doesnt count

How so?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BiPoLaR on April 25, 2009, 03:09:36 PM
How so?
If you would like for me to PM you, then i will.
But, im not going to get in to a pissing match with anyone.
And ill give you my thoughts and opinion as to why i feel like this.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 25, 2009, 08:16:06 PM
If you would like for me to PM you, then i will.
But, im not going to get in to a pissing match with anyone.
And ill give you my thoughts and opinion as to why i feel like this.

I doesn't have to be a pissing match, if you have an honest opinion shouldn't be a problem sharing it...or you can PM if you want to...however...you brought it up.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Edgar on April 25, 2009, 08:24:32 PM
This whole thread is a thirty odd page pissing match...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 25, 2009, 08:25:19 PM
Yup.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 25, 2009, 08:28:22 PM
EDIT:  Nah nevermind, nobody was interested the first time I said it...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: TequilaChaser on April 25, 2009, 08:43:51 PM
Truthfully though, I am more sorry that nobody seemed interested in starting a "Pay it Forward" train the new guys movement...  I guess pissing matches are more fun...

PFD, this is an individual type undertaking, if you have a desire to give back to the community, for people that helped you did so individually and voluntarily........and the same had been given to them before this..ad infinium......

there are people out there that does this already...hell Ren has been doing it for close to 20 years now or so.....

no need to start a movement..........just need people to jump on the train............and help pay it forward......thats all....



Kev, yes HTC does a good job policing his creation........but that was not what I meant........The community is the eb and flow and well, it use to "police itself" !......however that has slowly sliped away in say the last 4 to 5 years.......

I see the biggest change in when it went from Aces High......to Aces High II...........and the HUGE MAPS that our wonderful volunteers created........

but the fact is.HOing has always been here.........Vulching has always been here........horde's have always been here........the only difference from years ago and today is the "increased volume" of all the above.........

and the "it's my $14.95, I'll play how I like" with out giving any care to your opponents game play, ethics, etiqutte, Good Sportsmanship ad on..........

am done here, with this thread.......... hopefully, some of the viewers get a new thought out of all the posts.......
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 25, 2009, 08:47:35 PM
PFD, this is an individual type undertaking, if you have a desire to give back to the community, for people that helped you did so individually and voluntarily........and the same had been given to them before this..ad infinium......

there are people out there that does this already...hell Ren has been doing it for close to 20 years now or so.....

no need to start a movement..........just need people to jump on the train............and help pay it forward......thats all....


No need?  Well the current situaiton is certainly not adequate if the Doomsayers are to be believed...  I just get tired of all the preachy "play it this way or your a lamer" crap when so few of them are even remotely willing to actually make an effort to help change the basic mind set of the new players by honestly teaching them.  Or maybe you are trying to say that there isn't really a problem like folks like Fugitive would have everyone believe...

For the record, folks like you and Ren who volunteer your time are doing more of what I am talking about then the other  whiners in this thread will ever even consider.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 25, 2009, 10:03:21 PM
The threads on this subject never go real well. It's very difficult to tell people who enjoy the game one way to enjoy it your way.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 26, 2009, 01:01:58 AM
It's very difficult to tell people who enjoy the game one way to enjoy it your way.

Though they will try
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 26, 2009, 02:25:21 AM
Though they will try

 :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Oh yeah!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: grizz441 on April 26, 2009, 03:06:17 AM
The threads on this subject never go real well. It's very difficult to tell people who enjoy the game one way to enjoy it your way.

Identifying bad game play has nothing to do with telling a player what he should/shouldn't do with his $15.  It simply gives him the opportunity to see why what he may be doing in the game is lame.  Here's a perfect example of indisputable bad gameplay.

You see three allies ganging a bogey on the deck and you decide to be the 5th man into the fight.  You dive in and kill the guy on the first pass with two of your allies saddled up on him.  So lets see:  You created a bad gameplay experience for the bogey obviously.  As if 3v1 wasn't unfair enough!  More importantly however, you created bad game play for the three allies that were fighting the bogey.  It is extraordinarily insulting to your allies to not trust them enough in a 3v1 fight to be able to kill a guy.  By taking this kill, you are robbing your allies of a fight and robbing your enemy of a challenge.  So you effectively created bad gameplay for 4 people in that situation (3 of which being your allies) and created good gameplay for yourself by getting a kill.  Overall situation is a -3 for game play.

It doesn't even stop here.  It's laughably absurd when you see seven guys on a single bogey.  The 6th,7th,8th guys into that "fight" have no business entering into the airspace around such a contest yet it happens all the time.  This is indisputably negative! 

Can anybody give me any legitimate reason how this is positive for anybody other than the selfish player blatantly stealing a kill from his allies and kicking an enemy in the head when he is already lying in the gutter unconscious?



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 26, 2009, 03:29:21 AM
Identifying bad game play has nothing to do with telling a player what he should/shouldn't do with his $15.  It simply gives him the opportunity to see why what he may be doing in the game is lame.  Here's a perfect example of indisputable bad gameplay.

You see three allies ganging a bogey on the deck and you decide to be the 5th man into the fight.  You dive in and kill the guy on the first pass with two of your allies saddled up on him.  So lets see:  You created a bad gameplay experience for the bogey obviously.  As if 3v1 wasn't unfair enough!  More importantly however, you created bad game play for the three allies that were fighting the bogey.  It is extraordinarily insulting to your allies to not trust them enough in a 3v1 fight to be able to kill a guy.  By taking this kill, you are robbing your allies of a fight and robbing your enemy of a challenge.  So you effectively created bad gameplay for 4 people in that situation (3 of which being your allies) and created good gameplay for yourself by getting a kill.  Overall situation is a -3 for game play.

It doesn't even stop here.  It's laughably absurd when you see seven guys on a single bogey.  The 6th,7th,8th guys into that "fight" have no business entering into the airspace around such a contest yet it happens all the time.  This is indisputably negative! 

Can anybody give me any legitimate reason how this is positive for anybody other than the selfish player blatantly stealing a kill from his allies and kicking an enemy in the head when he is already lying in the gutter unconscious?





but its my 15$ and when I fly with 5 squaddies, I fly cuz I like the comradary. We only fly into situations where all of us can gang one target and if anyone says its wrong, they can shove it cuz they are telling me to play a certain way.
  :mad:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Rich46yo on April 26, 2009, 04:45:33 AM
This whole thread is a thirty odd page pissing match...

I knew she had Legs when I first saw her.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 26, 2009, 08:44:06 AM
No need?  Well the current situaiton is certainly not adequate if the Doomsayers are to be believed...  I just get tired of all the preachy "play it this way or your a lamer" crap when so few of them are even remotely willing to actually make an effort to help change the basic mind set of the new players by honestly teaching them.  Or maybe you are trying to say that there isn't really a problem like folks like Fugitive would have everyone believe...

For the record, folks like you and Ren who volunteer your time are doing more of what I am talking about then the other  whiners in this thread will ever even consider.


Thats all I've been saying!! There is a huge problem with poor game play !! If people would use a little common sense and realize that this is a game where it's suppose to be fun, and not a war that must be won at all costs it would be a much better game than it already is.

The threads on this subject never go real well. It's very difficult to tell people who enjoy the game one way to enjoy it your way.
Though they will try

So what your saying then is that you both condone the lame game play listed and find nothing wrong with it?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 26, 2009, 09:31:14 AM

Thats all I've been saying!! There is a huge problem with poor game play !! If people would use a little common sense and realize that this is a game where it's suppose to be fun, and not a war that must be won at all costs it would be a much better game than it already is.


It's not worth the time.  All you want to do is force everyone to conform to your concept of fun.  You refuse to consider that someone else might be having fun in a way that you don't like.

Like I said earlier in the thread, if you really want to affect how game play evolves in this game you need to start finding new guys and teaching them "The Way".  Sitting in here all butt hurt because that mean ol' Falcon23 broke your furball is lame forum posting, in my opinion.

Whatever...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 26, 2009, 09:48:56 AM

So what your saying then is that you both condone the lame game play listed and find nothing wrong with it?

There is plenty of room for everyone in the game.  I find some aspects of play 'lame', but I don't take it that seriously.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 26, 2009, 09:52:32 AM
Lame, Dweebish, Noobish, blah blah blah...........  Good use of adjectives.


Sounds like a bunch of opinions to me though.  Sadly, since we're all human, we'll never agree.  Everybody has one.

Oh but BTW Donkey's Rears.........  Newb's come on the game, and you punk's don't give them the time of day.  A mission is an easy way for a newb to get involved, to want to pay the subscription, so, Bishop gets numbers in missions because we talk with our newbs.............


Oh, and another thing JACK's.....................

Without the newbs.... HTC, and the game, will never grow, eventually ceasing to exist.  So why don't you all start saying thank you to the folks like FALCON23, who make this game exist. 

You and your high horse..... Doesn't pay the bills....  Despite what your ego's think.  Your opinion is only worth 15 bucks.... Same as mine, same as 300 names I can think of that really enjoy ruining Fugitive's evening. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh and another FYI...........  FALCON23 being nice and speaking to newbs..... DRIVES US NUTS!   

Get your facts straight.




And what page of the AH rulebook does it tell us what your definition of lame is?  Oh, wait a sec..... I don't give two craps.  Nevermind.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 26, 2009, 10:27:13 AM
Right, out with reason, in with "my 15$".  Who's on a high horse here?  :lol
Loud noises!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 26, 2009, 10:46:14 AM

Thats all I've been saying!! There is a huge problem with poor game play !! If people would use a little common sense and realize that this is a game where it's suppose to be fun, and not a war that must be won at all costs it would be a much better game than it already is.

So what your saying then is that you both condone the lame game play listed and find nothing wrong with it?

The very best way I can put is folks try to make rules where there are none. It was one of my first coherent thoughts in Air Warriors.
The list of lame things is endless.
Let me give a short list from what I have read:  Missions are lame, Missions with more than 10 people or lame, Noe Missions are lame, flying perk planes is lame, 2 vs. 1 is lame, 3 vs. 1 is lame, 4 vs. 1 is lame, lone wolfing is lame, flying 30k is lame, bombing missions are lame, Large squads are lame, Once a guy said Small squads are lame ( I kid you not), Capturing a certain base is lame, resupplying a base is lame,Capturing a field period is lame, porking a field is lame, and the list goes on.

Personally I think there are some lame things. However, I have done them all. I am willing to bet most of you have too. I have films of people doing lame things. I have films of myself doing lame stupid things.

Now let me ask you this, if you adhered to all the things deemed lame would it not a some point interfere with the way you enjoy the game?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NOT on April 26, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
i think we all should just QUIT Aces High, and take up solitaire.




NOT
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 26, 2009, 11:15:08 AM
i think we all should just QUIT Aces High, and take up solitaire.




NOT

Haven't played for over 2 months and let me tell you Solitaire isn't working.  :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 26, 2009, 11:19:02 AM
You're smarter then that m00t...... Don't kid yourself.  All my statement does is point out the fact that we are ALL equal, and your opinion, is not mine.  Yours, Fugitive's, FALCON's, mine.......  All different, never be the same, yet, we all get something out of the game.  Is reaching the widest audience not a good idea?   :salute

Right, out with reason, in with "my 15$".  Who's on a high horse here?  :lol
Loud noises!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 26, 2009, 11:24:11 AM
Oh Oh, let me add one, Saying it's your 15 bucks is lame.  :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 26, 2009, 11:31:38 AM
You're smarter then that m00t...... Don't kid yourself.  All my statement does is point out the fact that we are ALL equal, and your opinion, is not mine.  Yours, Fugitive's, FALCON's, mine.......  All different, never be the same, yet, we all get something out of the game.  Is reaching the widest audience not a good idea?   :salute

BS, see.. Reason isn't some fudged out relativizer like that.  A black and white premise means definite blacks and whites.  In our case there's definite grey areas, but to fudge it all out to be just "my 15$" is nonsense.  Hell.. You guys make it all out as though someone like me is the one that stands to lose.  I have nothing to lose. I can beat pretty much anyone.. I love the game and get a kick out of pretty much any "type of playing". And on top of that I don't even care about the outcome, I just want some excitement.

So when I argue that gameplay could be better.. It's because I believe it, not because I want some guy trillions of electrons away to do what I tell him to.  I couldn't care less what anyone else does.  I just type here what I think is right, out of the selfish realization that I found something special that definitely could appeal to others, and in spreading that word, everyone could in turn enrich the gameplay.. What goes around comes around.  

I say, gameplay ought to be rich and fair.  You guys say... what... that it ought to be anything (anarchic randomness basically), for the puny excuse that "it's your 15$".   It doesn't take a genius to see that.  Everyone knows everyone's playing their 15$'s worth.  That doesn't tilt the balance any way whatsoever, it merely puts everyone on level ground.  The only thing that'll rise above the rest with any kind of credibility from there is reason.  It's because it's reasonable that I argue it all.. Not because I'm a "vet" or "top stick" or any of that stuff.  Because it's reasonable and is appealing. It's got nothing to do with authority but with common sense. I'm not trying to sell you "my" version of what's attractive about gameplay in AH. I'm trying to convince you that this game has more to offer than a lot of the crap we see.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 26, 2009, 11:39:57 AM
oh well put Moot   :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: rvflyer on April 26, 2009, 11:45:57 AM
Missions are lame, Missions with more than 10 people or lame, Noe Missions are lame, flying perk planes is lame, 2 vs. 1 is lame, 3 vs. 1 is lame, 4 vs. 1 is lame, lone wolfing is lame, flying 30k is lame, bombing missions are lame, Large squads are lame, Once a guy said Small squads are lame ( I kid you not), Capturing a certain base is lame, resupplying a base is lame,Capturing a field period is lame, porking a field is lame, and the list goes on.


Now let me ask you this, if you adhered to all the things deemed lame would it not a some point interfere with the way you enjoy the game?


What I find humorous is I have been shot down by some of the people in here that are complaining about missions and hords etc. while they were right in the middle of a big misson, hord, with their countrymen. The people that fly in Jokers or Falcons missons all have fun they are fun missons, having fun is what the game is supposed to be all about.  :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 26, 2009, 11:55:12 AM

Let me give a short list from what I have read:  Missions are lame, Missions with more than 10 people or lame, Noe Missions are lame, flying perk planes is lame, 2 vs. 1 is lame, 3 vs. 1 is lame, 4 vs. 1 is lame, lone wolfing is lame, flying 30k is lame, bombing missions are lame, Large squads are lame, Once a guy said Small squads are lame ( I kid you not), Capturing a certain base is lame, resupplying a base is lame,Capturing a field period is lame, porking a field is lame, and the list goes on.

 :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 26, 2009, 11:57:47 AM

What I find humorous is I have been shot down by some of the people in here that are complaining about missions and hords etc. while they were right in the middle of a big misson, hord, with their countrymen. The people that fly in Jokers or Falcons missons all have fun they are fun missons, having fun is what the game is supposed to be all about.  :aok
anecdotic.
The very best way I can put is folks try to make rules where there are none. It was one of my first coherent thoughts in Air Warriors.
The list of lame things is endless.
Let me give a short list from what I have read:  Missions are lame, Missions with more than 10 people or lame, Noe Missions are lame, flying perk planes is lame, 2 vs. 1 is lame, 3 vs. 1 is lame, 4 vs. 1 is lame, lone wolfing is lame, flying 30k is lame, bombing missions are lame, Large squads are lame, Once a guy said Small squads are lame ( I kid you not), Capturing a certain base is lame, resupplying a base is lame,Capturing a field period is lame, porking a field is lame, and the list goes on.

Personally I think there are some lame things. However, I have done them all. I am willing to bet most of you have too. I have films of people doing lame things. I have films of myself doing lame stupid things.

Now let me ask you this, if you adhered to all the things deemed lame would it not a some point interfere with the way you enjoy the game?
inaccurate and missing the point
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Kev367th on April 26, 2009, 12:01:44 PM
I say, gameplay ought to be rich and fair.  .

My last 'contribution' -
I put it to you the game itself isn't fair, and can never be in its current format.

Tell me what is fair when a shiny new newb on his first sortie can get hammered by a 6,7,8 year old AH vet?

Game = Gameplay - Gameplay is largely determined by what is allowed in the game.

Thats why I have always said the the big quest for equal numbers is a fallacy. I would assume you would agree that 20 or so vets could easily take on much, much, much more newbies?

Fugitive - At least we managed to agree on something (your earlier post to me)

Anyway have fun guys, be back in-game in May sometime.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: thndregg on April 26, 2009, 12:05:53 PM
Let me give a short list from what I have read:  Missions are lame, Missions with more than 10 people or lame, Noe Missions are lame, flying perk planes is lame, 2 vs. 1 is lame, 3 vs. 1 is lame, 4 vs. 1 is lame, lone wolfing is lame, flying 30k is lame, bombing missions are lame, Large squads are lame, Once a guy said Small squads are lame ( I kid you not), Capturing a certain base is lame, resupplying a base is lame,Capturing a field period is lame, porking a field is lame, and the list goes on.

Personally I think there are some lame things. However, I have done them all. I am willing to bet most of you have too. I have films of people doing lame things. I have films of myself doing lame stupid things.

Now let me ask you this, if you adhered to all the things deemed lame would it not a some point interfere with the way you enjoy the game?

 :aok :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 26, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
My last 'contribution' -
I put it to you the game itself isn't fair, and can never be in its current format.
Yes, obviously the intended meaning is that the game ought to be more rich and fair than less so.

Quote
Tell me what is fair when a shiny new newb on his first sortie can get hammered by a 6,7,8 year old AH vet?
Everyone plays by the same rules. Same physics, etc. Everyone can film and learn, no secrets.

Quote
Game = Gameplay - Gameplay is largely determined by what is allowed in the game.
See below.

Quote
Thats why I have always said the the big quest for equal numbers is a fallacy. I would assume you would agree that 20 or so vets could easily take on much, much, much more newbies?
Dunno where you read anyone argue that. In this 'bad gameplay' discussion or anywhere else. I have no problem with 3:1 against noobs.. It's fun for both me and them (from what I heard from them in pm or ch200 4 out of 5 times).  The really interesting point would be that most players could easily do away with having to run and with cheap gameplay by learning some very rudimentary basics.. That the official trainers are more than happy to provide.. That most experienced players will be glad to demonstrate as well.  Or that they'll unwittingly teach if the noobs review their films.  The basics of dogfighting are really very simple.  Huge gains for the first few efforts up the learning curve.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 26, 2009, 12:58:26 PM
The game could never be "even, or equal" If it was it would always be a stalemate.

 

What I find humorous is I have been shot down by some of the people in here that are complaining about missions and hords etc. while they were right in the middle of a big misson, hord, with their countrymen. The people that fly in Jokers or Falcons missons all have fun they are fun missons, having fun is what the game is supposed to be all about.  :aok

...but does it have to always be at the other players expense? By taking 20 guys to crush 6 you may have fun....I don't see how 3 on 1 :rolleyes: but the "6" surely are in for a bad time. I know you can take a field with 10 guys, I know this because I've done it hundreds of times. This new wave of player though doesn't "know" it because they never do it. The only missions they are in are the ones with an over whelming force.

The same goes for a fight, if it 3 on 1 how much more fun would it be being the next guy in? Not much unless you succeed in stealing the kill from the other three guys chasing the "one" already, now you've pissed off 4 people. Its easy to fix, use common sense and go look for another fight.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 26, 2009, 01:34:49 PM
if it 3 on 1 how much more fun would it be being the next guy in? Not much unless you succeed in stealing the kill from the other three guys chasing the "one" already, now you've pissed off 4 people. Its easy to fix, use common sense and go look for another fight.
:aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: smokey23 on April 26, 2009, 03:46:00 PM
Lame, Dweebish, Noobish, blah blah blah...........  Good use of adjectives.


Sounds like a bunch of opinions to me though.  Sadly, since we're all human, we'll never agree.  Everybody has one.

Oh but BTW Donkey's Rears.........  Newb's come on the game, and you punk's don't give them the time of day.  A mission is an easy way for a newb to get involved, to want to pay the subscription, so, Bishop gets numbers in missions because we talk with our newbs.............


Oh, and another thing JACK's.....................

Without the newbs.... HTC, and the game, will never grow, eventually ceasing to exist.  So why don't you all start saying thank you to the folks like FALCON23, who make this game exist. 

You and your high horse..... Doesn't pay the bills....  Despite what your ego's think.  Your opinion is only worth 15 bucks.... Same as mine, same as 300 names I can think of that really enjoy ruining Fugitive's evening. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh and another FYI...........  FALCON23 being nice and speaking to newbs..... DRIVES US NUTS!   

Get your facts straight.




And what page of the AH rulebook does it tell us what your definition of lame is?  Oh, wait a sec..... I don't give two craps.  Nevermind.


I think you need to check youre compass logan, Why dont you ask falcon which squad he started with when he was a noob. So were all punks for not talking to noobs well us bringing falcon and his son into our squad while they were noobs and doing squad missions without the 30+ pilots makes us punks?? The reason falcon and us parted ways was because we as a squad didnt want to constantly run horde missions or NOE missions. We prefer to take new members in and teaching them how to fly with at least some skill and knowledge of ACM.

We as a squad have stopped many horde missions in their tracks and pilot for pilot my boys have put many of you in the tower time after time. We have taught many new players skills they wouldnt have learned on their own or have learned being in some godawefull horde where youre just another red dot in the sky. We like newcommers and we dont require them to "do as I say" in a mission they usually fly wing with TwentyFo, Mcboi, Shukes and others and they actually lean a thing or 2. If they decide to stick with us thats fine we welcome them, if not then if the seperation is cordial and friendly then we wish them well.You acuseing us of being punks and not talking to new members is unfounded and just plain wrong.

You need to get the facts straight.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: WMLute on April 26, 2009, 05:11:24 PM
Anybody else seein' the connection between pilot skill and their opinion on this topic?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 26, 2009, 05:42:15 PM
I think you need to check youre compass logan, Why dont you ask falcon which squad he started with when he was a noob. So were all punks for not talking to noobs well us bringing falcon and his son into our squad while they were noobs and doing squad missions without the 30+ pilots makes us punks?? The reason falcon and us parted ways was because we as a squad didnt want to constantly run horde missions or NOE missions. We prefer to take new members in and teaching them how to fly with at least some skill and knowledge of ACM.

We as a squad have stopped many horde missions in their tracks and pilot for pilot my boys have put many of you in the tower time after time. We have taught many new players skills they wouldnt have learned on their own or have learned being in some godawefull horde where youre just another red dot in the sky. We like newcommers and we dont require them to "do as I say" in a mission they usually fly wing with TwentyFo, Mcboi, Shukes and others and they actually lean a thing or 2. If they decide to stick with us thats fine we welcome them, if not then if the seperation is cordial and friendly then we wish them well.You acuseing us of being punks and not talking to new members is unfounded and just plain wrong.

You need to get the facts straight.

 The reason why I left smokey,was all you guys ever wanted to do was defend..There was NO offensive movement to you guys after awhile..That is why I left..No one ever complained about the missions I ran when I was in your squad.but you expected that everytime a squaddie called for help I was to just drop a mission which already had people in it..Just ended up being not the way I roll..

  And why get so defensive with llogann,I am still trying to see where he said anything about lynchmob.?

 As far as which squad starting with..You guys were the first to ask..And people leave squads for other reasons as well.. ALMOST ALL squads have people leave them,it is just a fact of the game..

   You guys defend,and thats cool,defense is needed.But I plan missions,as well as play other aspects of the game..

  You think that planning missions most of a day is easy??? like to see some of you complaining run COUNTRY MISSIONS for 4-6 hours...Does not matter if it is a few in it or many...Try it for a day..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LYNX on April 26, 2009, 05:52:10 PM
Anybody else seein' the connection between pilot skill and their opinion on this topic?

Like having a rounded knowledge of ACM, E management couple with SA ....so you can handle a 1v 1 or 2 or 3 on 1?  Or having none of the above so you have to run away, run to friends or just plain bail?

Like bombing ammo's from 26k with 250Lb'ers instead of having to suicide your lancstuka.  Like taking out a CV with calibrated bombing in AR234's instead of suiciding your B26's?

Like porking a field and still be in one peace to fight your way home instead of riding the bomb in so's you can rinse & repeat?

Like pushing the gv attack back to the spawn instead of sitting there on your base to frightened to move off?

Like having your small squad take a large field intacted without the need for a megga mission?

Frankly the list goes on and on and yes I get the connection.





 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 26, 2009, 06:20:29 PM
  You think that planning missions most of a day is easy??? like to see some of you complaining run COUNTRY MISSIONS for 4-6 hours...Does not matter if it is a few in it or many...Try it for a day..

<<<<the fight is this way
Commence NOE horde this way>>>>

Easy enough
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 26, 2009, 07:11:38 PM
<<<<the fight is this way
Commence NOE horde this way>>>>

Easy enough

 <<<<< "THIS WAY"whatever kind of fighting you want to do is "THIS WAY">>>>>
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Dawggus on April 26, 2009, 08:17:32 PM
I'll never forget back in about 2003, when I started out with Nazgul, there was an armchair general planning a mission.   Mind you this mission was out to get A26 from the Bish and had no importance in their "quest for a reset".   Also, it had over 60 participants.   The 81st wasn't happy about what I did and BFD even remembered that night at the 2003 Indy Con.    :devil

Meanwhile, to win the reset, I hired Mutley, Goth, Boxboy28 and AX to hit the Center island.   We took all bases ourselves and they never even got close to taking A26.

Some folks on here over the years have all of a sudden "become the best mission planners", but a lot of them lack a simple grasp of frontal tactics.   "Let's swarm a base, take it, but quickly lose it, because we left supplies and the VH up at a base to it's rear."   

But, if some sleep better thinking they're the shizzle, I guess. 

You always were a stinker, but I loved your antics ;).

Cya Up!

Dawg
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 26, 2009, 09:13:07 PM
You always were a stinker, but I loved your antics ;).

Cya Up!

Dawg

I appreciate your honesty.    I always put other people ahead of myself and my wife hates it.   

Gimme a holler if you see me on Dawg!   :rock

Karaya
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 26, 2009, 10:16:17 PM
Please, take the time to read this without your egos and assess it objectively.

What too many folks don't seem to get is the fact that not a single thing, in and of itself, mentioned here as "lame gameplay" is lame gameplay. They are all part of the game. What is "lame" about the gameplay these days is the idea that AH is a "race to reset" game. That leads people to believe that an "anything goes" mentality is "good gameplay" because it accomplishes their goals. Which, in turn, assures that they will continually take the path of least resistance because it is the path to success in the "race to reset".  THAT is bad gameplay.

A number of people have attempted to justify the way they play with statements about how vets treat newbies. That does nothing to further anyone's goals here, it simply obfuscates the truth, the only justification for the way people play the game is that it is what they want to do.

No one here is asking anyone to be a "baby sitter" or to police their fellow players. All that anyone can ask is that each player examine own his gameplay. Can you honestly say that you are making any effort to be a good and entertaining opponent? If not, then the odds are that you are part of the problem.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 26, 2009, 10:25:58 PM
Please, take the time to read this without your egos and assess it objectively.

What too many folks don't seem to get is the fact that not a single thing, in and of itself, mentioned here as "lame gameplay" is lame gameplay. They are all part of the game. What is "lame" about the gameplay these days is the idea that AH is a "race to reset" game. That leads people to believe that an "anything goes" mentality is "good gameplay" because it accomplishes their goals. Which, in turn, assures that they will continually take the path of least resistance because it is the path to success in the "race to reset".  THAT is bad gameplay.

A number of people have attempted to justify the way they play with statements about how vets treat newbies. That does nothing to further anyone's goals here, it simply obfuscates the truth, the only justification for the way people play the game is that it is what they want to do.

No one here is asking anyone to be a "baby sitter" or to police their fellow players. All that anyone can ask is that each player examine own his gameplay. Can you honestly say that you are making any effort to be a good and entertaining opponent? If not, then the odds are that you are part of the problem.



I can agree with that. However, HTC has put in the "reset" portion of the game. It's the community that has contaminated the "challenge of a goal" into a "race to the end".

I agree, its up to each of us to ask ourselves "Are you making any effort to be a good and entertaining opponent?"
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Yeager on April 26, 2009, 10:33:01 PM
I am POSITIVE all this whining about "lame" game play would cease if the arenas were to be player capped at a far more reasonable level.  150 max.  The old WBs arenas were capped at 119 iirc, and were alot more enjoyable than these 300 player arenas (never mind titillating Tuesday's).  start at 119 capped and see how much it improves.  Of course, there will ALWAYS be vehement whiners....even in 8 player there was always some crack muncher pissing and moaning about this or that.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on April 27, 2009, 01:50:36 AM
However, does implementing further caps now encourage improvement in game play or concentrate it into even worse (ie furball area) because the mentality has already been set?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Xasthur on April 27, 2009, 05:47:48 AM
ROCKY showed me that bad game-play is still alive and well last night

1 v 1, no cons in the area....good merge, few turns... was starting to get close to yielding a result...... then what does he do?

Turns tail and runs to 3 different base acks.

I'd run out of fuel, so there was no point trying to RTB, so I tried to get 'suckered' into the ack just to get him to fight.

Nothing.

Absolute wuss and a waste of space.

If you want to run home, call it on 200.... I'll let you go every time. I just want a decent bloody fight... so say something instead of wasting everyone's time.

Bloody nancy-boy.

There was a time that I might have been frustrated by this... but these days I prefer to just stay cool and have fun. I wasn't upset... just confused.

1st fight back in months and that's what I got. Some fairy in a Pony that won't fight a fair fight.


Thankfully, GIRLY wasn't the only fight I had last night and I actually had some fun.

It was good to get back on... hopefully I can get my study and work load a bit more organised and get an hour or two of AH time per week.

 :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 27, 2009, 06:33:28 AM
Please, take the time to read this without your egos and assess it objectively.

What too many folks don't seem to get is the fact that not a single thing, in and of itself, mentioned here as "lame gameplay" is lame gameplay. They are all part of the game. What is "lame" about the gameplay these days is the idea that AH is a "race to reset" game. That leads people to believe that an "anything goes" mentality is "good gameplay" because it accomplishes their goals. Which, in turn, assures that they will continually take the path of least resistance because it is the path to success in the "race to reset".  THAT is bad gameplay.

A number of people have attempted to justify the way they play with statements about how vets treat newbies. That does nothing to further anyone's goals here, it simply obfuscates the truth, the only justification for the way people play the game is that it is what they want to do.

No one here is asking anyone to be a "baby sitter" or to police their fellow players. All that anyone can ask is that each player examine own his gameplay. Can you honestly say that you are making any effort to be a good and entertaining opponent? If not, then the odds are that you are part of the problem.
I don't think the race to reset (as if it actually happens that often) is wrong per se.  You could have great gameplay with such a race to reset.  The problem is definitely cheap gameplay choices and bad sportsmanship. 
I do agree with the last line, that's one way to boil it down.  There's definitely some of that even in non-reset gameplay.. A great, even GV standoff, no camping, in terrain that lends itself to lots of possible tactics, that's lasted for over an hour... And someone carpet bombs it.  Or capturing the TT bases.  That's like capturing bases at the DA lake. etc
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 27, 2009, 06:02:14 PM
ROCKY showed me that bad game-play is still alive and well last night

1 v 1, no cons in the area....good merge, few turns... was starting to get close to yielding a result...... then what does he do?

Turns tail and runs to 3 different base acks.



Yeah, he is a very boring person to fight.  I do not recall one fight I've had over the years against ROCKY where he didn't run in the middle of it.  Mace is another prime example and to think he's a trainer.  Though, while their flying maybe boring I wouldn't chalk it up to bad game play, more like limp wristed timid flying.


ack-ack
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: rvflyer on April 27, 2009, 06:06:48 PM
The game could never be "even, or equal" If it was it would always be a stalemate.

 
...but does it have to always be at the other players expense? By taking 20 guys to crush 6 you may have fun....I don't see how 3 on 1 :rolleyes: but the "6" surely are in for a bad time. I know you can take a field with 10 guys, I know this because I've done it hundreds of times. This new wave of player though doesn't "know" it because they never do it. The only missions they are in are the ones with an over whelming force.

The same goes for a fight, if it 3 on 1 how much more fun would it be being the next guy in? Not much unless you succeed in stealing the kill from the other three guys chasing the "one" already, now you've pissed off 4 people. Its easy to fix, use common sense and go look for another fight.

I agree with you, there is nothing that ticks me off more than to be on someones 6 ready to fire and some dweeb comes flying in from on high and takes the kill after i have spent time maneuvering into position, this is worse than hoing IMO. On the other hand I have been in a large mission and some red guy well come into the mission all by themself and promptly get shot down, then get on 200 going on and on :cry about the  hordes. if you encounter a mission all by yourself stay out at least tell you can get re enforcements.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 27, 2009, 07:39:22 PM
Please, take the time to read this without your egos and assess it objectively.

What too many folks don't seem to get is the fact that not a single thing, in and of itself, mentioned here as "lame gameplay" is lame gameplay. They are all part of the game. What is "lame" about the gameplay these days is the idea that AH is a "race to reset" game. That leads people to believe that an "anything goes" mentality is "good gameplay" because it accomplishes their goals. Which, in turn, assures that they will continually take the path of least resistance because it is the path to success in the "race to reset".  THAT is bad gameplay.

A number of people have attempted to justify the way they play with statements about how vets treat newbies. That does nothing to further anyone's goals here, it simply obfuscates the truth, the only justification for the way people play the game is that it is what they want to do.

No one here is asking anyone to be a "baby sitter" or to police their fellow players. All that anyone can ask is that each player examine own his gameplay. Can you honestly say that you are making any effort to be a good and entertaining opponent? If not, then the odds are that you are part of the problem.



     I dont run missions as often as I used too,mostly because I am not on as much as I used to be.
 BUT also because I tend to get into FB's much more and like the AvA combat,as well as Gv'ing.Check my scores and you will see that what I say is true..I also dont run for the reset as I used to do..

 Fugitive and others I think,are coming down on ALL sides that run big missions..Not just me,this is why I dont take it personally..

 If I was to bring 10 bomber sets,( total of 30 bombers)  into a large AF where a BIG furball was going on and take down all the FH,then this would get people ticked off.BUt it does happen,and sometimes it needs to happen,AND DONT QUOTE that part without quoting THIS PART,and that is.If it is a base that is close to our bases,and used to BE one of our bases,then yes,I and any other country would attempt to take it back..I am speaking of countrys NOT INDIVIDUALS in the sense that a COUNTRY would be glad they got the base back...That is my feeling on it after putting together the missions that I do.I do not think this is any different than a country KILLING A CV which has a good FB going on at it..But I can say that THE COUNTRY who does not own the cv will do their BEST to kill that CV..

 WHY?? because it is hard to judge what the other country wants..DO they really want to FB,or do they want to take the base with the cv..

  It is heard on ALL COUNTRYS.." NEED A CV KILLER TO SO AND SO BASE"...

      I guess if I had a gripe about game-play,it would be those people who come into a base at about 10K or so..and wait for people to up to fight,and the guys at 10K never even allow the other guys a chance to get even close to being able to fight them on a fair platform at ALT...And some of those people are the ones that are complaining about BIG MISSIONS..

 

   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 27, 2009, 08:34:32 PM
This is bad game play to me... or why I hate flying late at night.

Climbed up to him, dragged him away for a 1v1.  1 minute film


http://www.mediafire.com/?nm5lj2hrqym (http://www.mediafire.com/?nm5lj2hrqym)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 27, 2009, 09:18:33 PM
If I had a nickel for eveytime.............
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: wrag on April 27, 2009, 11:12:41 PM
hmmmmm.................

Bad game play.....................  :devil :devil :t :t

How about anyone shooting at wrag?  :O

Does that work?  :P :P :P
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 27, 2009, 11:24:26 PM
I dont run missions as often.....complaining about BIG MISSIONS..

Falcon...

Why bother to quote my post if you are going to ignore what I posted? You went straight to trying to obfuscate the issue with statements about your not running as many missions as you used to....etc.. No single thing you posted is lame. It's the frequency and volume of those things that make for lame game play.

Just curious, did you bother to read what I posted and, perhaps, answer the question I asked?

BTW, I don't really care if you answer here. This isn't about putting you on the spot. It is about attempting to get you to see what the problem is and hopefully, examine and adjust accordingly. :)

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DMBEAR on April 28, 2009, 03:43:58 AM
Here's an example of fellow knights.  I switched because the 26 x 7 x 6 was a wee bit Pink.  EDIT: The funny thing is that these squads use a V or o's in either squad.  Maybe they should just combine to a big (()).

 (http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/WEAK.jpg)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Masherbrum on April 28, 2009, 07:55:51 AM
Yep, I called that one about 45 minutes before I logged.   
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 28, 2009, 11:11:39 AM
Knits love those TankTown bases........................ ......   :confused:

Here's an example of fellow knights. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 28, 2009, 06:22:58 PM
Falcon...

Why bother to quote my post if you are going to ignore what I posted? You went straight to trying to obfuscate the issue with statements about your not running as many missions as you used to....etc.. No single thing you posted is lame. It's the frequency and volume of those things that make for lame game play.

Just curious, did you bother to read what I posted and, perhaps, answer the question I asked?

BTW, I don't really care if you answer here. This isn't about putting you on the spot. It is about attempting to get you to see what the problem is and hopefully, examine and adjust accordingly. :)



 Sorry baddy, I was not trying to give just my side or ignore what you  posted..

 I used to get on and it was about getting the reset.Dont do that much anymore..I cant say there is not a saturday or sunday I dont get on early,and think that maybe the map could get reset and start to work on it.

  But it is not about RACING to get the rest anymore.I run missions with many,and sometimes with not so many,and it is about getting bases..But it is a dimension of the game that I,as well as others enjoy.

  A good and entertaining opponent is what you asked..I honestly dont believe I am here to entertain the opponents..I see the crud that goes on 200,and so I really have to say that if MY GOAL is supposed to be to entertain those guys,then they are barking up the wrong tree..

 The chest thumpers on 200,NOT ALL on 200,but you know what I mean,go off about the lamest things and cry about stuff that goes on in the game all the time..And rarely do I see the whining about missions when they are going on..Once in awhile,but not often.

 But one can watch and see they get upset about the HO'ing,the cherrypicking,the SPAWN camping..etc..etc..And I am supposed to entertain that?? No,I dont believe that I could ever do enough to keep them happy nor entertained.

  I want to entertain myself,my squad,and the country I fly for..Thats where my entertainment lies..
And I can relate to the guys on 200 hollering about this or that,I do it MYSELF sometimes..But do I expect that the guy I am even talking to on 200 is going to see it,not really.Do I expect that the red guy flying away after I got the upperhand in the fight should turn around and ENTERTAIN me,he is protecting his skin,and after seeing some of what I consider to be GREAT sticks in the game run from me,not knowing who I was,and only later finding out that they ran due to the fact that they lost the upper hand in the fight,dosent make me feel the need to entertain the other side..

 

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 28, 2009, 06:24:13 PM
I think base taking is OK if it will start a fight. Enough from me.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 28, 2009, 06:29:13 PM
No victory without peril.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 28, 2009, 06:55:07 PM
OK Falcon, look at it from the other side. You log on on a Saturday and the only fight going is this horde rolling base after base. Your out numbered 3 or 4 to 1 The other side see's a possible reset in the works so they just hammer your team relentlessly. While it may be "fun" for them they are certainly ruining yours correct?

Sure you could start a fight on the other side of the map, or maybe try to run an NOE behind the horde, maybe even a porking mission, boring as all h@ll, but it might slow them down. But you know, its only a matter of time before they reset the map.

This is where you can entertain the opposition. There is no need to roll base after base, if you succeed in taking enough we get a new map and it starts all over, if you don't the midnight crawlers will milk them back during the night. So make the missions more fun. Instead of having it be all about the map reset, make be all about the battle for the map reset. I know it doesn't sound all that different, but it is. By making it more fun for the enemy as well as your team it will be more abut the battle.

Lumping everyone in with those loud mouths is the same as saying every big squad is a horde, it just isn't always true. Yes some are a horde because thats the only way they know how to operate, but others spread themselves out to support a fight instead of trying to dominate the fight. The same goes for some of the best sticks in this game. You'll rarely see them complain, but if the night is run by the horde, you won't see them fly either.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 28, 2009, 07:01:50 PM
...my side...

...dont believe I am here to entertain the opponents..

...MY GOAL is supposed to be to entertain those guys,then they are barking up the wrong tree...

...I want to entertain myself,my squad,and the country I fly for...

...Thats where my entertainment lies...

And I can relate to the guys on 200 hollering about this or that,I do it MYSELF sometimes..But do I expect that the guy I am even talking to on 200 is going to see it,not really.Do I expect that the red guy flying away after I got the upperhand in the fight should turn around and ENTERTAIN me,he is protecting his skin,and after seeing some of what I consider to be GREAT sticks in the game run from me,not knowing who I was,and only later finding out that they ran due to the fact that they lost the upper hand in the fight,dosent make me feel the need to entertain the other side..


Hmm, whole lotta "I" going on. You seem to be focused only on yourself and those around you. This is part and parcel of what makes for bad game play. Why do you think there is so much drivel on Ch200? Could it be because so many think like you do and only care about self-gratification?

I was going to try again to help you understand what others have been trying to show you. You, obviously, have no desire to even see if there might be some validity to the other side of this. I will say that what is being talked about here is part of reason that HT split the arenas and perhaps should do it again. After nearly 20 years of doing this (yeah, when they say "been there, done that", I'm the guy they are talking about) I am sad to say that without some changes, this may be a dead-end ride.



Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DamnedRen on April 28, 2009, 07:20:28 PM
I will say that what is being talked about here is part of reason that HT split the arenas and perhaps should do it again. After nearly 20 years of doing this (yeah, when they say "been there, done that", I'm the guy they are talking about) I am sad to say that without some changes, this may be a dead-end ride.

A thought, NB...splitting arenas will do what? Start a mass exodus from the game? Somehow that might be counter productive to a dogfight game. Or have you forgotten the demise of DosAW? Of how many were in the multiple arena in the end? I personally would hate to see a repeat of that. Especially if there is no AoHell AW, WB or AH2 to go to....

Ren
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 28, 2009, 07:43:48 PM
Ren...

The arena split here has nothing to do with the demise of AW...DOS or otherwise. It has not meant the demise of this game, thus far. HT's intent was to create an environment where "community" had a chance to grow by breaking one large, unwieldy community into several smaller ones.

What is "counter productive to a dogfight game" is large groups of players playing on opposite sides of the map to avoid combat.

What killed AW was apathetic management, not split arenas.

BTW, nice to see you around, Ren. :)

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 28, 2009, 09:08:53 PM
I've been playing since 1996. The fights in AW and AH have always been dynamic not static. That is the fight moves around all the time. It's a very mobile game. Players see a weakness on the flanks and they go for it. Players have to adjust, stay alert, and counter attack.

The one thing that Nobaddy stated and rings so true is the level of fight avoidance. Missions have put together to prove this and prove it they did. This seems to be a fairly new development. Maybe in the last 3 years. Hordes have always been there and missions as well. Still I have not seen the level of avoidance that you now see. Yet at times I have never seen such huge furballs. A few months back we had a furball that lasted 3 hours when 3 enemy cvs staggered in to an isolated island.

One thing I don't agree with is that a player should be there to entertain another player.  :rofl :rofl :rofl I think the most fun for all is when a player plays the way he enjoys although there are exceptions I can think of.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 28, 2009, 09:24:46 PM
One thing I don't agree with is that a player should be there to entertain another player.  :rofl :rofl :rofl I think the most fun for all is when a player plays the way he enjoys although there are exceptions I can think of.

Bet your wife thinks you are a great sex partner too.... :rofl :rofl :rofl


Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 28, 2009, 09:29:22 PM
OK Falcon, look at it from the other side. You log on on a Saturday and the only fight going is this horde rolling base after base. Your out numbered 3 or 4 to 1 The other side see's a possible reset in the works so they just hammer your team relentlessly. While it may be "fun" for them they are certainly ruining yours correct?

Sure you could start a fight on the other side of the map, or maybe try to run an NOE behind the horde, maybe even a porking mission, boring as all h@ll, but it might slow them down. But you know, its only a matter of time before they reset the map.

This is where you can entertain the opposition. There is no need to roll base after base, if you succeed in taking enough we get a new map and it starts all over, if you don't the midnight crawlers will milk them back during the night. So make the missions more fun. Instead of having it be all about the map reset, make be all about the battle for the map reset. I know it doesn't sound all that different, but it is. By making it more fun for the enemy as well as your team it will be more abut the battle.

Lumping everyone in with those loud mouths is the same as saying every big squad is a horde, it just isn't always true. Yes some are a horde because thats the only way they know how to operate, but others spread themselves out to support a fight instead of trying to dominate the fight. The same goes for some of the best sticks in this game. You'll rarely see them complain, but if the night is run by the horde, you won't see them fly either.

  First a reply to NB..You asked ME/I a question and I answered it with how I feel..I cannot speak for anyone else but me...

  I dont see how I can be focused on the RED guy and make sure he is "ENTERTAINED" by me..the only way I entertain them is if they shoot me down..That is the point of the game,among others isnt it?? I am not trying to be obstinate,but in the game,it is kill or be killed..It is defend a base,or have it taken from you,this is on all 3 countrys..


Fugitive:
 I have been on that end,no it is not the greatest time to be on the recieving end,but one does what one can to stop the missions..And if it cant be done,I just log into another arena if the numbers are way out of kilter,I dont get offended by it..I realize that maps are going to get reset,I used to want to reset them as fast as possible,but not anymore..Although I still want to take bases.Sometimes momentum gets going and one gets "BLOODLUST" in their eyes and the missions roll..

  Yes fugitive porking missions and resupplying are BORING,but in the game,being as rounded as it is,is a way to slow down the other side..I used to hate porking,now it is one of the main things we do  in my squad,without feeling it is BORING...

 I see what you are saying about the battle and the map reset..But it is very hard to watch bases get taken by another team,and not go about to try and get some of them back,as well as some of theirs..
But the battles get OLD for me..I can last maybe 2 hours,sometimes a bit longer in a FB,and honestly,I am done with it..I am not the greatest fighter,but I do ok,and I dont know,it just gets old..

  Anyway it is late,and FUGITIVE,I appreciate this post you made,it seems to come from a different place,maybe because I can relate to getting rolled by the other side,but I know it is part of the game,and it happens,and I usually just go to another arena.. :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 28, 2009, 09:39:45 PM
Bet your wife thinks you are a great sex partner too.... :rofl :rofl :rofl




I've been highly highly complimented! :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 28, 2009, 09:40:07 PM
How are you guys not blind from reading all those little words.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 28, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
 First a reply to NB..You asked ME/I a question and I answered it with how I feel..I cannot speak for anyone else but me...

  I dont see how I can be focused on the RED guy and make sure he is "ENTERTAINED" by me..the only way I entertain them is if they shoot me down..That is the point of the game,among others isnt it?? I am not trying to be obstinate,but in the game,it is kill or be killed..It is defend a base,or have it taken from you,this is on all 3 countrys..


Fugitive:
 I have been on that end,no it is not the greatest time to be on the recieving end,but one does what one can to stop the missions..And if it cant be done,I just log into another arena if the numbers are way out of kilter,I dont get offended by it..I realize that maps are going to get reset,I used to want to reset them as fast as possible,but not anymore..Although I still want to take bases.Sometimes momentum gets going and one gets "BLOODLUST" in their eyes and the missions roll..

  Yes fugitive porking missions and resupplying are BORING,but in the game,being as rounded as it is,is a way to slow down the other side..I used to hate porking,now it is one of the main things we do  in my squad,without feeling it is BORING...

 I see what you are saying about the battle and the map reset..But it is very hard to watch bases get taken by another team,and not go about to try and get some of them back,as well as some of theirs..
But the battles get OLD for me..I can last maybe 2 hours,sometimes a bit longer in a FB,and honestly,I am done with it..I am not the greatest fighter,but I do ok,and I dont know,it just gets old..

  Anyway it is late,and FUGITIVE,I appreciate this post you made,it seems to come from a different place,maybe because I can relate to getting rolled by the other side,but I know it is part of the game,and it happens,and I usually just go to another arena.. :salute

Now this is a good reply, your thinking. So now with this reply in mind look at it this way....

You said if worst comes to worst you will switch arenas, well what if there wasn't any hordes running, and battles were there to be battles, there would be no reason to switch arenas. By creating combat situations instead of just rolling another base your feeding the game and everyones enjoyment.

Second thing, porking has become more part of the plan you said, thats great, but instead of just porking a base or two with a sweep, send out an element of 4 men and pork and then a fighter sweep. You accomplish the pork mission, as well as create another fighting spot. For both sides again increasing everyone enjoyment.

See what I mean, all of those thing you like to do can still be done WITHOUT ruining other players fun. If people have a chance at combat, they will take it. The more they take it the better they become at it. The better they become at it, the better the defenders must become to hold them off. How can this NOT be more fun than what we have now?  :aok  The more people that look at the game this way, the better the game will be, its up to all of us to work at it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 28, 2009, 09:49:27 PM
Ren...

The arena split here has nothing to do with the demise of AW...DOS or otherwise. It has not meant the demise of this game, thus far. HT's intent was to create an environment where "community" had a chance to grow by breaking one large, unwieldy community into several smaller ones.

What is "counter productive to a dogfight game" is large groups of players playing on opposite sides of the map to avoid combat.

What killed AW was apathetic management, not split arenas.

BTW, nice to see you around, Ren. :)



We should have one MA, smaller maps so there is nowhere for the hordes to hide.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Edgar on April 28, 2009, 11:21:27 PM
We should have one MA, smaller maps so there is nowhere for the hordes to hide.

So everyday becomes a Titanic Tuesday???

No Thanks...

 :salute
Edgar
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 29, 2009, 01:13:41 AM
We should have one MA, smaller maps so there is nowhere for the hordes to hide.
I say just remove the mission planner option.
You like taking bases?..join a "base taking squad". and so on. What kills me with these mega squads is their need to post public missions.  Advertising that you need to roll with the #s in order to get anything accomplished is what gives people bad habbits.
 Im still learning how to take up certain rides and Ive learned more in the past 4 months of not flying with the horde than I have learned the previous 2 years of flying with the horde.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 29, 2009, 02:34:48 AM
So everyday becomes a Titanic Tuesday???


 

Yep, only on smaller maps. Your problem with TT is?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Guppy35 on April 29, 2009, 03:20:40 AM
 First a reply to NB..You asked ME/I a question and I answered it with how I feel..I cannot speak for anyone else but me...

  I dont see how I can be focused on the RED guy and make sure he is "ENTERTAINED" by me..the only way I entertain them is if they shoot me down..That is the point of the game,among others isnt it?? I am not trying to be obstinate,but in the game,it is kill or be killed..It is defend a base,or have it taken from you,this is on all 3 countrys..


To me this is the essential point that gets missed by so many.  This is entertainment.  It isn't kill or be killed as we have unlimited lives and planes.  The idea of that Community that NB speaks of, is what gets missed with this kind of short sighted thinking. 

I'll use tonight as an example.  There were some decent fights late night over the middle Isle.  I ran into a guy named Strong10 in a K4 a few times.  I don't claim to know him at all, but I've encountered him previously and had some good fights.  Tonight was the same.  I happened to get a lucky shot the first time.  He got me after a dizzying rolling scissors the next time.  Each time the talk on 200 was respectful and about the fight.  Third time we bumped into each other we were in the middle of another knock down drag out fight when one of my 'countrymen', came charging through to pick him.  He didn't ask if I needed help, but clearly was looking for the 'kill' without doing any of the work.  I pulled out of the fight, typed that the '38G was out" and gave Strong10 a chance to fight evenly. 

It seemed a fairly simple thing to do.  The entertainment for both of us was a good fight, not a quick kill.  As the night went on, more and more old timers showed up and the conversation on 200 grew more about good fights, and less about the horde.  Guys started to ask if folks needed help before diving in, and they let folks fight if they asked them to stay out.  I can recall a number of different conversations on 200 where folks were talking about great fights, and that was whether they won it or lost it, because the fight had been so worthwhile.

That's the game I like and it involves good people from all the chess pieces.  That's the community working, not some horde of self contained large groups that see map conquest and overpowering with numbers as the only reason to play.  Certainly base taking, etc is a viable part of the game also, but folks need to not lose sight of how they impact on everyone's entertainment, not just their own.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 29, 2009, 07:57:37 AM
TO a large extent, I actually agree with this....  But then the problem is, with no missions being able to be posted the newer, younger, greener sticks will lose chances at getting involved. 

I say just remove the mission planner option.
You like taking bases?..join a "base taking squad". and so on. What kills me with these mega squads is their need to post public missions.  Advertising that you need to roll with the #s in order to get anything accomplished is what gives people bad habbits.
 Im still learning how to take up certain rides and Ive learned more in the past 4 months of not flying with the horde than I have learned the previous 2 years of flying with the horde.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DREDger on April 29, 2009, 08:44:30 AM
I say just remove the mission planner option.
You like taking bases?..join a "base taking squad". and so on. What kills me with these mega squads is their need to post public missions.  Advertising that you need to roll with the #s in order to get anything accomplished is what gives people bad habbits.
 Im still learning how to take up certain rides and Ive learned more in the past 4 months of not flying with the horde than I have learned the previous 2 years of flying with the horde.

Bad idea IMO, missions are fun.  A good mission planner can educate new players on organized play, ie what hangers are what, tactics, etc. 

Usually you do have to roll with numbers to get anything done, that is the nature of the game.  One plane cannot reduce a town.  4 110's and a goon can capture a town, but not when a single LA-7 comes screaming out and goes right for the goon.

A medium field has 4 fh, 3 bh and 1 vh, that is 7 hangers needed to be closed to prevent the 'defense' horde from upping IL-2's en masse.  Of those 7 hangers, how many will be killed by ack or miss the target, not to mention at least one goon needed to capture after the town is reduced.

Suppose you have a good gaggle of heavy 47's headed for target.  One fighter with altitude can disrupt the whole affair, just B&Z and pick them off one by one, so you need escorts to protect the Jabo's.

There are alot of components to this game.  To call players who group together as just a 'horde' is a gross oversimplification.  Not to mention it is merely a different style than other players like, ie the 1 vs 1 duel.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: FiLtH on April 29, 2009, 09:03:30 AM
  The problem with the numbers is the lack of attrition. No matter how good you are, and how many you kill, the enemy can just reup at the target where your guys have to come from a sector away. Thats what makes it neccessary to hord a base if you want to take it. If there was a way to dent reupping at a field you just died at, it would make it so you could defeat the defenders, and they would have to up from the next base back if they die.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 29, 2009, 09:07:46 AM
Bad idea IMO, missions are fun.  A good mission planner can educate new players on organized play, ie what hangers are what, tactics, etc. 

Usually you do have to roll with numbers to get anything done, that is the nature of the game.  One plane cannot reduce a town.  4 110's and a goon can capture a town, but not when a single LA-7 comes screaming out and goes right for the goon.

A medium field has 4 fh, 3 bh and 1 vh, that is 7 hangers needed to be closed to prevent the 'defense' horde from upping IL-2's en masse.  Of those 7 hangers, how many will be killed by ack or miss the target, not to mention at least one goon needed to capture after the town is reduced.

Suppose you have a good gaggle of heavy 47's headed for target.  One fighter with altitude can disrupt the whole affair, just B&Z and pick them off one by one, so you need escorts to protect the Jabo's.

There are alot of components to this game.  To call players who group together as just a 'horde' is a gross oversimplification.  Not to mention it is merely a different style than other players like, ie the 1 vs 1 duel.

But but but Dredger, are you not going to submit to the collective?!

btw, totally agree with you.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 29, 2009, 09:19:26 AM
<S> FiLtH    

  The problem with the numbers is the lack of attrition. No matter how good you are, and how many you kill, the enemy can just reup at the target where your guys have to come from a sector away. Thats what makes it neccessary to hord a base if you want to take it.

Signed,
The guy that has a 15 minute drive back to your base after death or dart.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 29, 2009, 10:29:23 AM
Wrong... It's just one more instance of people going for the path of least resistance.. In Filth's pretty vague example, you could do without a horde by keeping good coordination with the rest of the effort.. Don't fly yourself to bingo fuel or ammo right next to their runways without someone to replace you.  Of course this means you have to communicate and agree on a plan with other players, which is - nine times out of ten - too much to ask.
Quote
If there was a way to dent reupping at a field you just died at, it would make it so you could defeat the defenders, and they would have to up from the next base back if they die.
If it's so important, you can cap the field.  Take out the VH(s) and vulch it. One cannon fighter can take out about three rollers. This isn't news to anyone...
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 29, 2009, 10:45:00 AM
OK Falcon, look at it from the other side. You log on on a Saturday and the only fight going is this horde rolling base after base. Your out numbered 3 or 4 to 1

Why is that the only fight? If it's the only fight, why are you outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1? What are the rest of your guys doing? What are the rest of their guys doing?

Honestly, when is the last time you logged on to either LW arena on a weekend afternoon or evening and out of 100 or 150 guys with either one of the other countries all but 5 of them were flying the same missions with the same "horde"? When was the last time you saw a 100-plane mission, or even 50?

I just don't think the problems you continually gripe about have any relation to reality. How can 20 guys out of 2-300 completely dominate a map so there are NO other fights going on? It defies reason.

The biggest "hordes" I see during regular hours aren't missions or big squads, they're the 50-plane furballs that tend to build up at 1 or 2 bases on each border. That has nothing to do with squads or organized missions, and the squads who like to run NOE missions generally avoid them.

(We're not talking about after 3 a.m. Eastern on weeknights, either. The screen shot DMBEAR was complaining about yesterday was at 4 a.m. in the less-populated arena, 90% of the people on were in the other. Hard to ruin everybody's fun when nobody else is in the arena...)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 29, 2009, 09:28:52 PM
Why is that the only fight? If it's the only fight, why are you outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1? What are the rest of your guys doing? What are the rest of their guys doing?

Because it was a situation that I was setting up to show him what it looks like from the other side. Had you left the rest of the quote in there it would have also had where I said yes you could start another fight, but the point of the matter is there is no need for the "horde" type missions. If you happen to have 25 guys attack a base that has people there already to insure you USE everyone, or attach a couple bases and get two fights going at once.

The idea of a "GAME" is for everyone playing to have fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 29, 2009, 09:31:46 PM
The idea of a "GAME" is for everyone playing to have fun.

Very True, and if somebody has fun taking bases and if someone else has fun furballing your gonna have to deal with it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 29, 2009, 09:46:27 PM
Ok, new setup for the MAs. StokesAK as only bish trying to furball/base-take, while 300 bishrook base-take/furball bish bases.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on April 29, 2009, 10:06:20 PM
Only if we can change the name from Bishops to Stokesland and they dont count for knights ENY calculation.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 29, 2009, 10:39:48 PM
 :rofl Free 262's I would be perfectly fine with the idea.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 29, 2009, 11:39:36 PM
Because it was a situation that I was setting up to show him what it looks like from the other side.

In other words, it was a hypothetical situation that can and will never actually exist. Exactly what I was saying. It won't ever actually look like that from the other side, because it can't ever happen.

If my style of play has the potential to ruin everybody else's fun, but only under circumstances that can never actually happen, that's not going to make me lose any sleep.

Had you left the rest of the quote in there it would have also had where I said yes you could start another fight, but the point of the matter is there is no need for the "horde" type missions.

But that's not the point you claimed you were making. You say you're demonstrating that that style of play ruins everyone else's fun. Saying there's no NEED for "hordes" does not show that they ruin everyone else's fun. You fail at logic.

Theres no NEED for 1-1 duels either, but that doesn't mean you're spoiling everybody else's fun if you play that way.

The idea of a "GAME" is for everyone playing to have fun.

That doesn't obligate everyone else to play the way YOU find the most fun, any more than it obligates you to play the way that anyone else finds more fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 30, 2009, 03:39:31 AM
In other words, it was a hypothetical situation that can and will never actually exist. Exactly what I was saying. It won't ever actually look like that from the other side, because it can't ever happen.

If my style of play has the potential to ruin everybody else's fun, but only under circumstances that can never actually happen, that's not going to make me lose any sleep.

But that's not the point you claimed you were making. You say you're demonstrating that that style of play ruins everyone else's fun. Saying there's no NEED for "hordes" does not show that they ruin everyone else's fun. You fail at logic.

Theres no NEED for 1-1 duels either, but that doesn't mean you're spoiling everybody else's fun if you play that way.

That doesn't obligate everyone else to play the way YOU find the most fun, any more than it obligates you to play the way that anyone else finds more fun.

Noone is telling you or anyone else how to play. You make that decision. The OP started this thread wanting to debate his position on how flying in hordes is affecting game play. Almost 600 replies later and I gaurantee that we havent even dented a change in 99% of the minds of the people that do fly in hordes. They stick to the theory of "its my money".

I am still pretty new, but what I see pretty common here is that its inevitable that no matter what you say or do, it wont change the minds of these guys that love to fly in #s.
Time will always cure this. Eventualy they will get bored flying in those 50 man missions but whats sad is just as they start getting bored, they realize the new guys that flew in their missions are now taking their place.

I could care less about hordes. I have my own option if I want to fight them off or not. Plenty of choices in this game that if I dont like getting ganged at one side of the map, There is plenty of other places I can find fun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 30, 2009, 05:08:59 AM

Noone is telling you or anyone else how to play. You make that decision. The OP started this thread wanting to debate his position on how flying in hordes is affecting game play. Almost 600 replies later and I gaurantee that we havent even dented a change in 99% of the minds of the people that do fly in hordes. They stick to the theory of "its my money".

I am still pretty new, but what I see pretty common here is that its inevitable that no matter what you say or do, it wont change the minds of these guys that love to fly in #s.
Time will always cure this. Eventually they will get bored flying in those 50 man missions but whats sad is just as they start getting bored, they realize the new guys that flew in their missions are now taking their place.

I could care less about hordes. I have my own option if I want to fight them off or not. Plenty of choices in this game that if I dont like getting ganged at one side of the map, There is plenty of other places I can find fun.




"Noone is telling you or anyone else how to play."

Half the posts in this thread is someone telling someone else how to play the game.


"I could care less about hordes. I have my own option if I want to fight them off or not. Plenty of choices in this game that if I dont like getting ganged at one side of the map, There is plenty of other places I can find fun."

A very true and logical statement.  I think is what a lot of folks fail to see.  They rather try to get you to play the game their way, if you don't, then you contributing to the demise of the game.


Fred 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 30, 2009, 06:40:21 AM
In other words, it was a hypothetical situation that can and will never actually exist. Exactly what I was saying. It won't ever actually look like that from the other side, because it can't ever happen.

If my style of play has the potential to ruin everybody else's fun, but only under circumstances that can never actually happen, that's not going to make me lose any sleep.

But that's not the point you claimed you were making. You say you're demonstrating that that style of play ruins everyone else's fun. Saying there's no NEED for "hordes" does not show that they ruin everyone else's fun. You fail at logic.

Theres no NEED for 1-1 duels either, but that doesn't mean you're spoiling everybody else's fun if you play that way.

That doesn't obligate everyone else to play the way YOU find the most fun, any more than it obligates you to play the way that anyone else finds more fun.





"Noone is telling you or anyone else how to play."

Half the posts in this thread is someone telling someone else how to play the game.


"I could care less about hordes. I have my own option if I want to fight them off or not. Plenty of choices in this game that if I dont like getting ganged at one side of the map, There is plenty of other places I can find fun."

A very true and logical statement.  I think is what a lot of folks fail to see.  They rather try to get you to play the game their way, if you don't, then you contributing to the demise of the game.


Fred 


It truly amazes me how dense some people are. If your quoting me then your talking about what I'm saying, so again I will say I'M NOT TELLING ANY ONE TO PLAY MY WAY. I am ASKING people to stop the LAME game play.

1Loki, If you had looked at the rest of the posts in the thread you would have come across a number of screen shots SHOWING HORDES IN ACTION, proving that they do happen. Unfortunately they are happening more and more as time goes on. Using my hypothetical situation I was asking a question.... Would you find it fun getting hit by the horde? As it DOES happen, and it will CONTINUE to happen I ask you the same question, "Would that be fun? As a SOLUTION to the horde I suggested using those "vast" resources to do multiple missions. A fighter sweep mission, a porking mission, and an attack/capture mission all at the same time. The horde is STILL working its will on the map, but now has provided 3 separate fights instead of a "horde" that no one can fight so increasing the fun for everyone, friend and foe alike.

bmwgs, If you read what is being said and instead of jumping to the defensive and blinding your self to what is posted you'd see that "most" of us are not telling any one to "play my way". We are pointing out what is happening in the arenas, and are trying to help the community by suggesting ways to continue doing what "you" like to do with out spoiling anyone else fun. 

The game is about the JOURNEY to the end, not the END. In racing to a reset, all you get is another map. In working through all the fights and tactics and strategies you get enjoyment of each battle, win or loose, you still have that thrill. In this thread we are talking about lame game play, game play that works to get you away from those strategies, those thrills. Neither of you guys could say you wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of the horde. Today maybe we only see the "horde" 30% of the time, next week it WILL be more, and the week after more, because the answer will always be, "well they do it to us!", and before you know it it will be the only mission going again.

All we are trying to do here is to nip lame game play in the bud. If a few start looking for less LAME game play now, others might start following that example. Leaders teaching the new generation whats is LAME, and what isn't. Hordes will will be few and far between, and battles, fights and combat will be the norm.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Stang on April 30, 2009, 06:56:40 AM
The people who always cry that it's their $15 and they can do whatever they want are always the ones who try to justify their lameness.  Idiots.  Just because you pay $15 a month doesn't mean you have to spend it playing like a retard.

 :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 30, 2009, 07:16:53 AM


It truly amazes me how dense some people are. If your quoting me then your talking about what I'm saying, so again I will say I'M NOT TELLING ANY ONE TO PLAY MY WAY. I am ASKING people to stop the LAME game play.

1Loki, If you had looked at the rest of the posts in the thread you would have come across a number of screen shots SHOWING HORDES IN ACTION, proving that they do happen. Unfortunately they are happening more and more as time goes on. Using my hypothetical situation I was asking a question.... Would you find it fun getting hit by the horde? As it DOES happen, and it will CONTINUE to happen I ask you the same question, "Would that be fun? As a SOLUTION to the horde I suggested using those "vast" resources to do multiple missions. A fighter sweep mission, a porking mission, and an attack/capture mission all at the same time. The horde is STILL working its will on the map, but now has provided 3 separate fights instead of a "horde" that no one can fight so increasing the fun for everyone, friend and foe alike.

bmwgs, If you read what is being said and instead of jumping to the defensive and blinding your self to what is posted you'd see that "most" of us are not telling any one to "play my way". We are pointing out what is happening in the arenas, and are trying to help the community by suggesting ways to continue doing what "you" like to do with out spoiling anyone else fun. 

The game is about the JOURNEY to the end, not the END. In racing to a reset, all you get is another map. In working through all the fights and tactics and strategies you get enjoyment of each battle, win or loose, you still have that thrill. In this thread we are talking about lame game play, game play that works to get you away from those strategies, those thrills. Neither of you guys could say you wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of the horde. Today maybe we only see the "horde" 30% of the time, next week it WILL be more, and the week after more, because the answer will always be, "well they do it to us!", and before you know it it will be the only mission going again.

All we are trying to do here is to nip lame game play in the bud. If a few start looking for less LAME game play now, others might start following that example. Leaders teaching the new generation whats is LAME, and what isn't. Hordes will will be few and far between, and battles, fights and combat will be the norm.


Speaking of dense, who are you talking about?  I did not in any way refer to you in my post.  Matter of fact, when I was typing it, your name never came to mind.  So who is on the defensive, not me, but you sure are. 

I am not defending any type of game play.  I just simply make comments to those that do.  At times I share my opinion.  I will play the game until I stop having fun, then I will quit.  When I quit I won't come back and tell everyone how they should play or how it used to be. 

The only individuals that can control this game is HTC.  They will make and enforce the rules and determine how the game should be played.  All can speak about policing our own, but in this day of keyboard warriors and faceless fictional names, there is no way the community can really enforce any one type of game play, no matter what it is.

I am not on one side or the other, so don't try to tell me what I am thinking or what I believe.  I do not agree with some, but I do agree with others.  Wheather you like it or not I am entitled to my opinions.

By the way I was quoting oTRALFZo, so don't jump to conclusions.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 30, 2009, 07:35:30 AM
Speaking of dense, who are you talking about?  I did not in any way refer to you in my post.  Matter of fact, when I was typing it, your name never came to mind.  So who is on the defensive, not me, but you sure are. 

I am not defending any type of game play.  I really in the long run don't care.  I will play the game until I stop having fun, then I will quit.  When I quit I won't come back and tell everyone how they should play or how it used to be. 

The only individuals that can control this game is HTC.  They will make and enforce the rules and determine how the game should be played.  All can speak about policing our own, but in this day of keyboard warriors and faceless fictional names, there is no way the community can really enforce any one type of game play, no matter what it is.

I am not on one side or the other, so don't try to tell me what I am thinking or what I believe.  I do not agree with some, but I do agree with others.  Wheather you like it or not I am entitled to my opinions.

By the way I was quoting oTRALFZo, so don't jump to conclusions.

Fred

For you, the "dense" part was jumping on the "everyones trying to make them play my way" band wagon. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

Saying this community can not change game play is foolish, because it already has, unfortunately for the worst. The more people who come into this game and see lame game play being as the quickest and easiest path to the top... what ever they consider the top, be it acculaids in their squad, name in lights, or top of the scoreboard .... without any consequences the worst game play is going to get.

You say that "you will play the game until you stop having fun, then you'll quit". What if a few guys did nothing but followed you around and bombed you everytime you upped in your GV, what if your "spit" wasn't available due to ENY all the time. You wouldn't be having fun, so you'd quit and not look back? My guess is your not having all that much fun now. Me, I'd rather fight to keep the game play good so the fun would continue, not only for me, but for everyone else. But, like you said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I think the game is worth fighting for, I guess you don't. Good luck with what ever game you move to next. <S>
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 30, 2009, 08:50:43 AM
The same arguments repeated a couple of posts after they were refuted.  I'm outta this one till that stops happening.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 30, 2009, 12:06:58 PM
This is turning into Groundhog Day..........

But who is playing the part of Bill Murray?

The same arguments repeated a couple of posts after they were refuted.  I'm outta this one till that stops happening.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 30, 2009, 12:13:11 PM
This is turning into Groundhog Day..........

But who is playing the part of Bill Murray?


I will if you get a hotty to play the part Andie Mcdowell played.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Saurdaukar on April 30, 2009, 12:16:49 PM
Lot of bloody foreheads in here.

Some blood on the wall, over there, too.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: DMBEAR on April 30, 2009, 01:27:53 PM
This is turning into Groundhog Day..........

But who is playing the part of Bill Murray?


I'll play the insurance salesman. I like stepping in puddles anyways.  :huh
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 30, 2009, 01:33:28 PM
This is turning into Groundhog Day..........

But who is playing the part of Bill Murray?


 :lol :lol :lol :lol It always does when the thread gets too long and generally becomes another subject entirely. I'm surprised by now that were not talking about butterflies in Holland.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on April 30, 2009, 01:34:04 PM
:lol :lol :lol :lol It always does when the thread gets too long and generally becomes another subject entirely. I'm surprised by now that were not talking about butterflies in Holland.

Do they have nice butterflies in Holland?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 30, 2009, 01:37:14 PM
Very rare butterfly in Holland but can be seen in Austria quite often.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/90/209320819_8818e29ea8.jpg?v=0)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: LLogann on April 30, 2009, 02:09:47 PM
AHHHHHHH, yes, the very rare HummingButterfly........  They have a unique mating ritual, but decorum does not permit us to speak about it here.    :rock

Very rare butterfly in Holland but can be seen in Austria quite often.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on April 30, 2009, 02:16:38 PM
Very rare butterfly in Holland but can be seen in Austria quite often.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/90/209320819_8818e29ea8.jpg?v=0)

  :lol :lol :lol :lol

I somehow think I'm going to get a rule violation. Uhg!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SlapShot on April 30, 2009, 02:27:49 PM
Post 600 ... can't believe it's gone this far.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 30, 2009, 02:39:02 PM
Can you believe it's come to people pretending shutting down hangars on furballs with zero strategic value, just for fun, 10 years into the game, is good gameplay?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Reaper90 on April 30, 2009, 02:40:06 PM

Just my $0.02 from a relative newb who's only been playing a month and a few days....


Hoards or not, I could care less. If that's how you wanna roll, that fine with me. In fact, I love the occasional chance to be part of the group of defenders that fights off the hoard, kills the enemy CV and saves the base. Like that defense of A98 this AM, fighting off the bish hoard, going from totally outnumbered and vulched on the runway 6-7 times straight with 12 to 15:1 odds, to 30 minutes later not a dirtbag red con icon to be found. That is satisfaction there. I can take getting shot down repeatedly, I don't mind going down in a rain of falling Spitfire V parts, especially when I kill 2-3 of the bish raiders each time I get up successfully.

What is TRULY the definition of BOVINE EXCRAMENT is the horders who rack up big kill tallies by vulching runways and fighter hangers. WEAKSAUCE. If you are proud of that big number of kills you land by strafing guys trying to get airborne, so be it. More power to ya. Here's a newsflash: You're a dweeb. But although I refrain from what I consider "bad play" (HOing, picking, ganging, etc)unless I receive it first, if you are a low-life hordling runway vulcher I PROMISE YOU I will HO YOU at every opportunity, RAM YOU if I'm damaged and I will shoot your sorry arse as you drift down in your chute, so help me I'm lucky enough.
 
There. I feel better.  :rofl

And Kazaa, you thoroughly schooled my Spit V ealier in that Spit IX. I got your wingman once, and hit another of you guys a bunch with my BB's a second time, but you got me 3 times. THAT was a good fight.  :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: FALCONWING on April 30, 2009, 02:59:20 PM

I rarely put myself in danger but I want everyone else to fly straight in a line, in a plane that is easier to kill, and let me kill them... .so all these years I have invested in this game are rewarded by me getting unearned recognition.  Anything done to thwart that is bad...we must stop human nature and fun dictating what guides gameplay and instead impose our will (and greater understanding) upon the unskilled masses.  By insisting we all become equal and forcing people to do so with insults and irritations we will have a stronger community (that will respect us more).

-- Karl Marx420

fixed
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 30, 2009, 03:10:40 PM
Hit the nail on the head FalconWing

+1  :aok
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Reaper90 on April 30, 2009, 03:15:38 PM
fixed

 :huh

I see by the time stamp that you were quoting my post, so if that was your intent to respond to me, let me be the first to point out you could not have more completely missed my point. My feelings are the opposite of what you decribe with your "fix." I'm the first to try to up against a hoard, and I'll fly straight into a gaggle of cons just to see how long I can stay alive. The K/D ratio is meaningless to me. My name is rarely ever up in lights, cause I usually fight til either I'm A) out of ammo, or B) DEAD. That's how I plan on getting better. Not strafing guys on the runway.

But, I dunno, maybe you were agreeing with me. I dunno.

If you were, my apologies.

<----- exactly the opposite of the "BBS Bully" type. But I know bad game play, and vulching is the very definition of it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Crash Orange on April 30, 2009, 03:26:53 PM
1Loki, If you had looked at the rest of the posts in the thread you would have come across a number of screen shots SHOWING HORDES IN ACTION, proving that they do happen.  



I never said hordes don't happen.



I said hordes don't and can't have the effect you claim they do, and I stand by that.

If there are 300 people in an arena, and 50 of them are all attacking one field, that still leaves 250 other players do do whatever they want at the other 99 fields.

There is no way you can be FORCED to fight against overwhelming odds, because even for the smaller maps the map is too big for any horde to dominate all or even most of it.

And the horde doesn't change the overall odds for your country. If there are 100 nits on there are 100 nits on; if half of them are all in one place on the map, that means there are half as many everywhere else on the map.

For the record, I'd have no interest in flying in 50-plane missions on a regular basis (it is fun once in a blue moon just to see that many planes in the air at once), because you're right, it isn't a challenge. This isn't about me at all. I'm not the one saying my game is being ruined.

And I'm not saying people should fly in 50-plane missions, or that people should enjoy flying in 50-plane missions, or that people should enjoy defending against 50-plane missions, or that there's something wrong with not liking to fly in or against a 50-plane mission.

I'm saying the existence of a 50-plane mission in one place of the map cannot possibly ruin the game of the other 250 players in all the other places on the map. It cannot happen. No matter how big they are they do not have that much reach or influence. And most "hordes" are smaller than that anyway.

This is different from most of the other lame behaviors discussed in this thread, because those aren't by definition confined to one little part of the map at any given time and consequently they aren't as easy to avoid as a horde is. If there are 100 HOing ramming kamikaze dweebs out of 300 people in the arena, then no matter what you do every 3rd plane you encounter is likely to be one. You can't tell who they are or where they are by glancing at the map. You can always see that the horde is a horde before you get too near them, so you always have the option to leave and go somewhere else where they aren't.

:salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: waystin2 on April 30, 2009, 03:28:44 PM
Post 600 ... can't believe it's gone this far.

I thought that the Butterflies in Holland would wrap this one up. :)  Apparently not. :uhoh
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Oldman731 on April 30, 2009, 03:33:55 PM
What is TRULY the definition of BOVINE EXCRAMENT is the horders who rack up big kill tallies by vulching runways and fighter hangers. WEAKSAUCE. If you are proud of that big number of kills you land by strafing guys trying to get airborne, so be it. More power to ya. Here's a newsflash: You're a dweeb.

Heh.  I like it.

- oldman (agreed, by the way)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: FALCONWING on April 30, 2009, 03:52:22 PM
:huh

I see by the time stamp that you were quoting my post, so if that was your intent to respond to me, let me be the first to point out you could not have more completely missed my point. My feelings are the opposite of what you decribe with your "fix." I'm the first to try to up against a hoard, and I'll fly straight into a gaggle of cons just to see how long I can stay alive. The K/D ratio is meaningless to me. My name is rarely ever up in lights, cause I usually fight til either I'm A) out of ammo, or B) DEAD. That's how I plan on getting better. Not strafing guys on the runway.

But, I dunno, maybe you were agreeing with me. I dunno.

If you were, my apologies.

<----- exactly the opposite of the "BBS Bully" type. But I know bad game play, and vulching is the very definition of it.

Reaper90

I used your "quote box" because you were the last poster when i hit "quote"...i changed the name etc in an attempt to be funny....i was not responding to you or trying to poke fun at your post at all...I was not trying to insult you or respond directly to your post...I just stole your quote box :t

my apologies if you took this as a swipe at you...it wasn't

my point was that this thread is simply a reincarnation of a thousand threads that I have quit responding to because there is no "aha moment" for either sides of the coin. 

there are folks who are having fun and folks who are not having fun...somehow the latter think this can be solved on the bbs...

I am having fun :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 30, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Quote
there are folks who are having fun and folks who are not having fun...somehow the latter think this can be solved on the bbs...
inaccurate
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 30, 2009, 04:44:29 PM
I say just remove the mission planner option.
You like taking bases?..join a "base taking squad". and so on. What kills me with these mega squads is their need to post public missions.  Advertising that you need to roll with the #s in order to get anything accomplished is what gives people bad habbits.
 Im still learning how to take up certain rides and Ive learned more in the past 4 months of not flying with the horde than I have learned the previous 2 years of flying with the horde.

 This from one of the BIG mission planners in days past,wanting the mission planner gone..

 Now that you are tired of people running missions like you used to run,that we used to run together,you think that since you no longer have a need for it,it should all just be gone..
 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 30, 2009, 05:22:10 PM
You guys have said the same thing for 41 pages..... the two camps simply aren't going to come together.

It seems to be an immutable truth, the big squads and hordes will continue to provide players who are easy kills. 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: falcon23 on April 30, 2009, 05:34:32 PM
You guys have said the same thing for 41 pages..... the two camps simply aren't going to come together.

It seems to be an immutable truth, the big squads and hordes will continue to provide players who are easy kills. 

 OK,heres the problem with people speaking of HUGE HORDES..

 This thread is what,25 pages,and yet steve sees 41 pages..these numbers you guys see,I wonder how many of them are blown out of proportion.. :D

  But on a more serious note,You know I think that missions that people see may actually be a conglomeration of BISH,NIT,ROOK on one area,and not actually from a mission that was planned..
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on April 30, 2009, 05:44:10 PM
It's a personal bbs setting.
It shows 41 pages for me too.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Tec on April 30, 2009, 05:49:28 PM
I'll play the insurance salesman. I like stepping in puddles anyways.  :huh

I hate you Ned Ryerson! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on April 30, 2009, 05:54:51 PM
HUGE HORDES..
Huge, as in extremely large in size or amount. How about "disproportionate"? (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/AirCombat.ahf)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on April 30, 2009, 06:00:52 PM

  But on a more serious note,You know I think that missions that people see may actually be a conglomeration of BISH,NIT,ROOK on one area,and not actually from a mission that was planned..

Right, that's a horde.      :aok

Like I said though, I don't really mind hordes.  For me it's a challenge to  fly into them, get a kill or two, and try to survive.  *shrug*
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Reaper90 on April 30, 2009, 06:33:46 PM
Reaper90

I used your "quote box" because you were the last poster when i hit "quote"...i changed the name etc in an attempt to be funny....i was not responding to you or trying to poke fun at your post at all...I was not trying to insult you or respond directly to your post...I just stole your quote box :t

my apologies if you took this as a swipe at you...it wasn't

my point was that this thread is simply a reincarnation of a thousand threads that I have quit responding to because there is no "aha moment" for either sides of the coin. 

there are folks who are having fun and folks who are not having fun...somehow the latter think this can be solved on the bbs...

I am having fun :salute

'Kay then.  :aok

I'm having fun as well, but I do my fair share of "cussin' and yellin" when I'm repeatedly vulched by a bunch of pansyprettythanges who are apparently afraid of what will happen if I get airborn!!!

I know whining about vulching here on the bbs will never solve it... half the people here don't care, half that do don't agree, and I'd bet only 10% or less that play are even here on the bbs at all.

Just puttin in my $0.02, and it probably isn't even worth that much.  :)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: bmwgs on April 30, 2009, 06:49:41 PM
For you, the "dense" part was jumping on the "everyones trying to make them play my way" band wagon. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

Saying this community can not change game play is foolish, because it already has, unfortunately for the worst. The more people who come into this game and see lame game play being as the quickest and easiest path to the top... what ever they consider the top, be it acculaids in their squad, name in lights, or top of the scoreboard .... without any consequences the worst game play is going to get.

You say that "you will play the game until you stop having fun, then you'll quit". What if a few guys did nothing but followed you around and bombed you everytime you upped in your GV, what if your "spit" wasn't available due to ENY all the time. You wouldn't be having fun, so you'd quit and not look back? My guess is your not having all that much fun now. Me, I'd rather fight to keep the game play good so the fun would continue, not only for me, but for everyone else. But, like you said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I think the game is worth fighting for, I guess you don't. Good luck with what ever game you move to next. <S>

First of all I have never told anyone to play the game a certain way, that is YOU assuming tooooooo much.  Second the community itself can not enforce anything when a player can change their game id daily, but HTC can.  Third there is always a spit available no matter what the ENY is.

I have no idea what you are talking about score wise.  I know you have looked at mine, that is the type of player you are, and there is nothing to show I am a score Hor.  At best I am average at this game and I'll admit it. YOU are the one dictating how the game should be played by making a list of what is lame to YOU, and the hell with everyone that doesn't agree with you.  So don't come to me with some high and  mighty attitude about what I think and how I think the game should be played, because you have NO idea what I am thinking.

You say the community has changed the game for the worse.  I do not agree.  I think this game is as fun as the day I signed on, and like most humans I will play until I stop enjoying the game.  If you don't enjoy the game and want to continue playing, that is your decision, I could care less.

Fred
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Widewing on April 30, 2009, 08:11:27 PM
Yeah, he is a very boring person to fight.  I do not recall one fight I've had over the years against ROCKY where he didn't run in the middle of it.  Mace is another prime example and to think he's a trainer.  Though, while their flying maybe boring I wouldn't chalk it up to bad game play, more like limp wristed timid flying.


ack-ack

ack-ack, ol' buddy, I'm gonna call you on this one. Do you know Mace? Do you know his background?

Let me enlighten everyone who doesn't.

Mace is a retired Navy fighter jock. He's a graduate of TOPGUN and a graduate of the Navy Test Pilot School. He has in excess of 5,000 hours flying the F-14 Tomcat off of carriers, with God knows how many combat sorties in two wars. I defy anyone to say that any person who has done what this man has accomplished is somehow timid.

Mace is a trainer because he has forgotten more about flying and air combat than almost any member of this community will ever know. Unless of course, you have a F-14A in your hanger and the two million dollars required for the training necessary to get qualified to fly it.

The very best stick in Aces High isn't qualified to chock the wheels of his Tomcat, much less openly suggest he's timid...


My regards,

Widewing
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 30, 2009, 09:21:03 PM
This from one of the BIG mission planners in days past,wanting the mission planner gone..

 Now that you are tired of people running missions like you used to run,that we used to run together,you think that since you no longer have a need for it,it should all just be gone..
 
Been there, done that... of course. Just like probably everyone in here. I agree, it was fun.
Falcon, you and I have risen in the ranks just about the same time. Dont take this personaly, but the style of game you play, Im amazed that its been this long that you have been entertained. is it the recognition you get when you roll maps as a mission leader?
What I hated most flying with you guys is A) it just got too boring flying NOE to a feild with 30 other guys, most of the time never firing a shot in my 110.
B) When I wasnt in that 30 man mission, I was getting my arse romped by the other guys from the feild you guys just took, and now the 50 green guys are off to some other feild to horde.
C) All that work getting all wound up trying to race for the reset and only to come back the next day with the fields milkrunned.

What people are telling you is not a conspiracy, I am not telling you to play a certain way. All thats asked is that you challenge yourself sometimes rather than looking for the easy road. Take you and your guys and fight for that base instead of being Nancygirl homemaker trying to sneak it.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SkyRock on April 30, 2009, 09:32:01 PM
ack-ack, ol' buddy, I'm gonna call you on this one. Do you know Mace? Do you know his background?

Let me enlighten everyone who doesn't.

Mace is a retired Navy fighter jock. He's a graduate of TOPGUN and a graduate of the Navy Test Pilot School. He has in excess of 5,000 hours flying the F-14 Tomcat off of carriers, with God knows how many combat sorties in two wars. I defy anyone to say that any person who has done what this man has accomplished is somehow timid.

Mace is a trainer because he has forgotten more about flying and air combat than almost any member of this community will ever know. Unless of course, you have a F-14A in your hanger and the two million dollars required for the training necessary to get qualified to fly it.

The very best stick in Aces High isn't qualified to chock the wheels of his Tomcat, much less openly suggest he's timid...


My regards,

Widewing
I think I chased a dude named Mace2004 before...he was scary timid.....maybe that was him and he was just not wanting to own me at the time....maybe he was being timid......


at any rate, I will give Mace a big <S> for his service and respect him for his ability to serve our country as a fighter pilot.   :salute
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on April 30, 2009, 09:33:58 PM
I am not telling you to play a certain way. All thats asked is that you challenge yourself sometimes rather than looking for the easy road.

 :huh

Contradict yourself much?  Or is "asking him to challenge himself" somehow different then trying to dictate how he should play?  I see very little difference.  Maybe Falcon should "challenge" himself by trying to assemble the largest hordes ever seen in AH2...  Would that make you happy?  I didn't think so.  You only want him to "challenge himself" in such a way that you consider to be "good game play".  :rolleyes:  

If you don't see how you are trying to dictate his play style now, you never will.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on April 30, 2009, 09:36:54 PM
First of all I have never told anyone to play the game a certain way, that is YOU assuming tooooooo much.  Second the community itself can not enforce anything when a player can change their game id daily, but HTC can.  Third there is always a spit available no matter what the ENY is.

I'm sorry, but that just seems to be the way your coming across.

Quote
I have no idea what you are talking about score wise.  I know you have looked at mine, that is the type of player you are, and there is nothing to show I am a score Hor.  At best I am average at this game and I'll admit it. YOU are the one dictating how the game should be played by making a list of what is lame to YOU, and the hell with everyone that doesn't agree with you.  So don't come to me with some high and  mighty attitude about what I think and how I think the game should be played, because you have NO idea what I am thinking.

The only thing I said about score was...

"Saying this community can not change game play is foolish, because it already has, unfortunately for the worst. The more people who come into this game and see lame game play being as the quickest and easiest path to the top... what ever they consider the top, be it acculaids in their squad, name in lights, or top of the scoreboard .... without any consequences the worst game play is going to get."

In this quote, the bold section is in reference to "what people think is the "top". I couldn't care less about score, but I don't mind having a nice one  :D I did check your score tonight and to me it says your a mediocre player. You play many aspects of the game. You haven't improved much over the last few months so from that I figure your OK with your skill level, and your ok with the way that you play. Hey if your happy, more power to ya.  However, if you spend the night being the 4th guy in on a fight, HO at every merge, bomb and bail and many of the other things I put up in my little list, then I'd say your hurting the game, other than that, play the way you want.



Quote
You say the community has changed the game for the worse.  I do not agree.  I think this game is as fun as the day I signed on, and like most humans I will play until I stop enjoying the game.  If you don't enjoy the game and want to continue playing, that is your decision, I could care less.

Fred

If you moved into town and for the last year its rained everyday, that would be normal to you, but I remember back when it didn't rain everyday. The lame game play is slowly eroding the backbone of this game. Yes I can still find fights, yes I can still have fun, but I see the cancer that is eating away and someday it will take it over fully.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: oTRALFZo on April 30, 2009, 10:06:00 PM
:huh

Contradict yourself much?  Or is "asking him to challenge himself" somehow different then trying to dictate how he should play?  I see very little difference.  Maybe Falcon should "challenge" himself by trying to assemble the largest hordes ever seen in AH2...  Would that make you happy?  I didn't think so.  You only want him to "challenge himself" in such a way that you consider to be "good game play".  :rolleyes:  

If you don't see how you are trying to dictate his play style now, you never will.

Im gonna just go bang my head against the wall, its much more productive
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: StokesAk on April 30, 2009, 10:33:22 PM
Im gonna just go bang my head against the wall, its much more productive

Thats a NoBrainer. This whole thread has been bad.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: NoBaddy on April 30, 2009, 10:54:23 PM
:huh

Contradict yourself much?  Or is "asking him to challenge himself" somehow different then trying to dictate how he should play?  I see very little difference.  Maybe Falcon should "challenge" himself by trying to assemble the largest hordes ever seen in AH2...  Would that make you happy?  I didn't think so.  You only want him to "challenge himself" in such a way that you consider to be "good game play".  :rolleyes:  

If you don't see how you are trying to dictate his play style now, you never will.

You might want to try checking the definition of "dictate". Sheesh.

Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on May 01, 2009, 12:22:12 AM
He just meant you have a funny mustache, really!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on May 01, 2009, 05:51:04 AM
Thats a NoBrainer. This whole thread has been bad.

I don't think so. I "hope" that some people may have read this stuff and it has gotten them thinking. Some like you jump on which ever "band wagon" seems popular, but that is expected from someone who still in school and living in those "social arenas".

The last time this (hordes) was such a big hot topic, it cost HTC a bunch of subscriptions and forced him in to a new plan, Split arenas. If the lame game play isn't cleaned up by the community, who knows what might come down next.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on May 01, 2009, 07:12:04 AM
Im gonna just go bang my head against the wall, its much more productive

Please do, thanks.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on May 01, 2009, 09:25:39 AM
Hey now, don't dictate!
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: SlapShot on May 01, 2009, 03:12:49 PM
I think I chased a dude named Mace2004 before...he was scary timid.....maybe that was him and he was just not wanting to own me at the time....maybe he was being timid......


at any rate, I will give Mace a big <S> for his service and respect him for his ability to serve our country as a fighter pilot.   :salute

Not the same guy.

I know Mace mainly from the MW arena ... a good guy and always (at least for me) a good fight ... we have traded spankings on many an occasion.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Reaper90 on May 01, 2009, 03:50:37 PM
maybe a different Mace, but Mace325i is probably mad at me now.... I murderized his Spitfire twice this morning.  :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Steve on May 01, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
... we have traded spankings on many an occasion.

While it's nice to share personal experiences with the community, this one might have been a bit over the top.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on May 01, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
While it's nice to share personal experiences with the community, this one might have been a bit over the top.

I'm just glad my kids didn't see this.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Gianlupo on May 02, 2009, 11:48:10 AM
Not the same guy.

I know Mace mainly from the MW arena ... a good guy and always (at least for me) a good fight ... we have traded spankings on many an occasion.

Yep, he is the same guy. I don't know what is handle is right now, but it was Mace2004, some times ago. The first time I met him in MA, he was flying a Hog, I was flying a Seafire, going back home. He kept harassing me, booming and zooming and extending to safety every time I reversed on him, until he got me. Then he saluted me on 200 saying that was a good fight... I immediately challenged him to DA, there I discovered he could fight the knife fight very well... and then I discovered why! :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: The Fugitive on May 02, 2009, 12:38:41 PM
A definition of bad game play....



(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/lame.jpg)


If you need 10 - 110's, 3 - Ki84's, 1 - 109, 1 - 190, and a set of dive bombing B24's to take a base, there is just one more thing you need....
































training   :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: moot on May 02, 2009, 12:44:46 PM
Huh.. Why does that looks familiar.... (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/AirCombat.ahf)
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Getback on May 02, 2009, 02:06:58 PM
A definition of bad game play....



(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/lame.jpg)


If you need 10 - 110's, 3 - Ki84's, 1 - 109, 1 - 190, and a set of dive bombing B24's to take a base, there is just one more thing you need....
































training   :D

Frankly, I think you need a bigger gun.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: froger on May 02, 2009, 06:50:59 PM
Ok these type of flyer will never risk anything.They would rather run away then take a chance on ACM trying to get a fireing solution.The nothing ventured nothing gained effect. Every fight can be a learning experience if you are willing to lay it all on the line and fight to the death.
  Sadly alot are to skeered to be shot down for some reason. I would bet alot of them run to the score page to see if their score is higher than someones and think they are "better" at the game.

so you might say if you play smart and don't stay in the fight to the end no matter what than that's poor game play...?  I'M just thinking that it is fun to land more kills and die less. If the odds change while i am in a 1v1 and in a matter of seconds it's about to become 3 or 4 to 1 and i have a chance to get out ....im out!

best fight in a while for me was leaving a enemy base (because it turned into 5v1) and for 10 klicks
they chased me and all but 1 turned back....i could see it would clearly be 1v1 so the fight was on.
    the end for both of us was low speed turn fight and crashing almost at the same time.<-----not the best part, there was >S< back and forth and positive PMing and no negative garbage.

wish i could remember who it was.......class act for sure :aok

>S< FROGER   <--------stays off 200, i get enough of that crap @ home :salute

 
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on May 02, 2009, 07:27:09 PM
Yep, he is the same guy. I don't know what is handle is right now, but it was Mace2004, some times ago. The first time I met him in MA, he was flying a Hog, I was flying a Seafire, going back home. He kept harassing me, booming and zooming and extending to safety every time I reversed on him, until he got me. Then he saluted me on 200 saying that was a good fight... I immediately challenged him to DA, there I discovered he could fight the knife fight very well... and then I discovered why! :D

I hope if we learn anything from this particularly sub-thread about Mace, it is the folly of personal disrespecting someone over flying style, particularly someone who simply does not care to fly *every* sortie like a rabid berserker bent on self-destruction.

Furthermore, for Pete's sake let us not accord a heap of respect to someone just because they can fly a cartoon airplane well, or vis versa. If I can fly better than someone else, it is principally because I have spent more of my valuable lifespan practicing for this game than they have, not something I exactly feel I should crow about.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on May 02, 2009, 07:50:27 PM
Furthermore, for Pete's sake let us not accord a heap of respect to someone just because they can fly a cartoon airplane well, or vis versa. If I can fly better than someone else, it is principally because I have spent more of my valuable lifespan practicing for this game than they have, not something I exactly feel I should crow about.

Ah, and wisdom shows its face.

+1
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on May 02, 2009, 07:57:51 PM
A definition of bad game play....



(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/lame.jpg)


If you need 10 - 110's, 3 - Ki84's, 1 - 109, 1 - 190, and a set of dive bombing B24's to take a base, there is just one more thing you need....
training   :D






Yes indeed, it is terrible to see that not one fighter has rolled to kill all those 110s. What a huge waste of targets.

Why are so many people campaigning for less targets?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on May 02, 2009, 08:16:12 PM


Yes indeed, it is terrible to see that not one fighter has rolled to kill all those 110s. What a huge waste of targets.

Why are so many people campaigning for less targets?

Because by the time they are usually detected, it is not fun to be the one guy getting vulched/ho'ed/vulchho'ed by 12 110s and N1Ks.

If they would make the DAR bar go all the way to the ground and forgo making bombing and gunning in buffs easy-mode, complaints about NOE and tool-shedding would cease an unceasing melee where air superiority was job #1 for moving the map would ensue.

Until then, alot of times the furball lake which everyone likes to run down will be more fun than the MA. At least almost everyone there in in a fighter trying to kill YOU, not undefended hangars and buildings.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on May 02, 2009, 08:28:45 PM
I respectfully disagree. If i rolled an IL2 from that field right then I would have killed them all within 10 deaths. Thats 5 minutes of suicidal HO shots to defend a base, score be damned. If you are not willing to put that small effort in then just move to another field without complaining about the game. IMO of course.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: mechanic on May 02, 2009, 08:33:10 PM
the lag when i clicked post the first time till i gave in and tried clicking a second time can be seen in the posting times. why do i have this double post curse recently?
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Scotch on May 02, 2009, 08:37:00 PM
It just happened to me too. It's the boards.
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: 4deck on May 02, 2009, 08:39:42 PM
I have no idea, But 44 pages of CHIT, there must be something here in a thread

Back to listening to tool, the band (schism fits here)  :rock

Meanwhile back at the bat cave, all your base belong to me.  :D
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: Oldman731 on May 02, 2009, 11:04:34 PM
so you might say if you play smart and don't stay in the fight to the end no matter what than that's poor game play...? 

Yes, I think that's what some of us are saying.

- oldman
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: BnZs on May 02, 2009, 11:23:38 PM
I've done both, and it takes no more courage to fight like a rabid ground squirrel than it does to "fly to live". In fact, it may take more courage to do the latter...if you don't go into it with any expectation of survival, you're never disappointed. :devil
Title: Re: Defining bad game-play
Post by: PFactorDave on May 02, 2009, 11:34:23 PM
I've done both, and it takes no more courage to fight like a rabid ground squirrel than it does to "fly to live". In fact, it may take more courage to do the latter...if you don't go into it with any expectation of survival, you're never disappointed. :devil

For me, flying to live (while rare for me, the living part anyway) is much more immersive.  In fact, I really enjoy FSO because it provides a very interesting adrenalin rush after flying in formation for a few sectors knowing that if I get killed I won't be able to re-up immediately.  It's far far more exciting and satisfying then anything that happens in the MA.  This next tour, I've decided to try and fly in the MA more like I am in the FSO, regardless of score or whatever.  I'm hoping to capture th