Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: seano on July 29, 2014, 11:15:21 PM
-
but hate the tank town
-
Did someone say new map?
I might have to crawl out of my hole to get shot down a couple of times... :noid
-
Festers up
Gonna jump on in....
-
My favorite thing is the people who played it for less than 30min and declare that the map is garbage.... :x
Just too funny
-
love the look :aok
LtngRydr
-
My favorite thing is the people who played it for less than 30min and declare that the map is garbage.... :x
Just too funny
I was LOL'ing at that..
don't you know, the sky is falling!
bar dar is gray = aces high is doomed
163's available everywhere, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
unfortunately probably all fixed in 12 hours :cry
-
Nuff said
-
Thank you Fester and HTC! Now, nuff said ;)
I had to be contrary even though I agree :aok
-
I agree! Only problem I could see is the dar bar, all are black. No problem as yet because at least last night, most dar was bad guys anyway!! Love it
-
My favorite thing is the people who played it for less than 30min and declare that the map is garbage.... :x
Just too funny
Fester generally makes great maps
That being said I can only hope its up long enough for me to check it out and play on it before someone wins the race to "win the war"
-
I've been looking at the map for only 5 minutes and I already love it! Bases are nice and close so it doesn't take half an hour just to get to the target and the way all bases are laid out is making it pretty easy to find something to do even during the off hours!
:aokMy favorite thing is the people who played it for less than 30min and declare that the map is garbage.... :x
Just too funny
I wish I was online to see that! :rofl :rofl
-
My favorite thing is the people who played it for less than 30min and declare that the map is garbage.... :x
Sometimes you don't even need to have played on it at all if to spot a very prominent design feature which you dislike. ;)
-
I noticed dar bar color change too! :O
I just couldn't stay up past the ol' bedtime as my eyes were beginning to betray my hands. I did jump into the new map briefly and got scared. :bolt:
We'll see if the new toy is still available after one day. Great looking map so far; lots of action. :salute
-
I dislike it because it seems none seems to notice The sheer scale of the thing, we don't have 10000 players. With 280+ bases there is almost a base for every player on a good night . I liked the map before this one, it seemed appropriate in terms of scale.
People seem to be so desperate for new content that it seems they will take anything at this point, and that's sad.
-
Won't be able to play Fester until this evening, but looking forward to the new terrain and another large map. I have never heard an argument against large maps that wasn't about trying to force arcade style fighting on all players. I like the large maps as they "feel" more realistic with room for climb out by buffs without zigzagging back and forth, coastal cities that can become Tokyo, etc. I often log off when I see maps like Beta.
-
I have never heard an argument against large maps that wasn't about trying to force arcade style fighting on all players.
Show me one that ever did.
-
Was pushing for the map change around midnite last night. Just could not keep my eyes open any longer....Bummed I missed it. :(
-
Show me one that ever did.
Very often proponents of small maps (both existing and new) talk about player density and forcing fights through the use of choke points, etc. Large maps allow for furballers, milk runners and lone wolf hunters to all play their game without the other play styles being forced on them in more dense environments. I personally like the large maps for the open feel of the geography (just like the skies over Europe and the Pacific).
-
Very often proponents of small maps (both existing and new) talk about player density
How is acknowledging reality suddenly all "arcade"? Do we only play "arcade" on 10 out of 13 maps in the rotation?
Why would someone like me who rarely "furballed" and to the most part played the high altitude strats game in the past 2 years suddenly call for "arcade"?
I personally like the large maps for the open feel of the geography (just like the skies over Europe and the Pacific).
So do I, and that's why I fought a long time for the return of the large maps years ago. But I also like to take part in battles, that's why I came here. Am I now an "arcade guy" because I realize the mapsize and player population don't match as well anymore as they did many years ago?
I have yet to see ONE guy asking for AH to go arcade with small maps. Porbably because anybody looking for arcade could already get it at WT.
-
I just think that whether 200 or 400 players online the large maps offer better game play. I wouldn't know what to say about helping game play with 25-50 online during non U.S. prime time...I feel for you guys. Maybe set up the early or mid war arena rotating small maps only and the full plane set for the non-U.S. players?
-
Very often proponents of small maps (both existing and new) talk about player density and forcing fights through the use of choke points, etc. Large maps allow for furballers, milk runners and lone wolf hunters to all play their game without the other play styles being forced on them in more dense environments. I personally like the large maps for the open feel of the geography (just like the skies over Europe and the Pacific).
So you want everyone to fly around and do nothing while trying to get to underpopulated and overstretched fights so that you can pretend that WWII was conducted solely at high altitudes and that there was never a combined, low altitude Aces High style slog fest?
(http://cdn02.usni.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/story-large/magazine_uploads/images/AlexanderF5ND12.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-646-5188-17%2C_Flugzeuge_Junkers_Ju_87.jpg)
(http://ep.yimg.com/ay/mcmahanphoto/wwii-spitfire-aircraft-in-north-africa-1943-photo-print-5.jpg)
High altitude fighting can occur no matter how dense the map is
Large maps are cool with 600+ online, like happened when Titanic Tuesday was first introduced, but beyond that--- yeesh
-
I just think that whether 200 or 400 players online the large maps offer better game play. I wouldn't know what to say about helping game play with 25-50 online during non U.S. prime time...I feel for you guys. Maybe set up the early or mid war arena rotating small maps only and the full plane set for the non-U.S. players?
You are changing the subject. I wasn't discussing large maps vs small maps in this thread.
It's about dismissing everyone that has brought up arguments for small maps as being "arcade". Which is what you did. It's the same as I would say "I have never seen one argument for large maps that wasn't totally about avoiding any opposition",
-
I think a lot of the "problem" is the number of bases and their distribution on the map, not particularly the size of the map. Once HTC publishes the updated terrain engine (and I assume an updated Terrain Editor to go along with it), I'll once again continue working on my 256x256 map for the Main Arenas.
-
but hate the tank town
personally im more of a gver lately..Love TT uncapturable v bases love it..the only thing I didn't like was it gave the rooks an airbase right in the middle ..however fester did make that capturable and so we did just that last night..which I'm sure has changed owners again..PT boat spawning right next to towns..awesome! New colors and clouds ..sweeeet! CVs with 3 3 cruisers...nice!! Getting my butt kicked at 75 PRICELESS! :aok :banana:
-
I dislike it because it seems none seems to notice The sheer scale of the thing, we don't have 10000 players. With 280+ bases there is almost a base for every player on a good night . I liked the map before this one, it seemed appropriate in terms of scale.
People seem to be so desperate for new content that it seems they will take anything at this point, and that's sad.
Agreed 100%!
If auto map reset would be reduced to 24 or 36 hours,I wouldn't mind large maps, but 7 days is too much, with this low #, no team is going to reset it; or they should change the % of bases needed from 20 to 10% for this kind of XXXL maps.Until one of this settings is changed large maps are a BIG minus to quality gaming. This game was more fun 10- 12 years ago on H2H, with 8 players and small maps,2 or 4 bases.
-
Fester is awesome
What new map?.
-
This game was more fun 10- 12 years ago on H2H, with 8 players and small maps,2 or 4 bases.
You still have this option available.
-
i love the wide open spawn at 154
-
It's a neat new map!! I would only suggest another object in TT than a field and town , maybe an old strat of some type, even make it capturable if you want but it must be open more for GV play and it needs spawns into it!
as it is, it will set empty I imagine!
I do like the rest of it very much tho!
we;ve needed some new maps for a while in my opinion, something to do besides roll the same old stuff over and over!
Thanks Fester!!! :aok
-
(http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq285/dwbrister/Animated/flashing_sign_3.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/dwbrister/media/Animated/flashing_sign_3.gif.html)
ME 163's at every base? What were you thinking Feaster! :furious
-
----diversion from topic----
I just think that whether 200 or 400 players online the large maps offer better game play.
A little statistical information
I just went through my recent notes & graphs and compiled the numbers - during weekdays we have 200+ player during like about only 4 hours per night currently
And the majority of game activity is taking place outside of this relatively small peak time.
Only on a good weekend we cross 300, but I'm afraid 400+ is, for the most part, just a dream these days.
----diversion from topic----
-
Like the map. Works even with smaller groups of players. Like the tank bases on the front lines. This looks like a positive step forward over all.
-
Only problem I have is determining the base numbers and town indicators as all the numbers run together.
Will have to play with some color schemes to see if it can be made more readable.
-
Only problem I have is determining the base numbers and town indicators as all the numbers run together.
Will have to play with some color schemes to see if it can be made more readable.
There have been wishes to have the field numbers zoom up with the map. That would help.
-
Looks like a good map.
Couple obvious suggestions
Fix the dar bars (duhh)
Improve the contrast o the clipboard map to make it easier to read
-
There are alot of bases but if you look at how it's setup, you'll see there are 3-4 front line bases between each country at a time which IMO is perfect.
That being said I would like to see a tank town in the middle instead of the airfield. Also the carrier battle thing is pretty much being ignored so the ports and CV spawns shound be changed I think.
-
I had a blast spawning ptboats on the lake near 75 town..
got more kills in ptboat that night than in the previous 8 years combined I think. :lol
-
Rather have the Trinity Map back instead.
-
Rather have the Trinity Map back instead.
Heck yeah! Was one of my favourite maps!!!
-
So glad we have this Map. Variety is the spice of life. :banana:
Trinity was a good map when #s were high but I think with lower #s we need the closer interaction this one provides. Trinity never provided the 3 countries to meet all at once. Festers map perhaps should of had 3 air bases in the center with the V bases. :airplane:
-
:aok Two Words: Uncapturable Bases :x
-
It seems to funnel the action fairly well, but it seems to cause a lot of GVing, which I'm not super fond of. Will have to see, I haven't been on with the best numbers on it yet.
It's got sky above it, that's all that really matters to me anyways.
Wiley.
-
Will have to see, I haven't been on with the best numbers on it yet.
Are you time-warping it back to a Titanic Tuesday in 2008? :noid
-
Are you time-warping it back to a Titanic Tuesday in 2008? :noid
I wish... 600 on this map would be pretty hectic. Was just saying since it's been up, I've been on some during weekday primetime, but Friday-Sunday are generally the best numbers I see.
Wiley.
-
I think high numbers (at least 300+) are required to fuel all potential combat zones and styles, especially the tank "town" variant and the 'wacky ports' (my personal). With 30-170 players on in my timezone during the week, you can't get enough players on each side to get things going continuously.
-
I'm sure LuscheMA will be better :rolleyes:
hope you enjoy it all the terrain was hand crafted and the texture tiles laid out manually.
the maps deep and narrow on the battlefronts so it should support high or low numbers.
the only base that should have 163 is the high alt base (7-8k i think) far back a little ways from hq (this base also has 3 mile long runways with no obstructions to auto takeoff b29s with with no fear of death.
the reason the 163 base is far back form hq is the altitude makes the time involved to intercept hq attack close to what a sea level base would be that was closer.
I personally would line up all strats that have been scattered out of gameplay reach in a line between hq and the city along the road/river between the two so bombers can make a bomb run up and down them and fighters can cap the area. again the distance of the high alt base where the 163 was originally enabled was to make 163 cap limited to the hq with difficulty pushing further into the main combat areas.
the tank town in the center isn't a tank town so much as a checkmate to the high alt base. something to fight over. the logic was those v bases are dug into the mountains in underground caves insurgency style and can be attacked relentlessly but never eradicated. whoever has the force to take and hold the airbase should have an advantage in the area but the base will never be "safe" in spite of its higher elevation with the v bases in striking range of it... the place should be in danger of recapture by anyone at any time.
gv chains are present on the flanks and ozkansas style gv chains are also present n the center bases.
as for the cv hubs... they are not obvious points of conflict it may take a while to figure out the port in center will always have enemy fleet nearby. once people figure that out then they might choose to ignore it and attack the mainland or supress the enemy fleet to keep it from mounting a capture on the port.
a lot of thought was put into it hopefully that effort turns into enjoyment for anyone playing on the map.
-
I'm sure LuscheMA will be better :rolleyes:
Huh? :headscratch:
-
Fester,
After a week, it's a surprisingly well laid out design to encourage small group fighting over isolated 4x4 sector areas. If the country you are targeting a base in does not up a defense, it's a rather quick series of base takes. Once the target country's palyers decide to dig their heels in, the fighting heats up until either side can bring the numbers. The base chains promote this. And give low numbers time to turn their back for a bit if their interests are else where.
The central 4 bases with the nearest airfield 1.5 sector away is a surprisingly good place to furball with small numbers. On the ground or in the air. I see the purpose in the 1.5 sector distance after both GVing and furballing there last night. You sir are a stinker in that wirbels are TigerII fodder from the town when they are trying to defend tanks up on the ridge over the town from aircarft. I hope this weekend will bring enough players to your TT to stress it with numbers to see how it really plays out.
There is one weakness to the design that our current low late night population reveals. The HQ's should be placed back about 2 sectors more. It's too easy for the late night energizer bunnies to sweep up the line of bases to the HQ when there is only 15 players on a side so that the HQ for one of the countries is NOE fodder all the next day. During the week we had an evening like that and players logging due to too much effort to keep the HQ up. The long flight to the HQ eats up the sort play time many have in their evening. And once the NOE ally is open to the HQ, it's greiferrama time all night long. And it looks like you created that by design. I don't think it's necessary as things stand. The rest of the map promotes combat as is.
-
Spent a little time on the new map Today, one thing I really like about it,, the wide open spaces for tank fights!
I got to engage tanks while moving from up to 3.5 k, turning and firing is fun!
The 7 k base in the rear is nice for bomber runs, spent a couple of hours in a 29 !
It's great to have a new map, new places to kill and be killed and lots of new terrain to see,
I still think a different TT object tho!
-
Could the two threads on this subject be merged, please?
The maps layout and textures are great, there are a couple of fields with the towns stacked 0-distance ( :bhead ) and while I have heard some players griping about the map seeming flat, I like its terrain (rolling hills instead of the more common himilayas in MA maps). I'm still warming up to the TT, it is definitely good action but less than other TTs, but it also lacks spawn camping and instant-action spawns... I wonder what might happen if each vbase had a vspawn ~3k from the airfield's town. I like the port and cv placements, but it seems they need a little more since so far they don't see near as much combat as other areas/features of the map.
The map is one quick (a couple little things) coat of polish away from being a gem in MAs map rotation.
-
Only logged on briefly to look at the new map. It is nice. I thought the gray dar bars were actually a feature of he map...and one I kinda liked. Still, nice map.
-
Pictures for those of us that don't play anymore