New toys!!! But......

[BBBB]

See rule #4

[moot]

BBBB Can you say how the old days' gameplay was so much better than nowadays'?  Without breaking rule #4?

It seems to me that AH is simply suffering from its own popularity with a large number of new players that just don't apreciate air combat like the purists do.  It's a catch-22 between enough success to pay for continued development - including keeping up with the competition - and developing a part of the game to cater to the more realism inclined players, which also relieves anti-arcade pressure on the MA side of the game.

[BaldEagl]

I have a few ideas.

First, I think base fuel should be able to be reduced to 25% again, although at the same time i think the burn ratio should go back to 1:1, not the 2:1 that it is now.  That would be an effective 50% in todays AH.

Strat targets should create a progressive (maybe exponential) effect starting at say 10% damage.  Having to reduce them to 50% before the damage even starts to have an effect seems to be too much.  Also, I think that the effect should be felt at least minimally (maybe at the 50% strat damage level) even if the corresponding strat targets at the fields are not damaged.  As an example my thinking is that planes are taking off using fuel that's barely being re-supplied by the strat.  This should have an effect.  So, there would be two ways to reduce field supplys, hit the strats or hit the field with max effect hitting both.  

I think that down times for strat targets should be increased (maybe even doubled) with greater rewards for re-supplying them.  As to the re-supply portion of this, maybe adding re-supply as a vehicle or bomber scoring category would encourage more re-supply attempts (and fighting via the counter-attempts to stop it), as would the effect of the ideas in the last paragraph.

The progressive radar reduction should be added back into the game through HQ damage and, I think there should be another level added to the strat system.  That is the buildings at the HQ.  They should be destryable and control down-time of the cities as well as a portion of the country's radar system with the hardened building causing the final blow to radar (dar bars).  Dropping the surrounding city without taking the hardened building would still give 100% strat effect.

Finally, I think that there should be more strats supplying fewer fields, that the strats should have both auto and manned acks, and that the zone strat system should be implemented on the small maps.

If you read all that, thanks for listening.

[EDIT]  For the record, I don't think gameplay is stale in the least but I do think the strat system could be better.

[ridley1]

response to hubs post.
Have you read the whole thread to this point?

First off...one reason that this thread is here is, judging by some of the posts, it's becoming,"unbearably dull and repetitive" (that's an extreme..forgive me). Explain the difference between "defend the factories and lose radar, etc" vs. defend the A, V and P bases or lose the war.

I disagree that anyone is advocating to fundamentally change the game.  I'm seeing people constructively looking at elements within the present game to increase the diversity of actions available to everyone in terms of strategy and gameplay. Nobody's tallking rewrite the code.

"they cite reasons for past changes which are completely false"
I'd like to respond...please be more specific.

And as to not being concerned from an owner's perspective...Well, I brought the thread up...many have responded on both sides, (veterans that I respect included). And as an owner running a service...Well, we're getting one hell of a customer response, aren't we?

[Bronk]

You all are reading to much int to my posts.

I was simply disagreeing with this statement.

Originally posted by ridley1


Capture is the basis of the game,
 

I disagree with this statement. I believe combat or more simply put "the fight" is the basis of the game.
You can take any other aspect of this game away and still the fight remains. Not that I would want other aspects removed. I never stated trying to change or improve on those aspects should not be done.
I do however disagree with anybody who thinks an unmolested bombing run is combat.


Edit: From another thread where someone made a similar statement about base capture.

Originally posted by hitech
This is a false assumption.


The game was designed to have fun at different types of combat. Conquering bases is just a means to promote combat and hence fun. But by no means is it more or less justified than going out and just mixing it up.


HiTech

From this thread.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193315&highlight=Fight

[BBBB]

Lol..see rule 4? lol... I didn't flame anyone or say anything out of line. I just said that Dale is a business man and he cares more about profit margins than he does about what a number of his customers want. I will re-post my post on my website and link you guys. Just send a PM.

[Airscrew]

Wow, where to start... we've had these discussions before... Strat vs Fighters...

On one side you have Strat guys... like to bomb stuff...think that strategic resources should affect resources available at bases... disrupt resources at a base and it affects the offensive nature of the enemy... reduce fuel, bombs, troop mostly... these 3 resource have the most impact on an enemy's offense.   Reduce Ack, bombs, and to a lesser extent fuel affects the enemy's defense.   The want to capture bases, they want to win the map.

On the other side you have the Fighters... like to engage in air combat, could careless about capture or strats... they just like to fly and fight...

In the middle of this are those of us that do both... Rooks, Knights, and Bishops all have groups that either what to play capture the map or play fighter, or do both.   No one will probably ever be able to satisfy everybody 100%.  

So how to make strat more effective in the game and a positive influence the offensive/defensive nature of combat without excerting undue influence and negative impact on the Fighter side of the game.

I remember the days of a single tiffie porking bases to 25% fuel in just a few minutes... it was annoying and difficult to defend against.

I wonder if this would work...

Each Zone has a City, Ack, Training, Fuel, and Ammo.  As each strat is bombed/damaged that resource at each zone base is reduced by an equal percentage,  ie: Fuel strat bombed to 50%, available fuel at all zone bases 50%.    Now to keep from getting to lopsided,  maybe increase the size of the total strat target to 4X its current size/area or increase the value of damage needed to bring that strat down so it requires more than a couple of bombers, (similar to the HQ)

[HighGTrn]

Originally posted by ridley1
Don't you see? Part of what makes this game great is the interaction that exists between the consumer and supplier. Would Bill Gates answer into this discussion? Hell no...or we wouldn't have Vista. There is a community here that wants this game to stay strong but also grow and improve.

Mr. Hitech, by the tone of your reply, it appears that I may have offended you. If I have I offer my deepest apologies. But at the same time, I'm not suggesting that the basis of the game be changed, but I am attempting to elicit ideas from this community as to where the game can go.  As I said before, the introduction of large amounts of field ack and town ack significantly changed how the game was played. The football field was the same size. Just bigger linebackers. Then we all adjusted.

What's the next little tweak that can be put in to make us all have to adjust?

You guys forget that we are the customer and we pay this guy's salary.  I've seen repeated short and snippy comments out of this guy and most of you take it and treat him with some kind of reverence.  Ridley, you brought up some very good points and I believe they are value adding comments.  This guy was sarcastic and detracted from the thread.  It should be him apologizing, not you.  

I really hope that this guy is not representing HTC cause I have known much better customer interaction from HTC than the comments I observed out of this guy in this and several other threads lately.

HighGTrn

[Krusty]

high turn, he puts up with more crap than you can imagine. He's earned a little bit of aloofness.

He's been asked for these things a million times already and probably has already covered them several times.


The search button is your friend!



P.S. he doesn't represent them, he IS them. The "HT" in "HTC" stands for Hitech. He's also worked on Warbirds as well, as have a number of HTC employees. He's seen what works and what generally doesn't through over 10 years of online WW2 flight simming.

He doesn't have to bow to every person that creates a profile on the forums. If you actually want to engage in conversation, try e-mailing or calling and doing so directly. He's much more accomodating that way, from what I hear.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by HighGTrn
You guys forget that we are the customer and we pay this guy's salary.  I've seen repeated short and snippy comments out of this guy and most of you take it and treat him with some kind of reverence.  Ridley, you brought up some very good points and I believe they are value adding comments.  This guy was sarcastic and detracted from the thread.  It should be him apologizing, not you.  

I really hope that this guy is not representing HTC cause I have known much better customer interaction from HTC than the comments I observed out of this guy in this and several other threads lately.

HighGTrn

 Buh bye

[hitech]

Originally posted by HighGTrn
You guys forget that we are the customer and we pay this guy's salary.  I've seen repeated short and snippy comments out of this guy and most of you take it and treat him with some kind of reverence.  Ridley, you brought up some very good points and I believe they are value adding comments.  This guy was sarcastic and detracted from the thread.  It should be him apologizing, not you.  

I really hope that this guy is not representing HTC cause I have known much better customer interaction from HTC than the comments I observed out of this guy in this and several other threads lately.

HighGTrn

You may wish to read all my post where I state very clearly that I took no offense from ridley1. My only point in all this is specifically that just because BBBB thinks things are getting stale , does not mean they are.

My post have all been ,until now , very on topic. Yours is one of the first true off topic post. All you do is attack me, show me where I attacked anyone in any way, all I did was to point out that because game play has not changed, does not mean things are getting stale. If you also noticed I have not discussed any other idea, nor have I critisized any other idea in this entire topic.

I moderated BBBB's post, normally I would also mod his secound post because he also broke the rules in it, specifically any questions regarding moderation should be emailed to HTC.

His post was moderated simply because he choose to personally attack with insults anyone who agreed with my point of view.  

He now wishes to play the wounded duck, and still tries to paint me in a bad light.  How about rephrasing what BBBB said. I am a business man, and I care most about what the majority of my customers want.

And if you wish to  learn a little of my experience in this industry try google "Dale Addink"

HiTech

[ridley1]

Oh, dammit.

Well, I thought we had a pretty decent discussion going here...

Is it worth going on?

[HighGTrn]

Originally posted by hitech
You may wish to read all my post where I state very clearly that I took no offense from ridley1. My only point in all this is specifically that just because BBBB thinks things are getting stale , does not mean they are.

My post have all been ,until now , very on topic. Yours is one of the first true off topic post. All you do is attack me, show me where I attacked anyone in any way, all I did was to point out that because game play has not changed, does not mean things are getting stale. If you also noticed I have not discussed any other idea, nor have I critisized any other idea in this entire topic.

I moderated BBBB's post, normally I would also mod his secound post because he also broke the rules in it, specifically any questions regarding moderation should be emailed to HTC.

His post was moderated simply because he choose to personally attack with insults anyone who agreed with my point of view.  

He now wishes to play the wounded duck, and still tries to paint me in a bad light.  How about rephrasing what BBBB said. I am a business man, and I care most about what the majority of my customers want.

And if you wish to  learn a little of my experience in this industry try google "Dale Addink"

HiTech

I'm sure you get bombarded with every whine and request under the sun.  I did not say you attacked anyone, I said you make "short and snippy" comments.  For someone who IS the company behind this game, I think its poor judgement in customer relations.  Your posts (especially the one in question) are usually short, contains an aura of sarcasm and leaves the reader guessing context.  I'm not sure who BBBB is or what he posted, I was specifically talking about what you said to Ridley.  

Hub, I'm not impressed that he IS HTC. Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, we pay his salary.

I do admit this is the best online combat flight simulator out there.  I think its the best not because of what HTC has created.  It is the best because so many people play it and that is the real secret to HTC's success.  If people started leaving AH for some other past time or game, I don't think this game would be as much fun.

HighGTrn

[HighGTrn]

Sorry, I meant Krusty not Hub.

[hitech]

The only thing I said to ridly1 was

ridley1: I saw nothing bad in your post at all.

I am really having a hard time seeing how this was a bad thing?


HiTech