Author Topic: Defining bad game-play  (Read 19191 times)

Offline crazyivan

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3915
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #15 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
POTW
"Atleast I have chicken!"- Leroy Jenkins

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6401
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #16 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
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16187
      • 56 FG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #17 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

Offline Fianna

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #18 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.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 12:39:30 PM by Fianna »

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10134
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2009, 12:42:47 PM »
it all started when air warrior went tits up...gone down hill since then.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Kazaa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8371
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #20 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.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 03:29:43 PM by Kazaa »



"If you learn from defeat, you haven't really lost."

Offline falcon23

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 882
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #21 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

 
 

Offline PFactorDave

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4334
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #22 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.

1st Lieutenant
FSO Liaison Officer
Rolling Thunder

Offline Halo46

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1155
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #23 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.
Used to fly as Halo46, GRHalo, Hobo and Punk at the end.

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #24 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.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 07:42:26 PM by Ghosth »

Offline Ratpack1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
      • The Ryan Sayer Show @ OnTilt Radio
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #25 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!
When you get where you're going, that's where you are! -Mike Brady
172nd Rabid Dawgs
"The Real" Commander of Awesome (Stick "Ozzie Nelson" Pig)

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16187
      • 56 FG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #26 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.

Offline NoBaddy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
      • http://www.damned.org
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #27 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".


NoBaddy (NB)

Flying since before there was virtual durt!!
"Ego is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8704
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #28 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

Offline Sloehand

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Defining bad game-play
« Reply #29 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.
Jagdgeschwader 77

"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm."  - George Orwell
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin