Defining bad game-play

[TequilaChaser]

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.........

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"   

[The Fugitive]

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..."   

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.

[thndregg]

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.

[LYNX]

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 ....

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 

Do you not see this as poor game play? 

[Masherbrum]

LYNX, sadly they don't.   They'll always have to "be correct".

[LYNX]

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

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?

[bmwgs]

LYNX, sadly they don't.   They'll always have to "be correct".

"They", can be a bit two sided, don't you think?

Fred

[Dadsguns]

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 

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. 

[Masherbrum]

"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. 

[Stang]

WOOOO how's that Brawndo taste, ya'll???


 

[moot]

  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..... 

[waystin2]

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?

[sunfan1121]

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.

[waystin2]

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.

[The Fugitive]

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.