Where's WWI going from here?

[Miska]

HT, thanks for the clear statements.  Although I would argue that accomplishing a mission is not the same as avoiding a fight. But it certainly is a different kind of fight than a furball, or a least, it is a fight at a very different spatial scale. I see what you are trying to do.  But I don't have to like it  

Vlas

[Flayed]

  I thought about this for quite a while last night trying to compare the WW1 arena with something in life and what seemed to come to mind was Paintball.  I love to play paintball and really WW1 reminds me of that with my team facing an opposing team hunting each other in an attempt to shoot one another.
  The difference is in paintball when you shoot the other team they are out until the fight is over and one or other team is the winner, the game is reset and then you start again.  In the WW1 arena you can shoot as many guys as you can only to be swarmed by the same guys you just shot.  To me this feels like if I had shot someone in paintball and they say who cares and start shooting back at you no matter what. 

  This seems almost mindless.  As others have put it "2 conveyors leading to a meat grinder".    Don't get me wrong, I love the planes and it is fun to poke holes in the other guys canvas, for about 30 min and then it gets old I ask myself why?  Whats the point? 

   I'm not suggesting that one team shoot the other down and the loser has to wait until the last man goes down to re up. Not hard to see that wouldn't be popular and nothing else seems like it will work either.
 I've found that most of the guys I've talked to have about the same opinion, it's fun for a bit but in the end it's just not enough to fly to the grinder.  I would suggest that at some later date a second WW1 arena be worked out with more goals added but in all likelihood  it would end up like the early war arena with not enough of a population to really make it fun even if I do like it a lot.

  Hmm I guess I'm just a lot more goal oriented then I ever realized.

   

[CptTrips]

The people who are requesting other items seem to be missing the point. Almost anything suggest where people follow it by (it would not stop the fur balling) want to create a different mission then killing the other guy. Once you create a second mission you have created a reason to want to run away from any fight, or trying to by pass a fight to accomplish your other mission.

This by definition (going around a fight) drastically changes the type game play from A. To  win you must  fight to B. the best way to win is not to fight.

HiTech

So, by this logic, the fundemental design of the WWII arena is broken?   Or were they designed purposely to cause people to avoid a fight?

I think neither.  I think your WWII arena design is better than you give it credit.  

I think a mission that has team A is trying to accomplish that will result in negative results for team B  will cause team B to try and stop that mission.  Team A wishing to accomplish their mission will resist Team B's resistance.  Team B will resist team A's resistance of their resistance.  If they succeed, Team B is pissed and might decide to get revenge.  As long as the results of the mission are sufficiently negative to motivate, you've created conflict.  Conflict is the source of drama and fun.

The problem comes from the results of the mission not being sufficiently painful to the other team to motivate them to try and thwart it.  Or if the negative results are too abstract for the other team to recognize the linkage.  Team b doesn’t care to try and stop it, and team A won’t care to accomplish it.

Still, I’m not advocating base capture in WWI arena.  I do think base raid would be a good idea.  Its temporary.  The base isn’t taken, it’s just being stomped on.  Planes are straffed,  hangars set on fire.  It can’t last forever.  It’s hard to sustain for too long.  Manned ack positions can spawn.  The attackers fuel and damage will eventually resolve the matter.  In the meantime its suffienctly  humiliating to the team getting beotch-slapped that they will try and keep that from happening.  If it does, then the first thing they will think of is to return the favour.  

Conflict, hate, fun.

Regards,
Wab

[hitech]

So, by this logic, the fundemental design of the WWII arena is broken?   Or were they designed purposely to cause people to avoid a fight?

I think neither.  I think your WWII arena design is better than you give it credit.  

I think a mission that has team A is trying to accomplish that will result in negative results for team B  will cause team B to try and stop that mission.  Team A wishing to accomplish their mission will resist Team B's resistance.  Team B will resist team A's resistance of their resistance.  If they succeed, Team B is pissed and might decide to get revenge.  As long as the results of the mission are sufficiently negative to motivate, you've created conflict.  Conflict is the source of drama and fun.

The problem comes from the results of the mission not being sufficiently painful to the other team to motivate them to try and thwart it.  Or if the negative results are too abstract for the other team to recognize the linkage.  Team b doesn’t care to try and stop it, and team A won’t care to accomplish it.

Still, I’m not advocating base capture in WWI arena.  I do think base raid would be a good idea.  Its temporary.  The base isn’t taken, it’s just being stomped on.  Planes are straffed,  hangars set on fire.  It can’t last forever.  It’s hard to sustain for too long.  Manned ack positions can spawn.  The attackers fuel and damage will eventually resolve the matter.  In the meantime its suffienctly  humiliating to the team getting beotch-slapped that they will try and keep that from happening.  If it does, then the first thing they will think of is to return the favour.  

Conflict, hate, fun.

Regards,
Wab

AKWabbit no where in anything I have said in this thread have I implied that one type of play is better than the other. I have only stated the effects of one vs the other.

HiTech

[Oldman731]

Once you create a second mission you have created a reason to want to run away from any fight, or trying to by pass a fight to accomplish your other mission.

This by definition (going around a fight) drastically changes the type game play from A. To  win you must  fight to B. the best way to win is not to fight.

Very well put, and very true.

- oldman

[CptTrips]

AKWabbit no where in anything I have said in this thread have I implied that one type of play is better than the other. I have only stated the effects of one vs the other.

HiTech

Point taken.

But don't you feel that one team will resist a mission that would have a recognizable and painful outcome for them?

Wouldn't that create conflict?  The trick is to make sure the mission can't be accomplished without over coming the resistance and to sufficiently motivate the defender to resist.


Regards,
Wab

[WWhiskey]

  I thought about this for quite a while last night trying to compare the WW1 arena with something in life and what seemed to come to mind was Paintball.  I love to play paintball and really WW1 reminds me of that with my team facing an opposing team hunting each other in an attempt to shoot one another.
  The difference is in paintball when you shoot the other team they are out until the fight is over and one or other team is the winner, the game is reset and then you start again.  In the WW1 arena you can shoot as many guys as you can only to be swarmed by the same guys you just shot.  To me this feels like if I had shot someone in paintball and they say who cares and start shooting back at you no matter what. 
  This seems almost mindless.  As others have put it "2 conveyors leading to a meat grinder".    Don't get me wrong, I love the planes and it is fun to poke holes in the other guys canvas, for about 30 min and then it gets old I ask myself why?  Whats the point? 
   I'm not suggesting that one team shoot the other down and the loser has to wait until the last man goes down to re up. Not hard to see that wouldn't be popular and nothing else seems like it will work either.
 I've found that most of the guys I've talked to have about the same opinion, it's fun for a bit but in the end it's just not enough to fly to the grinder.  I would suggest that at some later date a second WW1 arena be worked out with more goals added but in all likelihood  it would end up like the early war arena with not enough of a population to really make it fun even if I do like it a lot.
  Hmm I guess I'm just a lot more goal oriented then I ever realized.

set a goal, something that can be easy and easily increased, land three kills, if that's not hard enough try 5 or 10 ! then decide to kill one of each type of plane, launch and go find a dr1 then a d7 then a camel and a f2, then go land them, save the film and ,make a movie! this isn't capture the flag, that can be done in the other arenas, you have to decide what you want to accomplish in WW1 not what you want it to be for everyone else!

[hitech]

Point taken.

But don't you feel that one team will resist a mission that would have a recognizable and painful outcome for them?

Wouldn't that create conflict?  The trick is to make sure the mission can't be accomplished without over coming the resistance and to sufficiently motivate the defender to resist.


Regards,
Wab

Wab you seem to be not seeing the real goal of war. It is to win, not kill the other guy. For any ground mission, the best way to accomplish it is ALWAYS, not fight the other guy if possible.

People almost always would rather attack then defend. So if you make the out come very painful, both sides will just wish to attack more to give pain to the other side,in your thoughts you miss the idea that people will do what they find most fun, not what will stop the other guy from killing their fun. I.E. it's more fun to hurt the other guy, then to try not to be hurt. If the painful goal is accomplished against them they will log out because people will not want to play if the current play is pain full.

but we have now gone off topic and this is best for a different thread.

HiTech

[Miska]

you have to decide what you want to accomplish in WW1...

That's exactly what I will do.

[AKKuya]

Try to remember guys, the WW1 arenas are still pups.  They need time for HTC to add new planes and the Terrain teams to create new maps.  Afterall, Rome wasn't built in one day.

Right now is the time to hone the skills of WW1 aviators so when the new maps come out and added plansets and hopefully some integration of ground variable will enhance the newborn WW1 arenas.

Those who participate in Special Events.  I can't wait for the single life events to see how good I'll be as a WW1 aviator.  The first will probably be a Snapshot and the bragging will begin.

If you feel that HTC isn't moving fast enough then please feel free to send more than $14.95 a month.

[CptTrips]

Wab you seem to be not seeing the real goal of war. It is to win, not kill the other guy. For any ground mission, the best way to accomplish it is ALWAYS, not fight the other guy if possible.

People almost always would rather attack then defend. So if you make the out come very painful, both sides will just wish to attack more to give pain to the other side,in your thoughts you miss the idea that people will do what they find most fun, not what will stop the other guy from killing their fun. I.E. it's more fun to hurt the other guy, then to try not to be hurt. If the painful goal is accomplished against them they will log out because people will not want to play if the current play is pain full.

but we have now gone off topic and this is best for a different thread.

HiTech

Fair enough, philosophical games design discussion for another time.  I’ll bring the scotch.

But in the specific context of the WWI arena, would airfield raids be a good compromise?
 You aren't avoiding the fight if you are going directly to where the enemy lives.
 No one would risk the ack to raid a field where no one was at.
 It prevents the ack huggers from hiding under an impenetrable force field.
 It’s temporary.  
No base is taken or permanently damaged.
It’s a king of the hill sort of thing.  Tear stuff up, make a lot of noise, start some fires. Sirens,  gun fire, chaos.  Defenders upping manned ack positions. Then fuel, ammo and damage force a retreat.  The victims now plan to get even.  I’m not suggesting hangars are down.  I mean they are burning and stuff but people can still spawn planes and a certain number of ack.  
Also, if you have a configuration more like DA furball lake, the cost of pushing all the way to one base will be exposing your flank to the third team, making it even harder to sustain the raid for long.
Anyway, I think having the option to raid an airfield would add to the fun.  The WWI is fine the way it is.  Its meat and potatoes.  I’d just like a little A1 please.  

Regards,
Wab
 

[Raptor]

I think a mission that has team A is trying to accomplish that will result in negative results for team B  will cause team B to try and stop that mission.  Team A wishing to accomplish their mission will resist Team B's resistance.  Team B will resist team A's resistance of their resistance.  If they succeed, Team B is pissed and might decide to get revenge.  As long as the results of the mission are sufficiently negative to motivate, you've created conflict.  Conflict is the source of drama and fun.

The problem is in the MA a lot of people do not want the conflict. They want the Win, in order to win they must capture bases. The best way to capture a base is for that base to have no resistance. The way to minimize resistance is to have NOE raids avoiding said conflict.

[PFactorDave]

But in the specific context of the WWI arena, would airfield raids be a good compromise?
 You aren't avoiding the find if you are going directly to where the enemy lives.
 No one would risk the ack to raid a field where no one was at.
 It prevents the ack huggers from hiding under an impenetrable force field.
 It’s temporary.  
No base is taken or permanently damaged.
It’s a king of the hill sort of thing.  Tear stuff up, make a lot of noise, start some fires. Sirens,  gun fire, chaos.  Defenders upping manned ack positions. Then fuel, ammo and damage force a retreat.  The victims now plan to get even.  I’m not suggesting hangars are down.  I mean they are burning and stuff but people can still spawn planes and a certain number of ack.  
Also, if you have a configuration more like DA furball lake, the cost of pushing all the way to one base will be exposing your flank to the third team, making it even harder to sustain the raid for long.
Anyway, I think having the option to raid an airfield would add to the fun.  The WWI is fine the way it is.  Its meat and potatoes.  I’d just like a little A1 please.  

 

I dunno...  I've been rather enjoying the total lack of runway vulching in the WW1 Arenas...

My opinion is that as it stands right now, if the arena is at or near 100/100, the player density is too high.  I came to this realization after playing for awhile in the nearly full arena, getting mobbed  or being part of a mob...  Then I switched to a less populated arena, I think there were about 30 players total...  The fights were mostly 4 vs 4 or 3 vs 4...  It was much much much more fun!

I simply think that with the current maps, 100 players may be a bit too dense...

[CptTrips]

I dunno...  I've been rather enjoying the total lack of runway vulching in the WW1 Arenas...

My opinion is that as it stands right now, if the arena is at or near 100/100, the player density is too high.  I came to this realization after playing for awhile in the nearly full arena, getting mobbed  or being part of a mob...  Then I switched to a less populated arena, I think there were about 30 players total...  The fights were mostly 4 vs 4 or 3 vs 4...  It was much much much more fun!

I simply think that with the current maps, 100 players may be a bit too dense...

I think that perhaps some of that is due to the field configuration.  Each opposing field pair feeds a straightline conveyor belt into a single meat-grider.

Eventually if things could spread out more, you'd have a variety of different fight densities.

REgards,
Wab

[Yeager]

if the arena is at or near 100/100, the player density is too high. 

I simply think that with the current maps, 100 players may be a bit too dense...

I agree completely.  Last night one arena had 100 and the other had 4.  The rest were empty.  I played in the 100 player arena for about 15 minutes and it was simply too crowded for my enjoyment.  I went into the arena with four players and had a great time.  Soon there were about 20 players in there and it was still a ball!  100+ is just too many for this aging kid.