The Aces High War Doctrine

[WMLute]

Bustr uses too many big words

Translate

[bustr]

Might as well use the bigest ones I can before I get any older and start that slow decline into using depends and viagra....

[Ardy123]

Bustr uses too many big words

supercalifragilisticexpialido cious

[TheRapier]

Given the sandbox model that AH works off of, that is in general terms a loose collection of items and functionality that can be used in various ways, the problem is generally not with the collection of items and functionality, provided they aren't broken.

If we assume that for the most part, the functionality offered by AH is not broken, then the problem revolves around communication. Communication is on two levels.

1. Are the benefits of game play clear, immediate, and attainable? It appears from the discussion going on here, that the set of benefits are not compelling to at least a set of users. Powning an opposing player in a fight or team in taking a base may be limited in their value in motivating players.
2. Are individual players aware of where the conflicts are located, and the value of participating in that particular combat clear and actionable?

I think the discussion here shows that #1 may not be entirely successful, particularly around territorial combat and winning the maps. It's pretty simple and intuitive to see that shooting down a plane or blowing up a GV is fun and counting up kills can be motivating. What is less clear is how that activity helps or hurts your side. It is also unclear how other behaviors play into the territorial combat. Does side switching help or hurt, what value comes to me if is stay or move? I did a little searching around and the it is not easy to find this information which pretty much guarantees that newbies are not going to see it. That may be something that HTC can choose to address. It can be as simple as a message that informs them of the value of winning the map at the time it occurs or if they have been offline, the next time they enter. Just informing them of what has happened and that it is noticed would help focus players.

As to #2, right now this is somewhat up to the individual user and their ability to read the map and/or the ability of individuals on a side to communicate the urgency and location of a combat, and the ability of others on that side to respond. The value of that participation is also not completely clear. The newbie might well conclude that all bases are important and go to defend them. They will find out two things very quickly:

1. In the vast majority of cases, losing that particular base doesn't change anything, the game goes on.
2. In the vast majority of cases, they lose nothing for the loss of the base.

Currently the only system message is a generic "base under attack message" that doesn't communicate location or urgency or value. That might be a simple addition that can focus attention to that area. Modifiers that indicate magnitude can also help focus, ie. "Large attack coming to A154" or "Single A/C in V 54 radar range." This would help the player locate worthwhile action and in general would be the kind of info they would get from an HQ.

If making kills of planes or GVs or CV groups helps the cause, recognition can help to motivate players. This could be as simple as a system message like, "PlayerX scored 15 Air kills and 4 GV kills their last session." or "PlayerY scored 47000000 bomb damage points their last session." This communicates their achievement and value to a team. This should probably be set at some threshold so people who are learning are not called out as being deficient but it gives them something to aspire to.

These of course are game design decisions and that is totally and completely up to HTC. I'm not espousing a style of game play but only looking at simple ideas to promote combat.

[Mustaine]

This thread got me thinking...

some of these thoughts are dumb, but may have hidden gems. A constant "whine" seems to be maps over the past 8 years. everyone has their favorite (mine was MINDANAO). I remember when HTC used to reset the MA map at 10AM CST every Wednesday, no matter the conditions. What if maps were reset by the host more often? I don't want to create more manual work for the HTC staff, maybe an automated system could be put in place. I see 2 possibilities; the map resets to an new random map every fixed time period say 6 hours, or there is a random time limit varying from 6 to 18 hours and an automated arena message is sent 30 minutes prior to the reset. The "winner" of the reset would be the country with the highest field count, if a tie the country that most recently captured a base. All members of said country would get the reset perks.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. With the fixed setting you may find people flocking to the highest number country trying to "win" right before the reset. There would have to be some mechanism in place either not allowing side switching, or not awarding points to those who switched within X time limit, let's say 3 hours. The side switch could also be limited to a player can only switch to a country with lower numbers, no time limit. Another disadvantage would be forum posts "Knights log on now LWOrange, we are about to get reset points". With the current arena caps I don't think it would as terrible, but still an issue.

With the random time setting there would still be forum posts, but less predictable in time, and with the caps even less of an issue.


Both of these can promote "land grabbing" and there would have to a check in place. Discussions of making it very hard to capture a base have been over-done. Things like 30 troops, and so on. I don't know the answer, I'm just throwing out thoughts.

Another couple possible "winner" scenarios include: most players "in-flight", country with highest k/d since last reset, country with most "large" air bases, country with most forces "in flight" near an enemy HQ, country with most enemy bases captured - bases lost (meaning you need to keep all your home bases which promotes defense), there are many other possibilities.

The static reset could even be spread across the 2 LW arenas, one is at 12, 6, and 12 CST; the other at 3, 9, and 3 CST giving a window for players around the world. They could even flip-flop randomly so 1 arena doesn't become just the "US arena" and the other the "EU arena".

There are nightmare gaming-the-game, and other negative possibilities to what I have thought of, but I just want to think out of the box and give ideas. Heck maybe HTC has already brainstormed these, but I haven't heard them before.



The whole point is promoting a "reward" for playing, not just casually, but being an active participant in the game. Someone like myself who flies maybe a few hours a week wouldn't benefit, but people like me only fly a few hours a week because we still love to be a part of the game, heck with the "rewards". These ideas are for encouraging new players, and building the player base. If it promotes combat then those who love combat will stay. It also promotes a reason to play often which gives the more intense gamers a reason to stay.

<S> just some ideas.




<EDIT> no matter what happens I love this idea:
The side switch could also be limited to a player can only switch to a country with lower numbers, no time limit.

[bustr]

Now if Mustaine can just translate this last peice of his into Swahili, I can get out of the old fart business for awhaile........

[TnDep]

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

I know what your thinking and your wrong here it is

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilic ovolcanoconiosis

 

Your word is shorter then mine

[wgmount]

I know what your thinking and your wrong here it is

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilic ovolcanoconiosis

 

Your word is shorter then mine

I suffer from Hippopotomonstrosesquippedali ophobia. Please, you are scaring me to death.

[bustr]

FREE BEER AND BBQ AT ARDY123's House...hehehehehehehehehheee eee

[Ardy123]

No wait, Bustrs house is bigger, and hes near by... crash at bustrs!!!!

[RufusLeaking]

1. Are the benefits of game play clear, immediate, and attainable? It appears from the discussion going on here, that the set of benefits are not compelling to at least a set of users. Powning an opposing player in a fight or team in taking a base may be limited in their value in motivating players.

The benefit of the game is the entertainment value.  Why it is entertaining is up to each of us to decide.

I see where you are going here.  In game, the consequences of actions/decisions need to be significant enough for the players to attack/defend, but not so much as to cripple any side.

2. Are individual players aware of where the conflicts are located, and the value of participating in that particular combat clear and actionable?

My pet peeve: incomplete transmissions.  

“CV off shore!”

Where?

“South of me.”

Where are you?

“West of the field.”

This is a player behavior issue.  It took me a while to figure out the darn X,Y,Z keypad location system.  But still, clear, concise, useful info, please.

“2 sets B-17s inb aXXX ~20k”

What if maps were reset by the host more often? I don't want to create more manual work for the HTC staff, maybe an automated system could be put in place. I see 2 possibilities; the map resets to an new random map every fixed time period say 6 hours, or there is a random time limit varying from 6 to 18 hours and an automated arena message is sent 30 minutes prior to the reset.

The times seem a little too short.

Another couple possible "winner" scenarios include: most players "in-flight", country with highest k/d since last reset, country with most "large" air bases, country with most forces "in flight" near an enemy HQ, country with most enemy bases captured - bases lost (meaning you need to keep all your home bases which promotes defense), there are many other possibilities.

You may be on to something here.  Something like K/D factoring into an arena reset would discourage behaviors like bomb ‘n bail.  Then again, it might also lead to more risk averse play.  

There are nightmare gaming-the-game, and other negative possibilities to what I have thought of, but I just want to think out of the box and give ideas. Heck maybe HTC has already brainstormed these, but I haven't heard them before.

Definitely need to be careful with incentives, because someone will figure out how to game the system.

<EDIT> no matter what happens I love this idea:
The side switch could also be limited to a player can only switch to a country with lower numbers, no time limit.

First impression, I agree.  After some thought, it could really mess up squad nights.

[jimson]

This is an area in which the Axis vs Allies arena could shine.

With smaller maps and fewer bases enabled, along with experimenting with the downtimes and hardness settings to achieve the correct balance of difficulty required to "win the war" in a reasonable time frame.

If we had the ability to enable a series of maps that would rotate in order, we could run an entire campaign.

For example:

D-day and breakout on bob09, if that map is won, it rotates to battle of the bulge on arden08, if that map is won, it rotates to crossing the rhine on one of the rhine terrains and then onto a final assault on the new Germany terrain. etc.

This could provide it's own automatic reward in the culmination of reaching objectives and provide a "Yeehaw, we rolled the map and advanced the campaign!" experience.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,292433.0.html

[Agent360]

<snip>
2. Are individual players aware of where the conflicts are located, and the value of participating in that particular combat clear and actionable?

<snip>
As to #2, right now this is somewhat up to the individual user and their ability to read the map and/or the ability of individuals on a side to communicate the urgency and location of a combat, and the ability of others on that side to respond. The value of that participation is also not completely clear. The newbie might well conclude that all bases are important and go to defend them. They will find out two things very quickly:

1. In the vast majority of cases, losing that particular base doesn't change anything, the game goes on.
2. In the vast majority of cases, they lose nothing for the loss of the base.

This is a very good point.

Perhaps a new clip board section - "messages from HQ". You could right click and then click an option to see information sent from HQ regarding the state of the war. Like intelligence or changes in the war front. Now, we can check the status of any base but that is not good enough. A country needs more specific info like...Enemy within X sectors of HQ...or "the enemy has penetrated X battle line"..etc.

jimson said
"D-day and breakout on bob09, if that map is won, it rotates to battle of the bulge on arden08, if that map is won, it rotates to crossing the rhine on one of the rhine terrains and then onto a final assault on the new Germany terrain. etc.

This could provide it's own automatic reward in the culmination of reaching objectives and provide a "Yeehaw, we rolled the map and advanced the campaign!" experience."

How about a rolling map front where it requires conquering one part of the map first, then the next, and the next until the map is won. This would put the fight in perspective and perhaps create an urgency of combat to stop the advance...or force an advance.

This way large maps would be useful. I guess its a matter of creating stepping strategic wins until the whole map is conquered.

I think the maps are part of the "Holy Grail". Take the "Pizza" map for example....how effective is that...it's a pizza for gods sake. I know it has canyons and has parts that promote high and low combat but the map itself doesn't offer a reward other than furballing. THe other map ??name with the volcano in the middle and 25k mountian ranges between countries is even worse.




You guys are coming up with great ideas.   

[jimson]

How about a rolling map front where it requires conquering one part of the map first, then the next, and the next until the map is won. This would put the fight in perspective and perhaps create an urgency of combat to stop the advance...or force an advance.

This way large maps would be useful. I guess its a matter of creating stepping strategic wins until the whole map is conquered.

These too are good ideas.

My take was a specific way to repurpose an arena with something close to what is already possible without a lot of development effort.

By tweaking the already existing map reset and rotation system and using small maps or enabling smaller areas of large maps until such time as the population increases to warrant larger maps etc.

I believe the AvA could serve as a test bed for this type of strategic game with loosely base historical campaigns.

It certainly needs something as it is quite difficult to run scenario type play in a 24/7 arena. This concept would make it more automatic.

If the worst thing that could happen is that off prime time milk runners reset the arena and advance the map, that would be preferable to how it is now where if the map gets porked it won't reset but will remain porked until a CM gets in to fix it.

[jimson]

After re-reading this thread in it's entirety it seems that in the simplest terms it always comes down to a "Tale of two playing styles."

Often debated as Furballers vs Basetakers

1. Those who are interested in the individual fight just for the sake of the good fight.

2. Those who are interested in strategic game play that rewards goals and objectives met.

They are not all inclusive and there is a middle ground where some people enjoy both aspects.

Here is the main point as I see it.

Individual examples of number 1 can occur within game play centered around number 2, but not the reverse.

Hence the reason it is desirable to have an end game or way to win, even if it is only temporary until the next map is loaded.