OK BBS warriors. "Fix" the game....

[Lusche]

I REALLY like this idea. small airfield would allow lower altitude fighters, and bombers to get more altitude by starting from a place that is further out. (medium fields) The B29 when it comes along could only launch from LARGE airfields.

Currently, fields are not distributed on the maps with such a setup in mind. It's not that large fields are to the rear when the map comes up. Sometimes we have large fields on the front, sometimes in awkward places - for example on Ndsisles, the tank town airbases in the center are the large ones, for one country the bases near HQ are medium ones, but for the other country the corresponding bases are high altitude large fields.

[LCADolby]

Perhaps we need a piechart





 

[CAP1]

Perhaps we need a piechart





 

what's wrong with bar charts? or graphs? you got a problem with them? 

[68ZooM]

Perhaps we need a piechart





 

[MarineUS]

(Image removed from quote.)

LOL! That made my afternoon

[Crash Orange]

No more whines, no more complaints.  Just your ideas to make AH the game it's supposed to be in your eyes.  Be specific.  No blame game.  No ripping someone elses idea.  Just put your 'cure' to all that makes AH broken in your mind.

(1) Get rid of ENY.

(2) Get rid of arena caps.

(3) Town buildings stay down 1 hour.

(4) Radar and field (not town) auto-ack pops after 15 minutes.

(5) While touching the ground, planes are invulnerable and cannot fire any weapons.

(6) Did I mention getting rid of ENY?

[Chilli]

  Zoom you are behind the curve, you better go catch up!  (made me smile)

[kvuo75]

While we are at it we need constant speed prop controls

what do you think + and - are?

[bj229r]

I REALLY like this idea. small airfield would allow lower altitude fighters, and bombers to get more altitude by starting from a place that is further out. (medium fields) The B29 when it comes along could only launch from LARGE airfields.

Ditto (small fields as fighter only) Anything to throw a monkey-wrench into the normal goings on

[Dantoo]

I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech.  This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.

Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:

Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage

There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend.  The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat.  The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.

There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort.  If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.

Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack.  If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).

It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique.  I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.

More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.

There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base.  They don't like static maps.  Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy.  People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent.  After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".

The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years.  When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required.  Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast.  A change to 40% was the response.  With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try.  It would be a minimalist change.

Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.

Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience.  Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles.  They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles.  The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again.  The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time.  It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed.  It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters.  I think that such imaginative play was fun.  Its loss is sad.

If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods.  Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.

Investigate why the Donut map was so popular.  I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions.  If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly.  Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place.  The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict.  What a shame.

Thanks for reading,
regards.

[MarineUS]

I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech.  This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.

Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:

Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage

There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend.  The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat.  The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.

There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort.  If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.

Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack.  If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).

It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique.  I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.

More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.

There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base.  They don't like static maps.  Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy.  People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent.  After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".

The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years.  When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required.  Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast.  A change to 40% was the response.  With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try.  It would be a minimalist change.

Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.

Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience.  Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles.  They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles.  The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again.  The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time.  It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed.  It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters.  I think that such imaginative play was fun.  Its loss is sad.

If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods.  Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.

Investigate why the Donut map was so popular.  I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions.  If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly.  Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place.  The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict.  What a shame.

Thanks for reading,
regards.

 
yes

[grizz441]

I'll give it a shot though Ghi posted it far better in the ancient "Strat Changes" thread by HiTech.  This post covers only a strat player (win the war) viewpoint.

Over the years a goodly proportion of MA game changes have been pro-defence:

Making towns flash (ok that's from a fair way back)
Increase to 8 auto ack in town - up from 2
Increase in size and complexity of V bases (first 1, then 3 and now 4 vhs)
Increase in auto and manned ack at V bases and Ports.
Reducing the blast radius effect of bombs
Changing field layouts to prevent suppression by bombing or close capping
Increase in size and complexity of towns (several times)
Changes in radar coverage

There's others, but that's a sample that is solely intended to display a trend.  The last two have perhaps had a greater impact because their introduction so close together has magnified their effect somewhat.  The general player base hadn't learnt to deal with the problems of one before the second was added.

There is a point where the rewards (success) for attack are reduced to a problem for an average player where the incentives no longer balance the effort.  If you have to fight the system (map) as well as, or even more than a live opponent, then the enthusiasm wanes.

Fights break out in the MA because someone, somewhere decides to attack.  If the incentives (possibility of success) for defence even mildly outweigh those for attack, then that is where the player base will trend. Everybody defending means zero fights. The notable response to the challenges placed before attackers at the moment is to concentrate in large numbers at a single point (or to log off after complaining on country channel for some minutes first).

It is demonstrably possible to "move" a map with this technique.  I don't think I have seen any other successful ploy recently. It's evidently not a pleasing development to a significant number of players.

More incentive for people to attack is desirable to overcome the perceived accumulation of disincentives. More attacks, more fights.

There is another concern that seems to affect a large portion of the player base.  They don't like static maps.  Fighting over the same map for days on end (even the same field) seems to make a lot of people grumpy.  People have quite diverse opinions over which map is good, bad or indifferent.  After about 4-5 days on the same map they start to group together in condemnation of "this ch*8t map again???".

The change to the reset criteria that requires a winning side to have pushed back their boundaries against both sides, I believe, has been the single outstanding positive reform arising out of the last few years.  When it was brought in there was an initial setting of 30% required.  Strangely, (to me at any rate) there were complaints that it had become too easy and maps were resetting too fast.  A change to 40% was the response.  With the introduction of concepts that have slowed the pace of movement perhaps an experiment with 35% or return to 30% is worth a try.  It would be a minimalist change.

Beyond those two suggestions (incentive to attack and increase map turnover rate) I have a couple of observations.

Sneak attacks produced some of the most memorable battles in my experience.  Long range "sneaks" to a prize base way behind the front lines brought on some glorious battles.  They didn't move the map, but they surely caused major battles.  The new dar settings mitigate almost entirely against this ever happening again.  The complexity of towns and vbases alone would make it very difficult. Take away the surprise factor and it becomes as near impossible to a dead certainty. People aren't going to invest the effort and online time.  It's another option that was used to spice up a dull day that has been removed.  It was the kind of action that was readily entered into by both furballers and stratters.  I think that such imaginative play was fun.  Its loss is sad.

If NOE had become the most used attack method, then perhaps the way to reduce it wasn't to make it near impossible, but to find a way to incentivise other methods.  Carrots can be as useful as sticks. More readily accepted too.

Investigate why the Donut map was so popular.  I believe that it was because you could instantly choose the fight that suited your temperament and viewpoint with only a few exceptions.  If the three central fields had been made un-capturable, the painful, dramatic and inflammatory outbursts about their capture obviously would have subsided instantly.  Unfortunately, there is little point bringing it back now with the current strategic supply system in place.  The map design required the older system of distributed factorys to provide points of potential conflict.  What a shame.

Thanks for reading,
regards.

Awesome post!

[Guppy35]

What's interesting in Dantoo's post, is his mention of the 3 uncapturable fields.  Seems like that's what the 'furballers' were asking for so they could have a spot to fight without the inevitable 'go to the DA' commentary.  For whatever reason that's never been an option.

If I'm at all a typical example of a 'furballer', upping to defend a field is something I do all the time, often into the 'horde".   Watching for a darbar to pop is not a big deal..  Depending on time constraints on my flying time, it's also nice to have a place to up for a quick fight.

Last night was a good example.  Thankfully the center isle in Blue was still one field a country.  It was nothing but large dar bar vs tiny dar bar elsewhere.  Soulyss, Drex, Sunbat, SHawk and myself were able to set up to meet in the middle for some dog fighting.  Often times that's not the case as folks have decided that one spot conducive to setting up a fight, has become the focus of capture.

I don't think anyone plays the game completely one way.  I also believe that providing all the options for game play in the MA is the most productive way to keep the community together.

Kudos to Dantoo for putting it so clearly in words.  Despite what he says about it being a win the war post, I believe it covers more then that.

[WWhiskey]

A long standing whine has been the Tank town bases need to be un capturable and the three airbases around it should not have ord!
 I agree with this to a point,,  nothing kills a good gv fight faster than bombs falling or someone taking the bases,  and as it stands I have not seen any good gv fights in the DA!
maybe,,, of the many arenas we have   one could be the old tank town and fighter brawl!  but without ord or b-25,s and IL-2's

 I doubt it would happen and would not be perfect but it   would be a nice place to just go and kill or be killed!

[Volron]

Put strategic back into AH.  Add more strategic targets (rail yards, strategic supply bridges (rail and road, which would stay down like all other strats), power stations, radar facilities, supply ports, supply depots, freighter convoy's, etc.) and insure that hitting them, is worth the effort.  I cannot remember which thread it was in, but someone posted that the game is now geared more towards furballing and less on base taking and strategic runs.  I would have to agree with that.  When I first played AH, which was around the middle of last year, I found myself upping bombers a lot to make runs on the strats.  It was fun.  I didn't do it for score or perks, I did it because it was fun.  The beneficial side effect was that it hurt the country I was hitting and they stayed down for an hour or more.  I recall that hitting all the fuel at an airfield, would reduce it to 25% as well.  Maybe I was seeing things then, but it did fall below 75% from what I remember.  People say they can't defend with 25% (or even 50%) and they have to sit in the tower.  Dwayna forbid they would have to resupply the field or up from another one....

With the current strategic system, not even the B-29 will affect it.  Fewer bombers to do the job, still have to hit the same target which doesn't seem to affect anything.  I love the Capital.  Definitely keep that, but more strats please.  Boosting the amount of ack over it would be nice as well.  The sky was filled with ack, especially over high value targets.  It's funny and sad, to see one set of bombers taking all the ack when there are 4 or more set's over the Capital.

Whiskey, I would have to give you that (even I will go to TT or furball, once in a blue moon).  What about restricting ords to rockets only, no bombs?  You have to give them SOMETHING to use after all.  Or leave the B-25H, and have no rockets, bombs and IL-2's??