Vulch fests

[Vinkman]

Experience over time has shown HTC makes money from the largest number of players being happy.

That's my goal too.

You gents are offering an arugument based solely on your small caudre is in some way elevated over the general ranks. Subsiquently you beleive as a consensus you collectivly have the ability to observe they are the rank and file ( something-ists) playing the game with a wrong headed approach impacting your self elevated sense of how the MA universe should function.

Not true. My thesis is that players are trading fun flying for Score satisfaction. I'm simply suggesting that if those two atribute were more aligned, it wouldn't have to be atrade off. Then everyone would benefit. This is not about what I think is an "elite" style of fighting vs an inferior style of flying.

Last two times a single player convinced HTC to change the game one was Lusch's presentation of his long term collected data which helped HTC decide on the off hours arena. I suspect it worked for HTC's bottom line. The other was Baumer using Angular Mil math to present a need to standardise the FOV for all fighter gunsights. These things benifited everyone equaly. Not Lusch or Baumer indivigualy over the player base.

So Hitech does listen to player input to help keep his customers happy after evaluating the merit of their idea. That's what I figured, because that makes great business sense.

What you are doing is trying to convice HTC to modify the majority of MA players conduct so the game will be played in a manner more to your specific liking. Solely based on the concept that your small cuadre knows better than the majority rank and file how the MA game should be played. No data, no collected interviews with a broad cross section of the actual player base. Just your offended sense and feelings about Aces High game play. That's called PC hubris and only benifits yourself and handfull of like minded individuals.

No that's not what I'm doing. see above. Discussing ways to improve gameplay is not a condemnation of the game or its programmers. That is quite a leap you make. I'm sure you were on the BBS for AW and WARBIRDS and you called everyone who had an idea about changing the game a whiner. Thank God Dale [HiTech] didn't listen to you. This game exists because of his desire for constant improvement to keep it the best game on the market. 

Why don't you and your six freinds wait for HTC to release the new player based hosted arenas where you can be the Captain of your own mini AH reality

In the end my idea may be a bad one. So far only Godzilla has offered aanalysis and critique of the formulation of metric itself. Much appreciated. Too may offer the "You're an arragant Bleep for thinking the game is broken and you know how to fix it."  argument.  I don't understand why folks come to the discussion board with "Stop the discussion!"  Can we focus the discussion on the merits or non-merits of the idea, and not on whether we should be discussing it? 

Again your input on how to formulate such a metric would be a lot more valueable than your condemnation of the discussion. Give it a shot. 

[PJ_Godzilla]

In the end my idea may be a bad one. So far only Godzilla has offered aanalysis and critique of the formulation of metric itself. Much appreciated.

Sure.  I always play the ball, not the man. It's a rule that allows those of disparate opinion to work together - and often the tension of differing perspectives can produce something useful. This is especially true when tradeoffs are present, like they are here.

[Krusty]

Others beside PJ have pointed out the problems with your idea and your presentation. You choose to ignore them.

[VonMessa]

Complaining about  being vultched makes me think of someone pissing on an electric fence, getting shocked, doing it again, getting shocked and then being angry at the fence for being energized.    

Wouldn't avoid pissing on the fence be the simplest solution?  If you have an uncontrollable compulsion to piss on the fence at all costs, perhaps going to the source of the power to shut it down before attempting to piss on the fence may be a solution.

If just pissing in the general direction of the fence is what is important to you, perhaps pissing at the fence from further away would work as the stream will not be close enough to the fence?

Vultching is ONLY possible, if there are targets that insist on presenting themselves to be shot at...

[JUGgler]

Complaining about  being vultched makes me think of someone pissing on an electric fence, getting shocked, doing it again, getting shocked and then being angry at the fence for being energized.    

Wouldn't avoid pissing on the fence be the simplest solution?  If you have an uncontrollable compulsion to piss on the fence at all costs, perhaps going to the source of the power to shut it down before attempting to piss on the fence may be a solution.

If just pissing in the general direction of the fence is what is important to you, perhaps pissing at the fence from further away would work as the stream will not be close enough to the fence?

Vultching is ONLY possible, if there are targets that insist on presenting themselves to be shot at...

The op was not complaining about being vulched, I know this cause the OP is ME. I was merely presenting an idea to encourage more peeps to defend a situation, more peeps= more targets= more fight= more fun IMO.

Don't worry I was not looking to eliminate the vulch all together, just looking to limit it "VOLUNTARILY" from the pavement

You are more than welcome to still vulch me anytime 


JUGgler

[Vinkman]

Others beside PJ have pointed out the problems with your idea and your presentation. You choose to ignore them.

Comments on the idea I find constructive would be:
1) How a metric could determine an easy kill from a difficult one.
2) Whether a scoring system that is weighted to provide more points for difficult kills and less for easy ones would effect game play, and how?


Can you quote them? I can't find them.

[Vinkman]

If you don't mean "sissy" as an insult why use it? You know it's pejorative. If everybody in the main arenas flew historically or "smart" it wouldn't result in no action. It would cause an evolution as people adapted to the different behavior. Just look at the scenarios. There is smart historical flying with a lot of action.

OK true. I use the term Sissy because it's a pejorative, and because I want to discredit the idea that avoiding combat is "smart". I never avoid combat, and I don't think I'm stupid. But I see where the use of the term will create an "elitist" idea of who to fly so will stop using it. 

[waystin2]

OK true. I use the term Sissy because it's a pejorative, and because I want to discredit the idea that avoiding combat is "smart". I never avoid combat, and I don't think I'm stupid. But I see where the use of the term will create an "elitist" idea of who to fly so will stop using it. 

I understand the wordage you are using Vink, not necessarily the ones that I would use, but I understand.  If I was to categorize myself it would lean towards the minimize risk/maximize advantage flying style. Please understand that this does not mean run away.  Take for instance last night against the Bishop in Orange.  They had a full red dar over a knight V-base in the north.  So me and two other Pigs up to get some.  I managed to knock two down, squaddies got a few others, but they got taken out eventually as well.  So here I am over a friendly V-base, low fuel, no other friendly planes in sight and multiple enemy cons 5+ over my head.  Now is it sissy to bait them down and let the Ack soften them up or is it smart?  By the way thanks to Juggler for hollering on range to get out there and fight (which I stupidly listened to), 30 seconds later I got pounded into the ground by two high Spits.

anyway I am rambling.  What I am getting at is I refuse to give the enemy cons an easy meal, whether I am already in the air or contemplating upping at a capped or near capped field.

 

Way

[FLS]

Guppy you make the same mistake that Vinkman does. You define other players motivations to support your point. Players vulch for a number of reasons, not just to see their name in lights. The primary reason, I'm guessing, is fun. If the vulchee is the only thing to shoot at you can watch somebody else do it or do it yourself or go somewhere else. Are all valid choices.

Bustr makes a good point. The top sticks don't complain so much. They have adapted to the current system. The players who can spank newbies and would like to be top sticks tend to think of all the reasons why they're not getting all the kills they deserve to get. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, I'm speaking generally. It's human nature for people who perceive themselves as being near the top to bully their perceived inferiors in order to improve their own positions. In Aces High we see this all the time with the complaints about other people's choices in aircraft, tactics, and game play goals. So we have the HOing spitdweeb hoarding runstang etc epithets from everybody who believes that their true greatness will be apparent as soon as HTC fixes Aces High or the players all start playing the right and proper way.

[JUGgler]

I understand the wordage you are using Vink, not necessarily the ones that I would use, but I understand.  If I was to categorize myself it would lean towards the minimize risk/maximize advantage flying style. Please understand that this does not mean run away.  Take for instance last night against the Bishop in Orange.  They had a full red dar over a knight V-base in the north.  So me and two other Pigs up to get some.  I managed to knock two down, squaddies got a few others, but they got taken out eventually as well.  So here I am over a friendly V-base, low fuel, no other friendly planes in sight and multiple enemy cons 5+ over my head.  Now is it sissy to bait them down and let the Ack soften them up or is it smart?  By the way thanks to Juggler for hollering on range to get out there and fight (which I stupidly listened to), 30 seconds later I got pounded into the ground by two high Spits.

anyway I am rambling.  What I am getting at is I refuse to give the enemy cons an easy meal, whether I am already in the air or contemplating upping at a capped or near capped field.

 

Way

OOPS     


JUGgler

[FLS]

OK true. I use the term Sissy because it's a pejorative, and because I want to discredit the idea that avoiding combat is "smart". I never avoid combat, and I don't think I'm stupid. But I see where the use of the term will create an "elitist" idea of who to fly so will stop using it. 

Discussion of new ideas is more productive when it's civil. 

[waystin2]

OOPS     


JUGgler

Truly an catch 22 moment.  I did not think they would let me land safely, and fuel dictated that I land or fly and die, so I said F it and moved out of the Ack.  It's what they were waiting for.  I dodged a Pony, 1 Spit, then a Hurricane and it was the other two Spits that nailed me....  Ouch
 

Way

[BnZs]

I see alot of people arguing that the gameplay dynamic is what it is because that is exactly how the majority of players like it, as opposed to being like it is because of certain aspects of how the game is structured. I believe that is an unproven contention.

[Vinkman]

Guppy you make the same mistake that Vinkman does. You define other players motivations to support your point. Players vulch for a number of reasons, not just to see their name in lights. The primary reason, I'm guessing, is fun. If the vulchee is the only thing to shoot at you can watch somebody else do it or do it yourself or go somewhere else. Are all valid choices.

Bustr makes a good point. The top sticks don't complain so much. They have adapted to the current system. The players who can spank newbies and would like to be top sticks tend to think of all the reasons why they're not getting all the kills they deserve to get. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, I'm speaking generally. It's human nature for people who perceive themselves as being near the top to bully their perceived inferiors in order to improve their own positions. In Aces High we see this all the time with the complaints about other people's choices in aircraft, tactics, and game play goals. So we have the HOing spitdweeb hoarding runstang etc epithets from everybody who believes that their true greatness will be apparent as soon as HTC fixes Aces High or the players all start playing the right and proper way.

Some of that is true. But it ignores that there is more than one truth, and another truth is that people do adjust their tactics to achieve high scores.  If the tactics employed to achieve high scores are detrimental to the overall fun of arena players as a whole, and that could be corrected by enhancing the scoring system, wouldn't you be for it?

 Yes flying around at high alt in a perk plane and diving down on dogfighting bandits and picking them, ends the fun for the bandit, and for his competition.  1 guy had fun, two guys didn't. So the picker is not really letting them play their way is he?  He is having fun at the expense of other's fun. If that's his personallity fine, it's his $14.95, and I'm ok with that. But what if he picks because that's the "smartest" way to achieve a high score? Then the scoring system is ill designed for promoting fun experiences for all players. An improvement may be possible.  

I don't accept the premise the winning is fun and losing is no-fun, so 50% of the arena population is condemed to not having fun. Losing is fun too if quality combat preceeded it. Getting picked, getting vulched, getting ganged, is not quality combat. That is why the losers whine, not because they lost. While those situations cannot be avoided, perhaps the game would profit from scoring system that didn't promote those behaviors.  I think it's worth investigating  

[BnZs]

I don't believe people adjust their tactics to get high scores so much as they adjust their tactics to avoid someone getting a high score at the expense of their score being put in the toilet.

Like a vulch...lets say the player actually cares about his fighter score to any extent at all. He can just up in attack mode. But many still don't. Why? I believe it has more to do with not wanting to give some other guy a big name in lights at their expense as a reward for that player doing practically nothing.

Some of that is true. But it ignores that there is more than one truth, and another truth is that people do adjust their tactics to achieve high scores.  If the tactics employed to achieve high scores are detrimental to the overall fun of arena players as a whole, and that could be corrected by enhancing the scoring system, wouldn't you be for it?

 Yes flying around at high alt in a perk plane and diving down on dogfighting bandits and picking them, ends the fun for the bandit, and for his competition.  1 guy had fun, two guys didn't. So the picker is not really letting them play their way is he?  He is having fun at the expense of other's fun. If that's his personallity fine, it's his $14.95, and I'm ok with that. But what if he picks because that's the "smartest" way to achieve a high score? Then the scoring system is ill designed for promoting fun experiences for all players. An improvement may be possible.  

I don't accept the premise the winning is fun and losing is no-fun, so 50% of the arena population is condemed to not having fun. Losing is fun too if quality combat preceeded it. Getting picked, getting vulched, getting ganged, is not quality combat. That is why the losers whine, not because they lost. While those situations cannot be avoided, perhaps the game would profit from scoring system that didn't promote those behaviors.  I think it's worth investigating