Teh Hordez

[uptown]

This is why I would like to see more objectives added to the  "win the war" dynamic.  There have been plenty of other threads/topics over the years in reference to these ideas.  Yet, none have really been added.  Bringing the old strata system back, or adding additional strat targets, hardening of targets, etc. are just a few ideas that have been mentioned that may affect the current state of game play for the better IMO.  What say you?

I agree completely. The game needs a strategy other then follow the learder to blow up town buildings and hangers. IMO the MA has become a enlarged version of the DA with added ability to drop buildings. Make the game more of a challenge and you'll get more challenging players taking part. Make this game a thinking mans game instead of the gamey arcade shooting gallery we have now. If they don't the player set we have now will just run the game into the ground, just as they did with Fighter Ace. There's a reason that game and others went under, and this game is no different.

And please folks, lets cut out the ugly talk about the beloved Pee51....I'm starting to get a complex 

[Ardy123]

Ardy, I see where your coming from.  I took your statement and changed it to how I see it.

I like to engage in fights where my adrenalin gets pumping and I am thinking about how to get the angle on the other guy. If the numbers are too unbalanced, I can't do that easily, there is great fun in making one kill followed by getting attacked by multiple picking p51s and spit 16s. The fights need to offer a sense of possible success, that success includes gettin an engagement no matter how brief then using skills and SA to either egress or reset and attack again. if they don't its as boring and predictable as not fighting at all. Fighting hordes makes no sense if you are unwilling to egress and reset and all you want is a one on one gentelmens fight..

If you look for fun you will find it.

if you look for misery you will find it.

Here, Zoney,
get 5 guys together, meet in at a agreed upon location, 4 attacking you, you on the other. Fly a plane that is not the fastest in the game, and try and fight all of them at the same time. I bet you, you will not be able to 'reset and attack' unless you enter the fight with an enormous e adv.

[Wiley]

Here, Zoney,
get 5 guys together, meet in at a agreed upon location, 4 attacking you, you on the other. Fly a plane that is not the fastest in the game, and try and fight all of them at the same time. I bet you, you will not be able to 'reset and attack' unless you enter the fight with an enormous e adv.

Um...  For what earthly reason would you a) not take a fast plane to a fight like that, and b) not enter it with an enormous E advantage?

Wiley.

[Chilli]

This is why I would like to see more objectives added to the  "win the war" dynamic.  There have been plenty of other threads/topics over the years in reference to these ideas.  Yet, none have really been added.  Bringing the old strat system back, or adding additional strat targets, hardening of targets, etc. are just a few ideas that have been mentioned that may affect the current state of game play for the better IMO.  What say you?

At some point folks, you need to stop blaming the players.  I am not a vDallas fan, but if his effect on the game is such, and it is perceived by the majority as counterproductive, then it is simple.  The objectives of the game have been reached by vDallas and his country mates.  The result of vDallas and his country mates' success has doomed the less successful countries to assume the roles of unwilling defenders, non participants in defense of the over aggresive surge, or those that log off or leave the game entirely.

Bacon8tr has the point in hand.  HTC, it doesn't take much.  Look at the effect that 50% town building destroyed and adding a flag had on changing the concept of what it took to "WIN".  Yes, I said WIN.  It is NOT a bad word. 

Although I don't say that rolling back to 50% is the cure, I do point to the obvious.  During that time, if you rolled the majority of your resources to one area, you left the rest of your fields vulnerable to multiple attacks.  So, it is SO clearly obvious to me that making field captures proportionally easier, promotes MORE missions, MORE fights, and YES MORE FUN.

That is just ONE example.  Like Bacon8tr says plenty of suggestions of things that WE (the player) have wished for.  I just say that the importance should be placed on design that does not channel massive attacks against single targets as the END ALL to conquering the WAR.

[Ardy123]

Um...  For what earthly reason would you a) not take a fast plane to a fight like that, and b) not enter it with an enormous E advantage?

because bnzing gets old and boring. yes, we could all take me262s, drop in at 22k and rack up kills, then log off with.... oh wait for it....

.... with a failure of ever creating an adrenalin rush as there was no challenge in it.


The goal isn't to get kills, its to have a reasonable challenge.

[Guppy35]

At some point folks, you need to stop blaming the players.  I am not a vDallas fan, but if his effect on the game is such, and it is perceived by the majority as counterproductive, then it is simple.  The objectives of the game have been reached by vDallas and his country mates.  The result of vDallas and his country mates' success has doomed the less successful countries to assume the roles of unwilling defenders, non participants in defense of the over aggresive surge, or those that log off or leave the game entirely.

Bacon8tr has the point in hand.  HTC, it doesn't take much.  Look at the effect that 50% town building destroyed and adding a flag had on changing the concept of what it took to "WIN".  Yes, I said WIN.  It is NOT a bad word. 

Although I don't say that rolling back to 50% is the cure, I do point to the obvious.  During that time, if you rolled the majority of your resources to one area, you left the rest of your fields vulnerable to multiple attacks.  So, it is SO clearly obvious to me that making field captures proportionally easier, promotes MORE missions, MORE fights, and YES MORE FUN.

That is just ONE example.  Like Bacon8tr says plenty of suggestions of things that WE (the player) have wished for.  I just say that the importance should be placed on design that does not channel massive attacks against single targets as the END ALL to conquering the WAR.

Note the main theme in your post.  Attacks on fields.  It isn't the only thing in the game.

Define "Win" as well.  I'm of the opinion it isn't just one thing within the game that = 'win'.

[Wiley]

because bnzing gets old and boring.

For you.  I find plenty of opportunities for it to be fun.  Those generally occur when either the guys on the other side do their jobs right to get me lower and slower than something else coming in, or when I screw up and get myself slow.

yes, we could all take me262s, drop in at 22k and rack up kills, then log off with.... oh wait for it....

.... with a failure of ever creating an adrenalin rush as there was no challenge in it.


The goal isn't to get kills, its to have a reasonable challenge.

The jets are a special case, but even with them, are you saying your adreneline doesn't get going when you're taking on multiples low and you see 1 or 2 or 6 bandits with alt, E, and position to catch you, and they're heading in your direction?

Wiley.

[bacon8tr]

Guppy.....that was kind of the line I was attempting to cross.  At present all that is required is the 90/20 rule.  I would think that the gaming enviroment would improve and offer a more diverse choice of targets or objectives if the strats truley had a strategic value to the "wars" outcome.  Adding tangible targets such as ship yards that effected task groups, rail depots and rail lines that actually had an impact on the game etc.  I don't know...maybe im just babbling aimlessly, but to me it appears there are possible answers to this issue out there.  They just haven't been implemented.

[Guppy35]

For you.  I find plenty of opportunities for it to be fun.  Those generally occur when either the guys on the other side do their jobs right to get me lower and slower than something else coming in, or when I screw up and get myself slow.

The jets are a special case, but even with them, are you saying your adreneline doesn't get going when you're taking on multiples low and you see 1 or 2 or 6 bandits with alt, E, and position to catch you, and they're heading in your direction?

Wiley.

Gonna take a chance here and speak for bunnies.  That's not what gets the adrenalin pumping.  Proving that you can out bore and snore the other guy to death just doesn't do it.

[Wiley]

Gonna take a chance here and speak for bunnies.  That's not what gets the adrenalin pumping.  Proving that you can out bore and snore the other guy to death just doesn't do it.

...so it gets your adrenaline pumping to dive into a pack and TnB until you inevitably die?

Wiley.

[1Boner]

Was this post bumped from 2006???

[dkff49]

Gonna take a chance here and speak for bunnies.  That's not what gets the adrenalin pumping.  Proving that you can out bore and snore the other guy to death just doesn't do it.

Agreed


The adrenaline for me gets going for me in the close in, yanking and banking, type of fight that the advantage changes places several times, over the course of several minutes.

I have absolutely no love for the high speed BnZ passes that many people make within this game. To me it is the most boring of them all and I only reserve such things for hunting bombers, which I generally only worry about doing when I can't find any decent dogfight action to take on.

BnZ= snoresville
TnB= adrenaline pouring from every pore.

But hey that is just my take on things

And wiley yes it is completely possible to get the adrenaline going even if you know that you will eventually die. I have done it several times but there has to be a chance lasting more than a few seconds.

[Wiley]

Was this post bumped from 2006???

Pfft.  There's horde posts from 2000, I assume AW, and probably the flight simulation board game people played before the Internet.

I'm dying to see the game mechanic that makes adding more people to a task less effective that isn't so ridiculously gamey that it breaks the game.

Wiley.

[Wiley]

The adrenaline for me gets going for me in the close in, yanking and banking, type of fight that the advantage changes places several times, over the course of several minutes.

Ah!  You mean a "duel"!  I agree, those can be fun.  Why are you expecting that kind of gameplay in an open, FFA arena?

Wiley.

[dkff49]

Ah!  You mean a "duel"!  I agree, those can be fun.  Why are you expecting that kind of gameplay in an open, FFA arena?

Wiley.

Not necessarily a duel.

Not always is that going to happen with a one on one. Sometimes this happens with a 3 or 2 on 1, but never in a 30 on 1.

I used to see good fights like this all the time in the MA's. I could even show you some films from fights that i had in MA's. I am not going to say that it was the only kind of fight but I usually had no trouble finding them. These days it is getting harder and harder though. It's a shame too.

To be honest with you the best ones happen inside the MA's, even if they are extremely rare. The reason is many times they don't start with all participants at same 'e' states and definitely not all the same plane and again many times 2-3 on 1.  Fighting your way out of a mess is the most fun in game, even if you don't win, but having a chance is the key.