Originally posted by eskimo2
The Problem:
The MA is becoming boring/frustrating. (See Hangtime's Thread)
Has the main arena changed or have you changed?
More often than not, giant furballs and gang-bangs are all that can be found in the MA.
Missing are organization, strat, surprise and options.
Funny thing organization by definition is the intent to gang bang.
Strat;
Before 1.08, I personally would knock down the HQ several times a week. Now, I can't even remember the last time anyone's HQ went down. As a result, radar-down sneak captures are gone.
Im not happy with the current strat balance either.
Small Fronts, Large Player-Base, Limited Options;
With increasing numbers of players in the MA, all-too-often many players find themselves looking for something to do other than participate in the big furball or gang-bang. A persistent base of players who are ready to up as soon as they realize that something different is going on means that raids are intercepted more often. When a countries front line is down to 4 or less front line bases, and there are 300+ players in the arena, finding or starting a "fresh fight" can be impossible.
I don’t disagree. Our current plan is to create bigger terrains with 4 times as many bases.
Fields still remain the same distance apart, but it greatly icreases the length of the front line.
This is why you have seen the max number of bases increased, and the changing of the map on the patch 2 versions ago, it was to optimize for larger terrains. Our current game plan is to create new terrains as soon as 1.09 stablizes.
Radar, Too Much Information!
Get together 20 countrymen with a base capture objective, climb to 15K, fly 50+ miles to your target, and meet 20 co-alt+ enemy...
Why plan? Why organize? Well-planned missions fail too often because the enemy has too much warning.
The defender must have information. With out your “Well-planned” suddenly a very simple plan.
Nothing kills the incentive to organize like an enemy informed of your actions!
Personally, I avoid planned missions often because I know that they are doomed.
If they were successful more often, I would participate more often.
To be successful, the enemy shouldn't know what is going on the instant 25 P-47s spawn on their own runway. When I see a big red bar appear opposite an empty friendly base, I have a pretty good idea what is going to happen in 15 to 20 minutes. I am probably going to get myself killed on my current sortie well before they get to their target. This means that I will have plenty of time to spawn, climb to alt and intercept them, or at least sneak out and hunt down their goon.
Once again are we talking Well Planed, as in more than one goon , possibly a deffense for the goon?
Or are we talking about a bad planed mission?
Giving Away the Locations of CVs.
It's hard to imagine that the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor would have gone so well had a trigger happy IJN pilot launched an hour early and attacked Pearl Harbor by himself. The same principle works in the MA.
How far away did the planes launch from the CV?
This isn’t an offensive only game. Simple sneek attacks with out any warning would not be fun game play.
With out a challenge , achiving the goal becomes boring very fast.
Just like you most people view missions as an attack mission.
Pushing towards what you are suggesting would swing far to much on the side of people must also play defensive only missions.
Going on patrol for a deffenive only air cover, with no idea if some one even planes on attacking is not normaly enjoyable by players.
If player feel that organized missions are too likely to be intercepted or well-defended against, or sneak captures are too unlikely to be successful, and strat targets are a waste of time, what are they to do? Join in the furball... or join in the gang-bang.
On the flip side if missions are to easy to achive there is no feeling of ocomplishment when completed.
Solutions:
Strat;
Instead of trains and trucks fixing strat targets and bases, their absence should degrade the strat target or base.
If a strat target does not receive a train for X amount of time, it goes down in production. Perhaps no trains arriving at a city for 45 minutes; city goes down 20%. For each additional 15 minutes without trains, city goes down another 20%. Players can bring in supply C-47s to make up for missing trains by keeping city from going down further, but, C-47s WOULD NOT REBUILD STRAT TARGETS!).
If an airbase does not receive a convoy for X amount of time, it's fuel, ammo, troops and radar drop or become disabled (partially, for each missing convoy).
Why is this better?
Instead of being MANDATORY targets for successful strat raids, train killing would become an ALTERNATIVE method for denying the enemy the benefit of operational strategic sites.
The alternative becomes a real problem when you wan’t to balance strat targets.
Suddenly something like a city with lots of buildings get changed to why kill all the city at all, when a few fighters just killing the train will have the same effect.
This would result in even less roll for bombers, and less of a need for orginazation.
The other thing that always needs to be guarded against is the ablity of 1 or 2 players being able to greatly impact the game play, and enjoyment of others.
Radar:
Changing a few aspects about the current radar status, could have a great impact on how the game is played.
#1. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar below 500 feet. Encourage sneak raids. Sneak raids would mean that players would have interesting options 99% of the time. 4 guys, with discipline, could capture an enemy base 100+ miles in enemy territory.
#2. Abolish Enemy-Bar-Dar in enemy territory. No dots or bars 25 miles beyond friendly bases. As stated above, organized missions could at least get to within 25 miles of an enemy base before the enemy is warned Via radar. Enemy would still get a 5+ minute warning, enough time to oppose, but not always en-mass.
With 1.09 we have an aditional warning system and will allow us to raise the floor of sector radar.
This system will flash the icons on the clip board when enemys are with in a range of any target. It will create an air raid siren at the attacked target and will also give a simple audible “Warning “ sound when a new target comes under attack. This will alow us to se how raising dar bar alt limit will work.
HTC, if you want to see more organization in the MA, give organized players a chance to be successful more often.
It is not our desire to have more organized players in the arena.
It also is not our desire to discorage organized players.
It is our desire to bring the most fun to the widest range of people.
Hold Flight on Aircraft Carriers.
Sneaking an aircraft carrier into attack position, behind the front line, is nearly pointless because someone always launches from it while it is en route and gives away its position. If the commander of the CV could "Hold Flight", organized CV missions would take place often. Players would have confidence in the mission and sign up because they would know that the enemy would not have warning before the mission starts. Everyone who recognizes the value of the CV's location would become unified in their efforts.
Ive considered this, the jury is still out on it. The down side effect is that it gives to much power to 1 person on each side. And the “Little General” effect can get much wors.
Effect on Bomber Use:
Replacing the value of strat targets would increase the use of bombers in Aces High.
Reducing the effectiveness of radar would also mean that slow-climbing bombers would stand a better chance of making it to target at lower altitudes, thereby increasing the use of bombers in the MA. I don't know why, but I have always felt that HTC has been looking for ways to make bombers more relevant and used in Aces High.
Changing radar has other implications associated with it. A while back I did some simple testing, I increased dot radar range in the arena (doubled it) Net effect was the furball effect was greatly lessened. The increase in range gave the ability to find isolated fights and the furballs became much less consentrated.
You are also lowering the need for fighter cover with bombers, there by promoting less orginzation.
In general, incentive needs to be given for the organization of players in any sized group. When players find success by working together in small groups, they will develop greater knowledge, skills, and incentive to work in larger groups.
What you are proposing with longer down times and strat changes would lessen the need to work in groups. For instance if you know the down times of towns is longer, fewer people are needed to achive the objective. Wrather than a quick overwhelming organized force.
The above ideas would make Aces High more interesting, less predictable, create greater options, and promote teamwork among players.
eskimo [/B]
In general I see your ideas as viewed from the attacker view point only.
When ever you try plan game play, you have to put yourself on both sides of the fence. If you think it would be great fun to sneek under radar and go hit the HQ, ask yourself the question is it great fun if the other side does that to you.
HiTech
