Fun in the MA

[AKDejaVu]

Curly,

Why do people capture bases?  Don't tell me that its just because they like it.  They do it because the strat model says this is what is needed to win the war.

Why are there such great numerical disparities between attackers and defenders?  Because capturing a field wins a war not defending one.

The strat in the game dictates behavior.  It lays out the ground rules and everyone plays within those constraints.  That's why I don't view this behavior as vile or hindering or anything like that.  I view it as the action necessary to be successful in the MA right now with the given strategy model.  Capturing a field is one of the few things that 50 people can do together... yet only 10 really actuall do anything, but the 40 others still feel they contributed.

I'm not breaking down the who's and ways nor am I trying to place everyone in 3 neet categories.

AKDejaVu

[runny]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


And here I thought furballing was the smart approach to every situation.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

That's just 'cuz yer a cheatin' spitquake furball dweeb.

[Midnight]

Personnally, I don't understand the whole concept.

Why care about Flight Model reality if you don't care about strategic reality?

Why care about ballistics reality if you don't care about strategic reality?

Why care about damage model reality if you don't care about strategic reality?

I mean, what is the point of so many whining about aircraft specs, 1K+ .50 calibers, single ping kills, etc. if they could care less about the reality of how they play?

If you are going to play it like a game, and not care about trying to live, or fly in a manner that simulates what you might do if you were actualy in that cockpit, then why not just accpet how everything else works? After all, it's just game, right?

Give us a semi-realistic strategic element, where each country has a limited supply of resources to work with. Resources that would have to be moved to the front in order to be effective in the war.

Take a field and let it be at 0% resources. Have resources that generate over time. As aircraft, fuel and ords are used, the resource levels start to go down. If the fuel resources get used up, then the field would need to be resupplied or need time to generate more resources.

Make the number of aircraft limited. As they fly off, the reserves start to get low. If you run out of aircraft, you have to wait for the factory to build more.

*** My Newest Thought *** Make a player only get X lives per hour (maybe 5, maybe 10, some number). Once they have used all their lives for that hour, they have to wait till the next hour to get more.

Or make a player have a "bank" of lives that increments by 1 for every 10 minutes. The bank would have a capacity of 10. Every time the player spawned a new vehicle/aircraft, their bank balance decreases by 1. If they use up all their lives before they regenerate, then they are stuck gunning for a little while.

That might stop some of the endless insta-spawn garbage that we often see.

Unfortunately, the war of attritian is won by the defender. All he has to do is keep re-spawning until the attacking enemy runs out of fuel, ords or ammo. <-- and that is the reason you see the roving gangbang hordes. You need shear wieght of numbers to defeat the enemy by overwhelming force, rather than giving them a sound tactial beating.

[lazs2]

rude... not sure but i think you are contradicting yourself..  You say that terrainmay be the solution and I say that terrain is the solution but byu terrain I mean haveing the fields closer together.   yu seem to feel that having em farther apart would work.

I don't think anyone cares about "defending" against these raids so much as... like toad and myself, you are just caught at em or.. you up so that you can kill 2-10 of em and move on.  

with the closer fields it (on the current maps) it simply doesn't happen... the lameo's can't get all their guys toghether and off in time to be "organized"   the resulting fur between the closer fields is filled with people flying in ones and twos or at most threes...  you meet squadmates coming and going but you don't all sit at the field and take off at the same time.

also... if the planeset were different then the field distance would not be as important... A fur between or at far fields does not develop now in the current maps because... no one wants to risk it in the slower planes... you don't want to get caught too far from base or friendly groups in a slow plane.   Seperate the fast planes from the slow and it changes the equation.

and besides... you don't know anything and no one likes you.
lazs

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Midnight

*** My Newest Thought *** Make a player only get X lives per hour (maybe 5, maybe 10, some number). Once they have used all their lives for that hour, they have to wait till the next hour to get more.

Or make a player have a "bank" of lives that increments by 1 for every 10 minutes. The bank would have a capacity of 10. Every time the player spawned a new vehicle/aircraft, their bank balance decreases by 1. If they use up all their lives before they regenerate, then they are stuck gunning for a little while.

That might stop some of the endless insta-spawn garbage that we often see.

Nah, that would cause people to fly together in tighter bunches - the herding mentality - and would reduce the number of people willing to be the spearpoint to a base attack or carrier strike.

[Rude]

and besides... you don't know anything and no one likes you.

Well, I believe the above to be a hurtful remark on your part and I am, quite frankly, taken back by it.

I do see your point....I just read all of this and wonder to myself, what will ever be done to satisfy everyone or at least enhance gameplay to a point that folks are more satisfied.

Now I do disagree with your contradiction statement....I'm not talking about location of bases within a terrain, but rather the actual terrain design itself...having bases close to each other is necessary, however, in of it's self, it is not the endall.

Another component which will change our climate is subscribership...what happens to all that we care about when the online population grows to 1000 or 1500 players?

I'm just glad to have my heart beating and to be along for the ride.

Oh yeah....good to see the snide Lazs back on the boards:)

[Masherbrum]

I ususally up Jugs in defense of fields.  Why?  3400rnds of .50 cal in the D-30.  50% fuel, 25% if a few dots remain.  I SAW PLANES IN HALF.   Pansy Ponies are nothing nor La7's, especially when I have the convergance set at 650.   I've shot a La-7 down from 1.2k AIMED.

I agree with Rude on this.

Karaya2

[runny]

Originally posted by Midnight
Personnally, I don't understand the whole concept.

Why care about Flight Model reality if you don't care about strategic reality?

Why care about ballistics reality if you don't care about strategic reality?

Why care about damage model reality if you don't care about strategic reality?

Because some of us want to play a combat flight sim, not a strategy game.

[Turbot]

Originally posted by runny


Because some of us want to play a combat flight sim, not a strategy game.

I think you meant to reverse the words "sim" and "game"

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Turbot
I think you meant to reverse the words "sim" and "game"

LOL You're not suggesting, are you, that the strategic elements of AH even remotely approximate reality?  Because that would be really ignorant.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Fariz]

All this tread boils down to simple "I know what is fun, because it is fun for me. Other people do not have fun, because they do not fly the way, I think is fun".

Nothing new in putting yourself into the center of things, that is what we humans are. But a little bit of respect for a people, who enjoy different things is always apreciated. Bit of good humor is good also, it helps when you find, that you takes all it too serious.

Trust me, people next to you, who enjoy scores, or strat, or furballing, or flying buffs at 30k, or b&z, or turn&burn, or head on, or whatever, does not play this way, because they are masochist, and torture themselve. They are having fun, but they are having fun their way.

I personally love every aspect of this game, good furball, good vulch, strat, scores, teamplay, lone hunting etc. Some tours I make 10 missions per day, some I fly for scores, or for streak, some I defend undefendable fields, and die 100 times. I think, AH has place for all of us, for all differences, and amen, I am after me vodka.

[Turbot]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


LOL You're not suggesting, are you, that the strategic elements of AH even remotely approximate reality?  Because that would be really ignorant.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Actually, it seems I was too subtle and you missed the point entirely

[trestic]

i like the idea of limited number of planes available. when there are limited planes on hand the side that kills the most without losing their aircraft can achieve "air superority" and prevent suicidal atttacks.

But also you could make goons and trains able to bring in supplies when needed or make then be able to store up supplies to offset the poor pilot skills. wich would make interdiction mission needed. and you could secretly build up resources at fields so you could launch suprise offensives and counter attacks from field just behind the front line.

And maybe make large fields have more resources than small ones.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by runny


Because some of us want to play a combat flight sim, not a strategy game.

I think you miss the point.

If someone doesn't care that they can spawn new planes over and over for infinity not caring about life or death, why does that same person care if the flight model of a plane is not 100% accurate? Or why would they care that a .50 cal gun has the ability to kill at ranges exceeding 1K?

If they want to play and just have fun, then why don't they just accept that the way it is is the way it is?

Obviously having insta-spawn anywhere on the map is no where close to reality, so why should it matter if something else is a little off?

I know that none, if any of the strategic elements I am talking about will ever get into the MA, but I sure hope that something like this will happen in the upcoming Mission Theater.


I hate to sound biased in advance, but I keep seeing this horrible image of what will probably happen in the MT.

There will be a group of players that try very hard to work on their ranks and scores, going for high kill streaks and seeing who can be the best. If there is no penalty for suiciding, or limits on how many spawns per hour a player can have, the whole concept could be ruined.

It's kind of like trying to play a team sport, like basketball. Everyone has a good time playing, but if one guy doesn't play by the rules (I.e. Running with the ball instead of dribbling) then the whole game gets ruined for everyone else.

Hopefully, mission theater will have some basic ground rules and try to avert the normal suicide kings from their constant death before strategy mentality.

[bowser]

"...I think you miss the point.  If someone doesn't care that they can spawn new planes over and over for infinity not caring about life or death, why does that same person care if the flight model of a plane is not 100% accurate? Or why would they care that a .50 cal gun has the ability to kill at ranges exceeding 1K?...".

A lot, if not most, just want to fly fighter vs fighter.  They also want the FM, damage modeling and weaponry to be as accurate as possible so that they can simulate the real thing...as close as they're ever going to get.  Fun (aka fighting) and a desire for reality need not be mutually exclusive.

If you fly to fight, you're obviously going to get shot down a lot more then somebody who flies to survive.  If you penalize them, you'll have an even more timid arena then you have now...and a lot less fun.  Timid people fly in hordes for protection.  A major reason for all of the gangbanging.

bowser