Please..An honest post..

[Ripsnort]

Hazed, my post is on the original thread, your's seemed to stray into the lethality issue of the B17 (surprise!) but you seemed to refocus at the end.

We need two arenas, one with no dar, low icons, one with relaxed realism, (Dar, long range icons)

[AKSWulfe]

Ah, yes. The idea that changing icons will actually make this game better, or otherwise increase your chances of killing.

I suppose you also think chasing a dot for 2 miles, only to find out he's a friendly is fun too?

Lets get rid of icons, and no 6 view too! Afterall, we all know you can't turn around in a plane with shoulder straps you can loosen... right? Right?!
-SW

[MrLars]

IMO splitting the player base into two MA arenas is a bad idea...untill the player base doubles that is.

Why?

Just look at what happened to the community in AW.

[popeye]

I would like to try icon and radar functions which are currently not possible.

Icons:  Keep the information that we have now, but delay the appearance of the icon with range.  So, at 6K the plane has to be in the current view for 3 (?) seconds before it appears; at 4K for 2 seconds, at 2K for 1 second, and inside 1K it is instantaneous.  This would eliminate "snap view SA", but still allow ID of distant aircraft if you "stared" at it.

Vehicle icons:  Make (enemy) icons disappear when a vehicle is stopped for 2 minutes, simulating "camouflage", enabling ground wars and ambushes by making vehicles harder to detect from the air.

Radar:  Make dot dar detection range dependent on altitude.  At ranges up to 1 mile, dot dar coverage includes everything down to ground level (including vehicles).  From 1 mile to 5 miles, coverage would include everything above 50 feet AGL (everything BUT vehicles).  From 5 miles to 15 miles, coverage would include everything above 500 feet AGL.  This would give about 1 minute of warning for vehicles and NOE attacks.  (Additional 20mm manned acks might be fun.     )

Dot dar would be "real time" in the tower, and updated every 15 seconds in flight.  This would reduce "dar SA", but still be useful for finding a fight.

Killing HQ would limit dar coverage to tower only (at fields with working dar).  This would simulate loss of Command and Control.

Bar dar would be eliminated.  Each country would have several "Observer Posts" that would provide additional radar coverage.  Observer Posts could be destroyed and captured.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]

[AKDejaVu]

Wow hazed... maybe you should re-read what you posted here.

Two jets converged on you... and unless I am mistaken, they musta been within 1.5k to do that.  Wow.. the 3k thing becomes moot.  Are you saying you didn't even see them until the icons started in?  Or the fact that you could range them and decide which one to shoot gave you too much of an advantage?

1500 yards is still over 10 seconds at 500.  You still would have been able to pick.  External view gives you that luxury in a bomber.  Now, tell me what this has ANYTHING to do with a fighter where it is quite a bit more relevant?

So... sorry for ignoring your "only if you completely agree with everything I've said" limitation on who should post in this thread... but you are simply being silly.

AKDejaVu

[hazed-]

swulfe what furious mentioned was something i hadnt realised and that was that friendly icons could remain at 5 or 6k for this identification reason.the idea here is to mention why you are for or against the changes and maybe throw in an example of what has frustrated you enough to come to that decision?
chasing dots only to find out they are friendly is a valid reason and one I do agree can be frustrating but to be honest for me personally id put up with a few false chases for the oppertunity to be able to fly more secretive missions and be able to surprise an enemy rather than the childishly simple point plane at red bar or blob and wait until red dot looks close then look up and down until your white plane icon covers the red dot on the radar map.You KNOW the con is somewhere within icon range then and so the hunt is far too easy.


p.s AKDeja maybe i should have mentioned I dont give a toss what YOU think  .I edited out an angry reply to you because i realised all you like to do is have an oposing opinion even when you agree with requests(although quite apparently you have other reasons for deciding it) its just a bit confusing as why you bother.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[Maverick]

Hazed,

In the same vein as you started this thread, again.

Make those changes in the CT. Leave the MA alone. Call it a crutch or whatever to make yourself feel or apear superior if you must, Rip.

Making 2 arena's is the only real viable option inspite of the way Rip posted about it. That way those who want these changes can have what they want and HT doesn't cut his throat with new players and those who enjoy the MA features as they are now.

I don't see any problems with allowing perk points and strat scores to slide between arena's, although from the "quality" of the posts about the arena, I don't see any of those interested in restrictions wanting to come back to the MA. I see no reason to prohibit arena switching and the score hounds can maintain their points / standings. Perhaps for those who do not switch back and forth a new score range could be instituted.

In the two arena method both sides of this argument win. Neither side is "slighted" as having to acquiese to the others preferances.

As to the debate about "spoiling the comunity with 2 arena's ala AW", balderdash. As is is now the MA is almost filled to the NEW capacity and more are joining. The connection reliability has already been severely compromised and still is not as reliable as before. If the arena's combined had a capacity for 300 each they could better handle the load tan one at 400+ like now. That would also allow HT to grow even further and appeal to more a more diverse player base.

BTW AW died as it did not evolve, not becuase there were 2 arena's. I know, as I played in single then 2 arena mode there. They simply didn't keep up. Having 2 arena's here would allow HT more flexibility to respond to the players than one.

Unless HT makes 2 arena's I fear they will lose players as there are choices now that do not reflect the player requested options so voluably posted here.

IMO the "new enhanced" CT wouldn't draw as much as the MA but it remains to be seen. Also IMO I think it really needs to happen to AVOID splitting the "community" and player base further.

 

[Nifty]

Give me nation ID under 6000yds, plane ID under 3000 yds, and rate of closure instead of range finder.  (or just get rid of range finder and give rate of closure)

In WWIIOL I used the "range bar" just to see if and how fast he was coming or going.  I based gunnery on how much of my sight he filled up (besides up close in WWIIOL, you couldn't really see the little bar).

In Aces High, it's hard not to use the range finder as a range unless you're friendly icons only.  I don't want to turn it off because it's hard (for me anyways) to judge rate of closure past ~500yds on the monitor.

Rip, as long as relaxed realism doesn't refer to the flight models at all.  I really don't want to see HTC go that route, even if it's an arena I'd never play in.

[Furious]

In my opinion the only thing done well in WWIIOnline were the icons.  A similar system could work well for us here.

F.

[Zippatuh]

Icons:  Like the distance the way it is now.  I don’t have any argument such as monitor size or what not.  As for changes, I’m not sure I like the aircraft ID.  Personally I would much rather see nic’s then aircraft ID, or even just country.  I also don’t think it’s a bad idea to remove the distance counter under 1k.

DAR:  I also like it the way it is.  The only additions or alterations that I think need to be addressed are limitations for NOE flying and possibly the poll time for dot location increasing a bit.  It my not be realistic but the removal of DAR 500 feet to ground seems like a do-able thing to me.  I agree that 500 feet to sea level wouldn’t provide much of a change.

Zippatuh

[Midnight]

You can do that in the CT because you can tell enemy planes from freindly without seeing the Icons. In the MA, the P-51 next to you could be freindly or enemy. The only way to tell is by the Icon.

I would accept Icons at the current range, but no range info until closer than 3.0 or the "Fade in" effect that has been brought up serval times.

Also, you really need to consider people with smaller monitors or that play at lesser resolutions. On my 21" at 1024x768, I can see everything very well. OTOH, on my laptop screen, 800x600 I can hardly see the cross section of a B17 outside of 2.0 range. For fighters, Sometimes I never even see them except for the Icon indicating they are there.

[Pyemia]

I've flown in the CT quite a few times and when you spot a dot and fly towards it you basically know that if its enemy there will be an engagement.  IMO thats really fun and gets the adreneline going.  In the MA if you spot a dot, you know, if its enemy, and one of you has an advantage, there will probably not be an engagement because either you or he will choose to bug out.

I prefer CT style radar, however, given that the MA has some many people with so many objectives and is currently full of newbies maybe its best to leave it like it is.

I think if icon range was reduced, the likes of StSanta and other dwe err aces would have dramatically improved K/D ratios.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by StSanta:
I doubt fighter pilots could ID all planes at d6.0, much less judge closure rate at pinpoint accuracy at this range.

Santa, I would hardly call +/- 100 yards pinpoint range, but you have a valid point, especially if you are looking at a cross-sectional view of the attaking plane coming right at you.

[Tac]

"Ah, yes. The idea that changing icons will actually make this game better, or otherwise increase your chances of killing.
I suppose you also think chasing a dot for 2 miles, only to find out he's a friendly is fun too?"

My swulfe, I guess you forgot about the DAR view on map.If it aint green, take a guess what it is. Hint: Its not mother theresa coming to help your sorry ass.

"Lets get rid of icons, and no 6 view too! Afterall, we all know you can't turn around in a plane with shoulder straps you can loosen... right? Right?!"


Correct. Especially under high g's. Why Swulfe, you're full on intelligencia today. Congrats!

[Toad]

Basic problem that I see is that most of the people proposing changes and pontificating have rarely, if ever, done much observation of other aircraft while in the air themselves.