Honest question to the community

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Urchin
Actually, what he did was cut out the useless crap in the question.  The two questions mean the same thing.

No, they do not. They do not at all.

The first asks are you willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier.

The second is entirely different.

The question has actually been answered though.

[Puff]

I look at it this way.  

HTC has gone through great pain to make this game as realistic as it can possibly be.  This new system of taking away the higher end planes, in my opinion, takes away from the overall realisum.  This game is a war game.  Plain and simple.  And in war, you hit until the enemy stops hitting back.  I think there are many other alternatives to balancing out the field than disabling planes.  

Now the argument can also be made that this will make you a better pilot in other aircraft.  I don't feel that as a paying member I should be forced into that train of thought.

If the game is ever truely going to be balanced then there needs to be some sort of control over what team people are on.  Why not take non squad members from one team and move them to another to balance the field.  Or have a limit to how many can join one team before it forces users to choose another team.  I think this can be solved my moving man power rather than punnishing any particular team because they are winning the war.

My opinion is that this is a step backwards and makes the game more like an arcade game instead of a realistic battle simulation.

Just my .2 cents.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You edited the question to allow you to answer it a certain way. Doesn't work that way. I'm looking for something else.

He rephrased it to be non-leading.  Reading your original question I felt I was being forced into a "No" response when the situation is a lot more complicated than that.  Your phrasing made it a leading question, as HiTech pointed out when he referenced the archtypical leading question.


That fact is that I don't have any problems with the system as implimented.  I usually fly the Mossie, which has an ENY of 40 and so will never be affected (and if it is there is a real big problem).  However I plan on switching to the Ki-84 which I am sure will have a much, much lower ENY and will be affected every so often.  My response on those occasions will be to switch countries if I really want to fly the Ki-84 that day, or to fly the Fw190A-5 and Mosquito instead.  I have no problem with those options.  I don't think that the system is denying anybody the ability to fly whatever they want.  It is making the choose between flying with the horde and flying the aircraft they want to fly.

[Morpheus]

lol Virgil,

In regards to your question...

Yes and no, meaning I honestly dont care one way or another what planes are removed and which ones aren't for any period of time.

Wth all of the planes that are in the game, I can find something else to fly for an hour or so while I am on line.

I love the new rules.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Do me a favor, just delete this whole thread. What I was looking for was not an indictment of what you've done, but rather something else.

What he did when he edited the question that way changed the entire nature of the question.

I think the way you worded the question was an indictment.

The question would lead one to think (I did as I read it) that they might me considered mean-sprited if they answer ... YES.

The orginal question does not truely reflect the sprit in which the change was made.

Zanth's change reflects the spirit ... and I would have added ...

... and creates a level playing field for all."

My answer .. YES

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.

The way Zanth phrased the question, it stated a guarantee of improvement for everyone, which is not possible in that situation.

While there is nothing inherently wrong in acting in your own best interests, even if it imposes certain things on others (without actually causing real life harm), being dishonest with yourself about it is interesting.

It cuts both ways.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Puff
I look at it this way.  

HTC has gone through great pain to make this game as realistic as it can possibly be.  This new system of taking away the higher end planes, in my opinion, takes away from the overall realisum.  This game is a war game.  Plain and simple.  And in war, you hit until the enemy stops hitting back.  I think there are many other alternatives to balancing out the field than disabling planes.  

Now the argument can also be made that this will make you a better pilot in other aircraft.  I don't feel that as a paying member I should be forced into that train of thought.

If the game is ever truely going to be balanced then there needs to be some sort of control over what team people are on.  Why not take non squad members from one team and move them to another to balance the field.  Or have a limit to how many can join one team before it forces users to choose another team.  I think this can be solved my moving man power rather than punnishing any particular team because they are winning the war.

My opinion is that this is a step backwards and makes the game more like an arcade game instead of a realistic battle simulation.

Just my .2 cents.

Your basically saying to not pee in your pool, but its ok to pee in someone elses pool.

Don't forcefully take my plane from me, but rather, force that squad to move to somewhere they might not want to be.

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

Question:

Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him,  thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?

Well, since you chose to add a subjective comment to what you claim to be an objective question...you make it very tough to answer.

How about this one...

Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to set up a system, whereby one group of players can dominate the others by simply overwhelming them with numbers, thereby dimishing their enjoyment of the game?

See what I mean? Both questions are stacked.

[Karnak]

I do not believe that I am acting strictly in my own best interests when I say "Yes".

That you believe that to be so, and worded the question thusly, does not make it so.

A reciprical question might look like:

Do you think it is fair to force a person who is paying exactly the same amount of money you are to face overwhelming odds day after day and defeat after defeat while you enjoy the support of a significant neumerical advantage that makes your success both inevitable and easy?

That's a pretty loaded question and is no more accurate than yours.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.

The way Zanth phrased the question, it stated a guarantee of improvement for everyone, which is not possible in that situation.

While there is nothing inherently wrong in acting in your own best interests, even if it imposes certain things on others (without actually causing real life harm), being dishonest with yourself about it is interesting.

It cuts both ways.

I don't agree with that. I answered YES, not because I was acting on my own interest, but rather in the interest of this game. I have just as much to lose with the ENY disabler as anybody else in this game.

This ENY disabler will eventually bite all countries and I believe that it areadly has ... this is something that I can live with and deal with. If it was singling out just one country, then I would have a problem with it.

[Muddie]

Yep.  I'll even tell you why.  On the rare occasions that the side I'm on has the numbers, it get's really boring.  Evening out the quantity factor adds to my enjoyment, whether I'm on the side with the high numbers or the side with the low numbers.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

Question:

Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him,  thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?

[Puff]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Your basically saying to not pee in your pool, but its ok to pee in someone elses pool.

Don't forcefully take my plane from me, but rather, force that squad to move to somewhere they might not want to be.

If you notice I said NONSquad member... I'm talking about new members and guys that haven't been playing long.. guys that don't have an allegiance to any side just yet.

[A_Clown]

YES

Case point, A country (whichevr one) currently has 30 players more than any other coutry, you cannot fly you prefferred plane.

Options-  
If you are country loyal you simply =find another ride
Plane loyal, =Find another country
Loyal to Country & Plane, =find another time to fly
Loyal to PLane, Country & limted on flight times, =Post on BBS cause we know you wont be flyin.


The change was designed to create a level playing field, after it was obvious the players would not. Im sure HTC would MUCH rather we the players, just switched sides & evened it out ourselves, but that didnt happen. So in essence we forced him to make these changes, I'm glad he did.

A_Clown

[Pongo]

"HTC has gone through great pain to make this game as realistic as it can possibly be. "

when you base your argument on such a premiss it kind of defeats the whole argument before you make it.

[Muddie]

Actually what Zanth did was to remove your question from the category known as "Leading Questions".  Not saying that  you intended it as a leading question, just that it is one.

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.