Any idea how long till ToD?

[Tilt]

These bonuses and points should mean something (however they are allocated) there should be some reward............. some form of personnal development............. a hook.

The immersive factor would be to enable the individual greater mission choice (across more ac types) or where historically a squadron was blessed with two models of a plane type the higher scoring individual gets the choice.

Players icons would show rank in some way.

To reproduce boxed off line mission games may be enough but basically you end up running the game from beginning to end and then binning it.

Look at a scheme that places an avatar as an inexperienced rookie in either the WETO axis or allied forces of mid to late 43.

He has a choice of squadron (types) to join.

Then we start the clock on the 2nd half of WWII in the WETO.

As he gathers points so his opportunities/choices grow.........he is offerred transfers to other units..........these may have a different ac type or may indeed have the latest ac type (the ac being introduced into the game as the clock ticks)

Once offerred, transfers are always available and can be taken any time.................maybe like country changing in the MA they are limited to one every 24 hours.

The structure is built around the individual but folk staying together may also benefit.

Where folk do not transfer then a group (squadron) may be offerred a new plane type as a whole (a refit). In this way the less able also grow by sticking with a squadron.

Multiple avatars mean that if folk want to vary their experience then they switch avatar either within or across nations

The launch version would feature the 8th versus the LW.........at the end of a 1 or 2 year run (representing mid 43 to mid 45)the clock is reset. However this time ( the 2nd tour) development has opened up avatar opportunities in the RAF and Italian (pity about 44) air forces with additional mission sets and opportunities for these in the Med.

The 3rd Tour could add the Eastern front. The 4th the Pacific probably time shifted such that august in the Pacific plays along side may in Europe.

HTC would have then later options of extending the tour period starting in 42 and roll the plane set from an earlier point in time.

just an example..........stuff may vary

My point is that mission planning and points gathering alone does not cut it.......to hook the player in there has to be an element of role development to entice the wannabe element out of folk such that they buy into the role play and strive to achieve the next stage.............the next transfer............the next promotion............the next ride type enhancement.

To do this there is more infrastructure required.

[Lazerus]

[Wotan]

These bonuses and points should mean something (however they are allocated) there should be some reward............. some form of personnal development............. a hook.

The hook is the alternative style of combat.

The 'points', 'scoring' and 'victory conditions' need to set in a manner to direct the course of game play in that direction.

The 'rank' and 'promotions' are just a way for individuals to track their progression. If the type of  player that is attracted to such an arena is like me or even Urchin I can tell you that neither of us care about 'ranks' or 'role playing'. We care about the quality of combat.

That's the hook.

Now what benefits there are to rank and score need to be balanced and focus on facilitating combat over just handing out uber aircraft or calling yourself GeneralCaptianHauptwebel etc...

Those that avoid combat or those that just hang back hoping others will complete the mission for them ought not advance or do so at a snails pace. Those that take the greater risk should get the greater reward.

Even if a player is only motivated by the idea of being a general or of getting a better aircraft, make him earn it by killing and surviving.

If things are done well in this regard combat maybe more structured but of better quality then the main.

A good number of people in the main care about 'winning' not score or 'ranking'. Winning to them means resetting the map or capturing that base.

Change the definition of 'winning' and keep it geared toward combat and some behaviors will adapt.

IIRC the way I understand the multiple avatars is that once a tour starts you are committed to a side. The multiple avatars will allow you to move between fighter / bombers and possibly fighter-bombers.

I don't have time to search the old threads to find that discussion but I am pretty sure thats how it was laid out.

Currently with the plane set now at hand theater choices are extremely limited. Mostly AH has aircraft ready for a mid to late WETO and maybe a late MED (Italy).

Pac still needs help in terms of new planes and imho eastern front is almost impossible.

Event hough there has been 2 BoB events in AH even that time frame is unbalanced in terms of aircraft.

No period bomber for the RAF.

110C-4/B with the DB601N (IIRC under 10 were ever produced)

Ju-88A-4 (no A-1 or A-5, No Do-17zs or He-111s)

Even the Ju-87 is a late model.

No 109E-3s etc...

[Westy]

Beet1e to be fair everytme someone waives RPS around it is in the context of replacing the MA setup that hundreds enjoy right now with that type of restricted gameplay.  Otherwise we share a very similar wish for more historical types of gameplay.

Tilt, Wotan and Dan... i hear ya!  Although I'd really would like to HTC layout more a LOT more detail for now  I enjoy reading your speculations based on the meager bones that have been tossed.

 I too would like to try that avenue of missions Dan. And for me the game would be simply the challenge to succeed and survive. I personally could  care less about gaining rank or points unless those mean better performing aircraft and better missions then I'll have to play along with it I guess.
Wotan said it best, "We care about the quality of combat." And for me the greatest factor towrads that quality lies in the immersion from being in a WWII aircombat environment.

 I want to fly a P-36 defending the Phillipines in 1941....  an F4F as CAP while the invasion force hits Morocco.... to fly an IAR-80 intercepting P-38/B-24's at Ploesti... or suicidaly taking a JM3 up over Tokyo in 1945 to tackle B-29's....

 And this I want to do when I log on any time of day, any day of the week.  the days of wishing I could join in on a scenario being held, once again, soley on a Saturday or Sunday, will be over.

[Naudet]

No, Morph... I honestly have nothing to teach anyone. My "skill-set" is a little outdated for todays MA.

Urchin, you understate your skill by far. Even if you are only half the pilot in AH2 you were back in AH, i am sure you will still be outflying and "outsmarting" about 90% of the MA crowd.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by beet1e

The TOD arena would be great, but the outrage shown by a whole mass of AH players towards other realism proposals leaves me with grave doubts about whether it will ever see more than 25 players, and indeed whether it will be deployed at all.

Almost since the inception of ToD (as opposed to the Mission Theater), HTC has admitted that they believe ToD would target a different type of player than the MA. I have to believe that they will target advertising to recruit that new type of player.

Sort of a "Field of Dreams" moment here.

-Sik

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Wotan
The hook is the alternative style of combat.

I dont see the $ 's in that hook not enough players for it.

If Hitech is gonna devote serious development time then he needs a numbers increase in the player base well beyond his investment.

One  man year initial development is what ? $60,000.00 (you tell me)

2 year pay back is $30,000.00 per year above costs.

Lets say costs are a puny $5,000.00 per year

Ongoing development (missions) $20,000.00 per year

Break even revenue for the first 2 years $100,000.00

Thats an additional 300 players over the norm because of TOD to start profitable return in year 3.

[Wotan]

Most of the added costs for ToD are shared with AH2 development and plug right into the main. Nothing has been exclusively produced for ToD, yet (at least that we have seen).

 I am sure there are / will be added cost but I think they may be overstated in your thread. If they aren't I am afraid that HTC maybe making a financial mistake to think that he will build a player base of 300, at least in the short term.

Besides an AI bomber / GV script and a server side mission generator where's the huge cost?

The only way you get in new players, in particular the type of player drawn to this type of game play, is by making it competitive (in terms of game play) with the box sim online wars. Offline box sim players have an infinite amount of control over their own missions and mission set parameters. They will be less inclined to give up that control and pay a fee on top of that.

The way to ensure good game play (whether perceived or actual) means filling the wholes in the plane set, a quality mission script and decent terrain. Role playing is way down at the bottom.

2 of the above are happening regardless of ToD.

The online wars I mentioned above are run with no monies generated from the players (besides donations). They are free to registered squadrons. The scripts and parsers are written by 3rd parties. These are the folks that will be attracted to this type of game play. They will be less attracted to something that isn't 'complete'.

Explore this site to see the level of detail:

Forgotten Skies

I fly regularly with these types. The ones who I have talked with don't care about playing general or scores. They like to get together and fly in a structured environment, they like combat and competition. There's little draw towards the 'role playing'. I don't doubt that for some playing 'fighter pilot' may add to their experience but I don't see it replacing game play as a primary motivating factor.

In the short term I doubt that there will any real added server / bandwidth load (besides the initial download). Most of the players will be either current AH subscribers or ex-pats returning to try it out.

If the selling point for ToD is primarily 'role playing' that just wont keep folks attention along.

Focus on gameplay, make quality missions that encourage combat, and not only will folks try it out but they may stick around...

[Tilt]

I see your point batz and I dont dispute that some who play on the IL2 servers will enjoy what TOD may offer re more indepth mission based activity.

Blokes I know who play there (mostly firebirds) seem to enjoy the imersion, they seem to enjoy more realism. more planning, more intracacy etc etc,  actually the combat over time ratio is not very high even when the  designer has created AI opposition.

If HTC just copies this with the possibility of a larger arena size then I think he will fall short of attracting the numbers he needs.

I take it as a given that TOD will at least attempt to achieve what you describe

If TOD is just to open another 100 or so accounts then HTC is probably wasting his time (investment wise)

At best he will take some where between 50% and 70% of what is already on the IL2 servers more likely not IMO (they get "rewards"  for doing it them selves)

He would attract more newbie type players (and more $) by hitting the arcadia market and building the MA into a total war game for younger players.

TOD does have the capability of holding its players longer ie lower turnover and lower population.

But for it to really blossom then it is not the enthusiast that it must attract......(it will already do this)....... it must hook in the tiring young arena player to extend his account life beyond the norm.

If you look at all role play stuff out there in their myriad forms they create very large  numbers of accounts of some longevity.. I would have thought this would be the primary driver(large account numbers)

The TOD role could actually be the "Tour of Duty". or (through multiple avatars) Tours of Duty that players will "live thru" experiencing the multiple mission types and plane sets and load outs variations that evolved over a period eg 43 to 45 WETO.

[Wotan]

There's a difference in historical mission profiles, i.e. immersion and 'role playing'.

But history should not supplant game play.

None of us want to be bored with endless flights with no contact etc...

I don't think too many will take 'rank' any more serious in ToD then they did in the main or any where else.

It's up to the mission designers to find a way to balance immersion with quality game play. Ultimately, I believe it's the quality of game play that will determine whether or not ToD is a 'success', not how its scored or how people earn rank.

Now 'carrots' (such as rank and better aircraft) that can be used to help focus people in a general direction. However, if folks careless about the 'carrots' then it wont help direct behavior. The best way to do that is make a deliberate effort to script game play so that it best facilitates combat.

When I spoke about boxed game 'on line wars' I wasn't just referring to FB/AEP/PF. There have been plenty of variations over the years from CFS, EAW, Janes, BoB ect... FB/AEP/PF is just the most current.

Oleg has stated in the past that his research shows that only about 10% of the folks who bought Il2/FB will fly 'on line regularly'. Even fewer in those on line wars or with 'full difficult settings'.

It would appear to me the ToD player base is already a limited section of on line flight game players overall.

 How you get and keep these players is all about quality game play.

[Stang]

Originally posted by Wotan
There's a difference in historical mission profiles, i.e. immersion and 'role playing'.

But history should not supplant game play.

None of us want to be bored with endless flights with no contact etc...

I don't think too many will take 'rank' any more serious in ToD then they did in the main or any where else.

It's up to the mission designers to find a way to balance immersion with quality game play. Ultimately, I believe it's the quality of game play that will determine whether or not ToD is a 'success', not how its scored or how people earn rank.

Now 'carrots' (such as rank and better aircraft) that can be used to help focus people in a general direction. However, if folks careless about the 'carrots' then it wont help direct behavior. The best way to do that is make a deliberate effort to script game play so that it best facilitates combat.

When I spoke about boxed game 'on line wars' I wasn't just referring to FB/AEP/PF. There have been plenty of variations over the years from CFS, EAW, Janes, BoB ect... FB/AEP/PF is just the most current.

Oleg has stated in the past that his research shows that only about 10% of the folks who bought Il2/FB will fly 'on line regularly'. Even fewer in those on line wars or with 'full difficult settings'.

It would appear to me the ToD player base is already a limited section of on line flight game players overall.

 How you get and keep these players is all about quality game play.

If buff guns are as lethal in TOD as they are in the MA a lot of German pilots are going to give up on TOD very quickly.  I think it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed before its release.  And no I don't attack buffs from the low and slow 6.

[Westy]

ref: buff guns.

 I do not know if they have different setting in the MA from scenarios. But in scenarios the buffs get murdered.  And when I flew in the MA back in 2003 they were ALL easy meat.

 I for one hope that HTC doesn't dumb down or create a silly shoot em up arcade to appease the slowest common denominator.
 
 I'm sure new people will quit if they have to tackle the effects of basic physics or if the do not get  auto-aim,  padlock, "glass" cockpits and in-flight ammo/fuel/quad dammage power-ups too.

[hitech]

Wotan:

They like to get together and fly in a structured environment, they like combat and competition

This is a big piece of what role playing is.

HiTech

[Wotan]

I was differentiating between the avatar / rank persona type type role playing and the less specific 'just playing the game'.

One could argue that a quick hop in the main is 'role playing' and they would be right on some levels. The same with many of the fine AH events and scenarios. There's plenty of role palying and immersion but not along the same lines on creating a virtual life and career.

I think that if the main draw of ToD is simply avatars and 'careers' (rank) then I would agree with Tilt in that the level timidity (the unwillingness to risk your virtual life) may make good quality combat few and far between.

My hope would be that game play would be more based on 'combat' and the results of combat rather then just flying around building up experience or rank.

In scenarios you would fly for an hour so just to get that 10 or 15 minutes of intense combat. The best scenarios were designed in a way that this would happen. The old ToD / Squad Ops was one of the best at this.

[Fariz]

Originally posted by Stang
If buff guns are as lethal in TOD as they are in the MA a lot of German pilots are going to give up on TOD very quickly.  I think it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed before its release.  And no I don't attack buffs from the low and slow 6.

Actually concerns for TOD buff are a) AI gunners, how accurate they will be b) How it will work in big formations of AI+manned buffs c) Buffs .50s lethality in TOD.

It is not an easy issue, make buffs guns not lethal enough, and experienced AH pilot will return home with 10 sculps per misson. Make it too hard, and people will be frustrated easily by being killed every single or every second attack against buffs formations.

Finding ballance won't be very easy, and I guess it will take several versions before at least some people will be happy =)