Fudging the Rules

[Nemisis]

I have noticed that a lot of ideas (and most of mine) in the wishlist forum get said "no" to mostly because the would be too real or would cause some small "disruptions", "inconveniences", and "annoyances" to some players. Mostly it is things along the line of an increase in radio chatter, or the runway or for 5 minutes, or even that it would affect playability in SMALL ways; and I mean small, like, "oh, you can't land on this runway for another 60 secs or you can't take off from that runway for another 2 Min's.

I know playability is a big concern, but we have gotten to the point were we are saying no to planes because the weren't used QUITE long enough, or not QUITE enough were used, all to keep the game as real as possible and still playable. While at the same time we are saying no to things that would inconvenience them or would be too real and make it hard to respond to an enemy plan that caught them napping and would succeed in real life, or that would make it harder to supprise the enemy if they are feeling nervous about a particular flank that they don't want to be attacked.

Well anyway, I started this to discuss and see how far the whole playability trumping realism should be taken.
After all, a lot of these ideas would add a nice and realistic strategical aspect to the game without making it required or encroaching on the playability aspect of the game.

[PFactorDave]

but we have gotten to the point were we are saying no to planes because the weren't used QUITE long enough, or not QUITE enough were used,

I honestly think that most everyone would agree that in an ideal situation, modeling every plane that was used in the war would be great.  But since creating these planes is time consuming, the more rational of us would prefer that HTC filled holes in the plane set that are needed for various setups and scenarios that are popular among the player base.

[Rino]

     Strange I hadn't noticed very realistic ideas coming from you.

[Captfish]

I have noticed that a lot of ideas (and most of mine) in the wishlist forum get said "no" to mostly because the would be too real or would cause some small "disruptions", "inconveniences", and "annoyances" to some players.

Can you give an example of these ideas you had that would be too real/disruptive/inconvenient/annoying? or do you mean the b29 you wished for? Or the artillary scout plane, the amphibious jeep, tanks that can drive in 10ft of water, "the bazooka tooting paratrooper", anti-bomber rockets, armoured trees,  

[Nemisis]

I agree, but that is not my point, my point was that in an attempt to keep things real, we have kept out some things that would be pretty easy and realistic, but the main reason we kept them out is that they might be slightly inconvinent or disrurtive to people who hate 5 Min waits, detours, and having to move to a diffent base untill their normal one is fixed.


Rino, tell me how a scout plane, downed pilot pickup, arty, AA on flat cars on trains, differnt types of ord, and a hole in the carrier deck that would be caused by a 1,000lb bomb coming down on wood or whatever the carrier decks are made of are unrealistic ideas.

Capt, I never wished for armored trees, I wished for trees that would make it harder for planes to see a jeep through. Paratroopers did carry bazookas (some of them did while most carried guns), there were artillary spotters did exist, again, I said tanks could cross water up to a certian depth, I don't know how much water, I just remember that number and said I don't know exactly how much or if it was total depth or water above the top of the turret. I do know that at least one german tank could be submerged with the use of special snorckle attachments. The germans did have an amphibious jeep or at least an amphibious car, and they did work on the anti bomber rocker. So all my ideas are valid as far as realism goes (in real life, maby not our cartoon world though).

[crazyivan]

"the bazooka tooting paratrooper",

I'll take 10 plz.

[A8TOOL]

I have noticed that a lot of ideas (and most of mine) in the wishlist forum get said "no" to

Don't feel so bad. Out of 232 threads, tens of thousands of views and maybe close to 31,000 replies maybe 5 wishes became reality.

My advise would be to stop wasting time posting in there and save yourself some aggravation or start your own game and increase it.

[dstrip2]

it would be nice to be able to call in arty fire if 'big guns' like from a cv group were in range. arty bases would also add a whole new part of strategy to the game.

WB had it. had to be in a bomber or gv, you called in a spotting round, waited the time it took for the shell to travel, looked for it to hit, typed in a correction in degrees and distance, waited for the shell to land, corrected again, and had them "fire for effect"

again, you had to be in a gv or bomber, and within range of arty guns.

[Nemisis]

That would be a good idea dstrip, A8TOOL, I was just using that as an example, this thread is to discuss how far the whole playability trumps realism or vice-versa thing should be taken and where it applies. I have no problem with people rejecting ideas as long as they have actual reasons like "it would give fighters too big an edge against bombers" or "It would make it too hard to kill bombers," But not just because they don't want to wait 5 mins to land or take off because someone bombed the carrier before they got into the air. The odds you would have to wait a full five minutes is probably pretty low, you will probably be flying when the runway is geting fixed. AND if you kill all the bombers like you were suppost to then you will be able to land as you please. But the point is we are letting total playability get in the way realism.

[BaldEagl]

In case anyone's interested Nemisis' posts currently start at the bottom of this page:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,287.3475/sort,starter.html

And topics include:

    Rescue of downed pilots « 1 2 3 »  Nemisis  38  286   Today at 10:15:15 PM
by bravoa8 
    New or revamped medium or heavy bomber  « 1 2 3 »  Nemisis  39  533   April 26, 2009, 06:11:14 PM
by Motherland 
    amphibious jeep  « 1 2 »  Nemisis  26  356   April 29, 2009, 06:09:57 PM
by 100goon 
    improved damage to carriers by bombs  « 1 2 »  Nemisis  24  243   Today at 09:47:56 PM
by AKP 
    AA on flat cars   Nemisis  2  86   May 29, 2009, 09:39:52 PM
by Castle51 
    Amphibious tanks   Nemisis  3  98   April 30, 2009, 05:50:18 PM
by Nemisis 
    dedicated scout plane  « 1 2 3 »  Nemisis  35  398   April 22, 2009, 06:00:20 PM
by Nemisis 
    improved cover for gv's   Nemisis  2  93   June 03, 2009, 05:08:39 PM
by Nemisis 
    Addition of weather in AH2  « 1 2 3 4 »  Nemisis  54  689   June 18, 2009, 12:20:19 PM
by Nemisis 
    new C47 "cargo"  « 1 2 »  Nemisis  26  321   May 07, 2009, 05:06:53 PM
by Nemisis 
    Vultee A31/A35 Vengance  « 1 2 »  Nemisis  27  361   June 17, 2009, 02:17:09 PM
by Nemisis 
    Improved position change in flight   Nemisis  0  46   Yesterday at 05:18:09 PM
by Nemisis 
    use of damaged buildings   Nemisis  9  187   May 12, 2009, 04:50:31 PM
by Nemisis 
    Damage Control  Nemisis  0  4   Today at 10:13:22 PM
by Nemisis 
    Wasserfall anti buff rocket  « 1 2 3 »  Nemisis  43  591   May 23, 2009, 09:38:50 PM
by CountD90 

Just looking at your post titles without actually reading the posts my first inclination is to say that, with a limited development staff, there are a lot of things more central to the game than some of the item's you've wished for.  Not that they are bad wishes nessesarily, just low on the priority list.

[Nemisis]

I never said they were high on the list, and again my problem is that people don't give any real reason for saying no to them,  I would accept "not a high enough priority right now" as a real reason.

I think they are all things we need, but not RIGHT now, I was just bringing these up to see what people though, see if it had any chance of being in the game and I thought "if it gets into the game because of what I said then geat, if not then oh well, nothing to be done for it, still a good game even without the stuff I suggest.



And AGAIN, this thread is to discus to what extent playability should trump realism and where it should. So if you want to make this into a thread where you attack my other threads then you shoud start your own and I will be happy to defend my position. If you want to discuss how far the whole playability thing should be taken the post about THAT.

[The Fugitive]

The problem is this is a game. The owner of the company has stated that being TOO realistic effects playability. If the the game is not FUN and it to much WORK to play, people are NOT going to play it. Seeing as the owner is in it to make money and NOT the most realistic sim around you are not going to see too many of your requests.

[BaldEagl]

So if you want to make this into a thread where you attack my other threads then you shoud start your own and I will be happy to defend my position.

Where did I attack your other threads?  I just thought it appropriate to list the threads you referenced in your OP since they were the focus of two paragraphs and about 80% of your OP.  I thought I also gave a reasonable explanation of why you may see negative reaction to some of them even though it may not nessesarily be a playabilty issue.

[Nemisis]

I kinda gussed that. And WHAT did I JUST say at the end of my post? And I also think that people should stop squeaking and moaning about the radio chatter, and the small weight for a runway to get back up if you don't stop all the bombers from getting through and droping eggs on your carrier.

And BaldEagl, I never said you were attacking my threads. It just seems that the attitude or atmoshpere of this thread is starting to lean in that direction.

<S> BaldEagl

[NoBaddy]

 

Trying to figure out how the title is related to the questions asked????