WW1

[Hollywood]

I don't agree that it is a DrI arena.  Maybe that is the most popular plane but energy fighting actually works in wwi as well.

[Lusche]

Thats pretty anemic IMHO.  Its certainly not lighting people on fire in its current configuration.
Whats the MW arena number?

I'm still working on the complete arena overview for my AH stats 2010. I hope I can compute the SEA numbers tomorrow, so that I can publish that stuff on Saturday... but no promises.

Until then: Total manhours played by "Active Players" (per definition above)  in Dec were ~ 126K LW, ~ 7K MW, ~1300 EW, ~1400 WW1, ~700 AvA.

[CptTrips]

I'm still working on the complete arena overview for my AH stats 2010. I hope I can compute the SEA numbers tomorrow, so that I can publish that stuff on Saturday... but no promises.

Until then: Total manhours played by "Active Players" (per definition above)  in Dec were ~ 126K LW, ~ 7K MW, ~1300 EW, ~1400 WW1, ~700 AvA.

Great work.  Thanks.

Yeah, if WWI could get its numbers up around MW I would be a happy camper.

As far as AVA......well...

,
Wab

[USRanger]

See rule #4.

[Tinribs]

1) a 2 sided arena.
2) 4 lines of puffy ack across the map 1 in front of each sides bases the other 2 either side of no mans land also across the map.
3) targets at the bases to strafe (dummy planes,vehicles,fuel etc).
4) 1 or 2 auto but manable machine gun posts at bases.
believe it or not I have been thinking of ways to improve the arena for quite a while,without doubt its biggest problem is that at present its fun but pointless so Ive come up with an easy painless fix,the reasons for the above are:
1) 3 sided arena doesnt and wont work.
2) the aim here is to keep the fights as high as possible over the central area giving the outclassed guy the option to dive out of the fight and take a chance on surviving the ack,to be able to fly over the base ack and attack the bases.
3) often I log in only to sit twiddling my thumbs for an hour until someone else joins,it just gives you something to do while you wait.
4) yes tanks,more planes,balloons and stuff would be great but I dont think they are realistic,this just gives those who dont actually fly something to do.
5) would also like to see base radar only for a trial period.

aka shotdown.

[CptTrips]

See rule #4

Hey Ranger, I was curious.  I thought you had a couple of WWI terrain ready quite a while ago.  

I'm no expert, but without strat targets or vehicle spawn points I would assume it would have been fairly wuick terrains to build (relative to an AVA terrain for example).  

What has been the hold up?  Tech problems on your side or in the approval process?  I can't imagine what would have held those up for so long.

Wab

[Hollywood]

I think Tinribs has some good ideas even though he disparages my most excellent balloon idea  (and zeppelins, don't forget the zeppelins, they do occur in just about every wwi plane movie and I can't live without having shot down a zeppelin.)  I think some experimentation is needed to find something that works.  I think the core idea behind most ideas I have seen posted is to get some strat involved.  With a two sided arena (A vs A I would think)  you need some way to keep score between the sides.

[CptTrips]

I think Tinribs has some good ideas even though he disparages my most excellent balloon idea  (and zeppelins, don't forget the zeppelins, they do occur in just about every wwi plane movie and I can't live without having shot down a zeppelin.)  I think some experimentation is needed to find something that works.  I think the core idea behind most ideas I have seen posted is to get some strat involved.  With a two sided arena (A vs A I would think)  you need some way to keep score between the sides.

I really don't think a 2 sided war would work in a non-scenario environment.  Unless of course all planes are available to both sides.  Otherwise, inevitably, one sides planes-set has a slight competitive advantage over the other and that's all it would take to hugely skew play balance.

Imagine right now if you divided it AvA.  Do you think you will consistently get even numbers?  How many people are going to want to fly F1 and F2b against DR.I and DVII???  Consistently?

Regards,
Wab
 

[USRanger]

Hey Ranger, I was curious.  I thought you had a couple of WWI terrain ready quite a while ago. 

I'm no expert, but without strat targets or vehicle spawn points I would assume it would have been fairly wuick terrains to build (relative to an AVA terrain for example). 

What has been the hold up?  Tech problems on your side or in the approval process?  I can't imagine what would have held those up for so long.

Wab

It's my setup week starting tomorrow, so I've been caught up in that.  I have a new AvA terrain that's 99% done.  Just gotta finish one last cosmetic feature then it's going to Skuzzy.  After that, I'll be making two WW1 terrains.  Yes, they should be quick to pump out due to the lack of strat & such.  I need to figure out the ideal field spacing so they are not too close or far.  That's the only holdup.  Once I figure that out, the actual terrains will be done quickly.  As always, I never use default textures, so be ready for some new scenery.

[CptTrips]

Once I figure that out, the actual terrains will be done quickly.  As always, I never use default textures, so be ready for some new scenery.

No worries.

I was just curious if it was your side or if HTC was holding it up for some reason.

I think your new terrains will be a big help.

Regards,
Wab

[Tinribs]

I really don't think a 2 sided war would work in a non-scenario environment.  Unless of course all planes are available to both sides.  Otherwise, inevitably, one sides planes-set has a slight competitive advantage over the other and that's all it would take to hugely skew play balance.

Imagine right now if you divided it AvA.  Do you think you will consistently get even numbers?  How many people are going to want to fly F1 and F2b against DR.I and DVII???  Consistently?

Regards,
Wab
 

Totally agree with this Wab which is why I specified a 2 sided arena and not AvA .

[CptTrips]

Totally agree with this Wab which is why I specified a 2 sided arena and not AvA .

Ah, I misunderstood. 

Then I'm curious on why you think 2 sides would would better? 

With proper field placement it seems to me 3 sided battle would always be more dynamic.  A steady-state feedback couldn't set in.  Its inherently unstable (which is good in an arena design IMHO  ).

What is the benefit of a 2-sided arena?

Regards,
Wab

[Tinribs]

Ah, I misunderstood.  

Then I'm curious on why you think 2 sides would would better?  

With proper field placement it seems to me 3 sided battle would always be more dynamic.  A steady-state feedback couldn't set in.  Its inherently unstable (which is good in an arena design IMHO  ).

What is the benefit of a 2-sided arena?

Regards,
Wab

At present the numbers are not high enough to "use" 3 sides,if the main fight is between rooks and knights anyone logging into bishops 90% of the time jumps over but more than that I think it would add a little realism to the arena giving the rather oddly surrounded "no mans land" some focus.It is and will largely remain a dogfighting arena with a very high number of 1v1 fights, in my experience a 3rd side joining in these circumstances is usually unwanted.There are many advantages to the 3-sides but until we can get the numbers up and sustain them its an irrelevance.

aka shotdown

[CptTrips]

At present the numbers are not high enough to "use" 3 sides,if the main fight is between rooks and knights anyone logging into bishops 90% of the time jumps over but more than that I think it would add a little realism to the arena giving the rather oddly surrounded "no mans land" some focus.

I think that is a flaw of the current field layout.  The fight only ever happens between 2 of the bases and the other team has to fly too far to join the action.

I think one or more 3 field layouts similar to the Furball lake in the DA would be vastly superior.  All 3 sides could access the same battle space simultaneously.

If you have 6 players flying, I think you get much more exciting action with 3 teams of 2 rather than 2 teams of 3.  IMHO.

It is and will largely remain a dogfighting arena with a very high number of 1v1 fights, in my experience a 3rd side joining in these circumstances is usually unwanted.

Yeah...well. I REALLY am not enthused by any kind rule burdened gentleman's club arena.  I really don't feel like milling around with a bunch of guys in powdered whigs and silk stockings waiting for my turn to be allowed to engage (only if I bow and say "Mother may I ?" ).  I couldn't give a fig for Marquis of Queensbury.

I wanna clamp my ka-bar between my teeth, pour kerosene over my head, light my hair on fire, dive into a swirling Hell storm at near Mach screaming Ride of the Valkyries while twirling a blood crusted battle axe over my head......nekid.


Maybe that's just me?


,
Wab

[Anaxogoras]

Thus the problem is identified. There are minor problems with the arena, the massive problem is the fact that it is the Dr1 arena for all intents and purposes. This aircraft is modeled not only as the ultimate turner (which it should be, of course) but also as a bullet-sponge that outdives and out-Gs its Allied fighter competitor, this last bit NOT being in harmony with anything I have read about the respective strengths of the Dr1 and Camel.

I believe it is a vicious cycle where the problematic nature of the arena drives people off and its lack of popularity means little spur to further development...

The Dr1 should be a bullet sponge.  It did not rely on wire bracing for rigidity like the Camel, and its fuselage was constructed from steel.  For an aircraft like the Camel, damage to its bracing could cause catastrophic failure...  The D.VII should exhibit similar robustness to the Dr1.

Data for WW1 aircraft is notoriously unreliable.  I notice that the plane comparison page says that both the Dr1 and Camel do about 115mph at sea level, which is barely slower than the D.VII.  But both the Dr1 and Camel were retired or demoted to second string combat by the end of the war for lack of speed, and the only German fighter the Camel could run down was the Dr1.