New GV dar

[bustr]

No Dundee I have a very broad view of it or I wouldn't be testing the limits of the terrain editor to make it do things like this. I accidentally discovered a way to use the bulldozer tool to create a ripple effect on the terrain resulting in small hills and canyons running down shallow slopes. So I spent Sunday testing it and also discovered a faster way to create rivers spaced for bridges. I think I accomplished on Sunday a lot more for the game than whining here in the forums will ever do. I'm creating something new for the GV micro combat terrain areas on my next terrain.

There are 4 directions you can pull the bulldozer tool across the polygon mesh. I used to delete two of them because they didn't give smooth results and were a pain to blend in. Sunday I found a way to use them and these screen shots are the results. Anything you build for tank combat you have to drive it in a tank to see if it is even worth using. I spend more time in tanks than you would ever guess at because I have to test everything I build for the GVers in this game. And I'm getting better at emulating the AH2 tree spacing which makes for better GV combat in the MA. I used Oceania to test that on a larger scale than BowlMA.

I guess that is one of my cats in that panther testing this micro terrain and I didn't make sure placing a spawn down on top of those canyons wouldn't find a game bug Hitech would have to fix. Or, hang you up in trees at the least or dump you on one of those micro ridges and tumble your tank down the side on it's turret at the bottom. What did you think a terrain builder does, slap all this in and hope for the best? If I did that Hitech would not accept my terrains for the MA. I have to test everything I build into a terrain, so just this kind of micro terrain, there are about 39+ locations on my new terrain this will work. I guess my cat will be reaaaalllyyyyy buzy driving around for me, you thinK.....

Does anyone see the bias in the polygon mesh that ends up becoming the ripple effect and all those hills and canyons? Hint: the arrow on the GV spawn is pointing south. Later on if the river is running along that bias line between a field and a spawn, I'll get to have one of those Oh crud moments and pull something else out of my whatzits..... This test was also to validate what the scale is hills and canyons have to be for terrain like this so tanks can fight across it. I tested many elevations for the ridges because there is a compromise to having elevation to shoot from effectively and not grinding a tank to a snail crawl climbing it and getting you killed. The equivalent in ACM of hanging on your prop too long at the top. Yes my cat did lots of testing with that panther and wrote me up a full report in meoweez.














You can see why I used Sunday to test what I did on a test terrain. There are about 39 feilds sitting on rivers I have to build and test micro terrain for. So now, I get to go back to creating the macro terrain that has to be finished before I can build and test all of the micro GV combat terrains on this 10x10 terrain. Or my cat will......

Dundee if you know so frikken much about all of this, why don't you build a terrain and save Hitech from himself and be the hero of all GVers in AH3? 

[serun]

I came to this game to fly fighters. And then I met the 49th. And all about the wonderful world of vehicles in this game. They taught me so much. I'm still terrible in a tank, and I spend most of my time getting shot out of the sky, but I appreciate what they brought into my awareness about GV'ing. And we always had a good time tanking together. I will always owe them for taking me in

I fear that our days as a squad are numbered. Whether you like the new GV dar or not, and I personally do not care one way or another, there is no doubt that it pretty much eliminates long range GV'ing. And they were specialists in the extremely long range GV mission. And I don't remember avoiding any fights. We usually died spectacularly.

<S> Zardoz

I am not going to get into the whole "49ers ruining the game" debate.  I do admire your squads patience and persistence in those long range gv missions. I do take issue with the statement you did not avoid any fights. I was one of many who spent inordinate amounts of time trying to find 49er tanks when you went after our strats.  Many times when an aircraft darbar appeared in the sector you would scatter like a band of scalded monkeys. You would disperse and hide under the thick tree canopy and more than once were even hiding in the barns scattered around the terrain. If that is not AVOIDING combat I don't know what is.

I understand you guys were dedicated to these long range gv missions and put a lot of time and thought into what you could do without ever flashing the target. You please understand that I would much rather have been fighting(dying) aircraft vs aircraft. I suck at dive bombing in the best of times and with gvs all but invisible under the trees it was just blind luck if I did hit one of you by accident.

I am not attempting to belittle you or your squad.  Many times I have heard other players call out on range vox something like "those guys know how to have fun" when one of your all Jug or all SBD missions would come in on a base to attack it. I would urge you and the other 49ers to consider that the long range gv missions that you were undeniably good at and apparently enjoyed so much are only one aspect of this wonderful game we all play. Channel the drive and creativity that allowed you to do those missions so well into other aspects of the gameplay. As they say - we are stronger with you than without you.

Hope to see you up in the un-friendly skies!

<S>HH996

[Zardoz]

Hiding under a tree is no more avoidance than extending from a dogfight. It is a delay until the more advantageous moment. I can't remember any GV missions that I came home alive from, so there must have been a fight somewhere. 

That is neither here nor there. And I have no interest in the GV argument since I am more of a pilot anyway, except that most of my squad has already left because of it.

[bustr]

It's taken me a year and two terrains to test and evolve micro terrain concepts for GV's in AH3. Yes, there were problems with the trees when the terrain tiles for AH2 and AH3 were compared side by side, I had to start somewhere. Yes, no one did any testing of the AH3 new tile sets versus the AH2 tile sets directly targeting GV combat play style because no one believed there would be any problems with the migration. And realism was requested by a large number of players in AH2 who subsequently had buyers remorse when their tank treads hit the new terrains. And very few players really know what it takes to fix a whole terrain or where to start for those kinds of problems. Now I do because I've spent since September 2016 building two terrains while exploring the problems for GVers. So 15 months and I'm into my third terrain with everything I learned from the previous terrains with micro terrain experiments to see how much I could alleviate that massive case of buyers remorse.

I really thought the 49ers would hitch up their britches and do this GV terrain work themselves because they were so vested in the GV aspect of the game. You have seen all the recent screen shots I've posted of my current micro terrain testing. It taken me 15 months of constant terrain building to produce that micro terrain out of trying to find answers to the problems GVers were presenting. Hitech was involved with his encouragement, and having a personal  interest in new features like the battleship introduced with my first terrain. A new cloud engine so I could produce cloud systems for the MA, and my exploring scenarios with the new bridges.

Creating content for this game takes time, Hitech is always working on the code, and I have no idea when 8thJinx will give Hitech some GV combat objects to test for inclusion to the terrain editor. People have been constantly working to make the game better and address concerns since AH3 went live. And it's not like you couldn't find our posts updating on the work we are doing for the community. Everyone has always been welcome to present HTC with something to see if it will be accepted for inclusion to the game.   

[8thJinx]

Bustr you're on the right track.  Changing elevations to maximize a tank's design effectiveness, different terrain features for tanks to fight over, lines of sight that maximize the use of a tank's gun barrel/range/punch, areas to maneuver in, cover to leap-frog to and from, these are all things that make tanking fun.  Stay the course, keep making these changes.  They are far, far better than heavily-treed, table-top flat terrains we started AH3 with (no knock on anyone who converted an AH2 map).  And you're right: 1) Hitech's job is keeping the game engine running, 2) terrains can be built by anyone who wants to spend the time, and 3) if folks want something different, terrain making isn't rocket science. 

I would add, at least for me personally, that if anyone wants to see something specific, let me know and I'll see what I can do.  I'm on the AvA staff, and we're going to roll out some berms, land objects, and GV-heavy features in an AvA terrain for folks to drive around in and critique, make suggestions, etc.  Hopefully by the end of January we'll have a Tank Night where we can see some of things we're working on. 

Also, for others interested, there's a way to really get down and dirty and play with the terrain set features and get some really cool ideas, without affecting FR.  The terrain sets are laid down in 4 mile seamless textures.  You can lay down each texture, take a screen shot from the Terrain Editor, and print out a 4x4 mile square block of texture.  Then you can do what I do and mark out where hills and plateaus can go, where berms might go, where anything you think might make the game fun, you can mark it up.  Take advantage of the built-in textures.  If you're not comfortable with using the TE, one of us can take suggestions and try it out.  Send me a PM with a suggestion, and maybe I can post a screenshot of the idea.  This is my hobby now, and I find it quite fun. 

And Bustr is right, Hitech and Waffle and the guys are very helpful in incubating ideas, and freely sharing technical ideas on object and map creation, textures, game performance, etc.  The lads at HTC want folks to have fun.  But, they rely to a large degree on the community to come up with the terrains to play in.

[Dundee]

See Rule #4

[Devil 505]

See Rule #4

[bustr]

Devil,

I dislike GV's because I'm an airplane fan. I also dislike poorly devised micro combat terrain for GV's when it's obvious from close inspection there are valid problems impacting Gver's enjoyment of our game. Our game and community is better for having their numbers and participation. If we loose them due to fixable problems, that will impact all of use down the road because it will influence new customer decisions.

I cannot touch the code so there are issues the GVers will have to become more persuasive than they are at this time in their arguments with Hitech. That aside, I can fix issues that exist due to poor micro terrain design with my ongoing terrain building and research into the GV game's interaction with the micro terrains. I want those player numbers in our game.

Hiding, clinging trees, what ever. 8thJinx did a cursory evaluation of the numbers I asked about of a before and after GVDAR introduction. The numbers are showing players adapted and it looks like both sides of the fight have increased their awareness of the environment due to GVDAR. GVDAR hasn't dampened one iota of the usual cast of characters who main gun skeet shoot my IL2 out of the air. And they still sneak onto airfields and greif everyone.   

[Devil 505]

I agree Bustr. Both you and Jinx are doing a huge amount of work to make the GV portion of this game a worthwhile endeavor for those who enjoy GV combat. The GV dar seems only to negatively affect players who habitually avoid combat. I have zero sympathy for their loss of fun at it was their behavior that necessitated the adoption of the GV dar in the first place. The GV dar has already had a positive impact on the interactions between aircraft and GV's. The game has gotten better overall because of the GV dar. If the cowardly bunch wants to quit over it, then so be it.

[bustr]

I really don't want to loose anyone, that got me started down this path. I still hate GV's, the game is better for them.

[Devil 505]

I'd rather not see players leave either.

Ideally, they would recognize that fact that the game overall has improved and stick around. But when they threaten to quit if a tool that betters the game is not removed, then I'm happy to say "goodbye."

[Ciaphas]

This whole GVdar reaction thing is a bit over dramatic IMO.

1. Think of the GVdar as sentry spotting and triangulation (This is the reason you are not a small dot on the map but a small square indicating a general area).

2. Removing the ability of a single player to affect the outcome of a war (not likely but not at all impossible) has been something HiTech has been adamant about, at least from what I have read in various other threads.

You still have to mow the lawn to find a GV hidden around a base. You still have to guess on the number that are there and how to best deal with them if you do find them.

The fight is still there and the war still continues.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Electroman]

I'd rather not see players leave either.

Ideally, they would recognize that fact that the game overall has improved and stick around. But when they threaten to quit if a tool that betters the game is not removed, then I'm happy to say "goodbye."

Look pal...Its your interpretation of what has made the game "better" versus the guys who regularly GV (or used to). You're not doing anyone any favors by encouraging more BS to push players out the door. So drop it and let this thread die.

HT is obviously not changing the GVDar anytime soon so no point in arguing about it further - all you're doing now is pissing people off and putting salt in open wounds.

[wil3ur]

Look pal...

*insert Terrance and Phillip argument here*

I'm not your Pal, Buddy!

I'm not your Buddy, Guy!

  

[Dundee]

See Rule #4