Idea to alternative to replace AWACS radar

[atlau]

Not gonna read 14 pages.

But I'm a No on AI in MA in combat planes. Maybe for resupply or even fleet guns. Would have to be sufficiently nerfed tho so they aren't God level.

AI missions would perhaps have a place in the Axis vs Allied arena but I doubt that would bring in any players.

Better would be some kind of system that shrinks the playable area of a map - perhaps outside fields become uncapturable? (combined with better map design) to funnel fights with low numbers. The large maps are often cool but too large for the numbers of players.

On that note id recommend creating a half dozen AI training missions (last 5 minutes or so) to teach the basics.

[Meatwad]

As I said LilMak it isn't supposed to be radar. You keep trying to compare it to radar in reality it is meant to represent all systems of observing aircraft and radio transmitions.

HiTech

If it can map enemy aircraft all over the map, then the same should apply to enemy gv's

[Dadtallica]

If it can map enemy aircraft all over the map, then the same should apply to enemy gv's

Oh boy I can already hear the uproar now when someone gets plucked by an AI tank!  it

[fudgums]

LOL. What happened to the customer is always right? 

Not when the customer should be escorted out of the establishment because they are acting like a child. Some behavior is embarrassing.

[hitech]

LilMak,

The reason I have not answered your GV question is simple: I have not decided yet.

I see the argument. If the map represents all observation and reports, then GVs being seen should be reported the same way planes are. I also see the other side: at low numbers, GV icons could make it very hard to sneak a base, and that is a big part of the game for a lot of players.

I learned long ago to give the customer what they want, not what they ask for. What you are asking for is GV radar parity. What I think you want is fights where one sighting doesn't bring the whole country down on you before you get a shot off. Those are not always the same fix, and I want to get the right one.

That is why the radar update time changed. Going from 5 seconds to 45 and now 20 was aimed directly at that problem: giving a fight time to happen before everyone in the area converges on it. It is a step, not the last one, and I am still watching how it plays.

As for Crew Chief, the only reason it exists is to get new customers. The biggest hurdle for a new player is simply getting into the air and finding a fight. That is exactly the problem you say I am not working on.

Put yourself in a new player's position. They open the map, and if there is no information on it, they have no idea where to go. They take off, fly for ten minutes, find nothing, and log off, and most of them never come back. You and I know to read the darbar, watch the bases and guess where the fight will be. A new player doesn't know any of that. Whatever we do with radar, the map has to keep giving a new player a reason to point the nose somewhere. That is the balance I am trying to find: enough on the map that a new player can find a fight, but not so much that a veteran can't get a fair one.

When I decide on the GV question, I will post it here.

HiTech

[Dadtallica]

Solid answer this is how compromise works!

I still prefer the five seconds but I can get used to whatever.

[Animl-AW]

Not everyone agrees with these changes, even in this thread. No one is popping a bottle of champaign. But they do say it looks like a laggy map.

If we don’t take care of new players we are not taking care of our future.

Many ideas on bbs are for vets and excludes new players, no thought of them at all. If we’re going to reman a superior clique and not be inclusive to new players our days are numbered.

I think the GV point us just to get rid of plane dar. I don’t think its a genuine concern.

All IMO

[Spikes]

That is why the radar update time changed. Going from 5 seconds to 45 and now 20 was aimed directly at that problem: giving a fight time to happen before everyone in the area converges on it. It is a step, not the last one, and I am still watching how it plays.

Is it possible to separate tower radar from 'cockpit radar' (for lack of a better term)? Using an IF-THEN for simplicity but something like:

IF enemy is within tower radar range AND tower radar is up, THEN update rate = 5; ELSE update rate = 20.

[Dadtallica]

Is it possible to separate tower radar from 'cockpit radar' (for lack of a better term)? Using an IF-THEN for simplicity but something like:

IF enemy is within tower radar range AND tower radar is up, THEN update rate = 5; ELSE update rate = 20.

Hey now we are using our noodle good idea!

I also don’t think the delta between people in here and the people who play the game as that much different. It was certainly the case back in the big numbers, but that’s just not now. You can count the number of people that play every day and the same names.

My guess is about 25% of the people who play regularly are in here. And I’m not factoring in those that come for FSO or just event info. I don’t have the actual math, but from what I can gather, this feels more correct.

[hitech]

Is it possible to separate tower radar from 'cockpit radar' (for lack of a better term)? Using an IF-THEN for simplicity but something like:

IF enemy is within tower radar range AND tower radar is up, THEN update rate = 5; ELSE update rate = 20.

The answer is of course yes. But have to change a little data sending to separate the 2 states.
But I am trying to think of another way to have players be able to simply report the players they see, possibly by key press and anything in view gets sent. This then could also include vehicles.

HiTech

[CptTrips]

But I am trying to think of another way to have players be able to simply report the players they see, possibly by key press and anything in view gets sent. This then could also include vehicles.

I would have assumed it would just work like the Check-six but with a different key that only iterates over the enemy planes in view.  It is already a player learned behavior.

Or maybe Check-Six becomes a more generic "Alert" function.  If you stop on a friendly it sends check-six, if you stop on a enemy in the view it marks them on the map.

$0.02.

[Spikes]

The answer is of course yes. But have to change a little data sending to separate the 2 states.
But I am trying to think of another way to have players be able to simply report the players they see, possibly by key press and anything in view gets sent. This then could also include vehicles.

HiTech

I agree with a Check 6 style system. Players would need to tag the planes they see and that tag would have some sort of lifespan, say 30-60 seconds. Enemy can be tagged again, but at least it requires some effort from the player.

[Animl-AW]

Is it possible to separate tower radar from 'cockpit radar' (for lack of a better term)? Using an IF-THEN for simplicity but something like:

IF enemy is within tower radar range AND tower radar is up, THEN update rate = 5; ELSE update rate = 20.

+1

Edit: best realistic idea I’ve heard.

Thought of some form of separation last week

[hitech]

Also no mater what we go with I will have the icons fade with update rate.

[LilMak]

LilMak,

The reason I have not answered your GV question is simple: I have not decided yet.

I see the argument. If the map represents all observation and reports, then GVs being seen should be reported the same way planes are. I also see the other side: at low numbers, GV icons could make it very hard to sneak a base, and that is a big part of the game for a lot of players.

I learned long ago to give the customer what they want, not what they ask for. What you are asking for is GV radar parity. What I think you want is fights where one sighting doesn't bring the whole country down on you before you get a shot off. Those are not always the same fix, and I want to get the right one.

That is why the radar update time changed. Going from 5 seconds to 45 and now 20 was aimed directly at that problem: giving a fight time to happen before everyone in the area converges on it. It is a step, not the last one, and I am still watching how it plays.

As for Crew Chief, the only reason it exists is to get new customers. The biggest hurdle for a new player is simply getting into the air and finding a fight. That is exactly the problem you say I am not working on.

Put yourself in a new player's position. They open the map, and if there is no information on it, they have no idea where to go. They take off, fly for ten minutes, find nothing, and log off, and most of them never come back. You and I know to read the darbar, watch the bases and guess where the fight will be. A new player doesn't know any of that. Whatever we do with radar, the map has to keep giving a new player a reason to point the nose somewhere. That is the balance I am trying to find: enough on the map that a new player can find a fight, but not so much that a veteran can't get a fair one.

When I decide on the GV question, I will post it here.

HiTech

Thank you for the clarity.

For the record. I don’t think GVs should be on the clipboard. I honestly think that it’s a terrible idea because carpet bombing them would become the order of the day. The reason I was so ridiculous about it is because I also don’t think GVs should be giving away aircraft locations on the clipboard either. And for the same reasons.

The suggestion that the towers have a separate refresh was something that I hit on around page 7 or 8 and part of what I was trying to discover when Kanai and I attempted testing. I think it’s a good one.

I also think the “warmer” warning thing seems like a good alternative idea too (eventually). Kind of like a localized darbar. Something like a radar sweep (pie slice) around a friendly aircraft icon that shows the direction and severity of contacts in 45 degree arcs without actually showing exactly what the pilot is seeing as an icon. So, if there is a contact within icon range that pie slice fills in. If they’re surrounded it would be completely red pie. Since it’s not giving all the information away (heading, type) it could be a nearly instant refresh.

Thank you for instituting the timer. I haven’t had the chance to play since it changed from 45 to 20 but that 45 seconds was a fantastic night for me getting murdered but still able to get a lick or two in with my head on a swivel.

Lunch invite still holds up if you’re interested.