Killing the radar = bad

[Don]

>>but DO NOT make it nearly impossible for me to find action. That's just silly, and I won't put up with it. I simply won't fly if the radar is down in any arena, and I'm not alone. It's basic information required for a quick sortie and I shouldn't have to rely on other players for the info, because it's often too hard to get the information. They should fix this in the MA too IMO, <<

Lephturn:
I agree with you to a certain extent. To enter an arena and be completely blind is a real bother. Although in the MA it can be legitimately used as  part of an effort to capture fields/bases.
Instead of complete blindness though, perhaps an alternative can be to have radio messages from HQ provide information as to alt and number of nme elements at a base/field. This arrangement could be representative of ground reports to defending a/c.
Now the situation you described in the CT, I have to ask why?
Hell, isn't that the place that is supposed to be for the real hardcore types? The Full Realism arena? The place where those who are superior to run of the mill AH'ers go because the MA is beneath them? Hell, I never bought into that anyway
Sounds like someone or more took the dar out to gain an advantage, as if limited range dar wasn't enough.
And it comes down to the question about playability all over again. For me playability means: I am paying to be able to log on, find a fight, have fun and log off having enjoyed myself. In the case you described, it sounds as if the only ones who enjoyed themselves that night, were the guys who destroyed the dar

[lazs2]

Odd that when you guys come over to the general discussion board to beg for players in the CT that you don't mention that the main advantage of the CT over the MA is.....

not being able to find a fight...
lazs

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Lephturn
All I'm pointing out is that I feel the ability to completely disable one side's radar is one thing that goes too far in one direction. I understand that folks may not agree, I'm just saying that I think that is one thing that I think should be changed if you want the CT to work.

I agree.

- Oldman

[Vortex]

deSelys & Buhdman,

I think Lephturn summed it up nicely in the last paragraph of his last post. Worth noting one could still leave the <500 ft limit in place, and I'm certainly not suggesting changing the dar dot radar, just the bar radar. However, that is of course working under the assumption that one goal is to increase CT numbers a bit. I really don't think you'll ever draw much more than what's there now (50ish range on really busy nights) as long as fights are potentially as hard to find as at present. Note: this is more an issue when you've got 10-20 people online as opposed to 40-50, although its still a factor in the latter case. However if you're at that 20 person range and you get 5-10 people regularily popping in and then promptly out again due to their inability to quickly see where the fight is, just getting up to that 40-50 player range might well be taking much longer than it should.

Again, that's just my view of it and I can understand if the radar is a "sacred cow," for lack of a better word, and not wanting to be touched. That's cool with me, just offering my view on things. I'd just suggest one set their participation goals a bit lower though as that part of the setup can be a pretty significant deterrent for many I think.

Vortex

[Mr Hanky]

Until smaller maps are in place, maps that force a logical front, I think we will need to refer to the CT as the MRT (Milk Run Theater).

I don't understand the folks who do not want to engage in combat.

I understand sneak attack and the desire to take ground, but not when it is done 6 sectors away from any fighting. Then its just lame.

I was there with you Wednesday night Furious and know exactly what you are referring to.  2/3 of our country was attack undefended bases simply because they were undefended.  A total of 14 people were on-line making for a very thin front.

I think Lephturn said it very well with this:

Again I say, minimize the limitations in the CT. The thing that is fun and different is an Axis Vs. Allies setup. People are flying the CT primarily for that reason in my view. For the CT to be successful, you need to concentrate on that part and do not restrict anything else unless you absolutely have to. Do not be swayed by the vocal very small minority that simply wants a much more difficult arena, because you will never get enough folks to make it worthwhile if you get too restrictive.

Lepthurn!

[Raubvogel]

Biggest reason I don't fly in the CT more is milkrunning. I have no idea why people would pay $15 a month to fight AI ack. Seems that no sooner than a decent sized battle gets going, people start leaving to find some field 20 sectors away they can milkrun. Bar dar should always be available.

[hblair]

Just to clarify for those who might not know. Here are the ranges of the current radar in the CT, I just made some rough 50 mile circles showing the sector bar range. Around A9 I made a red ring showing the dot radar range. Looks messy but you get the idea. Many fields coverage overlap each other. Forward fields cover past the enemies forward fields...



I think our ranges are good, the problem with people knocking down the HQ is something else we need to look at.

[Vortex]

Hmm, that's interesting hblair. One might want to investigate how this works a bit more but here's a couple examples of what I've seen recently that just don't seem to jive with those range circles...

1) Yesterday I was flying from A5 as Axis. The two fields across the sea were Allied (not sure of the numbers, 62/63 perhaps?). In sector 7,5, 5-6 I stumbled upon a furball, well withing the range of A5 bar dar. Interesting thing to me was that the bar dar was showing 1 "friendly" bar, and no "unfriendly" bars (basiclaly one green bar for the 7,5 sector. In the furball I visually confirmed 3 friends and 2 badguy's (via icons). There may well have been more badguys but that's all I saw via icons. I was above the fight at 7,5,6 looking back west towards the fight at that point.

2) A few nights ago I was flying from A4 as Allied this time. The fight was north of the field in the 6,9,5 area. Again when I first stumbled upon it I was a bit surprised as the bar dar showed 1 "bar" of enemy. There were 3 enemy icons that I saw firsthand, and engaged, in 6,9,5. Again, well within the range of A4 bar dar.

The 500 ft basement on bar dar might account for the 2nd one, as the fight was fairly low. Which, upon further reflection, itself might need to be lowered if one wants to make bar dar more representative of action in an area (100ft floor instead of 500 as an example...you can still sneak under, and at the same time every drawn out furball doesn't work itself off radar as quickly as it gets low). The first example was still at pretty good alt though.

I'm wondering if there's a configurable delay time or something to that effect for a radar update, or other settings that might effect these representations? As well, what does each "bar" represent? one plane? Two planes? No planes but instead # of players? If other than one plane, is it configurable at all? Something just doesn't seem to jive here. I dunno, defintely confused now.

Vortex

[Sabre]

Roger that, Lephturn.  You're right...I didn't realy focus on exactly what your beef was.  I'll try to read a little more carefully, next time.  I did indeed make a knee-jerk reaction, equating "bombing HQ shouldn't take radar down" with "can't stand the limited radar in the CT."  Unfortunately, the radar settings allowed by the code won't allow us to disable the effects of destroying the HQ.  Likewise, they won't allow us to selectively choose to make the HQ indestructable either.  The amount of damage can be changed by altering the terrain files themselves, but I don't have any insight into exactly how to do that.  My understanding is that the terrain must be recompiled and uploaded to the server again after changing an individual target toughness.

I still question how much of an overall impact this issue has on the arena population, however.  How often have people run into this since the CT re-birth?  A bigger question is, would we notice any real change in attendence if I was able to disable this feature as Leph suggests, today?  I don't have a clear answer, and without one we have little leverage to use with HTC to convince them to commit the resources to change the code.

Regarding "milk-runners," all I can say is there are some who want to win air-to-air fights, and others who want to win "the war" (and some who look for both).  You have this same dicotomy in the MA, but the impact on the CT is exaggerated because of the numbers difference.  Smaller maps will help, but in the end it will only be solved by getting people in the cockpit.

Sabre
CT Team

[deSelys]

Oops Lephturn, I need to apologize. I misunderstood your post and guessed you wanted MA dar settings in CT.

In fact, I agree with your idea. Whole map dar shouldn't be knocked down by a HQ raid, at least while the numbers are low.

Vortex, I re-read my post and honestly, it sounds harsh as hell. Sorry. I understand your concern. I'm just afraid that if we tune dar up to get bigger numbers, we'll lose all those players as soon as we tune dar back down.

[Hangtime]

Radar in the CT seems 'erratic' and 'sporadic'. I've had cons visually confirmed as to type.. hell; he's shooting at me.. over a base with fully functioning radar at 7k alt and yet he does NOT show on radar.

It does not happen all the time, and i see the same inconsistency with friendly and enemy radars.. friendly A/C within visual confirmed ID range, near friendly base, well above radar min.. no sector friendly dar, no radar dot contact on map. A follow up check of the Strat picture off the clipboard indicates no radar or city damage for the country. Some dots appear as they should on the clipboard..  and others do not.

In short, Radar in the CT does not appear to be at all reliable, and in fact reliance on that damn dar not lying to you will certainly get you killed. Kinda like RL.. after a fashion.

I thought this was a CT feature.. I'm guessing now it's not after lookin at hblairs radar plot overlays.

[Toad]

I gave the CT another brief try the other night. About 40 or so in there when I logged on.

I am attracted by the Axis v Allies set up. However it may be that I'm just not the extremely patient type that is going to be able to deal with the relatively slow action of the CT.

If 40-50 is the population goal and that makes those 40-50 nightly enthusiasts happy, far be from me to complain. There are other venues with different types of action for me.

In short, I don't think I am going to be too interested at that level of player participation. It has nothing to do with radars or icons, "perk this/perk that"  or whatever features are the current holy grail OTHER than the fact that these features may be keeping the population low in some way.

So here's my bottom line: I like the idea of the "historical enemy planeset" and I'd play that fairly often. However, in order for this to offer a relatively attractive "action quotient" either the population is going to have to nearly double or the map size needs to decrease by at least half.

Short radar, short icons whatever doesn't make my palms sweat and it doesn't make me feel like "YOU are THERE". That stuff is just a difficulty level variable that's relatively easy to adjust to.. like what we do in TOD or Scenario.

Just my .02. I'll keep watching the numbers.. if it gets up some, I'll give it another shot.

[SOB]

I like the current radar setup of the CT, including the ability to down a country's radar.  If you don't want the radar of your country to fall, defend your HQ, and if that fails, then re-supply it with a goon.  The tools are all there at your disposal.  Don't want to fly without radar and don't want to defend HQ or re-supply if defending wasn't an option or just didn't work out?  Go to the MA, that's another option.

I like the idea that there's something that's really worth defending in a country.  If the CT is fun for people, I think the numbers will come, even if slowly.  Having the radar down for a country now and then won't affect that one bit, IMO.

As for Axis vs. Allied, I personally couldn't give a flying poop about that.  I just enjoy the CT and would enjoy it just as much if it was a mixed planeset.


SOB

-edit-  Toad's post just popped up - I like the idea of a smaller map, at least until the population increases.

[Fatty]

SOB, your joining any argument immediately adds legitimacy to the contrary position.

[hazed-]

I think to have radar down totally is a problem and I think maybe it would be better if Hqs were not a part of the CT set up.individual radar from each base could work.


is it possible to hav dot dar and turn bar dars off? is it also possible to set dot bar so that it doesnt see those 300ft off the ground?

if it is then there is a simple work around.
Give each base a 30-40 mile dot radar and remove bar radar.
this way if a bases radar is destroyed it blinds that base.
bases that are closer than 30 miles will overlap radar coverage making total sneak attacks a rarity if we assure it takes hits on several radars to cover up an attack.
If a HQ complex must stay would it be possible to make a HQ destruction reduce all radar range instead of losing it altogether?

it could make the game a lot of fun with easy tracking of enemy when they are over your territory (which is possibly/probably more realistic from the fact of observation reports etc) but when 40 or more miles behind enemy lines nothing is known.

This will encourage missions to gather together as they enter enemy airspace or use low level anti radar attacks.Also any friendly in enemy airspace would be doing a job just by flying there! if theres no enemy where he is theres no suprise build up .

perhaps making radar alt 100-200ft and difficult would make for exciting NOE raids to hit radar for the coming bombers?