Author Topic: Now I understand why most prefer the MA (Read 2428 times)

StSanta · « **Reply #60 on:** February 15, 2002, 09:11:30 AM »

CT has much higher pucker factor. In the MA, you know when you're safe, you know when you're in trouble. Miles in advance you can plan your attack. Check dot, check map, decide.

In the CT, at any give second, you can get jumped. You're not even safe on climbout.

With 15 players on, me, hazed, saw and Hajo were unable to get above 10k before we got bounced. I had more fights in a shorter time span in the CT than in MA.

It *is* more difficult. For some, the added risks (and with them, added effort) isn't worth it. Others prefer that which takes more skill, because such things are usually more rewarding when one get them right.

CT is amazingly amusing

.

MA is training grounds for CT for me.

popeye · « **Reply #61 on:** February 15, 2002, 09:44:51 AM »

I'm with Lephturn on this one. I get real bored chasing dots that turn out to be friendlies.

I wonder how the CT would be with icons set to 10k for friendly, and 3k for enemy. You could still get bounced by the unseen enemy, but wouldn't have to waste time chasing friendlies. (I don't really care about "The Bounce", but seems like many CT fliers do.)

OTOH, I find that good communications can help make up for lack of icons/dar. Maybe when AHVoice works in the CT, it will be more fun (for me).

Also, hope that HTC will provide the option of tower-only dot dar in the future. I think this is sorely needed for special events and the CT.

Lephturn · « **Reply #62 on:** February 15, 2002, 09:47:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
CT has much higher pucker factor. In the MA, you know when you're safe, you know when you're in trouble. Miles in advance you can plan your attack. Check dot, check map, decide.

In the CT, at any give second, you can get jumped. You're not even safe on climbout.

With 15 players on, me, hazed, saw and Hajo were unable to get above 10k before we got bounced. I had more fights in a shorter time span in the CT than in MA.

It *is* more difficult. For some, the added risks (and with them, added effort) isn't worth it. Others prefer that which takes more skill, because such things are usually more rewarding when one get them right.

It's not the added risks, it's the added boredom. I'll take a straight-up fight over endless dot-chasing and unseen bounces any day thanks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the CT. I keep talking about it because I think it has GREAT potential as a different type of arena. The problem is that there are IMO very very few folks that think like you do StSanta, and a great many more that think like me. More difficulty for it's own sake I don't really need, especially when the side effects are less action, more wasted time, and more fights that are not fights at all because one fellow never saw the other. Fighting against other real humans with great flight models is the only real difficulty here, the rest is just inconvenient.

I still believe the CT should be primarily an Allied v. Axis plane set and historical terrains. It's not a scenario, and it really doesn't need to be any more difficult. Sure, there are some difficulty freaks like StSanta that want it to be extra hard and they should be accomodated to some degree, but the trick is to get the compromise just right. I think it's a bit too inconvenient yet. I like the 500 foot radar floor and limited dot dar (not none, just limited). I don't like D3.0 enemy icons mostly because I hate chasing dots that turn out to be friendly. Maybe D9.9 friendly and D6.0 enemy would be a decent compromise.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #63 on:** February 15, 2002, 09:48:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
CT has much higher pucker factor. In the MA, you know when you're safe, you know when you're in trouble. Miles in advance you can plan your attack. Check dot, check map, decide.

In the CT, at any give second, you can get jumped. You're not even safe on climbout.

With 15 players on, me, hazed, saw and Hajo were unable to get above 10k before we got bounced. I had more fights in a shorter time span in the CT than in MA.

It *is* more difficult. For some, the added risks (and with them, added effort) isn't worth it. Others prefer that which takes more skill, because such things are usually more rewarding when one get them right.

CT is amazingly amusing .

MA is training grounds for CT for me.

You certainly have a knack for putting in words what I've been trying to say in my original post.

Spot on, Santa, spot on. Its my belief that some just don't want the extra challenge...(shrugs) but thats their account, and they are the customer, whatever toots your horn as Toad says.

"Does the CT make you a better pilot than the others?"

No.

"Does the CT give you slightly better SA of any environment once you've flown in there for a spell?"

Most definately.

Toad · « **Reply #64 on:** February 15, 2002, 09:51:40 AM »

Maybe I'm missing something here on this icon/radar difficulty level thingie.

In either the MA or CT there's a period of time during which the IFF of a dot is not known. This period of time is longer in the CT than the MA obviously.

Still, I do certain things when I am in an area with an "unknown" bogey. Perhaps I nose down for a little airspeed, perhaps I circle slowly away to decrease closure ("buy time"), etc., etc.

The only difference I've found is that I may do these things a bit longer or a bit earlier in the CT than I do in the MA.

Unfortunately for me, my heartbeat doesn't go up, my palms don't sweat nor does it cause me to horripilate (for you,Nath

).

I'm just "on guard" a bit longer or earlier.

All that being said, I think I'd play the CT a bit more if either the count got up in the area of 100+ on the present size maps OR the future maps shrink 50+% , concentrating the few players that do show. (Last time I jumped in there was about 40. Folks had been saying this was "lots of action". I did not find it so.)

I actually like the A v A aspect. I just like the "traditional" enemy filling the sight. While it does limit the variety of A2A engagements, I find that the engagements in the MA aren't all that varied either. There's really only "a handful of the usual suspects" that you are likely to meet in the air and we all know what planes are most used. When's the last time you fought a C-202 in the MA or the CT? It happens, but it's rare.

So, while I don't share the pulse-pounding rush that seems to fuel a few posters, I do like some aspects of the CT. The radar/icon issue never really is a factor for me though; I just do what I always do, I just have to do it a bit longer or sooner.

So, if the numbers ever reach a balance with the size of the map, I'll drop in more often. Otherwise, I'll be where I can't afford to be continually alt-tabbing out to see how the Bajoongistanny Judge scored the Somoan Pair in figureskating.

StSanta · « **Reply #65 on:** February 15, 2002, 02:04:46 PM »

Toad said:

Quote

Maybe I'm missing something here on this icon/radar difficulty level thingie.

In either the MA or CT there's a period of time during which the IFF of a dot is not known. This period of time is longer in the CT than the MA obviously

In MA there is NO time when a dot isn't known, except in extremely dense furballs.

You see a dot on the horizon. You check map. If the dot is not shown as green on the dar, it's a friendly. If it's shown as red, it's an enemy. if it's not shown at all, it's an enemy that's outside the dar range of the local airfield.

So, only in situations where the dot is below dar or when several merge together in a big furball do you not know whether the con is an enemy or a friendly.

Quote

I actually like the A v A aspect. I just like the "traditional" enemy filling the sight. While it does limit the variety of A2A engagements, I find that the engagements in the MA aren't all that varied either. There's really only "a handful of the usual suspects" that you are likely to meet in the air and we all know what planes are most used. When's the last time you fought a C-202 in the MA or the CT? It happens, but it's rare.

Right on Toad, this is so very true. The potential for more diversity is there, but in reality, most fly the 'usual suspects' as you point out. And to get this diversity, you give up one aspect that I find very important: you fight your historical foe, or rather the plane types of that foe.

Lephturn, I dunno if you've had a bad experience in the CT. Whenever 10 or more people are on, fights are easier to come by than the MA almost. People head IN to investigate dots, rather than away from them. Fights range from all alts, but when there's a few players on, merges at 10k aren't uncommon.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: it takes more to be succesful in the CT. Not saying that it's just because of higher quality of pilots, but mostly because of the arena settings.

Whatever floats yer boat is fine for me

.

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** February 15, 2002, 02:18:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
I said it before, and I'll say it again: it takes more to be succesful in the CT.

Well, I'd agree that it "takes a bit more paranoia" but other than that, the skill set required for success is the same, isn't it? ACM, shooting, etc?

With less dar and a shorter icon you just have to be more aware that the "dot over there" may or may not be an enemy to a greater extent than in the MA, correct?

You have to alter your situational awarness "alarm" setting a bit. That's all it seems to be to me; you have to be a bit more cautious approaching and/or looking for dots. YMMV.

If that tweaks your G-spot, good for you. Enjoy!

As I said, if the numbers ever get to what I consider a "good" ratio considering the map size I'll do more of it

Right now I have to go check and see how the ice dancing is going.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #67 on:** February 15, 2002, 02:25:33 PM »

Toad, this past week (I haven't been up much, but do check numbers daily) the CT has been running between 10-12 % of the MA total, which is roughly 20-30, thats about 7pm EST. Probably more later at night, but I'm usually in bed by 7:30 PST (I get up at 3:50am for work)

I agree, if theres less than 15 in there , I'll either log in for 30 min hoping it will pick up, or I go to the MA.

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** February 15, 2002, 02:39:10 PM »

Well, as in most other things, individual mileage does vary.

Last time I was in there, I think I made the 40th player. Simply put, I personally did not find that enough even though I headed where folks told me the action was hot.

Given the size of the present maps, I think maybe something nearing 100 would interest me. Halve the size of the maps to concentrate the action and maybe 40 would suffice to draw me in.

Speaking ONLY for myself here. As I said, I like the A v A concept and the reduced dar/icon issue is not a player for me. I (usually

) manage to RTB in the TOD's without sweaty palms, constricted throat, red-lined pulse and horripilation.

I like the TOD's, when I get to play. As Leph said, if you can set it up so there is lots of action by forcing folks to do certain things there's not nearly as much pointless/endless drilling around.

Adios, muchachos... got work to do! Hope to TOD tonite but possible Wife-storm on the horizon. High winds, lots of lightning and pure hail is forecast!

lazs2 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 15, 2002, 02:53:59 PM »

more density allways makes a short icon arena more fun... "realistic"? who knows? I tend to not think so but... Add numbers 100 or more and you will have the problems that those numbers bring as well as having more fights.

Maybe it is easy to get into a fight in the CT but that realy doesn't ring true to me. I would love to see the K/T average in both the CT and MA and compare em. I do think that the people that are attracted to the CT are the same people who fly very caustiously (low K/T) in the MA and so don't really notice a difference. those who fly more for the quick fite notice a DEFINITE lack of action in the CT. The slower pace of the CT is noticed by some and not by others... depends on your flying style really.

double edged sword tho...I believe that when/if the numbers increase (like 1.09 BOB will likely do) and if you have say 100 guys then a large percent will be instant action low alt guys... It happened in brand WB in their HA.. What you get then is low alt furs between the closest bases and people complaining about no one flying "realisticly".
lazs

Nifty · « **Reply #70 on:** February 15, 2002, 03:16:54 PM »

these threads haven't had one bit of new or original thought in weeks. dunno why you guys still bother with them.

CT proponents say the same thing. Lazs says the same thing, and so do the other pro-MA people.

It's all very simple. You like the CT more, you fly the CT more. You like the MA more you fly the MA more. I like dark ales much more than lagers. I'm sure there are some that like Bud more than any other beer out there. Given this, I'm gonna drink my homebrewed nut browns, and they are going to drink their bud. I'm happy, they're happy. What's the point of them trying to tell me Bud is better than the nut brown? I've tried Bud, I know it tastes like watered down horse piss to me, so I am not gonna drink it. It's all a matter of tastes and opinions.

Anyways, I should know better. sometimes you guys like to argue just for the sake of arguing. please, just pick something different once in awhile. It's been awhile since Lazs talked about fields being closer together, why don't ya argue over that instead? Or what about Hispano hitting power? maybe side imbalances?

StSanta · « **Reply #71 on:** February 15, 2002, 03:26:04 PM »

Toad, the basic skills are the same. And you're right, you need to add more paranoia.

Doesn't mean people are acting all cautios though. AM in CT now: and the allies certainly ARE cautious. Flew entire flight, and only found running away cons. Was deep into England. Think I'll let them get a foot hold on France: that takes the caution outta 'em for some reason.

About the icon range. It'sm not just at pre merge and just flying around. The combat itself is different - first of all, cons might jump in you don't see. Second, if you're fighting a wingpair, one might get outta icon range, you lose vis, then come back, all in the space of seconds.

You also don't have the instant info on his speed etc when he's outta d3.0. So, I've found that the tactics used in the CT are somewhat different from the ones in the MA.

Steven · « **Reply #72 on:** February 15, 2002, 05:06:44 PM »

Nifty, <>
And that's where you blow it. You see, in a dimly-lit drinking facility arena, the lighter the beer the easier to see and thus the more action. A dark beer, you stumble around heading towards each dot/bottle/glass on the horizon and risk being wrong when you get to within ID range thus wasting all your calories...and there go those chili cheese french fries and extra spicy chicken wings to waste. Make it an area arena and those snobs drinking Boddingtons have to travel a great distance and risk stumbling, tripping and falling and injuring themselves just to find a good variety of people who are holding different beers in a way far away arena. Or just stay with the Lager arena and see the same few people drinking the same things as you.

<>
Excuse me, but they do NOT water it down.

<>
Do not!

Lephturn · « **Reply #73 on:** February 15, 2002, 05:16:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
these threads haven't had one bit of new or original thought in weeks. dunno why you guys still bother with them.

CT proponents say the same thing. Lazs says the same thing, and so do the other pro-MA people.

It's all very simple. You like the CT more, you fly the CT more. You like the MA more you fly the MA more. I like dark ales much more than lagers. I'm sure there are some that like Bud more than any other beer out there. Given this, I'm gonna drink my homebrewed nut browns, and they are going to drink their bud. I'm happy, they're happy. What's the point of them trying to tell me Bud is better than the nut brown? I've tried Bud, I know it tastes like watered down horse piss to me, so I am not gonna drink it. It's all a matter of tastes and opinions.

Anyways, I should know better. sometimes you guys like to argue just for the sake of arguing. please, just pick something different once in awhile. It's been awhile since Lazs talked about fields being closer together, why don't ya argue over that instead? Or what about Hispano hitting power? maybe side imbalances?

You miss the point. I'm not arguing over "which one is better". I like both. I'm simply pointing out that I would enjoy the CT more if they made some changes, that's all. I'm trying to communicate what changes I would like to see, and why. Not really argueing at all, just stating my opinions.

If you are not interested, you have a simple solution. Stop reading the thread.

Toad · « **Reply #74 on:** February 15, 2002, 05:37:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
these threads haven't had one bit of new or original thought in weeks. dunno why you guys still bother with them.

You might want to check and see who originated this thread and included what he later 'fessed up to as a blatant troll.

So WHO'S the problem here?

Besides, it's like Leph said...

1. I hope the CT does succeed.

2. Personally, I'd like to see some changes. (more people, mainly, but to get those I think other arena changes will be necessary)

LASTLY, once again, check my sig block. We agree.

(... without the troll, I doubt this thread would have gone very far.)

...and dang it.. no TOD tonite.