Feedback on new CT set up idea please

[Harppa]

what if finland had to fight the world?

think of it:
Finland:

109g2

Everyone else:

all the planeset  

Finns had 109 G2/G6 and some (few) Hurri I as well
Then of course, JU88 was there
-not to forget about C47 ( DC2 ), we need that for capturing bases

Not bad, not at all

[Nifty]

The original idea in the thread is interesting, and I'd give it a fly.  

I don't like the USSR vs Japan idea,  I think it'd be even more lopsided than the past Pac CT planesets.  Down low, the Soviet planes are faster and accelerate MUCH better than the American iron.  The Tony would be a viable plane against the La's over 15k perhaps, and the N1K could rely on the 4 cannons for some parity, but the Zeke...  sheesh, it'd be fodder.  USSR birds don't get low and slow without conscious effort on the pilot.  Il-2 vs Peggy could be interesting tho...   Maybe give some lend lease 109s to Japan and let's see.  

Britain vs Japan would be ok.  Spits, Hurris and the Typhoon (no Temp) vs the Zeke, Tony, and George.  Maybe the Peggy too, but dunno what the Brits would have.

US vs Brit would be ok.

[ergRTC]

Need 2 more jap planes and pac theatre.  Sick to death of running into 190s in my f6f.  Just aint right.  

Ussr vs japan?  A sky full of la7s is all I am seeing.

ussr and germany vs the world?  yawn.  I think its called MA.

[CRASH]

Ya know Sabre, you ask for feedback, we give it to ya and then you and the rest of the ct staff come up with reasons not to take the suggestions offerred and in the meantime the ct has so few people in it it's pretty much useless unless the ma goes down.  Connect in the ma has been horrible of late and there's still no action in the ct.  That tell ya anything?  At what point do ya figure the one's your choosing to take aren't cuttin' it and the whole thing needs to be re-invented?  I don't mean to be so damn objectionable but I'm just tired of seein' these damn "help us make it better" posts that never seem to bring any worthwhile changes.  It's really a waste of time.

CRASH  

Originally posted by Sabre
There was much fear amongst Allied leaders in the US and the UK during periods of WWII that Germany and Russia might make a separate peace, freeing a large portion of the Wermacht (spelling?) to oppose the Allied landings in France.  The thinking may have been flawed to some extent, but this didn't stop Stalin from using it as a Sword of Pericles to get more Lend-Lease material, and to otherwise wield influence at the "Big Three" meetings.

I'm thinking of coming up with a "what-if" set up for the CT that pits the American and British forces against a notional alliance between Germany and the USSR.  What do you in the CT community think of the idea?  I believe the planeset (with appropriate perking and field availability would be a pretty decent match up.  I don't have a terrain to run this on (though there's one or two in development that would work, I think), so it's not going to happen for some weeks, if at all.  I just wanted some general feedback from the player-base.  Thanks.

Sabre
CT Team

[Sabre]

Sorry you feel that way, Crash.  It's a very mixed community, and trying to please even a simple majority is nigh on impossible at times.  If you look through almost any post in here, you'll see multiple and opposing opinions on every idea presented since it was first suggested that the CT needed closer attention.  

Pretty much every set up we've run has been adjusted based on player feedback.  Those suggestions we don't take are often either impossible because of code restritions (or because we've received guidance from HTC not to mess with it), or favor one segment of the population too heavily.  And yes, sometimes we don't take a suggestion  simply because of a gut feeling that it would hurt more than help.  We make mistakes, we learn, we move on.  In the case of this thread, I don't believe any of us has "poo-pooed" anyone's ideas.  I'm sorry if we've been coming across to you as insensitive to the community.  Our ultimate goal is to see the CT succeed.

Sincerely,
Sabre

[Lephturn]

I have to admit, even though my views on what the CT should be frequently differ from Sabre's and others on the CT team, I feel they have been willing to change and update the CT using even some of my feedback.  I do think that my views have had some influence on the CT setup, and for the better Crash, so it's not a waste of time.  I'm not on the CT team and frankly don't have time to be, but I do think they listen to our feedback and implement some of our ideas.  That's all we can ask for really.

[ergRTC]

Sabre, I am just glad you guys are trying.  Keep it up.  

To tell you the truth, I will fly whatever you put in the CT, but I really do like the early war and pacific set ups.  I know you feel like you need to pander to the uber craft flyers in the MA, but dont.  Just put in interesting and varied maps.  I dont believe getting people in the CT should be your goal (which I am sure it is not entirely).

Most of the people in the MA are like most of the people in Los Angeles.  Its no longer the weather, or the beautiful sites, its cause thats where all the other people go.  I dont want those people in the CT.

Ever met up with a 109f while flying a spit 5?  Its a wicked fun fight right up until some shmuck in a niki shows up and completely ruins the whole historical sig. of the dogfight.

[Lephturn]

ergRTC,

I haven't heard people complaining about the plane sets.  I think the mostly historical plane matchups is the reason folks like to fly in the CT, and personally I think it's the "whole point" of the CT.  That said, the CT team needs to ensure that enough folks fly in the CT to make it worth HTC's while to dedicate VERY EXPENSIVE resources to keeping the CT in operation.  If that means balancing the CT to be more interesting to folks that don't share your interests, then that's what they'll have to do.  Granted, they don't need 500 folks in the CT every night, but I think they need to get it more populated than it is at the moment.

Anyway, I think things are generally headed in the right direction.  The CT group keeps trying different things, seems to be willing to change things and listen to feedback, and are all working hard to make the CT a success.  We can't reall ask for more than that!

[CRASH]

I've wasted way too much time making suggestions that have continuously gone unheeded.  The CT is a complete flop.  We can pay lip service to it all we want but the result is the same, very few people want to fly there.  I dont know what it costs to keep the server up but if its anything more than pocket change HTC aint gonna keep it forever with only 15 or 20 people in it a night.
I would imagine that sooner or later it may very well come down to make it work or lose it.
     We had a scenario become totally oversubscribed by people who were willing to be forced to fly stuff they never fly in the ma and many in vehicles and ships guns and in historical terrain.  Why is it that all these people are willing to accept these very restrictive scenario limitations yet refuse to fly the CT?  When you've answered that you'll have solved your participation dilemma.

[ergRTC]

like I said.  

California.

Thats all the answer you need.

Wanna know how to get more people in the CT?  limit MA.  

Dont do it though, cause I dont want em.



Let me have the 15-20 for as long as htc will pay for it.  

'but the the people are so friendly'

[Steven]

Skurj,

I like the idea.  As Eagler said, "Variety is the spice of life" and this is what makes the CT different from the MA because the plane sets and historical basis are changing constantly.  However, with this particular setup that you mention, you'd have about 70% or more of the same aircraft that are flying the MA.  I agree with Lephturn in that what attracts me to the CT is the historical plane matchups.  When I fly an F4U, I do not want to be dodging LA7s and 190Ds like I would in the MA.  This also holds true with me with a good "what if" scenario.  When Germany and Japan were defeated, where was the biggest tension in the world?  I would think a good USA vs USSR CT would prove interesting.  Say, USA launching from bases in Germany or Japan.  Maybe for once LA7 pilots would find themselves in an environment (altitude) where they are not king-of-the-hill when going after high level bombers.  However, I'm sure they'd quickly dive to 12,000' or below and there'd be some very good medium-altitude and low-altitude fights.  

One thing I think could really improve participation in the CT is if it could use its own particular paint schemes.  The MA can use standard schemes but say if the CT were holding a desert scenario, the planes would have tans and off-yellow paint schemes.  Beyond that, we really need more aircraft and I vote early-war Pacific.  (I really feel strongly that Aces High concentrates on Europe too much, but that's just me.)

(I'd also like to see a water map and have CV vs CV only battles.  Maybe uncapturable land for ports so CVs can respond [maybe a heavy bomber base too.]  You'd have to locate the enemy CV and then conduct massed attacks against it.  I dunno, seems thrilling to me.)

[ergRTC]

Hey steven that sounds very interesting!

Easy map to make too!:D

[Sabre]

Actually, there's a battle of Midway map underdevelopment that is literally made for the carrier duel.  As for the USA vs USSR, I've actually got a book outline for that very idea, an alternate history as it were.  In this case, it was the Americans and the British against the USSR.  American B-29's versus Soviet-produced copies of Me262s and Salamanders (the single-engined German jet that never saw combat).  The American ace in the hole was the Atom bomb of course, but the Red Air Force would make delivery a bit more ticklish than it was over Japan.  But I digress.  The Soviet vs US/RAF is not a bad idea either.

Sabre

[10Bears]

I nominate Crash to be in the CT team.

Many of us have been waiting for years for the opportunity to operate our own arena. To decide perk value, plane sets.. Hell they even let us make our own terrains. To me this is a dream come true. We are in essence, creating our own game.

It’s very disappointing to see this arena fail.  Sometimes I think the Freepers are right, the people are really sheeple that can be easily lead by the status que. We need some sort of marketing genius that’s been around flight-sims a long time, someone who really knows what Joe flight-simmer wants, I think that fella is you Crash.

If you say you don’t have the time, all they ask for is about 30 minutes a month, maybe every month and a half to set up tables, type in a simple MOTD and the thing runs itself for a week. I understand the CT team have their own board to squabble and sort out  what maps and setups work and what doesn’t.

Sabre and Hblair are in a way of knowing how to have you accepted within hours. and... if your looking for financial compensation, I think $30.00 an hour is fine for sitting in front of your computer at home.  

So Crash think about it.. your not a critic your a member of the community.  Like Curtis Le Mey used to say... “Just Fix it!!”

[Sabre]

It’s very disappointing to see this arena fail.

Gosh, 10Bears...writing us off a little early, ain't ya?

if your looking for financial compensation, I think $30.00 an hour is fine for sitting in front of your computer at home.

WHAT!?!  You mean I'm supposed to get PAID for doing this!
 LOL.  Actually, the CT staff was originally four people, and we're now down to three.  I'm not sure if Pyro is interested in adding the fourth back again, but you can always e-mail him Crash and ask.  Just tell him what experience you've had doing scenarios or other similar CM-type work, either here or in another MMPOLS.  Also tell him a little bit about your ideas on making the CT better.  Beyond that, the job entails having dragon-tough skin, fire-proof long-johns, and an even temper.  Do you think you can measure up to those specifications?

Sabre
CT Team (singed but not burned)