Time for a new arena

[Hooligan]

I agree with funked.  I'm tired of hearing people whine about changing the MA to make it "more realistic".  I think HTC should add an HA so we can listen to people whine about how nobody is in it.

Hooligan

[minus]

what hapanening this treheat was caled before WHine when we asked for it??????????

well finaly wtg

[Creamo]

Well that’s a new one. Guys (Hazed) whining about the AH MA after they quit, while playing off someone else’s account! Amazing. That’s got to be a recorded first.

Anyway, I see no reason not to put in a HA for 1 tour. 1 tour, and when people get sick of the low numbers, and start fuming about what that HA needs, etc… they can start a whole new bunch of threads on something else.

These “Woe is me because AH isn’t catered directly to me and my tastes” are interesting discussion, but get kinda old fast.

And who knows, the HA might work, and what would be so bad about that? I’d try it.

[Toad]

Hooligan, now that was funny.... and so true!


Yep, start up an "ultra-realistic" arena designed by some guys that have no ratings at all and 10 hours in the backseat of somebody else's airplane.

Should definitely be the "real thing".  

[Dowding]

I reckon we should have some kind of set-up that creates historical 'events' that have realistic match-ups and arena settings.

We could run them at weekends and weekdays and I bet they will be filled to the brim with all the HA protagonists. All those great guys who left legitimately complaining of a quake-like MA would be catered for and everyone will live happily ever after.

Anyone else think it's a great idea?

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[Vladd]

I think Dowding's hit the nail on the head here.

Why didn't anyone else think of this? I'm sure the support such events would recieve would dispel any lingering doubts about the viability of a fully populated HA, and the need for one NOW!

 

Vladd

[AKSWulfe]

But Dowding.. how in the world would you ever get that setup working? I mean, that must be some kind of new technology requirement right there.

..and the people to run it... sweet jebus, where will you find people actually willing to run these historically recreated events?

..and the arena, what arena will you use? I mean, I only see the TA, DA and MA up... There's another arena but the title is in some cryptic writing... "Special Events Arena"... What in the hell is that for?!?!?!

..and the radar and icons.. How on earth will you EVER get radar and icon settings that these realism nut jobs are screaming at the top of their lungs for?!?!

Let's take this one step at a time Dowding, how do you plan on going about running these events and on what days?
-SW
ps: For the extremely thick and/or dim, if this post were an animal and my words were water... it would be considered drenched with sarcasm.

[Beegerite]

Funked, with all due respect, I totally agree with DZCamp.  Now is the time for those of us who want ultra realism to define what we mean by it.  Deep down inside I don't think it will happen because of commercial considerations.  However, here's what I'm talking about; if you don't have real life flying experience you ain't going to like the kind of arena I would want.  Without real life flying experience and extensive cockpit management skills you will kill yourself each and everytime you attempt to take off, land or maneuver the airplane outside of it's performance envelope.  When I get killed in my dream arena, I want to know deep down inside that I'm getting killed by somebody with truly professional pilot skills and not by some dweeb whose skills come because somebody gave him a gameboy for a christening gift.  REAL means that when you fly an FW190 you can expect it to stall/spin out if you look at it funny or that you'll groundloop a 109 for the same reasons or that a CHOG will be truly an ensign eliminator.  Make the flight models truly 100% realistic and all the arguements about armament will go right out the window.  Alas, we will not see this kind of realism.
Beeg

P.S. For starters I would settle for a HA with no icons except maybe the suggested red or green dot (shows up at firing range).  Maybe the terrain could rotate between Europe and Pacific and plane sets split among axis/allies lines.

 

Originally posted by funkedup:
Deez:  Some of those are a bit extreme and I'm not sure they would work.  And some of them are already in place.  In any case, the specifics of the arena setup are best left for another discussion.  Obviously some experimentation is required.  But as long as we have just one arena with settings that never change, this experimentation can never occur.

The important part is this:  It's clear that there is a substantial group of players who like arena play but would like some significantly different settings than what we have in the MA.

Paxil:  Did it occur to you that part of the reason AH is not large enough for two arenas is that fact that AH does not offer some sort of history-based alternative to the MA?  I personally know of 4-5 guys who did the AH free trial but left for this very reason.  They loved the graphics, flight models, gunnery/damage models, but couldn't stomach the gameplay concessions.  These aren't guys who posted on the BBS, just guys I knew from elsewhere who came quietly and left quietly.  I wonder how many more guys like that HTC loses every two weeks?  

You have a valid point though - underpopulated arenas could drive players away.  But if you have 50 online and can't find a fight, something's wrong.  Maybe the map is too big?  In the end it's a compromise that HTC have to work out themselves.  What's worse, the number of paying accounts lost due to decreased per-arena populations caused by opening multiple arenas, or the number of paying accounts lost due to lack of an alternative arena for less "gamey" flying?

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Beegerite ]

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Beegerite:
Make the flight models truly 100% realistic and all the arguements about armament will go right out the window.  Alas, we will not see this kind of realism.

You're right, you won't see that kind of "realism" (accuracy) in the flight models.

Personal Computers simply do not have the computing power to run all of the formulas for a 100% accurate flight model.

As for the other stuff, about the 190 stalling for no reason or the 109 ground looping, or the F4U being an ensign eliminator. You must not be paying attention.

The 190 will spin out if you push it beyond it's flight envelope. Simple as that.

The 109 will ground loop if you push too much rudder on take off and allow the plane to get too much drift.

The F4U would be an ensign eliminator if it weren't for the fact almost all of us have thousands more hours playing these games than an ensign had at the controls of a F4U.
-SW

[funkedup]

Beegerite:  Whatever!    
I'm not going to talk here about what the settings should be.  The point is that we clearly have two groups of players, and two arenas would give HTC a chance to make one of the groups less unhappy while keeping the other group happy.  Let's get the second arena before we start making declarations about hyper-realistic settings, etc.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[funkedup]

PS SW:  The computing power is part of it.  But the real truth is that the formulas for simulating an aircraft (or just about anything) 100% accurately do not exist.
And even if you could get those formulas, fat chance getting all the data to plug into those formulas.  

Flight test data from that era was very limited.  Many of the planes of WWII are unflyable today or are simply extinct.  Even if the planes were available, flight testing them or taking them apart for measurement and testing of components and subsystems is not something any computer game developer could afford.

100% accurate flight models are a pipe dream.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[AKSWulfe]

Well I assumed that formulas for the flight part existed... however the atmospheric conditions and such are another matter.

You would have to model it per particle, and that would require too much RAM, too much computing power, WWAAAAYYYYYY too much programming and wouldn't be worth it. If it would ever be possible to model anything per particle (hmm maybe more on an element level.. YIKES!), it simply wouldn't be worth it.

You can get "advanced" flight models but you will never see a 100% accurately modelled flight model for one plane, let alone 50.
-SW

[AKSWulfe]

BTW, while I may be a MA dweeb because of what I say/do. The time I've had to fly on the weekends, I have spent in scenarios.

I look forward to a "WW2 Recreationist" Arena as a deviation from my MA fun.

-SW

[Sandman]

Originally posted by funkedup:
We obviously have a schism between the gamers and the simmers.

Hmmm... I thought we were all "simmers."

Oh... will there be any "alt-monkeys" in this historical arena?  

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[Zigrat]

the biggest flaw with eth flight model is the lack of appropriiate force feedback controls with large throws like the real ww2 airplanes had. teh moment arm shoudl be bigger, and we would need a hydraulic force feedback device along with complete atmospheric modeling. not anytime soon.

it would be cheaper to spend 350 grand on a yak and go fly that way. more fun too