Author Topic: POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?  (Read 1566 times)

Offline Loyalist

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #75 on: April 29, 2001, 07:25:00 AM »
2 or 3 thousand dont post here.

If someone didnt want it they could easily say "no" here.

67 votes out of 67 is pretty good, eh?

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #76 on: April 29, 2001, 04:55:00 PM »
No.

HA will simply create accrimony and discord, nothing else.

A HA will simply see players switch from one side to the other based on the best aircraft available, or if there is no rolling planeset the players will simply all go to the side with the best fighter.

I do not need snobs telling me how to play and I do not need to be restricted to flying for the RAF or Luftwaffe.  I happen to like flying aircraft from each nationality once in awhile.

Where the hell do you guys get the idea that no icons would be more realistic?  Is viewing these scenes on a 17" or 19" inch monitor even slightly realistic?  No.  No icons would be vastly less realistc than a modification of the existing icon system.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

MrSiD

  • Guest
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #77 on: April 29, 2001, 11:41:00 PM »
So what you're saying in effect is, that 90% of the customer base of Aces High are dweebs who blindly run after the easyest kills in the dweebest plane of the RPS.

To me this kind of attitude has always been a cornerstone in these online simulations (not only Aces high though..)

For me, it's challenging and fun to fight in lesser planes part of the time.. It gives this game a lot more variety than going to main where you're going to be gangbanged by hordes of n1ks and chogs.. Not to mention occasional Tempests etc.

Although IMO Tempests are way easyer to kill than N1K's 1:1.

I'm just wondering.. If nobody would go to the historic arena, how would that split up the customer base? I think there would be a dedicated group of players who prefer those settings and would gladly stay there even with smaller numbers.

And what goes to the main, changing from 250 players to 200 won't hurt it at all.. OTOH, 50 players playing 2 sides at HA is enough.

At least HT could give the idea a friggin chance! If it seems to go bad, they can always cancel it.

What about my idea of combining no icons to double size aircraft on arena? That would compensate for the small field of vision we have + make aircraft identification easyer from longer range + make spotting aircraft against ground about as easy as it was in reality.. There won't be icons to mark the planes, but the planes will look about as big as we experience them in real life.

Anyone else noticed how _small_ a lancaster looks like when you make a pass from it's tail at 50ft distance? That friggin thing should fill up your vision at that distance.

In the end, I think HT is more afraid that HA would prove to be so popular that it would kill MA like it did back at Warbirds. (Referring to the WW2 arena now, which is what we should refer to when creating our own, improved HA.)

One solution for the hardcore HA setting could be that: people joining HA get divided randomly to each side, so that player numbers on both sides will be about equal.
If a player ABSOLUTELY want's to change sides for some reason, he could use a few perk points to do that.. This would eliminate the side-changing after the dweebride of the TOD. If a player belongs to squad, there could be an option for a squad to fly axis or allied permanently. That would eliminate breaking up squads. Better yet, HA should have totally it's own squads because MA squads can consist of both LW and US/GB dedicated pilots.

Offline Citabria

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #78 on: April 30, 2001, 01:33:00 AM »
HA on the weekends or somthing like that. I would be the moderator and set it up most excellently.

No inflight radar/darbars

ground control radar only with no enemy darbars.

no cheesy windlayers

2x Fuel burn

2 sided historic front

enemy icons disabled, friendly icons to d3.0


15k rear field for bombers only with no acks and one BH (similar to wb airstart for buffs to promote formation buff missions without stupid hour climb).

acks rebuild times 2 hours.
everything else rebuild times normal  

rediculous number of fields spaced perfectly for gameplay and fun


Fester was my in game name until September 2013

lazs

  • Guest
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #79 on: April 30, 2001, 08:26:00 AM »
hmm.. not sure if everyone is voting for the same thing...  certainly a lot of people who voted "yes" would want it setup in ways that would not please even most of the other "yes" voters.

Ok... if we are talking an HA INSTEAD of the MA then my answeris a ringing NO... worst setup ever.   boring, lopsided, and phony.

If, however, you are saying that you want an extra arena that will have an HA (or whatever) setup then sure.... why not?  No one will go there anyway after a couple days/weeks.
lazs


Offline danish

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 440
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #80 on: April 30, 2001, 09:28:00 AM »
The icon problematics is another matter all together - a crompromise is called for here if lazs isnt going to be right ("No one will go there anyway after a couple days/weeks.
")

Lets just keep it simple right now: yes or no.

danish

Offline Hatman

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
POLL: How many of us would want a historical arena?
« Reply #81 on: April 30, 2001, 12:51:00 PM »
I want the HA arena.  

YES

AFFIRMATIVE

In that "other sim" I flew the HA constantly.  I much prefer the historical match-up which made for much more fun.

Hatman, out