Map/Strat/Realism whiners :D , can you say......

[Seeker]

What Toad said.

[Yeager]

I was in the CT a few night s back.  Had ALL of the attributes you claim to exist in the MA.

Just lacked about 300 players I guess.

[Hangtime]

Whelp.. in the never ending quest for truth, and the avowed CT's penchant for experimentation..

..why not set up MA type icons and radar as Toad suggests.

As a test of course.

[Toad]

Jeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz Hang!

Because that wouldn't be REAL of course!

After all, think about it. When u get so close to another aircraft in AH that you can count the rivets on the tailplane artwork... THAT's when you need icons.

Not when you're 4k out and you'd normally be seeing lots of detail and good visual cues but you just can't with today's computer technology... you sure wouldn't want icons to substitute for what you'd normally be able to see, right?  

Got it now?



Sooner or later the rest of us unwashed will see the brilliance of Brother Jim Jones' vision if we'd just drop into the People's Temple........  say, would you like something to drink?  

[Miska]

Toad,

It is exactly the reverse of what you just said.  When you are close enough to count rivets is precisely when there shouldn't be icons.  If there was an icon setting for minimum icon distance, ie if you could have icons starting at say 1k, out until about 5k, then I would be happy.  I would use them.  But icons in close completely alter the nature of the fight by making it virtually impossible to lose a con or to disengage.  Until that setting is available, I prefer using no icons at all.  Anyway, with access to radar info in-flight, who needs icons?

[AKDejaVu]

Miska, its called sarcasm.  You are stating what toad implied through sarcastic tones.

If you don't quite get his sarcasm, do a search of the gameplay forum using his ID and "visual range" in the search parameter.

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

Originally posted by Miska
Toad,

It is exactly the reverse of what you just said.  When you are close enough to count rivets is precisely when there shouldn't be icons

EXACTLY Miska. I TOTALLY agree and have said so many, many times. Deja is right; I was being sarcastic. I apologize but this "icon thing" is one of the few things that is so misunderstood by folks that have never chased another airplane through the sky that it sometimes brings out the worst in me. Again, I apologize.

We BOTH agree you don't need icons when you are in basic max shooting range... 1000 yds, 800 yds, 600 yds.. whatever.

Here's where you and I differ however. I DO think some sort of visual aid is necessary at ranges where current computer, video and gaming technologies do not provide "visual cues" that are at least REASONABLY close to what one would see in Real Life (Tm).

The game doesn't allow us to have "distant" icons and then having the icons disappear when you get close. It's not in the programming. HT and I have chatted about this and we agreed to disagree.. with no hard feelings on either side because we both know it's still a GREAT game.

In fact, the game is set up the OTHER way. You can turn off distant icons and still have close icons or you can have no icons at all.
 
So, you apparently feel that having "no icons" or "no distant icons but close icons" is "better" or "more realistic" or "more immersive" or whatever than having MA style icons.

I feel the need for distant visual cues is great enough that I'd rather have MA style icons to get those visual cues at ranges where I'd normally be seeing things in RL (Tm).

I think that turning off distant icons is obviously counter-intuitive; THAT is the info we need that we CAN'T get from today's technology.

It's the CLOSE icons that need turning off. Who needs close-in icons when the technology gives you sufficient visual cues for shooting?

But the game does not have that option. So, in order to get the info that the technology can't give me, I'll take distant icons. If I have to have close icons to get the distant ones, so be it. I don't shoot at the icons when I'm in range anyway.. I use the current technology artwork/display visual cues to line up my shot. So, I'll use the distant ones to plan my attack or defense and I'll ignore close icons when it comes time to shoot.

[Toad]

Lest you think I haven't given much thought to the icon issue, here's a post of mine from nearly 3 years ago.

***************

"If we're going to actually try a few different means of IFF instead of this 10 year old system, I'd be really happy.

Here's a few points to ponder. These thoughts are based on a non-historical arena, where all sides fly all planes. Strict Historical could/should be different.

Ranges would have to be hashed out but that's an area that affords easy experimentaion once the overall system is set.

1. At long range, a plane dot whether friend or foe, fighter or bomber dot should just be an unknown dot.

2. As range closes, one would be able to distinguish a dot as a bomber earlier than a fighter. Therefore, some sort of "buff" ID should show at a range that would still be a dot for a fighter. At this range you couldn't tell friend from foe.

This means a dot could be either a long range plane of either type or a closer fighter that is not yet distinguishable. You just couldn't tell.

3. As range further decreased, a fighter ID should show. You should also now be able to tell, in some way, friend from foe, perhaps just a red dot at nose, tail and wingtips. This assumes that we would in Real Life be distinguishing plane type. Again, this would be a different range for a bomber than a fighter.

4. Now, after IFF range, add distance information. Range info should perhaps only be shown in 1k or .5k increments to avoid the rapidly running counters. I would not show range beyond a certain distance, a yet to be determined "threat" range, and I would remove it as the aircraft comes to "guns range." Perhaps cut out range info inside of 1k or .5k at minimum. You need IFF here, but you don't need range when you're ready to shoot. That should be part of pilot skills and judgement.

5. I would have no aircraft type ID available at ranges that allow you to distinugish that info from the graphics. (determined for the lowest resolution avail). I would allow some simple "type" info at ranges where you could see it in real life.

Different colored dots, arrows, numbers...any of these could be used to provide this type of information while minimizing and shrinking the huge icons we now have.

Just some thoughts. I'm sure everyone has some ideas and I'd love to read them. I hope we can get a meaningful discussion going and I also hope we can talk HTC into experimenting in the SEA with "alternative Icon lifestyles"."

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Toad

Yet, like true missionaries, the faithful are sure they know the one true path.
 

Thats a bit presumptuous of you don't you think?

[Toad]

I'm never the one saying "we have plenty of people in the CT. It's perfect with only ten players" one minute and then posting in General Discussion asking people to give it a try because it would be better with more players.

I was also here when the CT idea was first raised and the pleading was in full cry. I also read the statements made by some folks in the CT forum and here in General Discussion when the CT was authorized. I don't really think I'm being presumptuous given what I've read.

Note that I don't attribute these notions, thoughts, statements or viewpoints to any one person.

Rather it's merely my perception of what I see continually posted here in General Discussion.

Perceptions, like mileage, may vary.

Yes, I know. I'm totally mistaken and I'm sorry I posted this and apolgize profusely in advance.

[Tumor]

For what it's worth... I am simply making a suggestion.  A simple suggestion, to those not satisfied with the MA, nothing more.  Why? Because the same "complaints" are made again and again about the MA... complaints (or suggestions) that are obviously not going to change anything.

  It's just an idea.... and a request sent to players.  That being, if you don't like the MA, why not try the CT.. and perhaps help build the numbers there.

 

[CptTrips]

I think everyone should try CT for a time.  

I think everyone should try a "Tour of Duty" at least once.  

I think everyone should try a scenario at least once.  

Some may prefer the CT, some the MA.  Some may wait and only fly scenarios.   Some may do a bit of all three.  Any of those decisions are perfectly valid in my opinion.  But no matter what the decision, it should be an informed one.  And you won't know unless you've tried it.  

That being said,  I don't think the CT's numbers have anything to do with people not knowing about it.  But I don't begrudge them a little advertising on the bbs anymore than I do people announcing an upcoming "Tour of Duty" or scenario.

I think a lot of us should be a little less partisan and think about how fortunate we are to have so many interesting choices.

Regards,
Wab

[Tumor]

If I ever get back to a normal daylight work schedule, I'll NEVER miss a TOD, or snapshot... or scenario!

[Karnak]

I agree with everything Toad has posted in here.

The only difference is that I occassionally fly in the CT.

[Miska]

Toad, I see what you are saying.  Sorry for missing out on the sarcasm, I am new on this side of the fence

I don't see why HTC won't consider putting another setting in the "F2 rotation".  Like the friendly only and no icons settings, it would be purely voluntary, and can only please some players, not displease others.  So why not do it

I still disagree with you in the sense that I would rather have no icons than take the close with the long.  After a few weeks, I have found that although I don't have "long info" about plane type (which clearly I should), I very rarely am wrong about IFF, even at very long ranges.  With dot behaviour and Dar, I have all I need.  Besides, it forces me to fly more conservatively, treating all dots as enemy until I get more information. That is a feature of all contemporary first hand accounts of which I am aware.  And the in-close benefits are so great that they easily outweigh any long range disadvantages.

In summary, I see what you are saying, and I agree with most of what you say.