Author Topic: This Rank Thing....  (Read 1088 times)

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
This Rank Thing....
« on: May 21, 2003, 08:09:31 PM »
Sorry for coming into this discussion late.  I'm sure somebody's already discussed this, but I can't find it in the 13 pages this topic's got since January.  So, some questions and concerns....

In the 14 Mar 03 SimHQ interview, HT said squads as we know them today and have known them forever in the past won't exist in the ToD arena.  I also saw mention of player avatars having rank and forming a chain of command based on this rank, and writing evaluations of their troops after missions, which would affect the ability of the troops to pick up rank themselves.  Is that about the gist of it?

If so, I have some serious reservations about that whole concept.  I've been in my squad for all of its 9-yr existence.  Our internal chain of command is very important to us--it's basically the glue that's held us together this long.  I'm sure the same is true for all squads.  But now, it seems that AH2 is dead set on destroying the whole community of squads that's been part of flightsim life since the early days of AW.  No squads per se at all in ToD, and command positions distributed on the basis of ToD rank, so that squaddies get scattered out working for total strangers.  What's the point of having a squad any more?  I mean, doing that once or twice a year in a scenario is one thing, but when that's the everyday thing, the whole squad concept becomes meaningless.  

Please tell me that ain't so.  Please tell me there's some guarantee that squaddies can continue flying together under their own squad chain of command.  Please tell me that the other squads, which over the years have either become steadfast allies or Hated Enemas, will remain as recognizable entities carrying on their fueds in the ToD arena.

Also, please tell me we're all not condemned to endlessly suffering under the command of those have no life outside of AH.  You know the type:  those who get rank in the current MA simply by putting in countless hours.  This is bad enough in the MA when all that happens is some clueless, lifeless, talent-challenged-but-points-heavy schmuck snatches away command of a TG without so much as a by-your-leave.  But if such people are always going to be your FL, GL, or whatever, simply because they fly a lot more than you do, that's seriously going to suck.  

Please tell me there's a way for folks who, due to real life, only have time to fly once or twice a week, to play meaningful roles in the ToD arena.  I mean, a lot of our best pilots and leaders are in that situation.  By the time they learned how to do that well, they'd gotten old and had families and jobs and such things.  

And what's this about leaders writing evals on their troops?  Where are the checks and balances in that?  How do you prevent personal animosities, petty jealousies, the misunderstandings inherent in internet communications, and just plain personality clashes from turning that into a complete mess?  Especially if your boss is only your boss because he flew more in the last few weeks than you did, but you've been flying 6 or 8 years longer than he has in total?  How do you prevent abuses of power from totally destroying the fun for the troops who get shafted on the evals, and thus never get rank themselves?  

We all know the flightsim community has always been a long, loud clash of egos.  That's part of the fun, because heretofore it's always been harmless.  It had no effect on how you played the game, except for the pursuit of personal vendettas in combat.  Rant and flame each other on the boards, but you didn't have to work for the guy and his opinions had no effect on the structure of the game.  But translate this normal fligthsim community "love" into a situation where the guy with more rank can basically hold the other guy down, and I predict you'll have guys canceling their accounts in droves.

For many years, I've wanted more historical basis for the arena.  I was really looking forward to AW doing something like the ToD Arena, just before that died.  But I always envisioned this in terms of doing it with my same old squaddies, so we could enjoy it together.  We'd be the same squad as always, using our internal chain of command and all, just doing it in a different environment.  

To me, and my squaddies, it's our esprit de corps that's important, more than the game we happen to be playing.  If it comes down to a choice of having either the historical arena or the whole squad experience (my squad, and the community of friendly and nme squads), I'll keep the squad system without hesitation.  Which is too bad, because I'd really like to do this ToD thing otherwise.

Offline ramzey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2003, 10:14:36 PM »
good post i have same doubts
good fighter not mean good commander

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2003, 07:09:42 AM »
Aye but the point is you can lose rank as well as gain it......Generals will rise and fall.  Besides, they'll be plenty of missions so just don't join the one's lead by a commander you think is a numpty.



Offline Fariz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1087
      • http://9giap.warriormage.com
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2003, 07:25:52 AM »
In TOD current concept of squads is hard to fit in. But in classic squads will stay the way they are now as far as I understand.

About command, if leader has no respect, mission he leads will not be joined, or joined by casuals, thus missions will not be successful, and leader will drop fast in the leader chain. Easy like this. How many people makes mission in MA? How many of those missions are joined by more than 10 people? How many of same 10 people joins next mission of same person?

From all thousands of AH players it may be 10 popular mission makers. Same will be with generals, when they will hit higher than their level of competense, they will fall down fast.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2003, 08:45:21 AM »
This is mostly ot but its good info for those new to the forum.

First HT didnt say there would be no squads in AH2:ToD

He said

Quote
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD


There was another threead that already debated in this thread :

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83194

We dont know what HT meant by that quote. It could very well mean no squads. But I dont think HT meant that because I am sure he knows what squads mean to some of the players. It may just mean a new format. We shouldnt speculate snd wait for a better explanation. I for 1 dont want to fly in a lonewolf arena and know sevral others who dont want to either.

Now to rank and gameplay


Read this thead.

There are about 15 threads like this one as well but the 1 below covers it all

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77962

Also folks need to understand that in AH2 there will be 2 types of gameplay.

AH2:Classic will be the same as the current main but with the new eye candy.

AH2:Tour of Duty will be a new concept based on missions and survival. HT described as adding a roll playing aspect to ah.

Quote
The word so far is

missions generated by host

new pilots need to earn their wing....ie training missions

A death penalty that is rather severe, you will will loose mission points

You will be demoted and advanced based on total points.

This game will will be primarly geared toward role playing.
The outline of the game play items are as follows.
1. You will enter the game as a cadet and have to pass some training sorties to get your wings.
2. Once you get your wings you will be a 2nd LT with 500 carer points.
3. If you die you will loose aprox 100 career points.
4. If one your mission is a success you will recieve 10 carreer points.
5. If your points go to 0 you are demoted back to a cadet and have to go back threw training.
6. If you get 1000 Points you will be promoted to 1st LT.

Once your a 1st you will the loose 150 for a death and recieve 10 carreer points for mission successes. If you reach 0 your back to 2nd or 1000 your promoted. Along with a promtion comes better ground crews. So your guns might jam less,eng run better, but your expected perform a lot better. There's also medals and other stuff.

The point values in the example above are just for demonstration purposes just to give you an idea of how it will work.

Battles will last for a given period of time before moving onto the next phase of the war.

Missions with be automaticly generated by the host, and have a substantial AI componet of either bombers or ground vehicles.
Offensive missions will be primarly to protect bombers or vehicels, defensive to kill bombers, or vehicles.

You will have 2 avatars, one for axis one for allied. You will only be able to play 1 avatar per battle. There ranks will be independent.


Read the other the linked thread.

The idea is to survive and complet your mission. You will need to balance the risks. If you fly scared and timid you may never advance. If you fly reckless and suicidal you will loose what rank you have. As penalty for death while being at the bottom you will be sent back to training. HT described as an example that when you complete training you get 500 points and the rank of 2nd LT. If you die you loose 100 points. If you complete the mission you get 10 points. You would need to die 5 times in a row to go back to training. These numbers are just examples but give us an idea about what HT us thinking inregards to the "death penalty".

There are folks who dont like this. I think its great. HT needs to come up with numbers that are balnced. Folks who fly here will be flying for rank. So anyone with any intelligence will be able to way the risks. The example numbers ht gave wont work. Some folks may decide that they will only enage if they have a clear advantage. If you loose 100 for a death and only get 10 if succesfull folk will be very timid. I would like to see apeanlty for mission failure as well. Maybe - one half what you would get for success. But there needs to be aclear penalty for death. Not as high as -100 but something that has an impact.

The go back to training needs to be there to encourage ther bottom feeders to go out and accomplish something. The concept is to advance your career.

For folks who like the instant action of the current main it will be there for them. AH2: ToD is a bold step. I like the idea but dont know if the role play concept will draw in enough numbers to mke it fun.

Missions will be host generated on a set time table. This wont be an open arena. This combined  with the rigid rank structure may not appeal to average AH main player. There are a quite afew who like the idea and hopefully this will draw in others from out side ah.

The players writing evals on their troops comes from this thread:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77159

Folks were worried about

1. getting folks in the mission oragnized. Theres need for a mission leader.

Quote
Q: As the game stands now, you have gone to some lengths to maintain fairness with increased perk points for flying missions and planes that are less glamorous, increased perk points for shooting down superior planes, rigging points based upon numbers per side, etc. These aren’t things that existed in real life. In AHII, how do you ensure -- if at all -- that you don’t end up with a small core of very good pilots who get all the plum planes, benefits, and the like? Likewise, what plans to you have for maintaining some equality in the arenas so that we don’t have a 200 vs 50 type of battle that sometimes happens?

It’s not our goal to make every battle even. Some won’t be even by design and others won’t be even by circumstance. There’s going to be inherent inequalities due to numbers, equipment, and differences in mission profiles. Obviously, it wouldn’t work too well to just score missions and dole out rewards based on a simple criteria such as which side shot down more planes. To get around that issue, there will be handicapping in the scoring of missions to reflect how well a side carried out its mission under the circumstances. A Pyrrhic victory is no victory.

Q: How do you ensure that players follow the rules? For example, what would to stop a player from signing up for a mission, flying along, doing his own thing, doing it well, and then getting credit for a mission success that he may not have had anything to do with?

We plan to use a type of officer evaluation report where commanders would rate the performance of their flight leaders who in turn would rate the performance of the pilots in their flight. [/i]


But like the squad thing theres no real ansawer to how it will work.

Dont forget the current gameplay of the main arena will be there. AH2 is in a sense offering 2 games.

1 just like there is now

1 that is based on mission and role playing.

Pyro said Curval submitted anew FAQ to him sometime ago and I am sure we are all looking forward to it. but AH2 is still some months away.

Its too early for the "sky is falling". The main will always be ther.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2003, 10:43:44 AM »
They pretty much have to limit the MA squads participation in the TOD.  If a 40 person squad showed up and insisted on flying together their squad night would always be a bust. I have seen it happen in the CT.

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2003, 05:55:05 PM »
Swoop said:
Quote
Aye but the point is you can lose rank as well as gain it......Generals will rise and fall.  Besides, they'll be plenty of missions so just don't join the one's lead by a commander you think is a numpty.


That's not the point.  Me and my squaddies want to fly in missions, or at least squadrons and flights within missions, that are commanded by our own leaders.  We want to fly with our squaddies.  We do not want to be scattered all over Hell as individuals always working for a bunch of other folks.  We're a squad that's been flying together for many years across several different games.  We REALLY want to do the ToD thing.  But we will NOT sacrifice the squad for the ToD.

IMHO, it makes absolutely zero sense to junk the whole squad thing in the ToD.  For the ToD to have any hope of success, there must be a level of player cooperation and teamwork that is totally unprecedented in day-to-day arena life, the kind seen only in the last frames of long scenarios.  This degree of daily teamwork can, IMHO, only be provided by using existing squads as building blocks.  You will never be able to round up a bunch of random pilots, scatter them randomly in a mission, and hope to see anything other than your typical MA furball.  Even if the leaders you happen to get are reasonably competent.  Even if everybody checks their ego at the door.  Even if everybody shows up wanting to be cooperative.  Simple lack of flying together for any length of time, not to mention language barriers, will ruin it.

Without squads, every mission will be by manned by a scratch team, the odds and sods, the cooks and bakers.  Basically, exactly what you have in your typical non-squad MA airfield attack today.  So let's look at your typical non-squad MA airfield attack....
  • You have a bunch of random pilots with a common goal
  • You have a short list of mission objectives that must be accomplished to succeed in capturing the field
  • Every swinging joystick involved is intimately familiar with all these mission objectives
  • Success in the mission can only be accomplished by teamwork
  • Success with this mission, and all like it, is the only way to "win the war" and reap the max personal rewards offered by the arena
  • You have a few decent sticks amongst the general dweeb herd
  • You have a few leaders, strangers to most of the pilots involved, trying to organize things


How is that any different from what's been said about how the ToD arena will function?  And you know what most non-squad MA airfield attacks end up being:  total chaos in process, and usually unsuccessful in the end if there's any significant opposition (which itself is equally chaotic).

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2003, 06:13:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo
They pretty much have to limit the MA squads participation in the TOD.  If a 40 person squad showed up and insisted on flying together their squad night would always be a bust. I have seen it happen in the CT.


That's only because hardly anybody flies in the CT.  If the CT had the numbers the MA has, +/- 40 guys would have an effect but wouldn't be totally dominating.

Now, if the ToD totally tanks in comparison with the "classic" arena, as the CT in all its incarnations from AW to WB to AH basically has, then I can see a problem.  But the goal is to keep that from happening to the ToD arena.  I mean, HTC is spending a lot of money setting this up.  If it fails, it could cause problems for the whole game.  So what we all want is the ToD arena to end up with the bulk of the AH population.

This is where I see the big problem.  The bulk of the AH population has grown up with the squad format.  Squad membership means an awful lot to a great many pilots.  To some, the squad is more important than the game, for all the dangers, real life problems, and booze they've shared together over the years.  If they have to give that up to fly in the ToD, I'm pretty sure most of them will stay in the "classic" arena.  With much regret, of course, because many of these hard-core squad guys would love nothing more than to do scenario-type stuff every friggin' day with their squaddies.  I mean, squads exist to provide organization and teamwork.

So where does that leave the ToD arena?  I'm thinking, nowhere.  If the choice is between squad buddies and the ToD arena, the squad buddies will win in most cases.  So on non-squad nights, most guys will go to the "classic" arena first to hook up with any squaddies then flying.  And they'll probably stay there in case other squaddies show up later.  So only rarely will you see any of these guys in the ToD unless they plan to go there in advance.  Thus, the ToD will have just a few loners and sociopaths IMHO, because all the guys who crave organization and teamwork are already in squads.

Which would make your argument valid.  The ToD would be as barren as the CT, so having big squads show up would cause a problem.  Which would be a problem for all of us in the long run....

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2003, 06:28:28 PM »
"So what we all want is the ToD arena to end up with the bulk of the AH population. "

I dont think that is the case. But never the less I think the reason I gave you is the reason that they will not just support squads in the same way in AH II TOD.
The algorithm gets very complex is you cant control the size.
But asside from that. One of your guys could be the leader. He may have to accept non squadies on a sorti though.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2003, 07:11:31 PM »
AH2:ToD is basically a different arena. Any work going into one benefits the other. With the exception of maybe the ai code, mission generation and ranking theres no added cost.

If AH toD tanks you just close the arena. AH2 is not AH2 ToD alone.

You keep jumping to the conclusion that there will be no squads. The interview says squad format. That could mean many things. First the arena will be based on individual scores. So format could mean no squad scores. You get 2 avatars. 1allied 1 axis. So format could mean you can belong to 2 seperate squads. One for each avatar.

If you dont like it then then AH2:Classic will be there for you. All the issues you brought up have been discussed in other threads.

AH tod wont be dependent on large numbers as its not an open arena. AI will suplement bombers. All you you need is enough fighter pilots on each side in each mission to make it fun. So it wont matter if 500 people are ingame or 50. Its the mission that matters and they will be generated at 30 min intervals (last numbers offered) by the host.

Even a small group of 3 or 4 interceptors can have a blast  diving through 6 or 8 escorts and engaging a bomber formation of 50 plus ai.

It seems to me you have missed the point entirely.

AH2:Classic will be there for ya.

Offline ramzey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2003, 07:56:47 PM »
No Batz its not missunderstanding

2 awatars sure , but im not sure about membership in 2 squads.
I think its more like 2 diferent countrien without belong to any specific squadron.

When host announce mission u just fill slot like on current mission on MA. Then assign u to squadron which is flying this mission.
So, basicly membership of country not any specific squadron.

According to future command chain, pilot with best score /kill-death and streak/ will be commander for planes flying mission.

I understand this like that, and i think its not missunderstanding.

And from here start problem. Good killer is good commander? Did he care about pilots who was assigned to play with him?
Thats mean how good he can lead people and be part of team.

Most of "killers" are loone wolfes, how to prewent situation when commander like that live his own ppls or give them order to attack and wait only for good ocasion to increse streak.

sucrifice, teamplay i think we worry about that.

Secound thing is "trust".

Theoretic situation, what if host call mission who will be lead by highest "rank" this time on arena. Good commander who ppls trust. Just before mission come men who is scored higher , but not trusted leader. Did host give him command? If yes, ppls who wait 30 minutes for mission should live and wait another 30 minutes?

And example from RL, higest scored pilot was not allways commander of group/mission. Promotion  of pilots depends not only from his score , but many other details and opinions.

how to deal with this? If host will be promote all pilots. If scrip do this im courious what data will he use. Kills are not everything.

ramzey

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2003, 08:25:24 PM »
Ramzey read the thread :)

I never said that we will be in 2 seperate squads.

Quote
Q: Will squads have to fly on the same side during the conflict, or can one squaddie fly for the Germans while his buddy flies for the Americans?

The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.



Now heres the important part for those jumping to the extreme conclusion that there will be no squads:

Quote
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.


BH assumes this means no squads.

All pyro is saying is that:

Quote
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.


Now BH takes the most extreme interpretation and thinks there will be no squads at all.

We know HT has said that each person will have 2 avatars. 1 Axis 1 allied.

The squad format for AH2:ToD could mean that you can belong to a squad with each avatar. I am not saying it will.

The squad format for AH2:ToD could mean something as simply as no combined squad scores. Seeing how AH2:ToD will be a role playing mission based arena where individual scores matter more.

The squad format for AH2:ToD could mean any number of things.

I never said the squad fomat will 100% mean membership in 2 squads. But its just as plausible as BHs assumption that there will be no squads.

As to who makes a good leader is covered by the pilot evals as quoted here:


Quote
Q: As the game stands now, you have gone to some lengths to maintain fairness with increased perk points for flying missions and planes that are less glamorous, increased perk points for shooting down superior planes, rigging points based upon numbers per side, etc. These aren’t things that existed in real life. In AHII, how do you ensure -- if at all -- that you don’t end up with a small core of very good pilots who get all the plum planes, benefits, and the like? Likewise, what plans to you have for maintaining some equality in the arenas so that we don’t have a 200 vs 50 type of battle that sometimes happens?

It’s not our goal to make every battle even. Some won’t be even by design and others won’t be even by circumstance. There’s going to be inherent inequalities due to numbers, equipment, and differences in mission profiles. Obviously, it wouldn’t work too well to just score missions and dole out rewards based on a simple criteria such as which side shot down more planes. To get around that issue, there will be handicapping in the scoring of missions to reflect how well a side carried out its mission under the circumstances. A Pyrrhic victory is no victory.

Q: How do you ensure that players follow the rules? For example, what would to stop a player from signing up for a mission, flying along, doing his own thing, doing it well, and then getting credit for a mission success that he may not have had anything to do with?

We plan to use a type of officer evaluation report where commanders would rate the performance of their flight leaders who in turn would rate the performance of the pilots in their flight.


I am not worried at all about bad leadership. If the guy leading mission is no good then I wont follow his directions. I will know who he is and not fly missions when hes lead. If lotsa people think he is no good then no one will fly with him. This will mean he will have a hard time holding his rank.

I am more worried about some disruptive tard that flies around tk'n his own guys or giving away positions or any other number of stupid behavior.

Thats why I started this thread.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...&threadid=77159

Offline ramzey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2003, 10:24:39 PM »
dead link

i better shut up with my understanding of english lanuguage:rolleyes:

Quote
Originally posted by Batz
You keep jumping to the conclusion that there will be no squads. The interview says squad format. That could mean many things. First the arena will be based on individual scores. So format could mean no squad scores. You get 2 avatars. 1allied 1 axis. So format could mean you can belong to 2 seperate squads. One for each avatar.



ramzey
« Last Edit: May 22, 2003, 10:26:53 PM by ramzey »

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2003, 04:17:28 AM »
:)

Quote
So format could mean you can belong to 2 seperate squads. One for each avatar.



link fixed

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77159

Offline ramzey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
This Rank Thing....
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2003, 05:18:22 AM »
ty for patience Sir
but this not decrese my doubts/questions, even increse

personal i like to see ToD close to RL
looking from leading person point /i mean in air/ i wish to have obey troops. And there is no place for democracy in pre- engagment manuvers. Like no time for voting in fight.
In RL if leader perform bad, he can stand on fellow cour/honor court/oficer court or be report to command.
But i not see place for living mission/desertion by bad feelings
 
Rank system is not best i think. Lost pilots allways or allmost allways will vote against men who lead unsucessful for them mission. Even if duty was fulfill. And if minor planes was lost.

Another one, how many players like to lead others? Mostly players avoid responsibility for leading others.

Will be  option to chose "i wish to be promoted and lead others"
or "avoid flight leader role"?

Other doubts/question
What with ppls who not speak english? or speak poor /like me;)/. They have your own leader and communicate in native lanuguage. Till they work together everything work well.
I know allways somone can say "learn english" but this not resolve problem.

doubts, questions, doubts..............

regards
ramzey