This Rank Thing....

[hazed-]

From what i understand AH2 will work in this way:

1.While you are of low rank you will have little choice of your plane type, its loadout or your mission.
2. As you gain rank you get to choose your loadouts or get better choices of aircraft perhaps begin to gain rank
3.Once of a suitable rank you can start to plan missions maybe or fly some of the top aircraft.
4.Plan successfull missions and your score goes up quickly.Rewarding all who participate especially the planner with score and possibly rewards of rank.
5.Will players HAVE to accept a rise in rank? Im hoping not so if you opt just to dogfight or do dogsbody work you keep a low rank by choice and if you like to plan etc then you accept every promotion.

This to me looks like a perfect way for a CO of a squad to start running a squad like the REAL thing.How can you not like the idea of that???

think about it.The Rank of your squad CO neednt be the highest in the squad,Your XO and flight leaders dont have to have the highest kills to be the accepted lead in your squad now nor will they have to in AH2. Sure they will have to be average in skill to gain at least SOME rank but is this so bad??
I think this will not be a problem for the majority of squadleaders to gain a bit of rank and maintain it. I think it will actually encourage squad groups even more! Remember in WW2 when a particular pilot does well he is rewarded and his experience is seized upon for use as flight leads etc. the same will happen in AH2. You will know by their rank who is suitable for various positions in your squad.

I personally am looking forward to the rank side with a lot of interest. I am an average player as i tend to die a lot due to my lack of care about surviving over my desire for another kill and as AH is now im rewarded fairly well for flying like this.I love to make missions but have always been disapointed that theres not some sort of extra reward for the players who join them and try hard to fly like the real squadrons did.
If AH2 makes me start to fly like its a one life snapshot or scenario then ALL the better! I will have to try hard to fly well in order to be able to make missions? GREAT stuff!!
I say HTC give us a real challenge to gain rank and be able to command. The harder it is id say the longer it will hold peoples attention and desire to get higher.I think its just what AH needs to sustain long term interest.The quick fix will always bethere in the MA so its perfect.

[Batz]

Q:Briefly describe the rank progression as you envision it. Will this be simply a ‘perk point’ based rank increase or will certain people be chosen to run certain aspects of the arena, akin to the CM setup that we have for the TOD and Snapshot events?

Rank progession will be similar a typical RPG with experience points and levels except that we will have ranks and career points or whatever we decide to call them. It’s totally different from our perk point system in that it is mainly achieved through mission success rather than just how many kills you get.

ToD runs as an automated process so there’s nothing like a CM required. We’re considering allowing players to design campaigns and missions. The big drawback to that is that they wouldn’t be able to participate in them.

Q:How are mission orders generated? At what level, or rank, will gamers be able to create missions or will this be limited to a few selected individuals? How will the staff be used to control the numbers of missions and who makes them?

Players don’t create missions. The missions come down from HQ a.k.a. the host. In planning an attack, the best mission plan would be one with no enemy contact. However, that would make for a pretty dull mission and we don’t want that. So the missions are orchestrated to give an almost certain probability of enemy contact while preserving the ability to be surprised and have to react.

Player generated missions wont be there like in the ah main. Theres talk of allowing players to generate campaigns or mission but they wouldnt be leading them.

In regards to Poor Flight leaders

Q: How do you ensure unit cohesion without having players taking orders from another player? Or is that exactly what you have in mind?

Players will have to take both host and player generated instruction. There is no freelancing in ToD. If a player wants to take part in organized missions but also wants to be free to do whatever they feel, well that’s a paradox we can’t provide for.

Some players are concerned about having to take instructions from other players, but it’s not a major concern for us. It’s just about getting organized so that everybody understands their responsibilities in a mission and you don’t end up with everybody trying to do the same task while other vital components of the mission are ignored. Even so, as Murphy’s Laws of Combat states, "No plan survives enemy contact intact."

In the real military there are poor leaders and there’s not much you can do about it as a subordinate (fragging aside). But that’s not really the case in ToD and it will become a self-regulating process. Nobody is going to want to follow poor leaders and nobody is going to want to lead poor followers.

No one will follow a tard

[Fariz]

What I am absolutly, 200% sure, is that the initial model for AHII TOD will be changed and tuned and changed and tuned again all the way during the AHII beta and in every single patch which will follow after it is final So, we will have many things to be uhnappy about then, do not need to start folling into depression now

[ramzey]

who folling into depresion? we just courious:)

[Bullethead]

Batz said:

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 you dont like it then then AH2:Classic will be there for you.

Forget the damn "classic" arena.  That's MOTSOS MA landgrab chaos.  New graphics and some engine improvments won't alter how the game is played.  And if that sort of gameplay was what I was interested in, I wouldn't be spending any time reading this topic because there's nothing to worry about there.  MOTSOS will continue as before, per HT himself.  

No, what me, you, and everybody else here is interested in is the friggin' ToD arena because it's the only thing that offers some new and potentially cool changes in the gameplay experience.  Look how many scenario regulars are posting in this topic.  Do you think they're the least bit interested in the fact that MA-style play will continue when there's something more scenario-like on the table?

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

You seem to think that setting up the ToD arena is a trivial thing, like creating the CT or DA.  IOW, no big investment in it, no big loss if it goes nowhere.  But from what HT said at last year's Con, that's definitely not the case.  Creating the ToD thing apparently is a major undertaking requiring a large investment in time, talent, and labor (IOW, money).  If this investment fails to pay off, it might have the potential to cause financial problems for HTC.  I have no idea how big a risk HTC is taking on the ToD, but it's certainly a gamble to some extent, the failure of which would probably be noticeable even if not catastrophic.  That being the case, it's in all our interests, as customer who want to see AH and HTC prosper, that the ToD succeed in a big way.

You keep jumping to the conclusion that there will be no squads. The interview says squad format. That could mean many things.

Nope.  It means exactly 1 thing.  Read HT's answer in the context of the question he was asked:

SIMHQ:  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?

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

The interviewer clearly assumed that squads would continue to exist, and was asking for details of how they'd work.  And HT cut him off by saying squads wouldn't exist, thus making the actual question moot.  That's why he didn't answer that question.

So, as it stands now, there will not be squads in the ToD.  At all.  Period.  No ambiguity at all there.

All the issues you brought up have been discussed in other threads.

Nope.  If they had been, there'd have been a huge amount of hate and discontent spilling out of this topic and into the general consciousness of the AH community.  But the fact that no squads will exist in the ToD seems to have gone unnoticed.  After all, this topic's 13 pages since 28 Jan 03 are at least 99.999% "HT please fix this aspect of the flight/damage model" or "HT please put my favorite plane in there".  Nobody seems to have given much thought at all to the implications of the changes in actual gameplay.

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. ... 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.

Oh boy, that sounds about as much fun as playing something offline-only or with very limited MP!!!  I like that SSSOOOOOO much more than having to deal with lotsa other people.  I can't wait!!!  And Hell, I don't have to.  I can go out tomorrow and buy IL2 for $15 in the bargain bin and start smacking the AI herds around immediately.  Why pay $15/month to fight the AI when a single payment does the trick?

It seems to me you have missed the point entirely.

Hehehe, you couldn't hit a point if you were standing in 50 acres of prime points and armed with a belt-fed, point-seeking harpoon launcher .

The point is, to make the ToD work, you need lots of people, and they need to be organized.  This organization is impossible to achieve with a bunch of strangers thrown together at random.  The only way around that is to bring in squads.  But HT has said squads won't exist in the ToD.  Thus, I see a serious problem.

[Bullethead]

hazed said:

This to me looks like a perfect way for a CO of a squad to start running a squad like the REAL thing.How can you not like the idea of that???

I certainly agree that there is the definite possibility of much coolness in the ToD concept.  Which is why I'm here reading this, after all.

However, the fact remains that there will not be squads.  Thus there can be no "running" anything over the long term.  A mission becomes available, you grab a slot, and you fly with whoever else grabbed slots.  When the mission is over, you go your separate ways.  In the next mission, there is no guarantee, and probably very little likelihood, that you'll get the same mix of people again.  Hell, you might not even speak the same language as your leader.  Thus, there's no continuity, no squad for you to "run", and pretty much a guarantee of disorganization.  

This means that if an MA squad showed up, it's not likely they'll all be able to fly together, and even less likely that they'll have enough of their own leadership in command positions to matter much to them.  The rank system of the ToD will trump whatever rank structure the squad has.  The result will be reducing squads to a scattering of individuals.

I say HTC give us a real challenge to gain rank and be able to command. The harder it is id say the longer it will hold peoples attention and desire to get higher.I think its just what AH needs to sustain long term interest.The quick fix will always bethere in the MA so its perfect.

And I say, no matter how you slice it, there will always be a strong correlation between time spent online and rank, regardless of actual skill or leadership ability.  And in every RPG where you give players increased abilities at higher levels, you provide players with a huge incentive to power-level so they can gain these abilities ASAP to get the most use out of them.  So those with the time available will quickly come to dominate the ToD rank structure, as sure as the sun rises.  Everybody with anything resembling a real life will be left in the dust.  That doesn't sound like a good way to pick leaders.

Also remember that no matter how cool the ToD thing is on paper, it will ultimately be placed in the hands of all the egos, morons, dweebs, kill-thieves, and lamers who make up the psychotically disfunctional AH family we all know and love.  Do you want your average random AHer, who is by definition a member of at least 1 of the above classes, leading you in combat, much less writing your performance review afterwards?  

Think about this:  You're being led by a power-leveler, who now has the ability to stay in power by shafting his troops after every mission, so as to prevent them from getting rank quickly.  Or maybe the guy's just a petty bully.  Before in AH1, he used to enjoy ruining people's hops, maybe their whole night.  But now, by shafting them on rank, he can ruin their entire "campaign" and "war" of several weeks' duration, by holding them down so they have to keep working for him and all others like him if they keep flying in the ToD.

I see the lack of squads and predict low numbers and chaos.  I see the rank system and predict the tyranny of the power-leveling jerks.  What I'd like to see is some assurance that these concerns aren't valid.

[Batz]

You make so many assumptions and exaggerations  that its not even worth discussing with you. If dont like anything about the current ah gameplay and wont like anything about the new arena why are ya here?

I guess since you predict that the improvements to be made to ah will be a failure HT oughta close up shop or hire you on as a consultant. I wonder how they have managed this long without you.

As for the egos and morons take a look at your post and tell us what you think folks will conclude from reading them.

HT didnt give that interview Pyro did and the words were

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

Do you have an audio tape of the interview? If so share the part where the interviewer was cut off.

You can assume that they will be no squad format at all if you like. If thats a game killer then just dont fly there.

[Bullethead]

Batz said

You make so many assumptions and exaggerations  that its not even worth discussing with you.

Thank the Dark Gods!  I was afraid you were going to keep up your blather forever  Now crawl back under your rock and only worry about stuff like roll rates and guns and Italian planes .

If dont like anything about the current ah gameplay and wont like anything about the new arena why are ya here?

The obvious answer, assuming for the sake of argument that your patently false accusations above are accurate, would be that I enjoy trolling for guys like you.  If you want to believe that's true, feel free.  That would make your fantasy world self-fulfilling, which is an amazing power to have.  Those of us whose fantasy worlds involve supermodels would be quite envious .

I guess since you predict that the improvements to be made to ah will be a failure HT oughta close up shop or hire you on as a consultant. I wonder how they have managed this long without you.

They don't have to hire me or anybody else.  It's far cheaper for them to set up this BBS where they can get all our input for peanuts

But to get back on track, we all have read the available info from HTC, which ain't much, so there's lots of room to speculate and and much to ask questions about.  You have chosen to see nothing but the positives.  Fine, go ahead and do that.  I agree that there are pleny positives in there.  I, OTOH, have also seen the potential for some serious problems and abuses.  

Maybe I'm just cynical, but being paid to look for potential problems has been my main mission in all my real life jobs.  In any case, pointing out potential problems ahead of time isn't criticism, it's trying to help make the ultimate product better by solving such problems before they arise.  But sadly, that whole concept seems beyond your comprehension, or you would not have reacted as you have.

But anyway, I saw some potential problems so I asked questions to try to get more information on these issues.  Are the problems I see simply illusions caused by incomplete info?  Has HTC already anticipated these problems and built in some safeguards?  Or are things even worse than I imagine?  

At this point, unfortunately, you butted into this thread, trying to shout me down with your strident claims that everything would be fine, and that if I didn't like it I could leave.  I fear this noise emanating from your direction and my own attempts to stifle it have, to some extent, succeeded in drawing attention away from my original questions.  This is why I greet your frustration with this discussion with great joy.  Maybe now you'll shut up so the rest of us can try to get to the bottom of this.

As for the egos and morons take a look at your post and tell us what you think folks will conclude from reading them.

Being an ego, I am of course assured that all readers see my greatness made manifest in every character I type .  How dare you even question that?

[Batz]

The only thing you do is whine and demand that things cater to your idea of fun. Just like Guadalcanl. On top of that you are a quitter. So why dont you save your self the time and money and quit now.

The obvious answer, assuming for the sake of argument that your patently false accusations above are accurate, would be that I enjoy trolling for guys like you. If you want to believe that's true, feel free. That would make your fantasy world self-fulfilling, which is an amazing power to have. Those of us whose fantasy worlds involve supermodels would be quite envious

Heres what you said about current ah gameplay.

Forget the damn "classic" arena. That's MOTSOS MA landgrab chaos. New graphics and some engine improvments won't alter how the game is played. And if that sort of gameplay was what I was interested in, I wouldn't be spending any time reading this topic because there's nothing to worry about there. MOTSOS will continue as before, per HT himself.

Then go reread what you wrote about the new arena. Its pretty obvious you what you meant. You whined in Niemen. The side forums were open and I read your posts there. You seemed to think you knew more then the allied Co at the time. Just like you think you know more then HTC now.

When your chance came in guadalcanal you whined and cried about how hard it was for you and then quit.

That maybe a pattern, whine then quit. You have done the whining lets see what comes next.

[Bullethead]

Batz continued is inane spew as follows:

That maybe a pattern, whine then quit. You have done the whining lets see what comes next.

The pattern here is that you when you are unable to think of any reasonable or intelligent thing to say on an issue raised by somebody else (which in my experience is your usual state), you resort to personal attacks.  Rather than discuss the issue before you, especially when it challenges some dear-held prejudice of yours, you lash out in feigned outrage, accusing the other person of "wild exaggerations", "extremism", etc., and ultimately end up calling the other person an idiot or whatever.  And as "evidence", you cite your own previous tirades, as if their very stridency established them as the facts.  But they do nothing except prove this habit of yours, and clog up this topic with unrelated matters.

This topic is named "Aces High II:  Tour of Duty".  But so far, nothing much as been said about the ToD part of AH2.  It's now apparent why this is the case.  Those who have brought up these issues before have been intimidated by your ranting and verbal abuse.  I, however, will not be put off by such a non-entity as yourself.  So you might as well give it up.  Either start making constructive contributions to this discussion or shut up.  If you continue with your usual tactics, I'll just ignore you in the future.

Now, hopefully we're done with all that crap.  Back to business.  Since you obviously feel so strongly about this subject, maybe you can offer some insights on the following issues:

1.  If the "MA squad format" won't exist in the ToD arena, what will take its place?  How do you get any continuity of the team and its hierarchy from one mission to the next?  If anybody can grab a slot in any mission, how do you get anything more organized than your typical ad hoc MA airfield attack?

2.  If the only way to get rank is by doing missions, how do you prevent power-leveling by those who have no life outside AH?  If there's power-leveling, how do you prevent the power-levelers from becoming a permanent oligarchy?  How do you pervent other folks, who only have time to fly once or twice a week, from being permanently consigned to grunt-dom?

3.  If leaders get to write critiques of their troops, and that has a direct impact on the ability of the troops to pick up rank, how do you prevent the abuse of power?  What checks and balances would you suggest to keep some jerk leader from shafting troops with bad reviews when they actually did a good job?

[Batz]

Pointing out your ridiculous assumptions and exaggerations is not a "personal attack". You went for "personal attacks" before I said anything like that at all. My previous reply was just that, a reply to your attempt at insults.

If you are intimidated well then, butch up. All my post were constructive. They were just in contrast to your whining. If you dont like to read my post then theres an ignore button you can use. I really dont care either way. But it would be typical of you to "give up" when things dont go your way.

1. If the "MA squad format" won't exist in the ToD arena, what will take its place? How do you get any continuity of the team and its hierarchy from one mission to the next? If anybody can grab a slot in any mission, how do you get anything more organized than your typical ad hoc MA airfield attack?

I answered this one early on but here it is again.

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 and wait for a better explanation. I for 1 dont want to fly in a lonewolf arena and know several others who dont want to either.

In my previous replies I offered several speculations that are just as probable as no squads at all. I myself have no real interest in the arena if there is no squad participation at all. In previous threads in this forum I even brought up the idea of squad missions. But until the question gets a definitive answer I am not gonna bang my head against the wall in outrage. If the arena doesnt offer the things I like then I wont fly there.

2. If the only way to get rank is by doing missions, how do you prevent power-leveling by those who have no life outside AH? If there's power-leveling, how do you prevent the power-levelers from becoming a permanent oligarchy? How do you pervent other folks, who only have time to fly once or twice a week, from being permanently consigned to grunt-dom?

Q: Briefly describe the rank progression as you envision it. Will this be simply a ‘perk point’ based rank increase or will certain people be chosen to run certain aspects of the arena, akin to the CM setup that we have for the TOD and Snapshot events?

Rank progession will be similar a typical RPG with experience points and levels except that we will have ranks and career points or whatever we decide to call them. It’s totally different from our perk point system in that it is mainly achieved through mission success rather than just how many kills you get.

ToD runs as an automated process so there’s nothing like a CM required. We’re considering allowing players to design campaigns and missions. The big drawback to that is that they wouldn’t be able to participate in them.

Just being in alot of missions wont necessarily mean you will advance. First you have to complete the mission successfully. Next you have to rtb safely. Just joining alot missions with out achieving anything except touring the country side wont allow you to advance. But like any game your score and "skillz" will be higher the more you play. Theres no doudt that those who fly the most will in all probability earn rank faster. Thats just how it is. This doesnt mean you have to kiss the arse of some no life dweeb. If hes is an a dick then dont listen to him or dont fly with him.

From the current FAQ

 

What is Tour of Duty?

Tour of Duty is a cross between a historical WWII simulation and military RPG. What is so different about it is that it’s not simply an Axis vs Allies free-for-all using WWII equipment in a geographic WWII setting. ToD puts you in the role of a WWII combat pilot (of course the emphasis is on air-combat, but ground combat will also be included at times) with all the responsibilities and restrictions that comes with it. You are not just an operator of military equipment, you are a soldier or airman in the military. That means that everything you do is part of a unit and part of a mission. There is no free-lancing, you can’t just select a plane and head off to exchange lead with the closest enemy.

Everything in ToD is based on missions. It’s not necessarily about how many kills you get. It’s about the successful completion of the mission. Success will come to those who use teamwork. With success will come promotion and the additional privileges and responsibilities that that entails.

Think of the classic movie 12 O’Clock High and what it would be like to be in that setting. That’s what we want to capture with ToD. It’s not just the combat, it’s the entire experience. Filing into a mission briefing at 4 a.m., not knowing where you will be going until the curtain falls from the map and the mission briefing is given. Feeling the anxiety that comes with risking something, the camaraderie that comes from shared tribulations and interdependence, the pure adrenaline rush when enemy contact is made, the utter relief and letdown you feel when your wheels touch the runway, the exuberance upon seeing the results of a successful mission in the post-mission debrief, the pride of getting a second bar pinned on your collar, those are all experiences we want to capture with ToD.

This is from HTs original post in the thread asking for a name for the new arena. The numbers he used are just an example.

As we started working on the mission theater, we realized we were making a completely new game from that which is Aces High today.

This lead us to starting work on AcesHigh II. Which will be 2 games in one.

1st.
AcesHigh Classic, which will be the Main areana as we know today, only with updated Graphic Eng,and other sim items, but the game play will be similar to what it is today.

2nd. The Mission theater. We need a better name for this. AcesHigh "Fill In the blank"

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.

So we would like some suggestions on the name. This is just a short outline of the the things we have in mind for the mission based play.

So does anyone have a cool name for it? We view this as a combination of flight/combat sim and military role playing. We'll be putting out some news about all this shortly, but we're stuck on a name.

HiTech

From the Simhq interview:

Q: How do you ensure unit cohesion without having players taking orders from another player? Or is that exactly what you have in mind?

Players will have to take both host and player generated instruction. There is no freelancing in ToD. If a player wants to take part in organized missions but also wants to be free to do whatever they feel, well that’s a paradox we can’t provide for.

Some players are concerned about having to take instructions from other players, but it’s not a major concern for us. It’s just about getting organized so that everybody understands their responsibilities in a mission and you don’t end up with everybody trying to do the same task while other vital components of the mission are ignored. Even so, as Murphy’s Laws of Combat states, "No plan survives enemy contact intact."

In the real military there are poor leaders and there’s not much you can do about it as a subordinate (fragging aside). But that’s not really the case in ToD and it will become a self-regulating process. Nobody is going to want to follow poor leaders and nobody is going to want to lead poor followers.

Self-regulating means that if the little arrogant Napolean types start ordering you around or are just incompetent leaders then folks wont follow their direction. You could just rtb and leave him on his own or you could disregard his direction completely and make your own descisions.

With out help and cooperation the odds that this little general will be able to maintain his rank will be slim. So if we believe what HT is trying accomplish then the missions will take cooperation from the top to the bottom.

You will be briefed before hand and have a good idea of what the mission will entail. The mission "leader" is only needed to help organize the flight. Even with out a "leader" each person in the flight will know what to do. The mission wont necessarily be dependent of "good leadership". But it certainly could help.

[Batz]

3. If leaders get to write critiques of their troops, and that has a direct impact on the ability of the troops to pick up rank, how do you prevent the abuse of power? What checks and balances would you suggest to keep some jerk leader from shafting troops with bad reviews when they actually did a good job?

From the interview:

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.

With just that single ambiguous answer I cant give anything but a speculative reply. But I think what he is saying is that there will be an overall mission leader and he will either pick flight / element leaders or they will be assigned by the player's ranking.

The way it sounds is the mission leader will write an eval of his flight / element leaders and in turn these flight / element leaders will write evals on the pilots in their flight / element. It doesnt sound like just 1 guy, the mission leader, will eval everyone. Its unclear as to whether the mission participants will be able to write an eval on the mission and element leaders. Its also unclear as to what impact these evals will have on rank or if they will have any impact at all. These could just be used to generate some sort of "leadership potential" score. With good evals you earn the right to lead others. With poor evals you may have a high rank but not able to lead. Ofcourse I am speculating just like you are. Until Pyro posts the updated fact we have no idea what he means by evals.

Theres some things that "concern" me but I just think its way to early to write it off as a failure. Until we get more info and actually fly in the arena to see how these things play out theres no sense in getting your panties all in a bunch. You will either like it and play or it wont appeal to you at all. There will still be ah:classic but if this has no appeal to you as well then I guess its time to start looking for a new game.

YMMV

[Hap]

Originally posted by Bullethead
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.  

you've got to be kidding.  really, i'm sure hitech is launching tod to "destroy the . . . squads."

[Grimm]

I will jump in here and try to avoid the pissing match...    

I do think its worth questioning... Will there be a place for Squads in TOD?  
 

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

Squads are important,  perhaps it will be a different structure,  perhaps not.   Id like to see some clarification on that.   regardless,  Squad members will want to play with there squadies.    If you throw that out,  I dont see it as a positive.  
 

I think that Squad Support will be important to its Sucess.  

If Squads will not be a part of TOD then It will not get most likely get much support and could fail.


Lobbying HTC to make certain there are provisions for Squad Activies is not only in the interest of the players, but for the evolution of the game itsself.  


Batz...  I dont quite see why you are coming across as in opposition to this.   I dont think you can honestly tell me that Asking that Squads are taken care is a bad thing.  

Seems like you and BH are born to argue.  Dont let that drag things down.  

As for the Rank thing...  I dont like the potential for abuse.   I hope HTC will be considering this and place safe gards against it.  Again,  I dont see anything wrong with asking for answers to how it is invisioned to work and lobbying for things to be done in such a way that will be good for the game.  

Im hoping for alot of good things from TOD..  HTC has seldom disappointed me.  

[GunnerCAF]

Squads have been core of the community since the beginnings of the on-line play.  Most squads are always looking for new people.  They offer training, activities like weekly squad nights, and participate in other events as a team.  Some of the best information about the game can be found on squad web pages.    

I have been in the same squad for about 8 years, that started in AW now AH.  There are several in the squad that are active players that have been in the squad longer than I.  What keeps peoples intrest in a game that long?  The longest I have ever played one game, besides AW and AH is about 4 months.  Most other games, maybe 2 weeks as an average.

Not allowing squad participation in this arena will make it short lived in my opinion.  I am sure some will prefer it, but not the masses.  This is a step in the wrong direction.

I also have faith in HTC to make it work.  We know little about what is coming, and we will need to wait to see.  We will still have a MA, and the improvements in AH2 will make even more neat things possible.

Gunner