inflight radar needs removal

[Ripsnort]

Agreed Zippa.

[Wlfgng]

Soda.
IMO the inflight dot-dar creates more gangbanging than without it.  It also turns the clouds into eye candy only since you can't really use them to hide in since the opposition can simply 'see' you on dar.

If we keep the inflight dot-dar, why keep the clouds.  They only slow down FR.

[Zigrat]

my real opposition to in flight radar is only the dots really.. you shouldnt be able to "check your 6" by opening up the clipboard and looking for a red dot near your airplane imo... use the old mk 1 eyeball..

but then again i definitely think we shouldnt remove radra in flight completely, just the dots.

[Thirdup]

Reverse-perked dar:

If you have xx perk points, your airborn radar shuts down.

 

[Greg 'wmutt' Cook]

Funny, I don't have too much of a problem with the Dot Dar, except for the fact that it sees through clouds.  It's the Bar Dar that I don't like.  I think if you drooped the Bars and made the Dots only visible from the tower, it would open up a new area of strategy, by making the radar dishes even more important, and opening the way for such planes as the p-61, Bf-110G, and the whatever variant of the mossie had the radar.

Of course, we could just lobby for a historical arena with realistic Dar, and leave the MA as it is for the people that are "just lookin' for a quick fight" (not that there's anything wrong with that  

Afterthought:  Keep the Bar Dar for inflight, but only for cons that are detectable by your countries radar stations.  Also, I don't believe there were any ground-detecting radar setups in WWII, GVs should not show up on Dar.

Heck, We could even have air lookouts that could generate system messages when enemy planes overfly them. <System: 4 bomber aircraft sighted high over A55, heading SW>
That would be cool.

Muttz
332 Flying Mongrels
(Muttz Express, When it absolutely has to be there before the ack comes up.)

[This message has been edited by Greg 'wmutt' Cook (edited 05-10-2001).]

[Nifty]

Without the vocal minorities (not just on this one issue, but all issues) where would HTC get input for game updates?  How do they know what players want if players don't speak up?  I agree with you that the majority of AH players do NOT post on this board.  However, every player has the option to do so.  It's kinda the same way in the US for politics.  Every US citizen has the right to vote (unless the right is revoked), yet not every citizen does vote.  It's not the exact same, as the majority of Americans vote, but the principle is still the same.  If citizens didn't vote, or didn't lobby, the government wouldn't know what we wanted (not like they always do what we want, but that's a different argument!)  

These forums are here for us to share our ideas with each other, and in every case, there will be disagreement.  These forums are also used by HTC to see where are interests are and what we think about the current situations.

As for the vocal minority comment, most polls are conducted that way.  Gallop (for example) polls maybe 1000 people (out of 250 million!) and use that as a rough gauge of national interest.  Think of the people who post on this board as a poll.  We are only a percentage of the AH player base, however we are used as HTC's gauge for a rough estimate of what the AH player base wants, thinks is good/bad, etc.  BTW, it's like this in other games too.  Developers use forums to get feedback from gamers.  Ultima Online has well over 100,000 active players.  Their forums maybe have 1000 active posters, less than 1% of active players.  Origin uses those forums to get feedback on ideas, and believe me, the "vocal minority" HAS influenced changes.

Sorry this got so long, and it's not intended as a flame.  It's just intended to show, IMO, that these forums (and this thread) are being used as intended.  

[Pongo]

"It looks like we need another arena. One that has no DAR, no map, no icons, and most likely no players.

Zippatuh


"
and what we need is a new bbs one with no opinion, no conflict. and no posts right.

[lazs]

jimbear.. sounds good to me.  I don't flatter myself that people would take time out of their oh so important missions just to hunt harmless ol lazs but if you think they would I'm all for it.   Heck... if it get's em down and fighting it's gotta be a good thing.  I'm sure I would not be the only one pleased by such a move.  

At one time I wanted (and we had in WB) the feature of the guys handle showing up when you got close enough.   You'd be shocked at all the "great sticks" that were frightened by that one tho.

ag... you aint been around long enough to know the most of anything.  
lazs

[Soda]

 

Wlfgng:
  IMO the inflight dot-dar creates more gangbanging than without it. It also turns the clouds into eye candy only since you can't really use them to hide in since the opposition can simply 'see' you on dar.

I see it the opposite.  Someone would be sitting in the tower and saying "the fight is over Axx" and everyone would just fly there looking for the quick fight.  I'd say 50% of the people in AH just want to furball anyway.  They use the dar to get to the furball faster.  Anyone without a squad would fly straight for where the action is, not land every 10 minutes to see where an enemy might be advancing.  How many people really come to defend a field when a person calls on country channel it is under attack right now.. maybe a couple if you are lucky.  Why think someone directing traffic from the tower would have any more success than that.

I think the icons do more to spoil surprise than the dot dar does though I don't really support removing those unless we get actual depth perception abilities on our monitors at the same time.

What's the real range on dot dar anyway?  It's only 12.5 miles or so from an friendly base, isn't it?  Visual range with a good set of spotting binoculars?

I can understand the argument for alt considerations on DAR with NOE cons only appearing when closer to target, but not the removal of DAR in it's current form.  If you were going to do that then we would need a system that reporting cons as they passed over observation stations, bases that announced they had inbound enemy cons, automated queries to GCI officers, etc...

-Soda

[Zippatuh]

Pongo – whatever – your missing the point.

Nifty – I understand where your coming from; however, this bulletin board is not a “scientific” sampling of the AH community.  Also the flyers in AH do not have a designated voice as in politics.  To be truly fair to everyone in the community when changes occur (based on subscribers’ wants), before something changed when logging on to AH you can get a pop up window with a yea nay vote on the subject.  Do I want this, hell no.  I do not proclaim to know what is best for every situation and I imagine the creators have a better view on the topic.  So give it to me and I’ll be happy.  I’m trying to play devils advocate here not really anything more.

What is amazing and disturbing at the same time is that we in the AH community have the unique ability to communicate with the creators of the game on, damn near, a daily basis.  I would like the BBS community to look at game play from a broader perspective.  Understand that the wants communicated on the BBS may not necessarily represent the entire community.

There are a lot of responses to this subject, a few with solutions.  That is the angle that I think we should approach this from.  “How can we correct it or make it better?”  Not, “we should get rid of this because…”  In this situation I don’t even think we received a “because”.

Zippatuh

[Maverick]

Frankly I think Zip is right. We are fast approaching the time when, for whatever reason, those screaming for true "realism" need to have a permanent arena.

I will not deny that the MA as it is now is a flying, driving ,sailing quake arena. It is geared for quick combat against another online player. That was the entire premise for having an online game. Getting in the battle to have fun. (anyone not here to have fun needs professional help)

Various "concessions to reality" exist in this game to make it playable.

1. No restrictions on what side you can join.
2. No real restrictions as to what part you can play in this game. Everything from fighter, buff, goon, sailor, gunner to vehicle driver.
3. Instant respawn at the click of a button.
4. Perpetual "banking" of the players perk points. (death doesn't wipe them out)
5. Open plane set. You get YOUR choice as to what you want top fly / drive.
6. No requirement to follow an order or mission with a severe penalty for disobedience or cowardice / or fleeing in the face of the enemy.
7. Radar to take the place of a ground controller ORDERING you to intercept enemy activities.
8. No down time between missions due to battle damage or simple fair wear and tear of equipment.
9. No weather that stops operations.
10. No requirement to work with another player / squad / country instead of doing what you please when you please and how you please.
11. Ability to hit a small target with a bomber from a great altitude.

12. Increased lethality in Buff guns.
13. limited AI activity to allow some "ambiance" in the game as a concession to immersion.
14. Ability to take down an entire base single handed with a fighter bomber.

There are others, all you have to do is look for these concessions to playability. They are also what allows this game to appeal to a diverse player base. A little something for everyone so that the game goes on and HTC can have food and shelter.

I think those clamoring for true "realism" have an option available to them. It has been mentioned before. It is setting up a historical event and running it with the features of the game they want. This has been available for some time.

I think the fact that there has not been a CONSTANT overwhelming amount of this happening as well as a FULL historical arena every night (or day) says something about the appeal of this situation to the player base in general. It would seem that there is insufficient interest in this type of event to keep it as a full time change in the MA. Why do I say this?? Simple, there is a limited interest by those willing to set it up to keep it going. There is a limited interest in players doing that type of thing. Or there would be a line of players trying to get into that scenario all the time. The DA is a good example. Whenever I check online it is almost always empty. Why Is that?? You have icon and engagement options there. That should satisfy the icon purists. It still remains unused the majority of the time however.

In the interests of fairness if HTC would set up a permanent no icon, no dar (or partial dar) arena those folks asking for this could see for themselves if it is a viable alternative to the MA as it is now. Oh and BTW, the all important perk points should transfer between the arenas so that players won't miss their "rewards" and get the ultra realistic ability to choose a perk vehicle to play with.

That is my take on the "realism" as well as the icon and dar debate. I think it would be a worthy compromise and allow HTC to appeal to the broadest player base yet.

Flame away


Mav

[popeye]

So, the simplest fix...er, modification, suggested so far is to update inflight DAR only every minute or so, instead of continuously in real time.

Easy to program.  (??)

Less load on the host.  (??)

Provides "simulated ground controller" info.

Restricts "SA substitute" info.

[Wlfgng]

Soda... don't you think that Bar-Dar would still let you locate a fight quickly, without the unrealistic advantage of Dot-dar?

I agree that it would s**k to spend lots of time finding a fight.  I just don't want the Dar to be so accurate as to negate the need for SA, hiding in clouds, etc.

Whatcha think ?

[Soda]

wlfgng,
  I just think the icons do more to screw up hiding in clouds than the dar does.  All you need is a quick flash of icon to let you know where the guy is... you can't duck under the clouds to check out a contact then duck back in without showing up like a billboard.  The dar bar tells me enough that I need to be alert because there could be an enemy nearby, not the dot dar.  The dot dar only tells me the con is near an airfield/cv/facility.

People would spend even less time searching for a small dar bar con in a sector, while that solo con proceeds to bomb a base/facility/cv into oblivion with nary a peep that it's under attack.  If anything within 12.5miles (the dot dar limit) you should get approximate altitude, heading, and general aircraft type from spotters on the ground.  Whether this be through the clipboard or some automated .dot commands I think the clipboard is easier to use.  I just don't see someone sitting in the tower for the first 10 minutes online relaying GCI information to other players.

-Soda

[Nifty]

Zip, I would hope that most people posting their opinions on here realize that they are not speaking for anyone else but themselves, and those that have voiced similar opinions.  I agree with you totally on your points.  This isn't a scientific poll, nor are we appointed voices.   This is just the best way for HTC to hear SOME opinions from the player base.  

Mav, the reason the Dueling arena isn't used often by the "realism" crowd is that the DA is just that, a DA.  The realism crowd wants immersion, and you can't get than in a dueling arena (the terrain is one reason).  This is my opinion, and I could be wrong as to why the DA isn't populated more.  You're right though, the solution IS a historical arena, for a lack of a better term.  You're also right in the fact that there is NOT enough support from the player base for there to be one right now.  If enough people played in it, the MA wouldn't be as populated.  That's going to change one day as more and more people subscribe.  In fact, this weekend, there were still well over 100 people in the Main Arena while the Hostile Shores frame was going on.  So perhaps the interest in a historical arena is there, as well as enough people to populate both arenas during peak hours.

anyways, debate on, I'm leaving work now!  cya