An epistle to... ISHMAEL

[silly plonk]

Ishmael:

Clearly you are an intelligent, well spoken and erudite person.  I respect that.  (Not to hyper-inflate your ego, but it had to be said).

However, it occurs to me that you have never responded to criticism of your idea, except perhaps in one instance where you acknowledge another's point, but go no further than that.  Rather, you constantly reiterate what you have previously written, perhaps emphasizing it a little more for good measure.  This is the child-like playground equivalent of shouting the same words a little louder each time to get what you want in response to someone who is trying to converse with you.  It isn't an exchange of ideas: it's a one-sided shouting match that you clearly intend to win.

Not only is it boring, it seems to me that it is rude at best, ignorant at worst.  I am not attacking you personally, for I don't engage in that sort of thing, but I am commenting on what you have written on this forum.  Provocation is NOT a good method to attract attention to an idea with merits… it is merely provoking and annoying and a good way to make sensible people stop reading what you write (yes, I recognize that I have just indicated that I must have no sense!).  Outlining the merits of the idea and intelligently discussing them to sway people to accept your argument is a better method.

The reality is, any product has to be marketable.  Trying to produce a title that will have appeal to a very niche clientele and effectively alienates the majority of the market is not a good way to stay in business.  I would suggest that you gather some more experience in the on-line flight sim market before expounding your views.  You wrote: "I never paid to fly in Warbirds or Airwarrior. I tried their services for free and found them to be intensly[sic] boring."  I must assume that you were playing on short term trials rather than free press accounts based on your knowledge of the industry (this isn't a flame, merely an observation).  I would suggest that you spend a little more time with the products and come up with ideas that are workable given the limitations of the system, rather than refusing to acknowledge that any such limitations may, in fact, exist.

You will discover that scenarios in AW3 or WB, for instance, offer a lot of the immersion that you are seeking but within a commercially viable product.  I completely agree with you that immersion and suspension of disbelief are what I am seeking when I play a flight simulator, but different consumers have different wants and others may not seek the same level that I do.  I KNOW that an on-line product catered solely to my interests would not be able to be self-sustaining… Japanenese planes?  Forget them.  I rarely fly them.  American iron?  Nah, it doesn't thrill me.  Field captures?  No… too complicated.  I just want a game where I can log on at any time of day, fly my dweeb Spit, fly as realistically as possible and have lots of people to engage in combat with.  Hey?  Where did everyone go?  You don't all like Spits or Me-109s and taking half an hour to climb to altitude to fly over the channel?  But the Battle of Britain is the best!  Hey look, there's someone, let me fly over there!  Oh - he's in a Spit, too.  Guess he thinks like me.  Hey!  There's someone!  Oh… nope.  Just a bit of dust on the monitor.  My mistake.  Okay, maybe I can make this company float with this other guy that logs on at the same time that I do.  So we two have to support the company… $2,000/hour each?  Hmmm… too rich for my blood.  Hey look at that sim!  Only $30/month and look at all the people playing it!  Wow, maybe I will take some of my good ideas there and see if I can't find some like minded people to play this sim with…

For that matter, I too have a good idea: WORLD PEACE!  What?  There are problems with implementing my idea?  Didn't you hear what I said?!?  WORLD PEACE!  Politicians, dictators, diplomats: EVERLASTING WORLD PEACE!  What do you mean it is hard to do?  Shut up, didn't you hear me?  It is a brilliant idea: WORLD PEACE!  Imagine how happy everyone would be.  Let's do it!  What do you mean there are obstacles?  I'm talking about WORLD FREAKIN' PEACE, let's just do it, everyone wants it!  Am I a diplomat?… well no.  Am I a senior civil servant?  No, so what?  Do I have any idea as to how to actually implement it with some sort of lasting structure?  No again, but who cares?  It is just such a good idea that I think it should be done.  WORLD PEACE!  Yeah, I tried it out in my house, and the four members of my family and I agreed not to argue at all for three hours a week for three weeks in a row.  It was great!  Not a single argument!  What's that?  No, that can't be people arguing in the next room… must be the refrigerator.  God, I am loving the sound of my own words!    Hey, you… Prime Minister, I don't mean to bother you while your are busy running a country, but here is my idea: WORLD PEACE.  Yes, yes, don't look at me like I'm a fool to expect it to be done right now… it simply has to be done.  No forget everything else: social programs, the Rule of Law, emergency funds for disasters, just concentrate on WORLD PEACE, okay?  It is such a brilliant idea, it has to be done!  What, you can't do it?  Well, then, your country SUCKS!  It is just like every other country out there that can't make WORLD PEACE ™ work and must be populated by idiots.  Stop telling me why it is so hard to get done!  What do you mean there will always be obstacles?  BITE ME!  It is such a good idea that I can't believe every single nation doesn't have it at the top of its priority list!  Re-election?  Huh?  Forget that… sell my idea, it's so bloody awesome!  Off I go!  I am going to sell my idea to someone who will listen to me just because it is a good idea and I have absolutely no sense as to how geo-political forces work.  It is fundamentally such a good idea, it has to be done!  Shut up, Mr. President, you aren't listening so you and your people SUCK!  WORLD PEACE! Yeah!  [Knock, knock… ] Hello?  Ummmm… hello?  Why isn't anybody listening to me any more?  Maybe I should start up my own TV network….

[-towd_]

you boys need to get that beta out soon the boys are back in town. and they gettin restless. just an opinion silly plonk in a nice person and im shure he is nice to small animals and helps old ladys across the street.
 But notice the vacant crazed stare the barly restrained bloodlust. theys gonna be  a nuclear flame war soon if the beta ain't out!!!


ohh the humanity hehe.

[Downtown]

I can solve the drug problem.

I would love to be able to try Ish's little world, where I can have a pilot that gets goodies for living.

But I can see hordes of dweebs spending their time hunting down pilots that have accumulated life points.

Now they may not the the Armor of the Play the Kill (Diablo Reference) but they would have one more point.

Tis a shame that Human Nature is to be a Backstabbing *)%*)#*$.

Plonk, could you flush out a few more details with your World Peace Idea, I think I may have found a few flaws.


------------------
"I could feel the 20MM Cannon impacting behind me so I made myself small behind the pilot armor" Charlie Bond AVG

[bod]

Opening that wide and letting it out at that amazing speed, Silly Plonk just got to be all vacuum by now  

Bod

[ISHMAEL]

Dear Mr. Plonk....

My ideas on the OAE are the right ones. They WILL make someone a lot of money some day - soon.

I didn't post them here to "convince" anyone that I am right. I already know I am right. I simply thought it considerate of me to provide the makers of Aces High the opportunity to benfit from my insight.

If they choose NOT to make use of this wonderful, amazingly creative idea that WILL revolutionize online flight simming forever - it's their loss - and someone else's gain.

All it takes is ONE person - the right person - to notice the idea and run with it. I remain convinced that once someone HAS implemented the idea, it will become the defacto standard.

If I fail to "argue" with those who disagree with me, it's because I am not interested in convincing - only in explaining. I want to make certain that the concept is understood. If you still don't like it after you understand it, that's your decision and I'm unlikely to be able to change your mind by force of argument.

If you agree or disagree, what is that to me? Nothing.

There's only one person I want to hear the idea - the RIGHT person. That person will read my posts and say to himself: "Yes! That is what I've been thinking about all these years but never had a system to implent it before!!!"

THAT person will not need to be argued with. His mind was made up long ago - before he even read my ideas. However, he WILL be interested in understanding how the system overcomes (or may overcome) many of the problems with net gaming which here-to-fore have appeared prohibitive.

That's why each of my posts on the subject endeavors to provide a little more detail on the system and its purposes - and explain the effect upon combat the system has shown in our tests.

No words can ever convince you of the worth of a radical shift in thinking. Only experience has any hope of opening your eyes. When we first developed the OAE system we faced A LOT of skepticism on the Delphi Flight Sim forum and from many of the inter-squadron war veterans. We were fortunate in that some of the skeptics agreed to take part in the test.

Without fail, every one of them changed their minds. The excitment generated by the participants has also resulted in continued enquiries from squadron members who refused to take part and initially condemned the idea - but are now interested in learning more about how the OAE works.

If you'd like to hear some first hand feedback from the particpants in the latest test war, post an enquiry to this forum: http://www.delphi.com/airwar/

ISHMAEL


 

[ISHMAEL]

Oh one more thing Plonk....

To my knowledge, I have not used the word "SUCK" or the phrase "BITE ME" in any of my posts.

ISHMAEL

[Downtown]

So Ish provide the detail of how dweebs are dealt with.  Those folks who would do what they could to ruin the immersion of those folks that are flying and dying according to your system.

Please provide those details.

Cause that is pretty much what we are all wondering (at least I am?)

I surely hope it doesn't involve filling out a flight sim resume.

BTW, Here Mine.

I got a 486 33 in about 1994.  Shortly after that I bought Dynamix's Aces over the Pacific cause it had a P-40.  THen I think B-17 Flying Fortress, then Aces over Europe.

Well I was broke for a few years, and didn't see any other aircraft sims that really caught my eye.

Then almost a year ago while searching the web for info on the Flying Tigers I came across a reference to a Virtual Flying Tigers Squadron based in Japan.  The folks on the page talked about Warbirds.  I looked at the page and thought I couldn't fly it for $2.00 an hour.

Then I saw the Box of the Sim in Best Buy with a $30 online free offer.  I bought it, practiced offline till I could go straight down the runway, and created an account.

I got my 100th kill medal about a month ago, I got a 3-n-1 medal after about 8 week online, and just recently 2.7.3 got my first 5-n-1 sortie.

My father is a history nut (specifically the Spanish Civil War) and I grew up watching him build models of I-16s, ME-109s with Spanish markings, Etc.  When he finally built a model of an American Plane, he chose the "Kibosh" which was one of the Planes that had some success in the Early part of WWII in the Philippines.

The P-40 lead me to learn about the Flying Tigers, which leads to the loop of how I heard about WB.

Now When HT and Pyro Left, and then the ICI Guys left, and all the reading and posting of UBBs, and an inability to not share my opinion whether you want me to or not, led me to AH.

If you ever run a test like this again, let me know, if I possibly can I would play "Devils Advocate" and you could develop policy/procedures on how to deal with dweebs that are trying to ruin your OAE concept, cause I have a feeling you don't know what to do about them.

------------------
"I could feel the 20MM Cannon impacting behind me so I made myself small behind the pilot armor" Charlie Bond AVG

[silly plonk]

 

To my knowledge, I have not used the word "SUCK" or the phrase "BITE ME" in any of
my posts.

You are quite right, ISHMAEL.  Forgive me, it was base.  But that's the point of parody (however ill-written): exaggeration.  To my knowledge you hadn't written the words yourself, either.  There's something we agree on.

 

I didn't post them here to "convince" anyone that I am right. I already know I am right.  I simply thought it considerate of me to provide the makers of Aces High the opportunity to benfit[sic] from my insight.

Your modesty is overwhelming.  Thank you so much for your consideration and I thank the developers of Aces High for providing a forum so that you can be so gracious as to enlighten those of us who are in the dark and can only benefit from your wisdom and years and years of experience in developing on-line flight sims.

For that matter, I don't object to your ideas, only the callous way that you present them.  I sincerely hope your idea does sprout wings and that flight sim enthusiast do take a much more realistic approach to game play.  Some have indicated that there are some obstacles to overcome, however.

 

If I fail to "argue" with those who disagree with me, it's because I am not interested in convincing - only in explaining. I want to make certain that the concept is understood.  If you still don't like it after you understand it, that's your decision and I'm unlikely to be able to change your mind by force of argument.

Fair enough.  Too bad that you don't understand reason and actually try and respond to some of the criticism to your ideas rather than just spewing on and on.  You are losing supporters because you refuse to try and sway people who might be undecided but are aware of some problems that you might face with your Master Plan.

Some people took the time to make some very salient points about your plan... instead of acknowledging them and perhaps even (God forbid!) taking their viewpoints into account, you chose to shout that their thinking was stifled and continued vomiting your plan.

Preaching to the converted is easy.  Refusing to even acknowledge that people may have concerns about your message is simply arrogant.

Be sure to tell me when a company picks up your plan if market conditions stay the way they are today so that I can pick up some stock and sell it short.

You probably have the vanity to think that because you are misunderstood that you are a genius.

Good luck, ISHMAEL.  I hope somebody takes your idea and makes it work.  Only, I hate to think how grossly disproportionate that would make your ego...

[ISHMAEL]

So Ish provide the detail of how dweebs are dealt with. Those folks who would do what they could to ruin the immersion of those folks that are flying and dying according to your system.
---------

One of the great things about a "pay per play" system (such as AH) is that it immediately cuts out a lot of the "dweeb factor" (or at least, so I presume).

Nevertheless, a large segment of the gaming population remains committed to the lust for instant thrills that ultimately leads to a-historical, ground-hugging, to-the-death dogfights.

Another segment of the population will always hate to credit any opponent with a kill (of them) and will "pull the plug" to avoid giving credit where it is due. These are perhaps two of the primary problems associated with the "dweeb factor."

What we tried to do is to deal with these problems without penalizing players or without major changes to the game architecture. The goal was to use the scoring system, together with a set of rewards based upon the scoring system, to encourage players to use tactics more closely conforming to those used in actual air combat.

The rewards had to be significant in order for players to actually ENJOY achieving them. if gaining the reward was too much work (re: Everquest), some players might get bored of the entire process. Therefore, the process had to be fun, the rewards desireable, but never so large as to result in major inequalities between begining players and experienced players.

This is a difficult tightrope to walk, and it can only be properly tethered through play-testing.

Nevertheless, basic premices may be outlined.

Survival was a primary goal of the real pilot, therefore, it must be the basic goal of the online pilot. We thus create an online alter ego that is mortal and all progress/rewards are tied to the continued survival of that alter ego (the OAE).

We then model the experience growth of the real-world pilot by introducing an experience multiplier that is added to points scored in game. A newly minted OAE scores at 1x the base score for all targets destroyed in game. Longer-lived alter egos score at 2x, 3x or 4x the base value. Other rewards (including rank) may also be connected with long life or a high score (each reward making survival just a little bit easier but never granting an overwhelming advantage).

This process, assuming that no pilots cheat, would work fine. But how do we prevent cheating?

One way to eliminate the possability of cheating is to make "cheating" part of the game. How so?

Well...if a pilot disconnects, this can be treated in a number of ways depending on the circumstances. In combat, the server considers a disconnect to be a parachute attempt. Out of combat, the server considers in to be "engine failure." How each event is handled depends on the rules governing parachuting pilots and/or engine failures. Presumably, the former would result in a chance of death or capture and the second would likely result in a safe return to the home field (though points or experience may be lost).

Under such a system, pilots who fly "legit" have less to fear from "discos," and pilots who use the reset button to exit combat have little to gain.

Malicious mischief simply has no business on a pay to play server (I refer to players shooting their own airfields or teammates). All players are registered and the Terms of Service should include a termination option without refund for those players that attack the integrety of the system (by anti-game behaviour or hacking). But this is not part of the OAE system. It's simply good business.

How do the technical aspects of the OAE system work?

Players register for the Online Service and create a username. They also create a new, novice pilot (and have the option of naming that pilot or using their user name). They can even select or upload a pic of their pilot. All of these statistics are stored on the server (rather than the client) so as to minimize the threat from hacking.

Each time the player logs in to the sim world, he enters his username and password. The statistics for his current alter ego are displayed, together with a list of available aircraft. The server tracks the activity of the pilot online so long as he lives (kills, number of flights, hours in the air, targets destroyed etc.).

Based upon the compiled figures, rewards are offered to the player as time goes on and he scores more points. Access is granted to mission planning screens (where priority targets may be selected) or Situational Awareness key ranges are increased, access is granted to low-availablitly aircraft (or even "experiemental" aircraft).

In essence, the "pilot" becomes a game object with attributes similar to the attributes of the aircraft. These attributes are for the most part linier (meaning all equal alter egos share the same attributes) and they are also small in number (so as to minimize complexity).

I hope this answers some of your questions.

ISHMAEL

[silly plonk]

Thank you, ISHMAEL, that is exactly the sort of response that I was looking for all along.

Kudos for replying and resisting the tempation to flame me back.

Technically, Aces High will not be pay per play, but flat rate.  The cost is $30/month no matter how many hours are played.  However, that cost might disuade quite a few "dweebs" and only attract those that are serious about the simulation.

Some AW3 players thought that WB players were elitist and that it was all about check books.  Hopefully this won't be the case with AH.

Thanks for the response.

S.P.

[ISHMAEL]

You probably have the vanity to think that because you are misunderstood that you are a genius.
--------------

I am not misunderstood.

The OAE concept has already proven itself to many players who experienced it directly. WE are the ones who know we are onto something good.

I already went through this debate once on the Delphi Flight Sim Forum when the OAE was just a theory. After we tested the idea online, even the worst nay-sayers on Delphi had to acknowledge that the idea wasn't without merit (and many of them are now attempting to try it in their own organized wars).

The OAE was a without doubt a resoundng success in small-scale implementation. Large-scale results remain untested and open to question - but I maintain the same confidence I had in the idea prior to the first run-through. It will work. it has worked. It will work again.

...and you ought to have the intelligence to know when someone is pushing your buttons. ;-)

I can't help but notice that this topic has been THE most popular topic on this board for some time. Would that have been the case if I hadn't been controversial and somewhat cocky? Of course not. We all would have said...."interesting idea Ish. Maybe they'll bring it up at the next board meeting. Yeah...maybe." And then it would have died.

If you don't provoke debate, there's nothing to discuss.

ISHMAEL

[silly plonk]

I agree with the way you outline handling disconnections as a method of preventing cheaters from logging off inappropriately and not penalizing legitimate connection problems.  It makes good sense: those that disco by accident while in combat will likely be the minority compared to those that disco while travelling to or from combat... those that have questionable connections should learn when to engage and disengage to preserve their OAE.

Destructive player behaviour is much harder to police.  A company can't close the account of everyone who shoots an ally either by intent or in error.  Normally developers try and let the community take care of itself in this situation... those who constantly violate the rules of good conduct as perceived by the community will eventually be ostracized, but this doesn't necessarily meant that they will stop the behaviour.  Sometimes that negative attention is what the  interlopers seek.  Again, perhaps the mere cost of a title like AH will only attract the more serious flight enthusiasts.

Hackers are, by definition, illegally manipulating software.  I can assure you, those that are caught are dealt with quickly and surely and have their accounts terminated (if the aren't offered a job!  ) .  Trouble is, most hackers are not caught, so the answer that they will be ejected is moot.  The question Downtown and others are asking is what systems are in place to take away the incentive to hack in the first place?

Finally, I am torn by the idea of giving veteran players a competitive advantage such as extra engine performance or superior visibility.  I really agree that they should have point bonuses or multipliers to reward their success.  However, giving them a combat advantage might promote a system where those at the top simply stay there, since they have superior resources (Help, help!  I'm being oppressed!)  Any on-line multiplayer game should stress skill and all players should have access to the same resources so that skill is the only determining factor.  Giving superior equipment or capabilities to one party and not to another is really just legitimizing the advantage that hackers seek.  Novice players have enough strikes against them that they don't need inferior equipment as one of them.

I think other points you mentioned like mission planning screens are better.  Or maybe one has to achieve a certain rank before being allowed to form a squad.  Or even be a member of a squad, for that matter (although newbies learn A LOT from squad mates).  Depending on strategy elements, items like directing supply routes and other factors of a multi-faceted simulation could be included.

I hope you accept my statements in the manner that I intend them: hopefully helpful suggestions rather than outright criticism and a lack of faith in your system.  I base my statements on years of experience playing multi-player flight sims so hopefully they will be helpful.

As Hitech and Pyro have pointed out, the Beta test that you conducted created behaviour that is much like scenarios: players who are enthusiastic about the event show up at specified times.  I think the secret ingredient you will need is how to manage the fact that multi-player games have to operate 24 hours a day and have to accommodate various personalities and even different moods from the same player.  Allowing everyone to participate at any time and in a manner they find engaging is the key to financial success for any on-line sim.

Happy flying!
S.P.

[silly plonk]

 

...and you ought to have the intelligence to know when someone is pushing your buttons. ;-)

DOH!  (Slaps forehead.)

[Rolo]

 

I already went through this debate once on the Delphi Flight Sim Forum when the OAE was just a theory. After we tested the idea online, even the worst nay-sayers on
Delphi had to acknowledge that the idea asn't without merit (and many of them are now attempting to try it in their own organized wars).

Ish, I don't think that anyone here has said that your system is without merit (Indeed, AW and WB scenarios have demonstrated some of the elements with scenario play and box games like SWOTL have had some role/character aspects).  There is an audience for such a game, the issue that has been raised is whether the audience is large enough to make the game a commercial success.

While YOU find games like Quake boring, millions of others do not.  Most them, however, find flight sims boring.  A top selling sim nowadays MIGHT sell 100,000 copies.  Ultra-realistic sims like Military Simultation's Back to Baghdad might sell in the low five figures.  Online sims attract an even smaller audience.

Now, if I were to introduce to some of my friends in the VC community, the first thing they'd want to know is how your sim is going to attract a large audience.  Arguably you're looking to appeal to niche of an already small market.

You've fallen into the trap that most would-be game designers do -- thinking that there are tons of people that want to play the same game you do.  They might, but you need to address the issue more objectively.  How do you make the game fun for new and experienced players?  How do you keep the game from becoming repetitive?  How do you build (and keep) an audience?  How do you deal with the competition?  

In an earlier post, HT suggested that you find programmers, artists and funding and build your game.  You dismissed the idea as ridiculous.  Why?  How do you think ICI got started?  If you have a good idea and can sell it by answering the questions I put forth above (and a lot more), it is very possible.  

Rolo

[Wizard]

If you are the best of the best of the best and everbody knows you are the best of the best of the best and your medals and awards are displayed for all to see.... and then you auger and die during a normal landing,,,in your fltsim world, do you lose all your status and return to ZERO because you can't fly for toejam?