Author Topic: Where were you all last night? (Read 495 times)

Oldman731 · « **on:** October 09, 2003, 03:23:03 PM »

Cranked up the computer at about 10:00 Eastern time, found four (4) other people in the CT, which degenerated to, at one point, only two of us (me and Snoopy1). By the time I left an hour later, numbers had swollen to 13.

So where did everyone go? I haven't seen the CT that empty during prime time in a year.

Don't do it again.

- oldman

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2003, 03:48:56 PM »

i signed off round 21:40 est - only on for bout 30 min- low numbs then too

22:00 est is sack time sun - thurs for this old fart; alarm goes off at 05:45

Arlo · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2003, 04:19:51 PM »

In the MA enjoying myself in an F4U. What can I say? At least nobody is complaining all that much. It's all good. Who knows ... maybe by coincidence everyone was busy doing something else? I heartily encourage Eddie's late pac work. Just ... hey ... I like my Hog and wanna fly it on occasion. If it ain't here ... I'll go where it is.

Tuck · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2003, 04:56:20 PM »

hmmmm, numbers have been pretty sucky all week from what i've seen. could it happen to have anything to do with a PAC setup?

(let's face it...this is a decent setup as far as pacs go...but it's still a pac. a few may like pacs, but most don't care for 'em it seems...and i have to admit i don't like 'em myself.)

Arlo · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2003, 05:54:08 PM »

Could be your imagination. The last Pac setup .... and the one before that ... etc .... didn't have a numbers problem. Even in this one, I've seen it as high as 50. Everyone has their preference .... and everyone may want to think theirs matches the majority's. Me? FinRus doesn't really hold my interest but I'll fly it and have fun for a change of pace. The terrain is great. The planeset fits ... etc. But if I had my "druthers", I'd be flying Corsairs in a Pacific AvA setting. And if FinRus happened to have an off-night or two, I certainly wouldn't see that as an opportunity to claim it was unpopular and not worth the time spent on it.

The Euro settings which features Spit Vs and/or IXs as well as the later 109 and 190 series planes appeals to players for obvious reasons. Same if it features ponies and/or lightnings ... both of which have a large following.

But ... if PACmaps were as unpopular in the CT as you claim ... do you really think it reflects a general lack of interest in the PTO on the part of the AH population? Don't you think more players would potentially participate in the CT if the PAC setups featured their favorite rides without the use of them being dickered with or hampered either by initial design or modification as the setup progresses? It's not like the George doesn't provide balance against any and all potential Allied Pac planes (except perhaps the F4U-4 ... even then player skill can make all the difference).

Most Allied oriented Pacfans are Navy ride oriented - many of which are F4U fans (I feel pretty confident in making that claim). Most Axis oriented Pacfans would like to have a ride available that can compete. The N1K2J is that ride (even though I whole-heartedly support the addition of the Ki-84 and the Ki-43 to the Japanese fighter set .. as well as the Betty). So it seems to stand to reason that any PAC map in the CT that features the George being as available as any other IJ plane and the F4U-1, 1D and F6F (hell, forget the FM-2) being as available as the other allied fighters for use would draw some decent numbers and maintain them. Unless, during it's run, the setup is constantly dickered with because of catering to the snivelers.

Now Eddie is currently checking what various combinations work best in a mid to late PAC setting. I applaud his efforts.

I'm not saying you have to like PAC setings in the CT. And I'm not saying you'd be the only one that prefers other settings (hell you may well not be the only one that outright detests PAC). But you may want to consider trying to relax and have fun in them anyhow. There's quite a few PACfans who fly the non-pac settings just to support the CT.

It's all good. Just fly and have fun. Don't worry bout it.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2003, 10:39:16 PM »

Let's face it, most people don't like PTOs because of the planeset. There are some serious holes there - no Jack, Frank, Oscar, Betty, Jill, Emily, Tojo and Ki-100 (can't remember its name). Don't give me "there weren't enough numbers produced" crap about some of those airplanes; if the Ta-152 is represented, then the Ki-84 should have been here since day one. The Japanese planeset is just weak and has a weak reputation. It's a shame because they are very fun and different planes to fly. Because of this negative view of the Jap planeset not many want to fly Axis and, let's admit it, some of us have a hang up flying Axis planes (please try to not be so myopic, its just a damn game). The PTO was such a different theater than ETO APART from climate and land features. Therefore its a different beast. A lot of people want to up and in one sector be in a fight. If that's your attitude fine, maybe you should try the MA more. The CT USED to be more mission oriented, more real than anything else that has come along since its inception. I think this is lost now for the worse. Its a losing situation in the CT, the PTO setup. And its a damn shame too. I mean, come on, palm trees, white beaches, jungle juice, native women, clear skies...ShruG (Arlo

)

Shane · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2003, 10:53:57 PM »

let's not forget to mention the new MA map, festerMA.

Jospe-Home · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2003, 11:26:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shane
let's not forget to mention the new MA map, festerMA.

Yup found the same myself. Fester's MA map, was ok, I guess anything is better then Pizza?

Not quite sure what I think of this set-up? Would have liked to have seen the N1ki & maybe the Hog perked the last day? I liked how you changed things as the week went on. Also, I would like to see how it would play if the planes where just set at bases further back ? Maybe next time? The lack of CV's also kept the front fixed primarily between two bases.

I think what sumes this one up the best is " strength in numbers"

I understand that comment is a no brainer but it seems to me in these PAC set-ups that in the begining its more 1v1 2v2 ... to the IJN's advantage then usually around the middle of the week you start to see alot more allied fiters flying in groups .... bye bye zeke advantage .......

I would like to see the K/D numbers at the end of the set-up.

Overall I liked it.

Ty eddieK

Jospe

Arlo · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2003, 01:12:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Let's face it, most people don't like PTOs because of the planeset. There are some serious holes there - no Jack, Frank, Oscar, Betty, Jill, Emily, Tojo and Ki-100 (can't remember its name). Don't give me "there weren't enough numbers produced" crap about some of those airplanes; if the Ta-152 is represented, then the Ki-84 should have been here since day one. The Japanese planeset is just weak and has a weak reputation. It's a shame because they are very fun and different planes to fly. Because of this negative view of the Jap planeset not many want to fly Axis and, let's admit it, some of us have a hang up flying Axis planes (please try to not be so myopic, its just a damn game). The PTO was such a different theater than ETO APART from climate and land features. Therefore its a different beast. A lot of people want to up and in one sector be in a fight. If that's your attitude fine, maybe you should try the MA more. The CT USED to be more mission oriented, more real than anything else that has come along since its inception. I think this is lost now for the worse. Its a losing situation in the CT, the PTO setup. And its a damn shame too. I mean, come on, palm trees, white beaches, jungle juice, native women, clear skies...ShruG (Arlo )

Very well said. Ummmm ... hell .... guess that's all I can add.

Tuck · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2003, 07:29:33 AM »

i don't wanna be misudnderstood with my previous posting.

again, MYSELF personally, i don't care for pac setups in general because of a numer of factors, the greatest of which is the plane setups. as DiabloTX pointed out, the axis planeset in a pac setup on ah is verrrrrrrryyyyy limited (no slam intended whatsoever to anyone...so don't even think that it's meant that way). what's the fixer? well, some may say "substitute this for that"....and to that i say bullocks. i have found that this only mucks things up and creates a overflow of whines from all corners of the ct universe.

eh, i dunno what to suggest. all i know is, and i think i'm correct in saying this to some degree, you'll find the participation during pac setups less substantial than during eto setups.

trust me...if i knew what the hell i was doing, i'd me more than happy to try to come up with a new map and stuff for the ct, but as i'm a total moron, i don't think i could pull it off.

hopefully we'll have a larger selection of planes n' stuff with the next version (what's the word on that, anyhoo? honestly, i have no clue as i don't keep up with the bb on the next version.).

toodles, take care, and anyone wanna medicate pad?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2003, 07:56:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Very well said. Ummmm ... hell .... guess that's all I can add.

Thank you!

Let me also add that I don't think the PTO setups are unpopular due to any lack of imagination by the CT's. Far from it. Given the planes available I think they do a bang up job. CT's, thanks for all the hours you guys put in to try and give us something fun and different.

PS - I still think an Aleutians scenario would be fun...but I doubt many people in the CT would agree with me.