Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on November 24, 2005, 03:20:44 PM
-
The discussion in "altitude and scenarios" is broadening out, so I made a new topic for it. I'll fill it in with a few of the posts from "altitude and scenarios" to get it started.
-
Originally from Delirium:
The altitude of the participants is the #1 reason I will not fly in scenarios, man-made restrictions help but do not eliminate the problem, the last BoB scenario is a good example, the British flights routinely flew at 40k and we ended up seeing 109Es even higher.
I'm not asking to fly in a scenario with a pre-arranged outcome (either side winning or losing) but I want it to feel at least a LITTLE realistic with altitudes, combat situation, etc.
The other reason I refuse to fly in scenarios is the lack of participation... if either side gets a large lead in the first 2 frames, you might as well cancel the remaining frames for lack of attendance on the one side. I don't care if my side wins or loses, I normally download music for the period and enjoy it during the scenario for the historical feel. Score is the least important thing to me.
List of importance to me (this would make a good poll question for the scenario site btw).
1. Realistic feel- not a carbon copy, but more than just historic match ups at 40K).
2. Participation- during BoB, I had a different XO every frame and was extremely stressful, more so since I had so many computer problems during that time.
3. Sense of fair play and respect for the other guy- this includes both the boards and the rule settings. Included is a lack of whining and static rule set, unaffected by said whining.
4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.
5. 'Winning' the scenario- for me, taking part in a good scenario FAR outweighs the score factor.
__________________
Delirium
475 FG "Satans Angels"
Nose Art
475th Homepage
__________________
"I pleasure myself while i choke myself with the usb cables for my joystick." Morpheus
Last edited by Delirium on 11-24-2005 at 01:10 AM
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Delirium
The other reason I refuse to fly in scenarios is the lack of participation...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like a Catch 22 situation.
I've flown in four Aces High scenarios now (Battle of Britain, Rangoon, Coral Sea, and now Malta). While attendance usually drops off a bit as the frames go on, I haven't noticed it being that bad. Also, even reduced numbers are enough to have a very fun scenario, as you still have over 50 people per side. Here are some stats.
Let R1 be the ratio of last-frame number of players divided by first-frame number of players for side 1. Let R2 be that for side 2.
scenario, R1, R2
---------------------
BoB, 0.79, 0.97
Rangoon, 0.81, 0.83
Coral Sea, 1.05, 1.10
Malta, 0.84, 0.79
The stats don't bear out large disparities in loss of players in scenarios except possibly for Battle of Britain, and it was perhaps the closest score of all going into the last frame, with the outcome coming down to a small handful of buildings at one target not destroyed resulting in the axis just missing a win. Also, attendance in Coral Sea actually increased.
Still, scenarios aren't for everyone. This isn't an argument that Delirium should like them or play in them. This is just an analysis of player participation changes over time.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Delirium
List of importance to me (this would make a good poll question for the scenario site btw).
1. Realistic feel- not a carbon copy, but more than just historic match ups at 40K).
2. Participation- during BoB, I had a different XO every frame and was extremely stressful, more so since I had so many computer problems during that time.
3. Sense of fair play and respect for the other guy- this includes both the boards and the rule settings. Included is a lack of whining and static rule set, unaffected by said whining.
4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.
5. 'Winning' the scenario- for me, taking part in a good scenario FAR outweighs the score factor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoB and Malta had some very high-alt action. Rangoon and Coral Sea (at least from my perspective) didn't. Even a scenario with unrealistic altitude is more realistic than anything else available in the world, as far as I know. Certainly more realistic than the main arena and uncomparibly more so than a stand-alone sim.
I've had the same GL's in nearly every frame of every scenario. Regardless, scenarios vary. Some CO's and command staff are more organized than others, so you can't judge all scenarios by how it was in a particular squadron of a particular scenario.
Fair play is largely present in my experience. Just as you will never have a scenario (or anything else in the world) that everyone likes, you will always with group participation have a small number of people who whine about something. If you restrict yourself to participation in activities only where there are zero whiners (as opposed just to a low percentage), forget about scenarios or volunteer organizations or working in any company larger than a few people, for that matter. Whiners are always there, but unless things are bad, they usually aren't the majority. They seem more plentiful than they are because they make a lot of noise -- but in my experience, out of, say, 100 people playing, maybe 5 will be annoying whiners.
Your points 4 and 5 are not at odds at all with my experience in every scenario. From my perspective, most enjoy filling their roles even if those roles don't end up resulting in lots of kills or even winning.
At any rate, I don't bring up these points to persuade you to like scenarios. I think a person is either going to like them or not, and reasons one way or the other are irrelevant. I bring up these points only to remark that my experience is totally at odds from yours in many areas.
-
Originally posted by Delirium:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooke
While attendance usually drops off a bit as the frames go on, I haven't noticed it being that bad.
Still, scenarios aren't for everyone. This isn't an argument that Delirium should like them or play in them. This is just an analysis of player participation changes over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You weren't in the last Russian/German scenario... trust me, attendance was miserable.
I really like scenarios, I just feel as though the attitudes in the MA have trickled down to scenarios to some degree.
I'm just giving my opinion... I'm fairly certain I'm not alone, but feel free to ignore my opinion anyway.
__________________
Delirium
475 FG "Satans Angels"
Nose Art
475th Homepage
__________________
"I pleasure myself while i choke myself with the usb cables for my joystick." Morpheus
-
Originally posted by DoK:
We're getting off-topic, but based on what I saw running Rangoon, I'd have to concur that there are serious problems.
Despite the cross-promotion with an AVG-related site and free prizes attendence was far below expectations. Even for a PTO event.
A lot of people stayed away because I wouldn't let them sign up en masse in predefined squadrons and grab their preferred rides as such. This was more disturbing as it appeared that a large number of people saw scenarios are squadron competitions - more concerned about their scores than the team (which is one reason I enforce the rule of breaking up cliques - they erode community).
I wasn't as upset by the whining (which I always expect - give someone a 1000 ft altitude edge and someone on the other side will always say it's now "unwinable" for them) as people walking off because of necessary rule changes (due to crappy attendence) or things not going their way. That's just wrong - you sign up to be part of a team - there's just too much MA attititude up in this.
The net effect of this is it really hinders the CM. You're forced to pick more popular battles or people won't fly in numbers if there aren't enough uber rides; you have to let squadrons define your registration process or they won't fly; you have to tiptoe around rulings or people will walk off. The end result is that scenarios will be run for and by "the few".
Can it be fixed? Yeah, probably. I'm convinced that large scenarios need a $5 or $10 sign-up fee, which will be used to underwrite the cost of patches for everyone, as well as provide prizes (maybe Amazon.com gift certs). That money will also help keep people in the event - if you walk off, you don't get your patch - simple. Sure, people will ***** about paying to play a game they already pay for - what else is new?
Events should have feature movies as well as image galleries and an archive of AAR's. An event should have the permanence that the MA lacks. These should be forwarded to online webzines for possible feature. All games of this genre are predominantly arena based - AH scenarios are something very different which will be interesting to a lot of people.
The key people in events - CMs, FLs, COs, and veteran pilots - need to pass on their ethics to the newer people. New people (and remember that scenarios started in 1992) and even seasoned "squadron only" people need to recognize that joining a side on a scenario is a kind of contract - you are accepting a responsibility to forge a team to meet a challenge for a number of weeks. You don't walk off. You don't fly just for yourself. In a well designed event, everyone will get a chance to shine and its worth the work.
__________________
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire
GonZoville.com
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Delirium
You weren't in the last Russian/German scenario... trust me, attendance was miserable.
I really like scenarios, I just feel as though the attitudes in the MA have trickled down to scenarios to some degree.
I'm just giving my opinion... I'm fairly certain I'm not alone, but feel free to ignore my opinion anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope -- My first AH scenario was Battle of Britain 2004.
The only way to change attitudes is to participate and to be part of the group helping to change them.
Almost no one is alone in an opinion, and I'm not ignoring yours -- I'm just explaining how my opinion is different.
By the way, I was wrong on my stats above for Coral Sea. It was actually as follows: R1 = 0.88, R2 = 0.72. More in line with the others in terms of drop off but more lopsided than Rangoon and Malta.
Don't get me wrong -- I would like to see scenarios have the same attendance all the way through. That would be a lot better. However, for me, I'd much rather play in a scenario that in the end frame has 75% of what it started with than not play at all.
-
I, too, like the idea of building up continuity and comraderie around scenarios. I'm not sure about charging money as I'd be concerned the number of players signing up would be drastically smaller. Still, we could try it and see how it goes.
I love the idea of patches, and I participate in getting those out. DoK's idea of getting exposure outside the small AH scenario community and even outside the overall AH community is great. I'd love to see articles on AH scenarios in gaming articles or even elsewhere. In Air Warrior, we had a Wall Street Journal reporter attend a scenario once and write up his experience as a gunner on a B-17.
Also, I've thought it would be interesting to recruit into scenarios folks who are into wargaming but not necessarily being a pilot themselves. There are a lot of people who would love helping to craft strategies and participate in command staff from the ground -- sort of like a wargame, but running it with real people in real time. Also, it would be interesting to have more ground forces involved, and hence more targets for ground attack. There are plenty of gamers out there who like naval and ground action.
One of the issues there is that such people might not want to pay $15/month all the time for Aces High to play in a scenario here and there. So a system where people could pay for a single scenario worth of participation would be good. It's like $15/month but not automatically recurring.
Folks are working to improve various areas impacting scenerios: promotion, organization, frequency of running scenarios, building a larger base of solid, reliable players, etc. It will take effort and time.
Another aspect that helps is making sure to get CO's and GL's who are really into it and who are good organizers, recruiters, and communicators. Diligence of the command staff helps a scenario greatly.
-
By the way, if anyone is reading these topics and wondering what he or she can do even without a great investment of time, here it is: promote and participate. Specifically:
1. From time to time, tell people in the main arena about scenarios or briefly chat using a text channel with another about scenarios while in the main arena. I estimate that only about 5% of the player base knows what a scenario is.
2. Play in scenarios, recruit others to play in scenarios, and while playing and discussing, exhibit the sort of attitude you think is best for scenarios. In attitude, lead by example.
-
I think I have been in MOST AH Sceanrios ( 12+ and counting I think ) since I joined in 2001 ? ( Man that long ago ! )
There is a group of Scenario players who will compare AH Scenarios to what they experienced in Air Warrior or WarBirds.
Here are some of the things I have observed ( And most have not changed much over the 4 years ).
1. AH does seem to gravitate toward MA SQUADS being a bigger influence on who signs up and who they fly with.
I do not have a problem with sqaud A all signing up together for a particular squadron as long as they do not mind ME as the CO sticking some none squad members with them as needed. I look at it as a RECRUITMENT tool for that squad. Get a new person to fly with them in a scearnio and there is a good chance they may fly with them later in the MA.
2. Scenario attendence numbers vary WIDELY depending on the plane set and theatre of operations.
We had 300+ for most frames for Midway. But we had less than 100 at times for a Arab / Isreal scenario. Ruhr had a pretty high number. We even had 60+ Bomber pilots fly but we could barely scrape up 15-20 bomber pilots for this one. Most scenarios have been well designed and thought out - but it is the players that decide how POPULAR a Scenario will be. The popular ones may draw the most people but we can not fly BoB and Ruhr and Midway every year. It is up to US the CM's, CO's, GL's and pilots to get more people to show up for the less popular or less well known scenarios.
3. AH has a very small hard core scenario asset pool of pilots, GL's and CO's
In the GOOD OLD AW Days we had a plethera of groups and people we could draw from to be CO's, XO's and GL's. Each one of these people could be counted on to draw in even more people to help fill out a roster. So on the day REG opened it was possible to have one or both sides fill up in a day or 2 ! In AH unless the reg list is very small it may take weeks to maybe fill all of the slots if we are lucky.
4. Changes in AH that we have no control over affect scenarios.
Just for Malta it took a long time to develope a NEW Terrain to work with the new Terrain editor and versions. Throw in changes to AH itself that actually changes how planes fly in the middle of a scenario does not help matters. Now Hitech has a larger population to worry abvout than 150-200 Scenario pilots so we have to live with this stuff. But it does have an overall affect on scenarios.
---------------------
The first 3 items listed all seem to fall back onto one area of concern. It is up to US THE PLAYERS to make things work.
The CM's or a group can create the best scenario in the world with the perfect rules, plane sets, historical flavor and intrigue. But if WE THE AH SCENARIO PILOTS do not do our part to get other people besides the CORE PLAYERS interested in them we will always have the above problems.
We only have OURSELVES to blame if numbers are low, if people do not fly all of the frames, if the petty whiners and bickerers raise thier minority voices above the silent majority.
If EVERY Person who flew in the last scenario did all they could to get just 1 more player to register for the next scenario then most of the problems above fall to the wayside.
It is incumbent amoung the SCENARIO CORE Group to make sure we keep expanding our numbers - not rest on any old outdated distant memory laurels.
-
Good points, Jordi. Recruitment and raising awareness of scenarios is, I too think, most important.
Which brings up another thing: thanks, DoK, for agreeing to make a movie for Malta. The first time I had ever seen such a thing for a scenario was your movie for Rangoon, and it was amazing to me. I think these movies can help with recruitment and raising awareness.
-
in my mind there is very little to be done about these 'problems'. the scenarios run spectacularly, the fights are all fun beit at 40k or on the deck.
full attendance is usually over 300 from what i see.
the times are good for Euros and yanks. not so good for eastern and oriental timezones.
the scenarios i have flown in (bob to malta) have been much fun and i hope nothing changes in the next ones to come.
bat
-
I must add:
$10-$15 entry fee?? What is this, a LAN party? Event patches? Amazon.com gift cards? I don't want/need either, so why not let me join without any fee?
You already have to pay AH sub to get in. I don't see any reason to further charge folks. You want to INCREASE participation, not drive folks away, which is exactly what this would do.
-
Originally posted by jordi
[..]
We had 300+ for most frames for Midway. But we had less than 100 at times for a Arab / Isreal scenario. Ruhr had a pretty high number. We even had 60+ Bomber pilots fly but we could barely scrape up 15-20 bomber pilots for this one. Most scenarios have been well designed and thought out - but it is the players that decide how POPULAR a Scenario will be. The popular ones may draw the most people but we can not fly BoB and Ruhr and Midway every year.
Why not? I wouldnt mind flying BoB anually, its a very good setup - either side can pull off a victory and thats a key point for a scenario in a computer game.
In fact i'd rather fly a BoB setup every month then to participate in scenarios which may well be historical but are simply no fun because plane performance between the opposing sides is vastly different (late PAC-setups).
Running scenarios with a huge gap in between them is not going to produce a lot of attention. I know scenarios are a lot of work and to mitigate that work i propose mixing "old and tried" scenario setups (like BoB/Midway/Ruhr/Bigweek) with new ones and aim for a timeframe of 3months max between the scenarios. It was possible when AH had a quarter of todays #of players... and it should be possible today.
On a related note: we have a B-24 in this game for such a long time now and there was no 8th AF/LW or Ploesti scenario since its introduction. Why?
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
On a related note: we have a B-24 in this game for such a long time now and there was no 8th AF/LW or Ploesti scenario since its introduction. Why?
Because you didn't design the scenario (or mod a previous one) and arrange to run it? I hereby nominate you to do so. :) You can count on my participation.
On the topic of frequency of scenarios, I'm all for frequent scenarios and mixing in previous designs (as opposed to just all new scenarios) to up the frequency. Right now, one of the impediments to frequency, though (as I understand it) is the need to redo all of the terrains. The previous terrains aren't readable in the latest version of Aces High, and I haven't heard that there is a translation tool. Thus, all the maps must be redone, which is a large amount of work.
-
My suggestion for AH
Make the Main arena (it's a strategic arena with WW2 flight influence some people describe) from the rumblers kill arena (kill, kill, perk points, perk points) to a arena where players get interested for Squadops, TOD or scenarios. Change the gameplay in that way and the numbers will go higher in scenarios and the players understand the situation in the scenario game play. I think most don't know and they play the same kamikaze style in scenarios which is even deadly for that side because of "life limitations".
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I must add:
$10-$15 entry fee?? What is this, a LAN party? Event patches? Amazon.com gift cards? I don't want/need either, so why not let me join without any fee?
You already have to pay AH sub to get in. I don't see any reason to further charge folks. You want to INCREASE participation, not drive folks away, which is exactly what this would do.
There is a risk of people having the same reaction as you have. But, consider the following:
- An entry fee makes it more likely that the people who sign up wll STAY with the event all the way through. The attrition rate of pilots from week to week slows things down and detracts from the event. Obviously the entry fee would have to be in proportion to the length of the event as well.
- People do seem to want the patches, souvenirs, and prizes. Is it right that a small (small ... hell ... microscopic) subset of the community is footing the bill?
- As I recall the player community is pretty much forbidden to go out and get sponsors for events because it is, afterall, HTC's product. This would be the normal avenue to have prizes and so on underwritten, but that is closed off.
An alternative would be to just put up a PayPal link on the event's homepage and ask for donations. I feel that prizes and more visible recognition would provide something that the MA is totally lacking. It would be a reason for people to stop toolshedding for a few nights a month and fly a scenario.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Originally from Delirium:
4. Kills- except for when I fly with Guppy in a scenario , I don't care if I get kills, so long as the group I am flying with has fun.
__________________
Delirium
LOL how'd I get dragged into this? Just because I miss every shot, and then you fly in behind me and kill em.......
Then again it always works that way doesn't it? Kinda like the other night when we both landed and I had 0 kills and you had 9 from picking em off my tail again and again and again.....
Same as you've done in every scenario we've ever flown :)
No words of wisdom on AH scenarios since I work weekends and haven't had a chance to fly one yet.
-
Can we stop talking about Malta. It was fighter vs fighter action with very little significance. Lets move on and start an American Heavy Bomber Camp and get people back into scenarios. Thats how its done. Speciality stuff is fun but with only a few carriers involved or lesser known fights your going to continue to lose participation. Or go back to a common theme like BOB except try a German sea born invaison say July of 1940. We have barges and ships. Its would be a huge air battle with either side having a destinict possiblity of victory.
Vlkyrie1
-
I always have thought that scenerios are the best that flight sims have to offer. I especially love the 1 death and done aspect.
The ammount of time and effort put in by the people that take command positions as well as the scenerio designers is huge and I for one am very gratefull for their efforts.
Sometimes things dont work out that well but its not for a lack of effort.
The only problem is there needs to be more:)
If you feel you need to charge a resonable fee, its good with me.
Keep up the good work guys, my hats off to all who make these scenerios possible.
-
Back in AW..special events were..special. In AH there are so many going on, between snapshots and other things, that when a main event comes, its kind of watered down...not as special. Maybe less of the other stuff would help?
-
What is needed is a large recuitment. This should be done by getting together a good team and running something in the ETO ie 8th Air Force old style scenario, or a new 9th Air Force Campaign. An ad campaign in the lead up such as MOTD and Hitech front page ad for sign up would help. The way I seee it we are losing flight and group leaders / not training new ones and they are the ones that make these event happen.
Vlkyrie1
-
Back in AW..special events were..special. In AH there are so many going on, between snapshots and other things, that when a main event comes, its kind of watered down...not as special. Maybe less of the other stuff would help?
I have to say this true... In AW I looked forword to the scenerios. The MA was just a place to have alittle fun, but largely it was place to practice what little skill I had for the scenerios, so i wouldn't look like a noob. The other thing miss from AW was the scenerio practice... they was just as fun the event itseft many times. By the time frame 1 came around I knew the guys in my scenerio Sqdn's just as good, if not better than the MA sqdn I was flying with. And this helped the turnouts for all the frames, the guys you was flying with stopped being just "that name that flies one of the other colors" and became a friend! This is what made for me, the AW community so great we stayed friends after the event. So when you got shot down in the MA you would see lots of.... Nice kill... on the open channel. Because many times the guy you just killed or got killed by was a freind from a scenerio.
As far as attendance maybe some weeknight scenerios? Get players out of MA and into the events. If they try it they may like it... I did. I know it is nice to have times that are good for Euros and yanks. But odds are the Euros will find a way to fly.... but each night we have 500+ Yanks playing. Most of them have no clue about scenerio's. Those guys think AH is about what is going on in the MA.... Most of us who have been around a few years have always known the best thing about online flight sims was.... The scenerio's!
We just have to get all those guys zooming around the MA to think the same way.
CAVALRY
-
I am looking forward to the next scenario... is there anything in planing?
With the current plane set i can imagine its hard to set something up since any mid or early war scenario has difficulties to use historically accurate plane setups and, at the same time, have considerable equally strong planes. If the planes on one side seem to have a slight disadvantage the majority of scenario pilots chooses the other side, which makes it hard to design a number advantage for the side with the weaker setup.
-
I was going to ignore this, but just cant manage it.
Any idea of charging a so called "entry fee" for events strikes me as ridiculous! The whole idea of building and running scenarios/FSO's/Snapshots etc. is to offer folks the chance live a moment in history and to answer the questions under the "what if?" column. The entire operation is set up for the pleasure of the users in hopes of having more participation. Therefore it would seem to me that the CM Team will be working harder to improve not only the physical appeal of a battle, but the TOTAL immersion for the participant thereby increasing overall participation.
One other note here, some people just enjoy using their imagination when building a scenario, are you going to charge for that participation also?
For one, I think the idea of an "entry fee" should be absolutely thrown out here and now.
Ludicrous, and a few other terms come to mind along those lines.
SIM
-
Scenarios will not be charged for. We do this for the community. Players will be able to get patches and such as some members of the community will take it upon themselves to handle the details as has been done quite cleanly in the past.
The single Biggest way to "improve" scenarios is this. ATTEND. We have a scenario team that is growing and taking on some new talent. There are some good things planned, and we are starting to see some progress in the new maps. All this takes time, and we are over the hump.
Attendance is what sets the priority though. As events fall off in attendance, less drive and enthusiasm by the designers is inevitable. Not many people want to invest their free time spending months putting an event together and have it attended by half the planned for pilots. Granted, Scenario DESIGN has a great deal to do with this, but we also need input from the players as to what they are interested in so that we can produce events you will attend.
Having said that, the start of the year has produced a new scenario team. I have been involved in scenarios in some capacity for the past 10 years. I have just been named the new Lead CM for Scenarios. My goal is to design events from the memories of the great ones I've held leadership roles in, such as BoB, Pearl Harbor, Ploesti, Coral Sea and the like.
Culero, a good friend and long time Scenario junkie is on the Scenario Team.
We have just accepted Brooke into the Scenario Team.
I have extened invitations to several other long time Scenario Bred players who can only bring the Best to the game.
I expect good things from these guys, and I expect the players to rely on nail biting, white knuckeld Scenarios in the upcoming year.
But Charge for this? Not on my watch, we do Scenarios because it's the Only way to truly get the best out of this game. Its because we Want to, charging for events means we Have to, and you never get the best that way.
-
I still cant speal senario .... but there fun all the same ..
-
Rosco,
check post in Ghosts forum ;)
(No, not the one where I try to teach you how to spell Scenario)
-
grg oops rgr ... left ya a =ghostly= message .
-
"to "improve" scenarios ..... ATTEND."
Would love to!
Since 2001 I have not been able to though as they've been midday, weekend only affairs.
Between that and the overall stagnation of AH, IMO most players who were eager to participate in scenarios joined the historical-gameplay exodus to games like WWIIO and Il2. Each of which offer far better immersion and on a 7x24 schedule to boot.
IMO only HTC can make AH appeal to ex-players or new ones who are looking for historical gameplay (re: Combat Tour). About the only thing the CM team could do is schedule scenario frames other than "in the middle of the day on weekends."
Yet I think even that move may be too late. IMO the pool of scenario minded players just isn't in AH anymore.
Good luck though!
Westy
-
There was a comment, early in this string, regarding unrealistic altitudes. I noticed during the Squalls FSO that the fog/haze factor and visability range had a strong influence on the game. Buffs couldn't find the target unless they got under it. BARCAPs had trouble finding fighter bombers before they bombed and had to go low to find them in the target area. The result was (from what I saw) that the air-to-air combat was low altitude.
I don't know what the Aces High arena setting limitations are but maybe this could be used in future scenarios to limit plane altitudes without trying to use restrictions in the rules (which are hard to enforce).
- MAG1C
-
Magic, that line of reasoning is exactly the direction we are trying to take as we move forward this year. There will be a great deal of thought as the event is designed to establish multiple levels of action to keep the game playable. Fog being a great tool, the insertion of active and strategically important ground elements that are virtually invisible if the fight strays too high, combining shore bombardment with air strikes again, to keep the fight localized to realistic altitudes, and equally important very high long range bomber missions for those who love alt.
It will require a great deal of participation in the design. I expect people like you to play a very important role in this area, especially knowing your experience in events from flying along side you for so many years.
Westy, all I can say is I hope to do well and we will see.
I have a few years experience under my belt. Culero, Brooke, now Newman is on my team. I have sent an application to roscoroo (thanks for the FOM patch by the way Rosco, got it a couple days ago)
It's January and I have put Culero on Pearl Harbor and we are going to do our darndest to produce that event in December. It will take until October just to get it layed out on the scale we are looking at, then from October to Frame 1 organizing the teams, and practicing for the event. That's almost a year off, there's half a dozen in between that I Want running. The committment level and desire to bring scenarios to the forefront has only been hampered by technical difficulties at the map end which now look to have a staggeringly better result than we could have dreamed of.
April, the next event runs. The map is near complete, and we are beginning to staff up and start production. While this event is being produced, the next waves are being designed, and the following are being conceptualized.
The intention is to have multiple runs of the same event. Say, for example, we run BoB. The production, design, setup conditions are complete. It is possible to run a Late Weekday Evening Frame, An ETO friendly and US friendly time slot. Have different COs, independant scoring. Everyone gets a shot at playing. That's a possibility that has significant merit and deserves consideration. How about a 24 hour event? Rotate in divisions, register for a time slot or Multiple time slots, and run it. I am open to building Community Based Events, which really only work if the Community can attend. So yes, I back up my message of If you want better events, ATTEND, with I will make Attendance by everyone Possible.
As for the pool of scenario players who are not in AH anymore, that may be so, some have left. However, I attend snapshots, air races, and generally discuss events in the MA and there are new people who come in every day who think the concept is fantastic. I won't discount them, I will encourage them, I entered my first scenario in AW and barely knew how to raise my landing gear. It's MY job to make the events desireable, which can only happen if I pay attention to what You and others like you want to play.
Interestingly enough, there are some very old sticks and familiar faces that I am seeing more of daily. An exodus is like a tracer, they work both ways.
-
Congrats Brooke!
I thought maybe Culero forgot to change his avatar when I ran across a post of his in OT and saw Pearl Harbor; now I know better (cool!).
-
Thanks, Fury; and I'll be looking forward to you in many more scenarios to come! :)
Welcome also to new CM's Newman and Roscoroo -- I will very much enjoy working with you guys.
Westy, the goal is to ramp up the number of scenarios running, to increase participation, and to increase variety in many ways (including time, if we can manage to get participation outside of weekends). Aces High has its share of folks who love scenarios, its share of untapped potential among people who would love scenarios if they knew about them, and even its share of returning old timers from the first days of scenarios. We'll get there.
As far as stagnation goes, I've only been actively playing Aces High in the last 1.5-2 years after a long time away from on-line flying. However, your comment reminds of 1992-1993 in Air Warrior. That was the time of a prolonged feeling of stagnation in Air Warrior, where many players, myself included, had been asking for various things in the game (accelerated stalls, spins, blackouts, etc.) for the preceding years and seeing no progress in the game. Many gave up and left in 1993 right before Kesmai came out with SVGA Air Warrior, which had a lot of what we had been asking for. Here, in Aces High, we are on the verge of Combat Tour; we have just recently gotten the Axis vs. Allies arena (which from my two times in it so far seems to be a blast and much different from the main arena); we have air racing; we have very-well-attended Squad Ops, which are great scenario-like events running almost every week; we are working to ramp up scenarios; we have had many excellent scenarios already; and so on.
Also, there has been (from my perspective anyway), a large influx of very old timers who have started flying again after years or a decade away from on-line flying. To me, it feels like a convergence and a gathering, not a diaspora.
-
I hope your right Brooke and ROC. Your "glass is half full and rising!" mindsets does put a smile on my face (and I'm sure many others). And heck if there were weekday and/or weekend night time frames then the MA could indeed almost be a place to practice for them again. But even though I do not share that positive outlook it does not mean that I wish for the group to fail. Far from it. I just think there are major influences which are outside of your control that effect scenarios in AH.
Brooke I truly hope you, ROC, Culero and the others can pull it off. IMO nothing beats a scenario and with the new CM team and especially "Combat Tour" coming (soon?) perhaps the ranks of participants will swell again.
and best wishes for success! Truly.
Westy
-
A few things ...
- I'm willing to do feature films for any events that are run. I can usually turn these around in 10-14 days from the time I get all the footage and they're a nice way to memorialize the event. If there's enough lead time and we get a group of people to do some staged sequences, I could also do a teaser film in advance of event registration.
- If there's interest I could also take a run at patch designs for events. I already have a CafePress store already rigged, so any design I generate I can just have stuff like mugs and mousepads done that way for anyone who wants it with no inventory cost.
- The "specialness" of scenarios is one reason I proposed the entry fee. That gives the CM team a pile of cash with which to give out prizes, produce and distribute patches, and possibly even advertise the events on other sim-gaming web sites. The uniqueness of the large-scale scenario needs to be brought back - it should be something that no one wants to miss, instead of something that a third of the people seem to forget they signed up for.
- An idea I've had along the lines of uniqueness (is that a word?) is to have microsites for each event. I tried that with Rangoon - so all the docs and maps and AARs and screenies were all in one place. Worked nice. We could try something like install WordPress for each event and let everyone post their stuff their as it happens - then the complete history of the event is captured in one place forever (since the forums get churned over when a new event is started).
- I don't know what the effects on registration will be if there is a sign-up fee. Maybe it could be posed as a PayPal donation - something appreciated but not manditory. I think that if everyone understands that the money will go into stuff that will go back to them one way or another most players will donate $5 or $10. I don't think most players are aware that scenarios have zero corporate support in terms of procuring memorabilia and prizes.
-
I like scenarios very much.
I play online since 1997 (or so). First AW and when it ended I went over to AH. During this time I didn't miss many scenarios. I write this to make clear that I'll always find all relevant informations and webpages to subcribe and fly a scenario.
But I have to say: it is not easy to find those informations.
My suggestion:
A webpage with all informations in 1 place.
- Number of frames
- Date per frame, time per frame (GMT, EST, PST, CET)
- OOB with roster (real time update of slot status)
- Rules (like we have it now, that's ok)
- Changes of the rules
Would mean:
At any moment before and during a scenario we have all important informations in 1 place.
I think this would also make things easier for the CMs. No more additional informations in the forums. Just link the webpage
-
With the announcement of the next event, people will be exposed to the new events web page and registration system.
Our trial run of the site and system was during Fire Over Malta, and that showed us some good ways to improve the system.
The new website is much more user friendly, and information centralized and more easily accessed.
Work in progress, but Zwerg, your points are dead on and what we are building towards :aok Thanks for the pointers, keep em coming people, you would be suprised at how many of the things we are implementing come from threads like this.
-
Good to hear, ROC. :)
I know it's not so easy to build a good website that is also comfortable for doing data updates (Database and all that stuff). But once it's done the future benefits are huge.
-
btw, check out the "coming soon" post, nifty film ;)
-
Bit late with this because I don't check the boards much anymore. But I hope the perspective may still be useful, because I seem to be in a bit of a different category than a lot of you posting here.
From my very first scenario (the BOB a few years a back) I became a scenario Junkie. I haven't been involved in as many as most of you, but quite a few: Kurland, Big Week, 2 BOBs, Okinawa, Malta, Rangoon, Midway. The only one I've really loathed was Midway, mainly because of some blatant gaming (using B17s as fighters) and because the planeset wasn't really up to it. My favorites? Buffing in Big Week and, surprisingly, Okinawa playing Axis. But I've loved all of them (except Midway). I don't care about alt controversies. In Malta I was in a couple of fights where the 109s arrived much higher than we did (and I'm sure on other parts of the field the allies were arriving to the fighter higher than the Axis). We didn't whine about it, we simply dragged them down and killed them (and knackered their buffs on the way). The way I see it, that kind of thing actually makes the scenario more realistic. Real warfare was seldom fair, and pilots were jumped by enemy with a substantial alt advantage all the time. They would have loved it if someone had arranged things to try and level the playing field. I rarely get the chance to fly all the frames of a scenario; RL is just too busy for that. I've usually flown with squaddies, but recently I've been part of mixed squads. And that has been great. I've enjoyed meeting new people and gaining respect for people I've only seen on the boards or whom I've never even met before. And I've learned a lot from flying with the likes of Brooke.
But here's the deal. Scenarios are practically the only thing I fly in AH now. Recently I've made a couple of forays into the AvA arena (loved the rolling planeset). And I'm part of a squad that used to have a substantial presence in AH, both in the MA and especially in the scenarios. I don't think anyone would describe the Firebirds as one of the flashier AH squads, and we certainly weren't the largest. But we've been there in the scenarios for lo these many years.
Most of us don't fly AH at all any more. And a few of us, like myself, only hang on for the scenarios. The reasons are many. Some are just a little burned out on flying in general. But most of us are spending all our available gaming hours flying IL2/Forgotten Battles/Pacific Fighters and loving it. The reasons are many, and probably nothing you haven't heard before. We like flying planes with realistic engine behavior (I had forgotten how much this mattered to me, until I pinged a 109 the other night in AvA and watched it fly around with a smoking engine for 10 minutes). We like flying planes with realistic cockpits. We like the more realistic damage modelling. We like--and here's where it starts to become relevant to scenarios--flying the obscure planes as much as the more well-known ones. And to judge from the population on the various FB arenas, a lot of other people do as well. Why is it that people there don't seem to mind flying obscure early war biplanes or strange variants of Russian (and American) aircraft that few have ever heard of? What makes them want to attempt carrier take-offs in a wildcat where they have to hand crank the gear?
I think the answer is love of immersion, love of something a little different, and an interest in challenging yourself. I think those are the things that scenarios should be about.
But, quite honestly, AH tends to make all of these things a little difficult. I personally don't fault any of the scenario event organizers. I think they have all done a fantastic job. No one is getting paid to do this, and they all put in a huge amount of time designing and coordinating these things. I couldn't imagine myself doing any one part of their job half as well. But, AH itself. . .welll. . .
Let's agree that there are different kinds of immersion. But let's also agree that AH has dropped certain kinds of immersion based on realism in order to accommodate a less specialized player base (so no realistic engine behavior, cockpits, damage modelling, etc.). And one of the things that has really hampered scenario designs, it seems to me, is that designers are faced with making endless series of substitutions because AH long ago stopped developing its planeset in any meaningful sense. When I first joined AH I loved the fact that it contained many planes I hadn't flown anywhere else, and for a while, more of these were added. But for a couple of years now, all we've had is yet another variant of things that we already have. So scenario designers are faced with doing yet another Pacific scenario with a JU88 masquerading as a Betty; with doing BOB without the most common Luftwaffe bombers, with doing a Russian scenario that can't use any Russian bombers at all. And we can't do any scenarios that employ any really quirky aircraft (something that might bring new people in if they could try something really novel).
So I don't think AH makes it easy for a successful scenario. And I also don't think that any of the things you are all proposing here (better marketing, etc.) will really do anything, mainly because, as I said above, I think most scenario teams really have done a sterling job.
The big thing you design teams are battling is the MA "instant success in an uber ride win at all costs" mentality. We could all argue over what exactly this mentality is and how pervasive it is, but the fact is, that when you are trying to get people to attend scenarios, even those who have played scenarios before, you are asking people who spend most of their time flying as apples to fly as oranges.
So there is only one thing I see that could change this: Tour of Duty 2, or Combat Ops, or whatever it is being called now, when it actually arrives. This could, if it works well, give people a taste of immersive combat environments, success based on mission completion, teamwork, etc., all the things that scenarios are about. Gradually, it could start to change the way people approach their flying, so that scenarios will start to be seen as an extension of ToD, rather than as something completely alien to the MA. My dream would be to see the MA shrink in population to the size of the old CT! OK, so that will probably never happen, but you see the idea.
Forgive the late night ramblings, but I'm bored with the Olympic coverage already. And please don't interpret this as a bash AH post. There's a good reason I still have an AH subscription! And I plan on being there for the next scenario, for as many nights as I can handle, and dragging as many of my squad members who still have accounts in with me.
-
You didn't like MIDWAY ? Dang that was MY Event and MY Design . .
I LOVED it - mostly because the CV Fleets actually MOVED ! A big step from the Air Warrior days :)
And it had the highest attendence figures for any AH Scenario - 300+ For most frames.
:)
Scenarios will always be my first love of FLight Sims. Next to hosting a convention for one !
-
Hey Jordi, no offense meant, mate! You notice I didn't say anything about the design, you worked well with what you had. But the TBM3 was clearly a cut above the actual Devastator, and the fact that they could dive at nearly 400mph and release a torpedo that still worked was a little problematic. At that point I don't think we even had the Wildcat, did we? No, the actual design was great, that's what got our squad excited about flying Axis for a change!
But that's my point about the effect of having a realistic planeset. I'm hopeful that as AH adds extra campaigns to the TOD thingie, they will add new planes to make those really work. But realistically that is going to be a couple of years away, considering we're starting with the only campaign where we do have a halfway complete planeset.
So, yes, no criticism of the design intended! And I know a lot of people loved the scenario. If we had a TBD, I would love to see a re-run, since it is one of those "classic" scenarios like BOB that could go either way.
-
Oh I agree - the closer the actual plane set can be to what was there so much the better.
-
Malta was my first sceniaro, & I saw very little action, flew screen most of the time. Enjoy it - certainly, or I would not be writing this. I really enjoy the action, or lack of it and realize that the average WAR II gun time was less than 15 seconds. Keep up the good work!:noid
-
Thanks for registering for Stalin's Foruth !
-
I am waiting for another Big Week. If I can get a strike force, Wing, or Squadron to target then I am certain of a good raid.
I can, now, make a raid against a town with 3 or 4 B-17 3 ship formations and level the town. At least 90% down if all buff's have a good calibration and aim point. I have seen 100% and 99% raids.
This strike is a true raid. No hanging around and trying to effect pin-point bombing with gravity bombs. One pass, all bombs salvo'd with a single pickle. RTB. Leave the clean up to JABO and tactical forces.
With numbers, which was what was needed and used in WWII, I could raid a town and base and render both closed or catastrophically damaged.
If target hardness was set to realistic settings it would be marvelous! Realisticaly a 100 lb bomb hit on a WWII hanger would render it unusable for a day. 300 lb's would destroy it for a week or longer. I have been to UK, I was stationed there, and I have seen the actual hangers used. Wood, sheet metal, and shingles. No hardened concrete hangers were in use.
Talk to me Jordi.
Secundum mihi , urbanus resurrectio (After me, urban renewal) - 2Slow's Raiders