Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hazed- on December 03, 2001, 11:55:00 AM
-
Ok ive noticed over the last year many posts concerning our Radar levels and icon ranges being too much and I thought id try to open an honest dicussion on why we are either in favour or against any changes. Please try to keep to reasons why you are EITHER for or against changes to radar coverage/acurracy and icon range.
Id like to start by telling you about being a gunner for a B17 (death5 pilot <S> :)) and being attacked by a pair of Me262s.
well as they approached we saw them from d6.0 all the way to almost 100ft (the one that got that far).Well i'd guess i started hitting the first one from about 1.1 down to 500 before his wing was torn off(both engines oil too) then the second one attacked and i plastered him too, damaging his engine and lighting up his fuselage as he streaked past.Later I got the kill so both lost 200 perks for trying to down a b17 attacking their base!.That kinda sucks because the attacks were fast and together and at accute angles and basically i think because i had plenty of time to recognise they were jets and then to judge closing speed for 5 seconds or so(?) before they were anywhere near the 30mm shot range.
If anyone here has played in the CT you may have noticed the Icon range is 3.0 rather than 6.0.I have found surprise attacks MUCH easier to pull off and much easier to fall prey to.As the game is now I find that when you have an attacker above you you get a perfect visual clue(icon) as to WHEN they begin their attack.It is extremely rare to catch someone once they know you are nearby.
So we have an arena where unless peoples SA is flooded with enemy you can pretty much avoid all the fights.You have your icon earlwarning radar to help you out.Take it away like we tried and the game can get unenjoyable but reduce it to 3.0 like the CT (or perhaps 4 for MA?)and you get a much more intense atmosphere and you can be easily caught out if you dont pay attention to your 6 oclock.Much more oppertunity for those sneaky ideas to form :D
Id really like to try a reduced icon range in MA for a month. (3 or 4 k?)
As to Radar I think with the arenas so full these days I really dont feel there is a need anylonger for such an accurate radar.It used to be you couldnt find a fight for 20 minutes while you searched for that 1 guy showing a red bar in a 25 mile square, but now?, who CANT find a fight for gods sake? lol
Basically i think they radar really doesnt NEED to be so accurate with the numbers in MA and the scale of the map.Double its size and maybe there will be a need for it again but as it stands I usually see almost the entire front crowded with enemy all looking at their map dar closing in on any fight you can clearly see with red and green dots swirling around, pick out a solitary red one or red blob and fly directly to it.You can even adjust real-time your course until you line up with it.It all far too arcadey with so many on.Used to be you knew they were in the square and you would have a fairly hard time finding them as they hid from you.Now you cant run too far without meeting more and more cons and so Mission sorties become wild gambles that 9 times out of 10 end in failure.I think radar reduction may help to keep some areas of the map 'reletively' clear so those that dont mind a longer quieter route can have their fun too.
I used to ask for the below 500ft to be turned off but it seems unworkable when most bases are 1000ft up anyway.
Perhaps a less defined red bar would help? maybe just a small red bar until aircraft exceed a certain amount, then a larger bar and thats it.And perhaps the ability to knock out a localised area of all radar including bar type.
Imagine a tactical strike on a chain of radar(1 every 10 miles) knocks out local bar and dot radar.You send fighters to distaract fighters whilst you push a large force into the enemies now blind front.It could recover quickly but at least this would mean you could do SOME sneaky large missions.As it is as soon as you launch an enormous RED blob pretty much garentees failure doesnt it?.
I would like to see less accuracy or less definition of radar BAR
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
He's a Grünherzjäger :D
I agree completely on all points Hazed.
Reducing icon range will add much immersion to the game, as well as excitement.
Those arguing for keeping it the way it is are really relying on it too much: crutch of sorts. It'll still be there, and all the arguments about "2d monitor with limited FOV" are really a non issue: it's still there, although at a more realistic (well, perhaps) range. I doubt fighter pilots could ID all planes at d6.0, much less judge closure rate at pinpoint accuracy at this range.
Of course, this will mean that a lot of veterans will die while we get used to it, but it's fair for both newbies and veterans.
It's certainly worth a weeks worth of experimenting, IMHO.
The CT has failed for a variety of reasons, but blaiming it on icon settings alone would be wrong: in fact, that some still go to the CT I attribute in part to that.
-
I liked the reduced icon range in the CT, but I don't really think it would help much with the situation you've described.
A bomber is always going to have a clear view of anyone even remotely trying to get near. It doesn't matter what range you put it at.
Most of my sneak attacks have been from below and behind on virtually any plane I've hit. Icons had little to do with it.
Anyways... I'm all for the reduced icon range... I just don't seeing it making the kind of difference you are describing.
AKDejaVu
-
Reason? Easy answer on my part. I left a game that several years ago stopped striving to be anything more than just that. It had actually fallen, willfully, down into the arcade end of the "game" spectrum.
I, whom many there had called an ultra realist (amongst other names :) ), gravitated to AH and subscribed to what I thought or hoped would be a sim. Yes, still a game as anything done on a computer is apt to be, but one that leaned towards the simulation end of that "game" spectrum. I personally wanted (And still do which is why I remain) to experience aircombat using damned good simulations of WWII era equipment. I think HTC have done a fine job with it so far, as far as the aircraft and many of AH's features, but the actual environment in which to use these tools is very gamey. Right now the modern AH radar (and the digital icons) water down the immersion immensely. For me anyway.
My efforts, via particating in these discussions, is to help promote more realism. Not less.
Westy
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
I appreciate the MA is there for everyone, those who like realism and those that like a few helpers and also newbies but is no dar under 500ft such a problem? Aces High is about all sorts of combat flying, the furball, the bombers and strat, field capture, tense dogfights but right now it limits alot of this in favour of just finding a furball. Flying NOE should be another valid option but with all altitudes radar it is not. We have one of the finest low level bombers in the game now in the form of the Mosquito and yet its most successful role is pointless.
With radar being so accurate at all other altitudes I fail to see the rationale in having such long icon distance, I like the 3.0 icon range suggestion.
-
Reducing it to 3 or 4k would be cool.
-
AKDejavu: My point was you are more likely to surprise a gunner at 500 mph+ if you only appear at 3.0k as a definate enemy.I as a B17 gunner could look in a 360 degree view at all threats within 6.0k, no aircraft , even the jets can surprise you with its high closing speed which im sure even you AKdeja must admit was a big factor in fighter to bomber combat.The faster the attack the harder to track.What i did as a gunner for the fortress is easily judge which is a fast closing threat and which isnt thus my SA wasnt going to be overloaded much.The reason i used the 2 me262 as an example was merely to stress the cost to those players for trying to 'do the right thing' and defend their base.I was glad i killed 2 me262s sure , but i did feel i had an easy time judging their speed and approach.Being in AH for longer than a few months will grant you a very competant judgement of where to lead shoot, its not really that difficult is it? left a bit shoot huge stream, adjust shoot another huge stream, hell, its a game of pong tennis.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Ah.. so you've narrowed it down to being benificial for a 500 mph aproach? That kinda narrows down just how many aircraft it would aid at over 25k just a tad bit.
The one thing it does right now is to give more of an advantage to the plane that already has the advantage... the higher plane or the plane behind you. I don't know that that's necessary. If there were any way to determine what if a plane was heading towards you or away between 3k and 6k, then its pretty cut and dry. I don't know that its that clear.
Anyways... I did say I was all for it. I just happen to think you picked one very specific example to prove your point. I maintain that example is way too specific.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by hazed-:
Ok ive noticed over the last year many posts concerning our Radar levels and icon ranges being too much and I thought id try to open an honest dicussion on why we are either in favour or against any changes. Please try to keep to reasons why you are EITHER for or against changes to radar coverage/acurracy and icon range.
jesus AKD cant you read? stop being devils advocate for everyone elses reasons and state your own.
Not that you are for or against so much as YOUR reasons, not your reasons why my reasons dont hold water eh? sheesh every time ! an arguement.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Sorry, but i will have to disagree on the icon issue.
In the MA there are no regulations on what types of aircraft or countries aircraft anyone may fly. So seeing a colored dot gives you no indication as to which side any con belongs to.
6k icon range equates to 3.4 miles. At that distance, in real life, I could tell the difference between Axis and Allied fighters. I would know which were bad guys and which were good by the aircraft types. That luxury is not afforded to us in the MA.
The reduced icon range works well in the CT because friendly icon range is increased.
See the following thread for my thoughts on dar:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001917 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001917)
F.
-
edited out
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Originally posted by Furious:
Sorry, but i will have to disagree on the icon issue.
In the MA there are no regulations on what types of aircraft or countries aircraft anyone may fly. So seeing a colored dot gives you no indication as to which side any con belongs to.
6k icon range equates to 3.4 miles. At that distance, in real life, I could tell the difference between Axis and Allied fighters. I would know which were bad guys and which were good by the aircraft types. That luxury is not afforded to us in the MA.
The reduced icon range works well in the CT because friendly icon range is increased.
See the following thread for my thoughts on dar:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001917 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001917)
F.
Easy. 6K to 3K, show nation and range.
3K to 1K show plane ID and range
0 to 1K show only plane ID.
-
Okay, I hate to say it, but we need two MAIN arenas, one that has no base capture and relaxed realism for the Laz types that can't fly anyway, and all the newbies that he likes to shoot down.
Then, the real Main arena for the rest of us that enjoy realism.
Don't call it the CT arean, just Main RR and Main "For real men" arenas.
-
good suggestion Rip now BACK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD :D
-
I agree.
I would prefer to have no enemy icons at all, but the insta-whino of arcade gameplay advocates makes this a hopeless wish.
How about this:
When con is d3.0 to d6.0 a GREY icon saying "CONTACT". It wont say the RANGE or anything, just the name CONTACT.
When the CONTACT is d3.0 or less, THEN you get the plane type and the laser-range-finder.
CT fights are awesome because the short icon range makes you REALLY keep track of what's around you. None of the MA nonsense of split-second snap around views looking for red billboards.
The same thing for bombers. The buff guns are UNHOLY because of their range and increased hit power (or 8-guns converging at exact point, whatever it is that makes them kill in 1-2 pings), but also the icons scream the location of enemy fighters SETTING UP an attack run. When I fly the 262, I very rarely try to attack a b17 from above... because if I do attack it, i'll be going at 600mph and not be able to break the attack if the buff gunner starts shooting when im at d500 or so. I dive below it when im d4.0 and try and shoot it from the belly. If the gunner starts firing, then i'll be at a comfy 400'ish speed in which I can weave (not to mention the ball turret being harder to aim in).
Many times though, the imperial death star sees my icon from looong away and instantly gives me his 6 or starts turning. If the icons were short, chances are the me262 would NOT have attacked it because it wouldnt have seen it so easily. That the b17 wouldve had a much harder time defending itself against the 262, yes..but thats true to life, buff gunners barely had 1-2 seconds to fire on the jets before it zoomed past.
-
Hazed, my post is on the original thread, your's seemed to stray into the lethality issue of the B17 (surprise!) but you seemed to refocus at the end.
We need two arenas, one with no dar, low icons, one with relaxed realism, (Dar, long range icons)
-
Ah, yes. The idea that changing icons will actually make this game better, or otherwise increase your chances of killing.
I suppose you also think chasing a dot for 2 miles, only to find out he's a friendly is fun too?
Lets get rid of icons, and no 6 view too! Afterall, we all know you can't turn around in a plane with shoulder straps you can loosen... right? Right?!
-SW
-
IMO splitting the player base into two MA arenas is a bad idea...untill the player base doubles that is.
Why?
Just look at what happened to the community in AW.
-
I would like to try icon and radar functions which are currently not possible.
Icons: Keep the information that we have now, but delay the appearance of the icon with range. So, at 6K the plane has to be in the current view for 3 (?) seconds before it appears; at 4K for 2 seconds, at 2K for 1 second, and inside 1K it is instantaneous. This would eliminate "snap view SA", but still allow ID of distant aircraft if you "stared" at it.
Vehicle icons: Make (enemy) icons disappear when a vehicle is stopped for 2 minutes, simulating "camouflage", enabling ground wars and ambushes by making vehicles harder to detect from the air.
Radar: Make dot dar detection range dependent on altitude. At ranges up to 1 mile, dot dar coverage includes everything down to ground level (including vehicles). From 1 mile to 5 miles, coverage would include everything above 50 feet AGL (everything BUT vehicles). From 5 miles to 15 miles, coverage would include everything above 500 feet AGL. This would give about 1 minute of warning for vehicles and NOE attacks. (Additional 20mm manned acks might be fun. :) )
Dot dar would be "real time" in the tower, and updated every 15 seconds in flight. This would reduce "dar SA", but still be useful for finding a fight.
Killing HQ would limit dar coverage to tower only (at fields with working dar). This would simulate loss of Command and Control.
Bar dar would be eliminated. Each country would have several "Observer Posts" that would provide additional radar coverage. Observer Posts could be destroyed and captured.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]
-
Wow hazed... maybe you should re-read what you posted here.
Two jets converged on you... and unless I am mistaken, they musta been within 1.5k to do that. Wow.. the 3k thing becomes moot. Are you saying you didn't even see them until the icons started in? Or the fact that you could range them and decide which one to shoot gave you too much of an advantage?
1500 yards is still over 10 seconds at 500. You still would have been able to pick. External view gives you that luxury in a bomber. Now, tell me what this has ANYTHING to do with a fighter where it is quite a bit more relevant?
So... sorry for ignoring your "only if you completely agree with everything I've said" limitation on who should post in this thread... but you are simply being silly.
AKDejaVu
-
swulfe what furious mentioned was something i hadnt realised and that was that friendly icons could remain at 5 or 6k for this identification reason.the idea here is to mention why you are for or against the changes and maybe throw in an example of what has frustrated you enough to come to that decision?
chasing dots only to find out they are friendly is a valid reason and one I do agree can be frustrating but to be honest for me personally id put up with a few false chases for the oppertunity to be able to fly more secretive missions and be able to surprise an enemy rather than the childishly simple point plane at red bar or blob and wait until red dot looks close then look up and down until your white plane icon covers the red dot on the radar map.You KNOW the con is somewhere within icon range then and so the hunt is far too easy.
p.s AKDeja maybe i should have mentioned I dont give a toss what YOU think :).I edited out an angry reply to you because i realised all you like to do is have an oposing opinion even when you agree with requests(although quite apparently you have other reasons for deciding it) its just a bit confusing as why you bother.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Hazed,
In the same vein as you started this thread, again.
Make those changes in the CT. Leave the MA alone. Call it a crutch or whatever to make yourself feel or apear superior if you must, Rip.
Making 2 arena's is the only real viable option inspite of the way Rip posted about it. That way those who want these changes can have what they want and HT doesn't cut his throat with new players and those who enjoy the MA features as they are now.
I don't see any problems with allowing perk points and strat scores to slide between arena's, although from the "quality" of the posts about the arena, I don't see any of those interested in restrictions wanting to come back to the MA. I see no reason to prohibit arena switching and the score hounds can maintain their points / standings. Perhaps for those who do not switch back and forth a new score range could be instituted.
In the two arena method both sides of this argument win. Neither side is "slighted" as having to acquiese to the others preferances.
As to the debate about "spoiling the comunity with 2 arena's ala AW", balderdash. As is is now the MA is almost filled to the NEW capacity and more are joining. The connection reliability has already been severely compromised and still is not as reliable as before. If the arena's combined had a capacity for 300 each they could better handle the load tan one at 400+ like now. That would also allow HT to grow even further and appeal to more a more diverse player base.
BTW AW died as it did not evolve, not becuase there were 2 arena's. I know, as I played in single then 2 arena mode there. They simply didn't keep up. Having 2 arena's here would allow HT more flexibility to respond to the players than one.
Unless HT makes 2 arena's I fear they will lose players as there are choices now that do not reflect the player requested options so voluably posted here.
IMO the "new enhanced" CT wouldn't draw as much as the MA but it remains to be seen. Also IMO I think it really needs to happen to AVOID splitting the "community" and player base further.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Give me nation ID under 6000yds, plane ID under 3000 yds, and rate of closure instead of range finder. (or just get rid of range finder and give rate of closure)
In WWIIOL I used the "range bar" just to see if and how fast he was coming or going. I based gunnery on how much of my sight he filled up (besides up close in WWIIOL, you couldn't really see the little bar).
In Aces High, it's hard not to use the range finder as a range unless you're friendly icons only. I don't want to turn it off because it's hard (for me anyways) to judge rate of closure past ~500yds on the monitor.
Rip, as long as relaxed realism doesn't refer to the flight models at all. I really don't want to see HTC go that route, even if it's an arena I'd never play in.
-
In my opinion the only thing done well in WWIIOnline were the icons. A similar system could work well for us here.
F.
-
Icons: Like the distance the way it is now. I don’t have any argument such as monitor size or what not. As for changes, I’m not sure I like the aircraft ID. Personally I would much rather see nic’s then aircraft ID, or even just country. I also don’t think it’s a bad idea to remove the distance counter under 1k.
DAR: I also like it the way it is. The only additions or alterations that I think need to be addressed are limitations for NOE flying and possibly the poll time for dot location increasing a bit. It my not be realistic but the removal of DAR 500 feet to ground seems like a do-able thing to me. I agree that 500 feet to sea level wouldn’t provide much of a change.
Zippatuh
-
You can do that in the CT because you can tell enemy planes from freindly without seeing the Icons. In the MA, the P-51 next to you could be freindly or enemy. The only way to tell is by the Icon.
I would accept Icons at the current range, but no range info until closer than 3.0 or the "Fade in" effect that has been brought up serval times.
Also, you really need to consider people with smaller monitors or that play at lesser resolutions. On my 21" at 1024x768, I can see everything very well. OTOH, on my laptop screen, 800x600 I can hardly see the cross section of a B17 outside of 2.0 range. For fighters, Sometimes I never even see them except for the Icon indicating they are there.
-
I've flown in the CT quite a few times and when you spot a dot and fly towards it you basically know that if its enemy there will be an engagement. IMO thats really fun and gets the adreneline going. In the MA if you spot a dot, you know, if its enemy, and one of you has an advantage, there will probably not be an engagement because either you or he will choose to bug out.
I prefer CT style radar, however, given that the MA has some many people with so many objectives and is currently full of newbies maybe its best to leave it like it is.
I think if icon range was reduced, the likes of StSanta and other dwe err aces would have dramatically improved K/D ratios.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
I doubt fighter pilots could ID all planes at d6.0, much less judge closure rate at pinpoint accuracy at this range.
Santa, I would hardly call +/- 100 yards pinpoint range, but you have a valid point, especially if you are looking at a cross-sectional view of the attaking plane coming right at you.
-
"Ah, yes. The idea that changing icons will actually make this game better, or otherwise increase your chances of killing.
I suppose you also think chasing a dot for 2 miles, only to find out he's a friendly is fun too?"
My swulfe, I guess you forgot about the DAR view on map.If it aint green, take a guess what it is. Hint: Its not mother theresa coming to help your sorry ass.
"Lets get rid of icons, and no 6 view too! Afterall, we all know you can't turn around in a plane with shoulder straps you can loosen... right? Right?!"
Correct. Especially under high g's. Why Swulfe, you're full on intelligencia today. Congrats!
-
Basic problem that I see is that most of the people proposing changes and pontificating have rarely, if ever, done much observation of other aircraft while in the air themselves.
-
Hazed-,
I am completely open to playing with the radar modes in order to get the best system that balances gameplay with realism.
I do not want to see icon rages reduced because I don't like the "chase the dot" game. I did that once here for a sector and a half befor we found that he was running from a friendly. I don't find it fun to do that and computer graphics aren't good enough to allow identification at realistic ranges, even if that would work in the "fly anything MA".
That said, I would like to see different icon methods tried. Country icon and closure rate only would be something I'd love to see tried.
-
What I don't understand is that the dar situation is already implemented in the CT. I still don't see all these folks playing there where they already have diminished dar. They can't ALL be strat fanatics. Could it be that the CT isn't popular?? With all the posting you'd think that there would be at least 10 to 20 players in CT all the time, but it stays empty.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
What Maverik said.
First they whined and held thier breath, until they got the CT they begged for.
Now, having noticed that no one else likes it that way, they want to dick with the MA to MAKE every one play their way.
Must suck to be them
-
I don't think seperate arenas work but... they can prove if a feature is liked or not. My guess is that the dar in their emptied an allready unpopular arena.
Those who hate action and the enemies of fun want to do away with radar. You got fluffers and LW guys wanting to get rid of dar. These are guys that most people ignore in the MA. they are tired of being ignored. They want to be so obnoxious that we have to notice em. They made themselves so obnoxious in the CT that people had to notice em... when that happened tho people voted with their feet. Now they want to destroy the MA so that people can't avoid em.
lazs
-
First, let me refrain from the ever so popular "knee-jerk reaction", read what seems to be a few of those in this post.
Calmly, since this IS a DISCUSSION, there are a few points that were made that go against DAR/Icon changes that I believe exist even today. The point made that, chasing a dot only to find that its friendly after an annoying distance of travel. This sort of thing happens every day, whether you notice it or not. It's not going to go away, its part of the experience, there is some good in it, if you can't see it then this game doesnt excite you anymore. Then there is this bit about whining for a CT then not using it.. We should add more reasoning in our posts so we don't sound sophmoric, I give most folks the benefit of the doubt BTW. According to these posts, this DISCUSSION shouldnt be taking place. Well, the CT is not the MA with DAR/Icon changes, if thats what you think then you never tried the CT therefore that may not be a valid argument apposing DAR/Icon changes. I realize we are all entitled to our own thoughts and ideas. This is a good discussion, lets think about what we want to say. If i'm full of it, tell me why. Not just that I'm full of it.
Dar changes have been asked for since I've been here. I've seen a lot of good suggestions and some bonehead ones too. I agree there could be some changes that give NOE a chance. What changes? I dont know, I dont know the code nor the limitations of the game, but it would seem no dar between the ground and 500ft might be a good start if possible. Baby steps.
Icon changes, again some good ideas and some bonehead ones. This I think is more of a touchy subject, call it a crutch or a tool, you can go either way on this and piss off a bunch of people. What we have now works and serves its purpose. It may not be perfect nor is it the end all solution to icons in a flight sim. I think there may be changes to it in the future but I don't dare to suggest what I want them to be.
It's not my game, I just play it.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: AcId ]
-
Nice attempt Laz, no ones listening though.
-
May as well add my 2 cents: although I would like to see NO dot dar, the reduce range idea would be a good compromise (IMHO) between the "pure realism" group and the "arcaders". (And please, I'm not putting either group down - flaming me can be done easily enough in the air!) :D
-
The CT doesn't work simply because as it is right now it is just a dueling arena with just a very limited plane set under another name. Not what some imagine it's not working for. Must suck to be wrong.
Westy
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
The icon setting is one that I am not a fan of changing. The reason is that it is a crutch and don't want to be without it. I also have not flown other sims and must admit I have no idea what WW2online or any other sim uses for icons.
Another point already mentioned is that I don't want to be chasing a dot for miles only to realize it is a faster plane that I aint never going to catch in my F6f or Hurricane.
Many times I use the crutch to judge whether or not I'm closing. If I'm not closing I disengage and go find a fight elsewhere.
I must admit I like the short range icon in the special events and the CT, but in the MA I fly with a completely different attitude. I choose to mix it up and play the game in the MA. When I fly TOD's or special events I try and fly smarter and actually care if I live or die.
I think that we will always have people critisize changes made to the MA because they also fly in the MA with different attitudes.
As for radar I too like the radar crutch. When flying in events with no dar you have to watch the text buffer constantly for updates on contacts. When this happens I have trouble with SA because I'm constntly toggling the map and my eyes are in the cockpit rather than searching the sky. In the MA as mentioned I use the dar to find fights and when in the sector with a big red bar you KNOW to keep scanning the sky. I would give up the dat dar, but not change the dar bars.
-
Originally posted by Furious:
In my opinion the only thing done well in WWIIOnline were the icons. A similar system could work well for us here.
F.
If there's anyone here that didn't try WWIIOnline or hasn't heard about their icons they basically work like this: Switch to view with enemy A/C, no icon. The longer you maintain the view, a faint icon gets darker and more visible.
While this would seem to more accurately simulate the time it takes to scan the sky, it can be very confusing when you have a solid icon and while tracking him switch to another view and he's gone.
It would definitely add pucker factor (didn't in WWIIOnline because of how poor the sim is overall) but I think most would be very unhappy with this sort of system or any other system that reduces the current aids to SA.
Suspect that only those with highly honed SA skills (minority here) would like to see these SA aids eliminated or reduced.
HTC has to balance realism with playability, I figure they go for what makes most of the people happy.
-
Hazed:
I don't know about the exact range to reduce vis to, its probably debatable but, I do agree that icon range being 6k yds out is a bit much. It allows me to have the kind of vision which very few people actually have in life. Rather, I do think the ability to see dots is necessary and important. I don't have to see an icon to know the type of a/c it is; completely unnecessary IMO.
Using the example you began with, if I am a buff gunner I should be wary at all times when I'm in nme air, and should be tracking any dot that comes within vis range.
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
The CT doesn't work simply because as it is right now it is just a dueling arena with just a very limited plane set under another name. Not what some imagine it's not working for. Must suck to be wrong.
Westy
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
Westy,
Then why don't you lobby to correct the "imperfections" you "perceive" in the CT and stop trying to change the MA??? You can get what you want without demanding a change in the arena that the vast majority obviously find entertaining. Please make no mistake, this game IS about entertainment. WW2 ended quite some time ago.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Maverick ]
-
enable field capture in CT. I'll live there. Right now its just an endless, "historical" furball over the channel.
I can play there for maybe 4 hours...then get bored to death because there's no "progress" to works towards.
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Please make no mistake, this game IS about entertainment. WW2 ended quite some time ago.
Mav, its about how one perceives entertainment, though. I see entertainment in both a historical and Main arena context. I'd give equal time to both, but the CT seems stalled at the moment. The main is okay, but I live for the TOD's that occur now.
Just my perspective.
-
I actually like not having DAR, because I find it lets me play the game more, rather than having it PLAYED for me. That's my personal opinion and I realize not everyone agrees with it.
Based on my open beta experience (And the bug when Mindanao was first released) I can honestly say the most fun I ever had in AH is when there wasn't any enemy dot dar. I really do enjoy the CT arena settings as well, but I remember when we finally received enemy dot dar and it took alot out of AH, IMHO.
I like the idea of the WW2OL 'fade' icons. I would also like to see the DAR only register planes which are 2K AGL. At least back in the open beta days, when there wasn't nme dot dar, you had a chance of surviving a NOE raid (And anyone who rode in the noseof a B-26 on those raids got a hell of a view! :) ). I really miss not being able to fly NOE raids.
That's just the way I feel. I would like to see DAR ONLY in the tower and in planes which were so equipped (Night fighter types and some bombers). It would be very interesting to see two MA's put up one with the standard settings and one with test settings. Maybe use the CT for awhile as the MA DAR Test Arena? Those who want DAR as is, can fly in the standard arena, those who would like to see some changes could fly the CT with a different DAR set-up for 6 ot 8 weeks then vote on DAR settings for another arena?
I present these opinions and ideas as just that. Nothing more. The community is obviously split on these issues, so I offer this as, perhaps, a partial solution.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Sundog ]
-
Maverick I have been posting to get the CT changed also. Other than some reported feedback from Pyro when he was online there's been no response form HTC on the subject. However that has nothing to do with the MA which is a seperate topic altogether. Trying to get an historical representation of WWII radar in use in AH's MA is not a back up plan to getting the CT setup. I basically find the MA radar to be lame and as unrealistic as I do the pinpoint accuracy that bombers get when dropping from 30k. Or flaps that autoretract upon hitting xxx airspeed. Or ability to pul out of a blacked out dive by hitting X. So should anyone who wants anything changed in the MA shut up because some folks are more than ready to settle for the status quo in there? How about ack lethality? Or ease of fleet destruction? What about ground vehicles? Should they have to go to another arena because someone such as you says things stay the way they are...period? I think not.
However on the other subject of radar? I'm for realism. You're not. that's about as simple as it can be condensed I imagine. I find that a tad ironic seeing how you think collisions should be mutually destructive because that was more historcially realistic while tossing out the technical and social reason for the way it is. Not gameplay reasons. Very real technical and social problems.
And as for WWII being long over. What's your point with that? Why are you here flying a WWII P-51 (or any other AH plane) against other WWII aircraft? Go read HTC's front page if you need to figure out what AH is about and why many of us are here. Start where it says,"Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WWII air combat and set it in a hig intensity environment..." I for one just don't see anything WWII vintage in the AH radar.
Westy
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Westy,
You STILL miss the point. You HAVE an arena that has the dar situation you want. USE IT. If the changes you want draw the players there then you have a point for making that change in the MA. Until then you are,what appears to me to be,a very vocal but small minority. Why should you dictate the conditions in the MA???
As to the comment about WW2. I come here to fly for fun. This is a game, entertainment, not a historical reenactment of WW2. I don't know what your motivation is for playing. I also don't know why you insist on modifying the MA when you have most of waht you want in the CT. Lobby to change that one and enjoy it.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
I'm missing your point obviously. Maybe because your burying it with unfound accusations and misinterpretatons of what I and others have said. I'm not dictating to anyone. I'm lobbying for a change in something I find to be pretty bogus. Nothing different than anyone else on any other subject they've asked HTC to look at for change. As for how or what the CT is set up for? It's irrelevant to the discussion imo. I enjoy the MA with the exception of the completely unrealistic radar. Although I would naturally also think the radar in the CT should be more like what WWII had and not something found on a patrolling JSTARS platform. If I flew there.
To give you a taste of your own medicine how about if you want HTC to model mutual death collisions that you should lobby them to change it in to the way you want in the CT and you go there?
Westy
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
I'm missing your point obviously. Maybe because your burying it with unfound accusations and misinterpretatons of what I and others have said. I'm not dictating to anyone. I'm lobbying for a change in something I find to be pretty bogus. Nothing different than anyone else on any other subject they've asked HTC to look at for change. As for how or what the CT is set up for? It's irrelevant to the discussion imo. I enjoy the MA with the exception of the completely unrealistic radar. Although I would naturally also think the radar in the CT should be more like what WWII had and not something found on a patrolling JSTARS platform. If I flew there.
To give you a taste of your own medicine how about if you want HTC to model mutual death collisions that you should lobby them to change it in to the way you want in the CT and you go there?
Westy
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
Westy,
I did lobby for a change in collisions. I posted more than once about it. I saw no reason to continue to bring it up after I made my point clear. I didn't start multiple threads about it, as a matter of fact I didn't start a single thread about it. I just posted i an existing thread.
What have I misinterpreted in your post? In this very postI quoted you bring up the opinion you find the dar as "bogus" in the MA. You are lobbying for a change in the MA. I saw that and am lobbying against the change you want to make about the dar. Where have I misinterpreted that?
I brought up the CT as I found it already has most of the changes in dar that have been complained about. If the CT were modified to be compatible with the MA and scores (aka perks) players could swap back and forth and there would be no loss to anyone who wanted to spend time there as well as the MA. I see that as a win win situation. What is wrong with that? Hell I'd even go to the CT for a change of pace now and then.
The second reason I brought up the CT is so that you could have what you want with NO penalty in the game and those of us who like the MA dar could have what we want.
Now if you are insisting that the dar change in the MA then you are in fact trying to dictate how I play. That I will object to and have done so. I see no reason why I should not. I don't understand why you are offended about my objection unless it is simply the fact that I have a differing opinion than you that you object to.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
I'm never offended with an opposing opinion (unless it's directed at the wife or children). Just in it's presentation. If it contains inuendo, twists on words (or ideas) and distorted facts then the frustration slevels rise and things begin to get personal. With your posts prior o the one above I felt you were doing all of the above to the people (not just me) whose stance was pro-realism - as regards to the current AH radar anyway.
Westy
-
Mav, last I checked, the only people that "dictate" what goes on in the MA are the guys in Grapevine. Westy is right. He and others are asking for a change in the MA. You and others are asking for the change not to happen. He's no more dictating how the MA should be than you are. He pays the same amount of money to play the game as you do. He has just as much of a right to voice his opinions about a change as you do to come and argue against the change. In fact doing so in a civil manner (just once I'd like to see Lazs do that... naw, Lazs is funny with his "accountants of the sky" stuff!) is healthy, for us and for the game.
BTW, did you see my dar suggestions in the other post? What are your thoughts on it? Do you feel it'd keep someone from being able to "find the fight"?
-
At 3 1/2 miles you can tell the difference between a 109 and a spit? I'm skeptical.
CRASH
Originally posted by Furious:
Sorry, but i will have to disagree on the icon issue.
In the MA there are no regulations on what types of aircraft or countries aircraft anyone may fly. So seeing a colored dot gives you no indication as to which side any con belongs to.
6k icon range equates to 3.4 miles. At that distance, in real life, I could tell the difference between Axis and Allied fighters. I would know which were bad guys and which were good by the aircraft types. That luxury is not afforded to us in the MA.
The reduced icon range works well in the CT because friendly icon range is increased.
See the following thread for my thoughts on dar:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001917 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001917)
F.
-
Nifty,
If the MA changes to satisfy the requests of those wanting to reduce the dar it would severely diminish my appreciation for the game.
There is an alternative to that where almost everyone can get what they want dar and icon wise.
I have stated my opinion and am done with this issue.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
rip said.. "Nice attempt Laz, no ones listening though.
--------------------
VMF-323 ~DEATH RATTLERS~ MAG-33"
It's ok rip... so long as u are... all the effort is worth it. (actually I don't give a toejam but since you are so interested in me it... just seemed like a polite thing to say).
lazs
-
Originally posted by CRASH:
At 3 1/2 miles you can tell the difference between a 109 and a spit? I'm skeptical.
CRASH
It depend of the aspect (*) of the plane ...
if you see the wings it's obvious at something like 10km ... I've been able to spot from ground and differenciate (sp?) F4U , P51 Spit and Yak at about this distance (and yes the yak look like a toy compared to the US monster :)).
<edit>typoooooooooooooooooosss as usual ...
(*)cross section ?
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
Originally posted by straffo:
It depend of the aspect (*) of the plane ...
if you see the wings it's obvious at something like 10km ... I've been able to spot from ground and differenciate (sp?) F4U , P51 Spit and Yak at about this distance (and yes the yak look like a toy compared to the US monster :)).
<edit>typoooooooooooooooooosss as usual ...
(*)cross section ?
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
You are saying you can spot the difference between a spit and a 109 at 10k??? That is 32,500 feet. I think you'd be darn lucky just to spot it at all from the ground much less from the cockpit of a flying plane.
What do I base this on?? Having to spot aircraft, even large ones in the air while flying towards an airport. Even knowing WHERE to look they are damn tough to spot.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)