Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: TheBug on May 04, 2004, 07:42:58 PM
-
One of the "established" CT squads gets to pick a setup to run. Not too hard to figure out the "established" squads no matter if they change their name from time to time. Form a list of them, can't be too hard. Then we all take turns, each month when it's your turn that squad get's to pick a setup(based upon CT staff advice and approval). If you want to partake either join a squad on the list or form a ACTIVE CT squad and get on the rotation. Sound fair?
Tired of the CT staff rolling out the red carpet for these part time visitors to the CT and forgetting about the people that live there.
Vote Bug:aok
-
Thats one of the best ideas I've seen posted in a while.:aok
-
I'll drink to that...:aok
-
aren't most, if not all, of the CT staffers already *part* of established squads?
-
Sorry but due to incessant whining I have decided to stop listening to player input for setups. ;)
-
AMEN Soulyss.....With the exception of what Stream emailed me about a long time back. In fact that is what we are running this coming week...So there you go pack your bags and get on your Royal Navy carrier Bug it sails on Friday morning after midnight!
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
Sorry but due to incessant whining I have decided to stop listening to player input for setups. ;)
Wanna bet?
-
Originally posted by Reschke
So there you go pack your bags and get on your Royal Navy carrier Bug it sails on Friday morning after midnight!
That's sounds great Reschke
-
Originally posted by Shane
aren't most, if not all, of the CT staffers already *part* of established squads?
No they are not.
Most CT staffers are hardly ever in the CT anyhow.
-
Actually I'm kidding reshcke, I will continue to listen to player input, and if a player has a good idea sure I'll work with them and see if we can get it up and running in the CT. If anything it'll give the conspiracy nuts somthing to do.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Sound fair?
No problem with squads picking the setup. I would have a problem if I had to join a squad in order to fly in the CT that week.
- oldman
-
my squad has been in CT as long as any.
do i get to pick a set up?
:D
-
lol shane however you do make an excellent point what makes a squad "established"? # of members? time online? # of kills? rank?
Even after you settle that question you're left with this one.... Who decides?
-
Oh I know you were kidding and so was I. Player input is one thing that I will always look at when getting ideas for setups. It has been very high on my list from day one as a Staffer.
As for being in the CT all the time...that just isn't possible until baseball season stops and my oldest son finishes playing. Then my weekends and weeknights are FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
*storch puts away his can of raid* great idea insect.
-
Like the idea, it could work and being only once a month (1 in 4 set-ups) it wouldn't crimp the style of those "independent" players that fly the CT.
-
You make it sound so hard to get a list of the "established", but I'm sure it's easy for anybody that spends a decent amount of time in the CT.
There would of course be a minumum number of squad members to make you eligible. As for who decides, well of course it would be the CT staff in the end that decides.
Once a month, as Jester said it wouldn't crimp the style of the indie players and would allow some CT input by the squads that field a large percentage of the "regular" CT players.
If you are stumped at the list part I could help you with it. Other than that would else would keep this from happening? The idea is very open to constructive criticism.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
There would of course be a minumum number of squad members to make you eligible.
why?
-
I think we may be better off leaving player/squad suggestions on a more informal basis. I think just about every member of the staff would welcome the idea to work with a squad or a group of people if they had an idea they wanted to bring to the CT. But setting up a formal rotation I think it asking for trouble. Some people are allready under the impression that the staff caters to favorites while ignoring others and setting up an A,B,C list would only contribute to these feelngs.
Also the staff tries to maintain some sort of balance in terms of how much time we spend in each theater (with varying degrees of success). For instance it seems to me that we've gone a few weeks without a good deep water, pto setup. And right now unless we see one before my next turn in the rotation is up it's my intention to running a little USN vs IJN so the 'cat and corsair boys will get a chance to mix it up with zekes, tonies, georges, whatever. This is a case where I have a definite idea of what I want next time I'm up and I don't plan on using a player suggested setup. Other weeks I'm much more open to ideas.
I don't want it to sound like I'm completely shooting down your idea here, but I think somthing as formal as this month squad A goes, next month it's squad B is asking for trouble.
If you Bug, or the 880, or anyone for that matter have a setup in mind that you would like to see by all means post it and contact a staff member and I"m sure we can figure something out that will work planeset wise and get a timeframe for actually getting it into the CT.
It's late, I'm tired and true to form I'm rambling now I hope I've made at least a little sense here
-
I know from personal experience that shane is actually a four man squad all by himself. I am willing to sign an affidavit concerning the veridity of that statement.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
No they are not.
Most CT staffers are hardly ever in the CT anyhow.
With whom are you referring to Bug? :D
-
Instead of doing 1 setup a month, why not do what we're currently doing - if a setup is requested by the CT members, and it seems to be getting lots of praise, we'll consider it for future rotations.
A good balanced solution is that we'll make a promise to look at setups posted by the CT members more often than not. Does that work for you guys? We need to be careful of the vocal minority producing setups 90% of the silent members fly.
-
FWIW this set up should be used regularly
-
Why not make a dummy email that people can request set ups and that the CT CM's can access to see what has been requested. Then the parties that sent the email and the CM can work it out so everyone enjoy.
Just a thought
-
Hell Stream you did send your email to a dummy account....ME! :D
Seriously we already bounce ideas from members of the CT around quite a bit. Not every idea we come up with is our own and quite honestly I find it hard to continually come up with ideas; which is why the CT Development Group was put together.
Grits has been thinking up some new stuff but again its a quasi-historical setup and apparently no one likes them even though we are seriously limited in the planeset options at the moment. There are several things in the pipeline and according to an email I recieved last night there should be a new Italy terrain otw within the next few weeks. Its entirely possible that we could have one up and working for a new setup in the summer.
-
Originally posted by storch
FWIW this set up should be used regularly
You mean the '48 Independence set? It's OK, but I'd say no on regular rotation.
-
I think the general CT staff email is ct_staff@hitechcreations.com (ct_staff@hitechcreations.com) or it could be without the '_' - let me check.
Sure, email us your proposals and we'll discuss them amongst one another.
-
Good idea. For our week, we’ll need a banner that incorporates beer, wings, and exploding chutes. I’m thinking maybe a light teal background… but nothing too gauche.
I’d do it myself, but I need a nap.
-
There would of course be a minumum number of squad members to make you eligible.
That is silly. What about a moderate sized squad that only has one or to guys that flies in the CT? What is the difference between that and a small squad who has only one guy that flies in the CT?
Now if you want to give it to the largest squads that have the most pilots in the CT then just say so and do it, but don’t ever “exclude” the small squads. They should get their turn also.
-
That is good idea but I see several potential problems:
[list=1]
- What are the "CT Squadrons" and how we define them. Are these couple of groupd like JG-3 and others that fly CT. Are those most of squadrons that come time to time to fly CT (like 101 Red squ, ISRAEL) could be in rotation. Maybe we should define virtual squadrons (not AH squ) - if someone flyes CT most of time but not member of squadron.....
In such case there should be exact definition of what is CT squadron.
- Planceset - I think not all planeset that is given but squdron should be set up. If it has no historical base or/and uses non relevant terrain/skins or/and uses too many subsituations etc.
We should define exact conditions for such setups.
- How many squadrons should be? If we get 10-15 squ. so they will be able to make a setup only once a year. Otherwise we can get small group of squadrons that will control the new setups.
For example - most of players at CT are from USA - so will we get only PTO or late war ETO?
[/list]
Just hopfully constructive my input.
-
JG3 is no longer a CT squad, sadly. however some of us continue to frequent the CT to get our fair share of abuse.
-
How about if anyone who's interested simply suggests a set-up on this board. If it recieves praise and interest then the CMs can run it.
Or is this idea too simple?
There are many established squads and players who could suggest either good or bad set-ups.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by daddog
That is silly. What about a moderate sized squad that only has one or to guys that flies in the CT? What is the difference between that and a small squad who has only one guy that flies in the CT?
Now if you want to give it to the largest squads that have the most pilots in the CT then just say so and do it, but don’t ever “exclude” the small squads. They should get their turn also.
How the hell is that silly? It would allow the players that form the backbone of the CT having a little more direct input. It is most definitely not intended to cater to the individual and I openly admit that. I see emailing the CT staff as a way for the individual or small squad to create a setup. But allowing the squads that generate a large if not a resounding majority of the population in the CT to have direct input in some of the setups that are in the CT is hardly silly to me, but hey I actually fly in there so what do I know.
It would be a method of building a community allowing people to feel they are playing a part, and hopefully generate a little camaradirie and maybe a little less animosity.
Yes maybe it would end up being more PAC/ETO setups, doesn't that pretty much cover most of WWII though?, but wouldn't that pretty much be a case of majority rules?? Being where I live I can't really find a flaw with that belief.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Or is this idea too simple?
eskimo
Run that question by the CT staff. And while your at it, ask why some squads seem to be able to request a setup and have it run within two weeks and other squads have to pull teeth for 4 months to get a set up run? Kinda the basis for this whole idea. If ya get an answer let me know.
-
How the hell is that silly? It would allow the players that form the backbone of the CT having a little more direct input.
Then have the players suggest setup’s to the CM’s who run the arena. It would be my guess that the CM’s who manage the CT generally rotate between theatres and the times of WWII. If they allow the dominant squads to start running or choosing setups then those squads will obviously start favoring setup’s they like. We will see more of one theatre or time period. Ideally things should be kept on a level ground where we visit different theatres and time periods and never favor one over the other.
It would be a method of building a community allowing people to feel they are playing a part, and hopefully generate a little camaraderie and maybe a little less animosity.
Sorry can’t connect the dots to allowing squads to choose or design a setup would create more camaraderie in the CT.
Yes maybe it would end up being more PAC/ETO setups, doesn't that pretty much cover most of WWII though?, but wouldn't that pretty much be a case of majority rules??
So you are saying the largest squads should get to pick the setup’s? Sorry, don’t agree. The CT is not for the largest squad, but for all the players who enjoy historical setup’s. You move away from that view then you move toward an elitist arena, but it sounds like that is what you want.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Or is this idea too simple?
As a matter of fact yes. You need a certain degree of complexity in order for us to whine about the details once its implemented. Furthermore, your idea does nothing at all to foster the premise of a conspiracy.
Are you new here or something?
-
couldn't have said it better myself Myelo. :)
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Run that question by the CT staff. And while your at it, ask why some squads seem to be able to request a setup and have it run within two weeks and other squads have to pull teeth for 4 months to get a set up run? Kinda the basis for this whole idea. If ya get an answer let me know.
If you are referring to the Slot setup I ran in March then yes Bug you are correct. It did take a while to get it but it wasn't because of teeth getting pulled and whining that it got run. It was because I didn't have an opening till then to do so.
My first setup was in January this year and I made a comment then that I stuck to after I knew the setup schedule. It wasn't because I didn't want to run Squire's suggestion its just the way my claim and schedule fell into place. Because as I have seen it when one person "claims" a setup to run then everyone on the staff lets them have it.
As for the other two week suggestion I don't know where that is from but I can guess it was the one from last week.
-
Originally posted by daddog
So you are saying the largest squads should get to pick the setup’s? Sorry, don’t agree. The CT is not for the largest squad, but for all the players who enjoy historical setup’s. You move away from that view then you move toward an elitist arena, but it sounds like that is what you want.
Once every four weeks, so about 12 setups per year, by at minimum 6 squads?? That's elitist?? Continue to put words in my mouth, I do so appreciate that.
The larger squads make up the biggest percentage of the CT on a day to day basis, to ask for direct input for about 4% of the year pear squad hardly seems demanding.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
If you are referring to the Slot setup I ran in March then yes Bug you are correct. It did take a while to get it but it wasn't because of teeth getting pulled and whining that it got run. It was because I didn't have an opening till then to do so.
My first setup was in January this year and I made a comment then that I stuck to after I knew the setup schedule. It wasn't because I didn't want to run Squire's suggestion its just the way my claim and schedule fell into place. Because as I have seen it when one person "claims" a setup to run then everyone on the staff lets them have it.
As for the other two week suggestion I don't know where that is from but I can guess it was the one from last week.
The teeth pulling started way before you were a CT staffer Reschke, so you waiting to have an open slot wasn't what I was referring to. In fact, and you may find it hard to believe, I think you are the best thing to happen to to the CT staff and I do appreciate you running that setup when you could fit it in. My post was not meant to be directed at you, if you took it that way I apologize.
Also yes, your guess is correct I was referring to last week in regards to the two week suggestion. Are you denying that, that is the case? Otherwise you lost me with the wording of that last sentence.
-
Originally posted by daddog
Ideally things should be kept on a level ground where we visit different theatres and time periods and never favor one over the other.
Also had to add to this one, if that statement doesn't show how little you fly the CT I don't know what does. :)
Btw where is the Fin-Rus setup??
-
:rolleyes: What words did I put in your mouth?
But allowing the squads that generate a large if not a resounding majority of the population in the CT to have direct input in some of the setups that are in the CT is hardly silly to me
This is elitist. I don't care how you paint it or if it is only once a year. This arena is for players, not squads. When you start to favor one group over another ... oh wait. You called that majority rules. Sorry, don't want to put words in your mouth.
That is my two cents. If your bent because I don't agree, well life goes on. :D
-
Originally posted by daddog
:rolleyes: What words did I put in your mouth?
That is my two cents. If your bent because I don't agree, well life goes on. :D
So very true, but it's hardly your disagreeing that would get me "bent" as you call it, more so your poor choice of words.
-
Originally posted by daddog
[B This arena is for players, not squads. When you start to favor one group over another ... oh wait. You called that majority rules. Sorry, don't want to put words in your mouth.
[/B]
Ahh now I'm starting to get it. The arena is for the players, crikey why didn't I ever figure that one out. Guess that's why we have the setups being dictated by a staff that just about never shows their faces in the CT, 'cause it all for the players. All makes sense to me now.
-
following that logic, i get more of a say in possible CT setups than you because i spent more time there than you. possibly more time overall over time than your whole squad!! :eek:
:D
-
Ahh now I'm starting to get it. The arena is for the players, crikey why didn't I ever figure that one out.
Glad to be of help. :D
-
Originally posted by Shane
following that logic, i get more of a say in possible CT setups than you because i spent more time there than you. possibly more time overall over time than your whole squad!! :eek:
:D
Ok Shane you're in, you get one setup too in TheBug's New World Order. Use it wisely.