Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Muckmaw1 on September 26, 2004, 12:03:52 PM
-
How bout the QnA?
Anything to report?
At all?
-
IN
;)
-
well.. either nothing worth noting or no one cares. May well be both. When is Pacific Fighters coming out?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
IN
;)
I don't get it.
Why would a thread asking what news was disseminated at the con be locked?
-
yea whats with all the hush hush this year ???
We want our official Q&A report !
-
I, too, am very surprised at the lack of news coming from the CON attendees.
I thought this was going to be an exciting weekend full of Hayates, possibly some Liberators & news, NEWS, NEWS!!!
As it was, we saw nothing. O, except for a rumor about some new Grumman a/c. And, even that was just a "rumor."
:(
-
Any fights break out?:lol
-
My money's on mrblack and voss.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
This could possibly be a good thing? The more we don't know, the better the suprise?
Always hoping for the best- :D
-
It is rather odd not to get some sort of game update during the con. Methinks this is the first time there wasn't one.
-
i heard that the big news is that HTC is in the process of being sold. that would explain things.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
i heard that the big news is that HTC is in the process of being sold. that would explain things.
:)
-
I took notes on my laptop during the Q&A session. I just haven't had time to put together a synopsis. Sorry, I will try to fill in details later but here's some snippets:
There was a lot of good discussion on the plans for TOD. I have to admit, when it HT first announce TOD, I thought it could mean the end of squads - not good if you are with a great bunch of guys like the mongrels. However, I could envision our squad meeting in the TOD arenas for our squad nights. It sounds like it going to have alot of aspects of the current squad ops scenarios, but not require you to be in a squad.
Regarding planes - Pyro has already indicated in the Special Announcements which planes he is currently working on - in the future they plan to continue to release new planes while updating the existing plane set. Based on comments made, I am guessing that the earlier planesets that have not been updated (e.g 109s) will be updated sooner rather than later.
One key point that was stressed is how much of a rework AHII was. The old graphics engine was past its limits. With the new engine, It seems apparent that we haven't seen anything yet.
I will add more detail later.
Oh, and the Q&A with Robert Shaw was great - real good discussions on initial merge and energy management.
Sour
-
Thanks Sour !!
-
nopoop -
too bad you and your bros weren't there. Sure would have liked to meet ya bud.
Sour
-
Originally posted by sourkraut
. With the new engine, It seems apparent that we haven't seen anything yet.
thats what I wanted to hear.
-
ToD is coming in 2 weeks. A new tank is coming soon. The Ki-84 is almost done. Gunns will kill you if you drink his brew. Hitech is an AMAZING magician. Pyro likes Corona, Be sure Robert Shaw's stick is well secured, Phantom has lost the eqivalent of a good sized woman, don't get in Gunn's cockpit, don't get the 6 burger special at Denny's..... there's more but i'm tired.
:D
-
Shaw was there? is he a subscriber?
Ive read his book a couple times, and spend alot of time revisiting chapter 4, nice work! if you read these boards.
S!
-
don't get the 6 burger special at Denny's.....
The hotel food has had me on the pot all day:(
:D
-
Originally posted by Scherf
My money's on mrblack and voss.
Cheers,
Scherf
It`s not time to vote on prom queen yet. :D
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
I don't get it.
Why would a thread asking what news was disseminated at the con be locked?
Well, I gained the impression that the con goers had been gagged, and I wasn't the first to use that word. Also, I can't help noticing that the vB Code tinkering coincided with the con - to stop pictures being posted perhaps? Seems like there's something to hide...
-
"Well, I gained the impression that the con goers had been gagged...."
Usually they are. If there is something the developer wants people to keep quiet about. It seems to be a right of passage for those who make the convention. Not that I agree with it but historically it seems to be that way.
"... stop pictures being posted perhaps? Seems like there's something to hide.."
You're out in left field on this. It was becaue of the mahroons in the OT forum posting inflammatory pictures and links.
-
Out in right field yourself Westy. Beet's theory actually ties right in to the gamer/simmer dilemna.
-
Originally posted by Westy
You're out in left field on this. It was becaue of the mahroons in the OT forum posting inflammatory pictures and links.
If I were Skuzzy, and folks were posting inflammatory pics and links, I would issue a written warning, and simultaneously delete the offending material. For a second occurrence, I would again delete the offending material, and ban the offender from the board by IP address.
Simply removing vB Code features doesn't stop those maroons; it merely inconveniences them.
-
moot kock yourself out with the wacko conspiracy/ulterior motive theories.
Beet1e,
http://216.91.192.19/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131112
-
The con Q and A was two and half hours of wide ranging discussion. It's pretty difficult to give a complete recap of that. There was nothing hush-hush about it.
-
Any highlights Pyro?
-
Westy,
Thanks for the link. I think I had read that post or one like it. Shame that such measures are necessary. Does this mean there'll be no Con pics in the O Club?
-
We talked about TOD for well over half of the session. It was a high level discussion as many details are still undecided.
We talked about game features and how the designers can use rewards to motivate desireable behaviors (or vice versa of course). This came up over and over with subjects like dive bombing with 4 engined bombers and no tracking of kill-streaks and repair-pads etc.
The session ended when someone mentioned skip-bombs for the second time though :D
-
"Does this mean there'll be no Con pics in the O Club?"
No idea of course. However I've yet to see anyone even talk about Con pix beyond those seen via the webcam. Perhaps some of this years conventions goers will get some time over the next day or so and post some links with Con pix that they took.
I'd enjoy matching some of the faces to handles (for those that I don't already know) too.
-
Originally posted by Cooley
Shaw was there? is he a subscriber?
Ive read his book a couple times, and spend alot of time revisiting chapter 4, nice work! if you read these boards.
S!
Bob has been at every convention Dale/Doug have done that I can recall, but I am pretty sure he does not play. How much fun can this game be if you have 4,000+ hours in F4s and F14s?
I picked his book up from the prize table (me and Llama got 1st choice) even though there were much more expensive toys there. I knew I could get him to autograph it for me, he wrote a real nice blurb for me too.
Robert "Mouse" Shaw
-
No pics? Whatever makes you think that? Just because nobody has quite got around to posting any yet doesn't mean we won't be, or have anything to hide! I can assure you, we haven't.... and I will post mine once I have tidied them up, captioned and posted to my website. :D
-
What are you con people hiding flossy? :)
-
Q & A ...
First thing discussed was Tour of Duty. A lot of the things discussed and thoughts that HT and Pyro have for ToD are what Pyro deemed as "Proof of Concept" ... they have alot of good ideas, but no one has ever done this beofre, so no one really knows what will happen, until it happens.
Points to note :
- Your character is "career" based. Your overall success as a "pilot" will be measured by "mission" success. You can shoot down 10 enemy, and if the "mission" fails, so do you. There was talk of "individual" success, so in the above scenario you might get a medal, despite the mission being a failure.
- Mission slots will be first filled by AI and as people join the missions, they will replace the AI slots. Pyro envisions that the bomber streams will be mostly AI, due to the sheer number of bombers that will be needed. His example is the 8th Air Force leaving the UK to bomb Berlin ... lots and lots of bombers needed in the mission as was needed in RL.
---------------------
Deathstars ... never gonna happen ... HT said there could be a possibilty of having 1 gunner per bomber in a formation, but he does not have any intentions of allow 1 gunner per gun per each plane.
---------------------
Dive bombing "bombers". HT put out a request/challenge to disprove the fact that these heavies couldn't really do it. If someone comes up with the goods, chances are he will make a change.
---------------------
ENY Limiter ... it's gonna be around for while so get use to it and stop the whining. HT believes that it is working and is still open for more tuning, but is very happy with the parameters and the results thereof for the moment.
---------------------
Hordes and Capture ... there is a possibility that towns will be moved farther from the airfields. The intention is to stop the "quick-lifter-short-run-to-kill-the-troops" from being so effective. The thought here is that in order to effect a capture, many planes need to be brought to knock down the "quick-lifter-short-run-to-kill-the-troops" types.
If the town is moved out farther (like around 6 to 12 miles), those who are going for the capture will have to send out interceptors to fight off the "quick-lifter-short-run-to-kill-the-troops" pilots. Imagine fighting instead of vulching ?!?!? OH THE HORROR !!!!
---------------------
New planes and GVs. No real discussion as to specific planes that are on the drawng board. Icer and I had a private discussion with Pyro on Thursday night, and I have a strong feeling that we will be seeing a new variant of the P-38 soon ... either the J or the H if my memory is correct ... we had a lot of coronas during this discussion.
Oh !!! ... the new tank ... Pyro's hint ... Ki-84 / B-24 ... both ended in 4 ... so will the new tank !!!
Pyro wants to put out new planes as fast as he and the art team can put them together, but he also knows that the current plane set (all chitload of 'em) have to be re-worked and in some cases, done completely from scratch. He has a balancing act to perform here and I think that he and Nate and Super will pull it off and not disappoint.
---------------------
Thats all I can remember at the moment ... hope it helps.
-
"...so will the new tank !!!"
THE PANZER 4!!!
no.
er, wait??
IT's the T-34!!!
um, perhaps not.
the M4!!!????
Oh for crying out loud!!!!!
It could be any of the tanks people having been asking for ;)
(lol. And thanks for the post Slapshot!)
-
Ahh the trends of no news/everything is coming/just be patient/2 week blah blah blah....stale.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Dive bombing "bombers". HT put out a request/challenge to disprove the fact that these heavies couldn't really do it. If someone comes up with the goods, chances are he will make a change.
Hmm, I don't recall that. I must have been on a bathroom break. I did mean to address this when we were talking about bombers, but got sidetracked. Anyway, I am actually clamping down on a few issues related to this. One is tightening up structural limits and the other is tightening up control forces. I am convinced that I am too loose on both of these things when it comes to the heavies.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"...so will the new tank !!!"
THE PANZER 4!!!
no.
er, wait??
IT's the T-34!!!
um, perhaps not.
the M4!!!????
Oh for crying out loud!!!!!
It could be any of the tanks people having been asking for ;)
(lol. And thanks for the post Slapshot!)
Good guess ... its one of those for sure.
I know what the new tank is ... Icer and I didn't buy all those corona's for nothing ... :D
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
- Your character is "career" based. Your overall success as a "pilot" will be measured by "mission" success. You can shoot down 10 enemy, and if the "mission" fails, so do you. There was talk of "individual" success, so in the above scenario you might get a medal, despite the mission being a failure.
Hiya Slapshot! I read your entire post, which provided a good synopsis. I like the TOD concept, and whilst no-one can argue that duelling prowess is not important, I tend to think of it as just a few jigsaw pieces in the entire picture, and not the picture itself. I think anything that encourages teamwork, at the same time discouraging hording is worth a second look.
Woody Allen once said "Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand." The converse is also true. If you have organisation/teamwork/partnership, the individuals forming that team don't necessarily have to be hotshots to make a huge impact. Roll on TOD!
-
I thought Id bring this over since this thread seems to be the one that is taking off.
Some Highlights that I remember
1) There was alot of discussion on the concepts for TOD. It seems like it will be very different from what we have now and is not really geared to pull folks out of the MA but attract some new types of players. It will be career oriented gameplay.
2) The Bombsite was discussed and its affects on new players, the change from High Alt bombers to low alt bombers ect.. a possible change to the curent system might be looked at.
3) Development updates (patchs) were disscussed and HTC is working hard to try to get back to more regular and frequent updates and plane additions.
4) Deathstars were talked about. HT reaffirmed that they probably never happen. He agree they are fun, but from a technical outlook they didnt appear to be practical, thus squashing any hope for Mass RJO Deathstar attacks. He did say he might consider making each plane able to carry a single gunner, but it would need further looking into.
5) 45 Caliber Rounds for our Pistols when in the Cute or Man Icon on the ground. He said he wants to this, but just hasnt gotten around to it yet.
Alot of time was spent on TOD and how things might work.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
...Pyro wants to put out new planes as fast as he and the art team can put them together, but he also knows that the current plane set (all chitload of 'em) have to be re-worked and in some cases, done completely from scratch. He has a balancing act to perform here and I think that he and Nate and Super will pull it off and not disappoint.
How will that work? Let's say they need just a week for each, with 70+ ACs and GVs, it'll take year and a half at least to redo all.
Add to it new ACs and ToD... Maybe HTC needs to hire more people...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
How will that work? Let's say they need just a week for each, with 70+ ACs and GVs, it'll take year and a half at least to redo all.
Add to it new ACs and ToD... Maybe HTC needs to hire more people...
The subject of outsourcing WAS brought up in the Q&A, Dale basically said they cannot afford it. Dale did mention the name of a 3d modeling program that they are trying to port the 3d models to. It is a cheap product that can import/export with, this would allow the community to donate their time/expertise much like they have been doing with the skins already.
I think that is a MUCH better idea. I can think of no groups of people who know more about these aircraft than this community. And we ALL have an interest in seeing the improvements get implemented without affecting the cash-flow at HTC.
-
Just as a clarification to what Edbert just brought up... the 3D editor will only be good for making stationary scenery objects.
Maybe someday planes and vehicles could be possible...
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Hmm, I don't recall that. I must have been on a bathroom break. I did mean to address this when we were talking about bombers, but got sidetracked. Anyway, I am actually clamping down on a few issues related to this. One is tightening up structural limits and the other is tightening up control forces. I am convinced that I am too loose on both of these things when it comes to the heavies.
A dive bombing B24 :)
Actually the only known documented case of a fully loaded B24 pulling out of a flat spin, December 26, 1943. 380th BG pilot Harold Mulhollen had reflexively yanked the controls hard on his 24 to avoid a collision and ended up in the flat spin headed for the ocean near Sakar Island in the Southwest Pacific..
When they got back the damage included the outer 8 feet of panels of both wings were buckled and the trailing edges of both elevators had been bent down 1.5 inches at the center. The fabric of the elevators had significant rips an many rivits were popped all over the tail assembly. It was impossible to determine the internal damage and the aircraft was scrapped for spare parts.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1096307119_db24.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
...I think that is a MUCH better idea. I can think of no groups of people who know more about these aircraft than this community. And we ALL have an interest in seeing the improvements get implemented without affecting the cash-flow at HTC.
Indeed. It's a proven concept and would rapidly accelerate re-modeling and addition of new models.
-
I know this one is going to fan the flames, but I personally, would be willing to pay $5.00 to $10.00 more a month for a better product.
Perhaps HTC should reconsider their subscription price.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
I know this one is going to fan the flames, but I personally, would be willing to pay $5.00 to $10.00 more a month for a better product.
Perhaps HTC should reconsider their subscription price.
I'm sure this will be removed (but if that's not 'flamebait' I don't know what is) ... Muck you moron!
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
I know this one is going to fan the flames, but I personally, would be willing to pay $5.00 to $10.00 more a month for a better product.
Perhaps HTC should reconsider their subscription price.
Interesting ... and what would you expect to get MORE of with $5-$10 more a month ?
Funny ... the original poster has hijacked his own post ... :D
-
we will be seeing a new variant of the P-38 soon ... either the J or the H if my memory is correct ...
this is all i saw out of this whole thread.... :D :D :D
~S~
-
Originally posted by killnu
this is all i saw out of this whole thread.... :D :D :D
~S~
Hope it's a small intake H model. Love the look of those early 38s
Dan/Slack
-
lol slappy good call. :)
I dont see any reason (currently) for paying any more than what we are already. I mean for what? What more have I gotten in the last several months that AH2 has been out that I didnt get when AH1 was still running? Besides Lag, screen freezes, Micro warps, these wonderful white squares that will show up for no reason, only to mention a few. Besides all that stuff tho what else have I gotten that I should pay more for?
Or are you saying we should pay more in anticipation of the chance that we may get something new?
Not to pick apart a good thing, because I think AH2 is just that ( I guess), I just dont see any call for paying more than what we already are.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
lol slappy good call. :)
I dont see any reason (currently) for paying any more than what we are already. I mean for what? What more have I gotten in the last several months that AH2 has been out that I didnt get when AH1 was still running? Besides Lag, screen freezes, Micro warps, these wonderful white squares that will show up for no reason, only to mention a few. Besides all that stuff tho what else have I gotten that I should pay more for?
Or are you saying we should pay more in anticipation of the chance that we may get something new?
Not to pick apart a good thing, because I think AH2 is just that ( I guess), I just dont see any call for paying more than what we already are.
Not quite where I was going with it Morph.
Most don't understand the undertaking that HTC just pulled off in the last year and a-half with the limited amount of physical resources that they have.
We haven't even seen the surface scratched on the foundation that HT and crew just layed down over the last year and a-half. It's gonna take time to slowly roll this stuff out and when it does surface we will all probably think that HTC walks on water.
We got to see the working inside of the Ki-84 ... IL2 has nothing on these guys. HTC is only held back by their own imposed limitations (business and/or tech model) and not by technology.
If Muck was insinuating that raising the price to hire another body to get things out the door more quickly ... that might do it, but I don't think that it's part of HTCs plan at the moment.
If he or you are insinuating that rasing the price will get HT and the others to do it better ... that's just wrong ... there are none that can do it better.
Some might think that those who go or went to the con might be subject to HTC and crew blowing smoke up our butts and we leave brainwashed ... well I am here to tell you that these people are serious about what they do and by going to the con ... only serves to reassure me of that.
My Grand-mother use to say ...
"You can't con a Conner".
P.S. ... It's quite evident that we need to get together for some wings and discuss ALL the hardware problems you are having.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hope it's a small intake H model. Love the look of those early 38s
Dan/Slack
Me too.
ack-ack
-
Between the J and the H I'd prefer to see the P-38H.
-
I told him that my preference would also be the "H" model.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Hmm, I don't recall that. I must have been on a bathroom break. I did mean to address this when we were talking about bombers, but got sidetracked. Anyway, I am actually clamping down on a few issues related to this. One is tightening up structural limits and the other is tightening up control forces. I am convinced that I am too loose on both of these things when it comes to the heavies.
Pyro... I don't think either one of those factors will change dive-bombing tactics. Most of the players that do it don't expect to live and usually crash into whatever they were diving at anyway.
-
OTOH, it is kind of hard to bomb accurately with the wings off, or no workable control input.
Heck, many newbies can't dive bomb in a p38 due to compression. Something similar for the buffs would discourage the practice.
--Peregrine.
-
Hey Slappy-
How are you?
The point I was making is that someone said AH2 has 70 vehicles, and they all need to be reworked while rolling out new ones and tweaking this and probing that, with a limited staff.
I simply was stating that if the staff is limited and resources are tight at HTC, perhaps we would be willing to pay a little more each month so HTC can hire 1 or 2 new people and get the planes, and TOD and all the other great stuff he has in his little melon, finished faster.
I'm not a very patient person.
-
I agree with you to a certain point Midnight, but I'm not really looking at that as the root problem. I see it as a problem that has been exposed by another problem but still needs to be addressed nonetheless. We did spend some time talking about the cause and effect that various changes have had on the bomber game. I'm sure you remember that the primary complaint about bombers was that they bombed from too high.
-
I agree with you to a certain point Midnight, but I'm not really looking at that as the root problem. I see it as a problem that has been exposed by another problem but still needs to be addressed nonetheless. We did spend some time talking about the cause and effect that various changes have had on the bomber game. I'm sure you remember that the primary complaint about bombers was that they bombed from too high.
-
Pyro,
What I recall wasn't that they bombed from too high as being the complaint, rather that they were laser accurate from that high and a single Lanc could close a medium field.
-
FWIW, I like the way bombs are delivered ... as a pattern. That's the way it was. If you want pin-point accuracy, use a different plane.
What I don't like is that the calibration process now is maybe too complicated for arena play. I liked the old system whereby the bomb sight needed time to settle so you couldn't do wild manouevers and then release 2 seconds later. It wass simple, elegant, and just plain worked. What made it bizzah was the laser-guided nature of the bombs themselves.
If we went back to that bomb sight mode, combined with the current bomb dispersal, I think you'd see more people using heavies as they were intended. At least then people who don't normally drive bombers could hook up and fly a proper strike mission with some expectation of success.
-DoK
-
Hmmm.
I like the calibration and I like the bomb patterns, I just think there need to be targets that are worth hitting and a gameplay mechanism to get bombers higher, either forcefully or through encouragement.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Pyro... I don't think either one of those factors will change dive-bombing tactics. Most of the players that do it don't expect to live and usually crash into whatever they were diving at anyway.
If you were to use eagl's idea of an angle limiter on heavy bombers that prevent them from dropping bombs when their plane is at or beyond a certain angle, that will stop the dive bombing Lancasters and B-17s.
ack-ack
-
Hope it's a small intake H model. Love the look of those early 38s
I'll take what ever they will give....:D :D
~S~
-
I think a comprimise between the Current System and the Old system might be worth a try.
I like the system we have, but it does seem to be too much for the casual bomber.
Id like to see us needing to hold our speed, alt and course during the final run, but a quick calibrate button would be nice. Something that can be clicked for a last minute calibrate just before target.
The Cross hair Idea is way cool, but with a cheap joystick or perhaps if your getting a few years on you and you arnt that steady anymore it is too difficult for some guys to hold.
Remember why Guys used to fly so high? Your bombsite was right on the money from 30k or 5k so alt didnt hinder your accuracy. If you were Mega High, you had great survivability.
Now Being High means you have a greater chance to miss and also your not as safe with the addition of the 163s and 262s. Today you might as well be down low, you have a better chance to hit, and your chances of dying are nearly the same.
-
As I understand it, when calibrating it doesn't matter how much you wander as long as the start and end points are the same, or very nearly the same.
-
Could be Karnak.
I do know that Hardware can change the difficulty from tests between sticks here at my place.
I know HTC is looking at it from the "what will be the most fun for the most people" angle.
I might add, Personaly I would like to see the Current method as a flight option as well as a quick calibrate. I do like the system, but I know that plenty of folks find it too much to bother with.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Hmmm.
I like the calibration and I like the bomb patterns, I just think there need to be targets that are worth hitting and a gameplay mechanism to get bombers higher, either forcefully or through encouragement.
Like making B17s free if flown as singles and perking formations if you kill or die below 10-15K?
-
Grimm,
True that.
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Like making B17s free if flown as singles and perking formations if you kill or die below 10-15K?
I don't think this would have any effect other than making bombers rarer than they are now.
I also don't like the idea of perking a unit that is so essentially defenseless.
-
is Ki-84-I-Otsu with 5 perks planned?
-
I see what Ack Ack is getting at for the dive bombing. I've only found one incident where a B-17 did a dive bomb. It was from a crew that were disposing of their ord before returning home after a knock it off call for the mission.
They didn't say at what angle they were diving or at what speed. I did find a site with an official WWII B-17 Manual that specifically stated that accelerations in the lateral and vertical would cause bombs to miss by fairly large values.
I'm not to familiar with the rack and release system of the B-17. I do know that even with an F-15E if the jettison port select is wrong on the rack itself it can cause the munitions to hit the aircraft.
If the B-17s racks slide to the bottom and then the weapon released you shouldn't have to much of an issue in dive bombing. To steep of a dive angle though could cause the weapon to possibly hit the aft portion of the bomb bay or even worse hit the bottom turret gunner position. Basically it all comes down to how the weapon is released and how it's affected by airflow once it comes clear of the bomb bay itself.
-
I think the current bombing system would be just fine, If you were able to actually calibrate it right. Personally I've never been able to do this despite reading all the manuals and tutorials.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm sure you remember that the primary complaint about bombers was that they bombed from too high.
LOL...... I`d be willing to bet that if dive bombing was eliminated along with low alt bombing or a degree limiter it wouldn`t last the 1st day before the BBS would fill up with"Bomber guns are too uber" or something concerning mid-alt bombing dweebs, etc.
I say please save any more limiting for the TODamites.
Quite frankly I think the limiting this and forcing that, etc. crap has gone too far in the MA.
I`d like to see the old bomb site back, the fuel put back the way it was, etc. I also realize that there is a snowball`s chance in hell of this happening.
I had previously (about the time of AHII prerelease) had the impression that the MA was becoming a testing ground for features that are to be used in TOD. After reading how much time was spent on the discussion of TOD at the con I feel that my suspicions have been confirmed.
I for one, but certainly not the only one, am not interested in having a list of hoops to jump through just to play the game. I also don`t wish to have to have a calculator and sliderule beside the puter to accomplish someone else`s idea of "fun".
I say, give us the MA back and let the TODamites await the release of TOD.
Gamey? Dweebie? .......maybe.
LET THE DWEEB TIMES ROLL! :D
-
I don't have the time to learn to bomb in the big planes.... heck I don't have the time time to learn to fly my P38! :) The bomb calibration is something I just can't get right, so I don't use them. I'll dive bomb in A20's for my bomb runs.
I think if the calibration was eased up to a quick button like Grimm said would help, and I think the "angle" limiter wouldn't work, then you would just have B17's diving in, leveling out THEN dropping the bombs. An alt limiter would be nice tho :)
-
Slapshot, just so you know...
None of what I said in my above post was directed toward you or driven from something you said.
Altho it seemed as such.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
As I understand it, when calibrating it doesn't matter how much you wander as long as the start and end points are the same, or very nearly the same.
The above is true.
Guys...come on. Bomb site calibration could not be easier. Even BGBMAW can do it and do it very well.
Here Look.
Go to F6..Open Map, Click on Target to set detonation Altitude.
Keep speed steady with doors open.
Press U
Hold crosshaors over same point for 10 to 15 secdonds while holding down calibration key.(Start and end at same point)
Press U
YOUR DONE!
Too many things in this game are dumbed down. Leave the bombsight alone. If you can dogfight you can bomb accurately. Dogfighting is much harder.
What we do not want is the return to the laser bombing noob that can shut down a med. field by himself.
-
I just don't understand.
Nobody want's a challenge.
It seems people just want to switch on, be immedietely at 10K bristling with sidewinder missles, point click, boom.
Why bother playing the game if there is no challenge?
You have a hard time with the bombsight so you just give up?
I've sucked at dogfigthing for 4 years but I'm still trying.
Because the satisfaction of winning when the battle is hard fought is so much sweeter.
Now they want a return to the Laser bombsight of old?
Where is the challenge of climbing to 40K, putting a crosshair on a target and pushing the button?
More importantly...where does the fun come in because I don't see it.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Q & A ...
Hordes and Capture ... there is a possibility that towns will be moved farther from the airfields. The intention is to stop the "quick-lifter-short-run-to-kill-the-troops" from being so effective. The thought here is that in order to effect a capture, many planes need to be brought to knock down the "quick-lifter-short-run-to-kill-the-troops" types.
If the town is moved out farther (like around 6 to 12 miles), those who are going for the capture will have to send out interceptors to fight off the "quick-lifter-short-run-to-kill-the-troops" pilots. Imagine fighting instead of vulching ?!?!? OH THE HORROR !!!!
.
Wait a sec. hold the phone.
Bad idea. This only HELPS the hoarders. And makes the bases tougher to defend.
With all due respect Does HT ever even play the feild capture/defence aspect of the game?
If he did then he would see that typically what you have is one group vulching the feild and another group flatening the town.
Or more accurately you come in egg the town then head to the feild to suppress (vulch)
Once the VH is down "Quick lifter short run to kill the troops" pilots right now are the only hope to prevent capture. IF they can get up.
Your not gonna have "fighting instead of vulching" or anything even close to resembling it
Your just gonna have more vulching while making it even more difficult to defend the feild and those that DO manage to get up to try to kill the troops are going to be stuck going low for an extended period of time with everyone swooping down on him with superior alt and E
Basically its gonna turn into extended vulching.
IS he at least planning on making GV spawn points to the town from the feild?
Or at least putting the VH halfway between the town and the feild? Which is probably where it should be anyway though I'd bein favor of two VH's per feild. one halfway between the town and feild and one at the feild
As it stands now in some cases its a shorter drive to the town for the enemy then it is for the field that owns it and now its being suggested to make it even farther away??
Again with all due respect to HT
Bad, Terrible idea IMO.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Wait a sec. hold the phone.
Bad idea. This only HELPS the hoarders. And makes the bases tougher to defend.
Take it easy there Dred, this was only discussed as an idea. The Q&A was more akin to me of a brainstorming session at times rather than a pure Q&A. When we were talking TOD it was clear that very little is decided upon at this stage, there are many ideas.
The discussion at one point was trying to figure out how to slow the horde mentality. HT even asked us if we thought the horde discussion was 'real', meaning do we think there is a horde mentality and why is there one. Thats right, HT doing the Q and us doing the A. They do not want to stop base capture but to make it possible without 25 players. The idea of moving the cities further away was only an idea, it WOULD make it easier to capture a base. Making base capture easier means 5-10 guys can do it instead of 30+. Note, speaking personally I think 10 guys can easily take a base now if they are smart and coordinate their attack/timing. There were dozens of ideas bandied about, nothing was DECIDED, at least no announcements along the lines of "that is what we will do" were made (there were a few with TOD). Dale is clearly interested in the motivation factors of a player's gamesmanship. I think the tough nut he has to crack is that what motivates one player may demotivate 9positive or negative) another player. once TOD is out we may well have two arenas where more like-minded players will be able to mingle.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
The above is true.
Guys...come on. Bomb site calibration could not be easier. Even BGBMAW can do it and do it very well.
Here Look.
Go to F6..Open Map, Click on Target to set detonation Altitude.
Keep speed steady with doors open.
Press U
Hold crosshaors over same point for 10 to 15 secdonds while holding down calibration key.(Start and end at same point)
Press U
YOUR DONE!
What about airspeed? or doesnt it matter how fast your going?
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
Slapshot, just so you know...
None of what I said in my above post was directed toward you or driven from something you said.
Altho it seemed as such.
Too late.. NO WINGS FOR YOU MORPH!!!!!!!
:rofl
-
My apologies. First the wife wouldnt put out, then the dog kicked ME one of the cats thought my leg was a scratching post,the duck is looking at me kinda funny and now this.:p
I understand it was just a discussion. It just seemed that the outcome of such a move was so obvious that I was suprised it hadnt been mentioned before.
There is one idea in my post that untill now I hadnt thought of and think may be a pretty good idea.
And thats the thought of having 2 VH's per airfeild instead of the current 1.
1 about halfway between the town and feild and the other AT the feild as it currently is. Would make for interesting gameplay GV wise especially if the towns were moved farther away.
Plus it would make sence for a town to have some sort of ground force as a defence instead of just ack.
I like this idea. I like this idea ALOT
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Take it easy there Dred, this was only discussed as an idea. The Q&A was more akin to me of a brainstorming session at times rather than a pure Q&A. When we were talking TOD it was clear that very little is decided upon at this stage, there are many ideas.
The discussion at one point was trying to figure out how to slow the horde mentality. HT even asked us if we thought the horde discussion was 'real', meaning do we think there is a horde mentality and why is there one. Thats right, HT doing the Q and us doing the A. They do not want to stop base capture but to make it possible without 25 players. The idea of moving the cities further away was only an idea, it WOULD make it easier to capture a base. Making base capture easier means 5-10 guys can do it instead of 30+. Note, speaking personally I think 10 guys can easily take a base now if they are smart and coordinate their attack/timing. There were dozens of ideas bandied about, nothing was DECIDED, at least no announcements along the lines of "that is what we will do" were made (there were a few with TOD). Dale is clearly interested in the motivation factors of a player's gamesmanship. I think the tough nut he has to crack is that what motivates one player may demotivate 9positive or negative) another player. once TOD is out we may well have two arenas where more like-minded players will be able to mingle.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
My apologies. First the wife wouldnt put out, then the dog kicked ME one of the cats thought my leg was a scratching post,the duck is looking at me kinda funny and now this.:p
I understand it was just a discussion. It just seemed that the outcome of such a move was so obvious that I was suprised it hadnt been mentioned before.
There is one idea in my post that untill now I hadnt thought of and think may be a pretty good idea.
And thats the thought of having 2 VH's per airfeild instead of the current 1.
1 about halfway between the town and feild and the other AT the feild as it currently is. Would make for interesting gameplay GV wise especially if the towns were moved farther away.
Plus it would make sence for a town to have some sort of ground force as a defence instead of just ack.
I like this idea. I like this idea ALOT
That idea was also proposed during the same discussion and HT did seem to acknowledge the fact that a VH hanger would need to be either close to the town or have a VH in the town. Sorry I left that out ... so much discussed ... too much to remember.
Afterall, the VH would be destroyable and would only be another target that the attack force would need to neutralize ... and at the same time give the defenders some sort of interim defense mechanisim until the calvary shows up.
-
I don't think it's as obvious as it appears Drediock. One of the things we were talking about was the relationship between the difficulty of a task and the effect that has on requiring players to adopt a swarming behavior to be successful at accomplishing that task.
I think the conventional line of thought as you point out above is that if a task is easier, it just makes it better for the horde. But if you think about it, that's not really the case. In fact, it's the opposite. The more people you require to accomplish a task, the bigger the groups that form.
Look at this hypothetical situation with two different settings at the extreme ends. Two teams of 100 players with 20 fields want to capture all the fields. Team A is a horde with all players flying in one big group. Team B is the extreme opposite and all players are evenly distributed across all airfields, 5 players to each field. If a base capture were made extremely difficult and required 50 people to achieve successs, obviously Team A would win as Team B would not be able to capture a field. Now if capture were made extremely easy and it only took 2 people to achieve success, which team's strategy would work best?
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
The above is true.
Guys...come on. Bomb site calibration could not be easier. Even BGBMAW can do it and do it very well.
Here Look.
Go to F6..Open Map, Click on Target to set detonation Altitude.
Keep speed steady with doors open.
Press U
Hold crosshaors over same point for 10 to 15 secdonds while holding down calibration key.(Start and end at same point)
Press U
YOUR DONE!
Too many things in this game are dumbed down. Leave the bombsight alone. If you can dogfight you can bomb accurately. Dogfighting is much harder.
What we do not want is the return to the laser bombing noob that can shut down a med. field by himself.
Yes I do it exactly like that, but the bombs always fall short.
-
Airspeed does not matter as long as it's the same when you calibrate as when you drop.
I keep it simple and drop at full throttle.
IMPORTANT: The open bomb doors create drag.
OPEN YOUR DOORS BEFORE YOU CALIBRATE.
Wait a minture or 2 for the aircraft to slow down due to increased drag.
If your airspeed is the same as it was when you calibrate, your bombs should hit the target.
-
Problem with the complexity of the bomb calibration is you invest so much time getting to target. If you can't get the thing working for you offline at 5K, why waste 30 min draggin a 17 to 20K online? I think it's great for scenarios and stuff like that, but for the MA I think it's becoming a barrier to proper usage. Just my opinion based on what I see and how many good players say they haven't been able to get the hang of the calibration. And I include myself here - I'm a total duhweeb trying to cal this thing.
I see what you're saying, Pyro, re: difficulty of base capture as it affects MA group tactics. But consider for a moment the difference between "difficulty" and "complexity." Making it "harder" usually means you need more ord to level the structures needed to allow capture - which is only really possible with lots of people. But "complexity" may mean that the pre-requisites have to happen in a certain order, or new pre-requisites are added. Meaning it's do-able by a small number of people, but they need to execute well to make it happen.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Problem with the complexity of the bomb calibration is you invest so much time getting to target. If you can't get the thing working for you offline at 5K, why waste 30 min draggin a 17 to 20K online? I think it's great for scenarios and stuff like that, but for the MA I think it's becoming a barrier to proper usage. Just my opinion based on what I see and how many good players say they haven't been able to get the hang of the calibration. And I include myself here - I'm a total duhweeb trying to cal this thing.
-DoK
DoK-
I just don't get it. I log very little time anymore and never practice, yet I can log in and still calibrate and hit my target.
It's so much easier than dogfighting, I just don't understand why people cannot do it.
If you'd like to meet in the TA, I'd be happy to go over it with you until you get it.
jpizzo127@yahoo.com
-
"complexity of the bomb calibration "
In comparison to the what existed before (basic point & click simplicity) the calibration feature could indeed appear to be complex and for some perhaps even difficult.
However before the calibration feature was added the process of bombing was essentially a skilless, super simple task. It was only a matter of climbing to 15 or 25K and with laser guided accuracy even a relative "noob" using a single Lancaster could neutralize multiple bases (knock out a bases troops, kill area radar and decimate fuel supplies, etc) in one flight.
Something had to be done, IMO anyway as enjoyment by "the many" (players who were enjoying themselves in aircombat online) was constantly being negatively impacted by "the few" (solo or small groups of "bomber" pilots)
To the reader...
IMO there should be some skillset to being a bombardier in AH (or any online game). Heck being a bombardier in WWIIO is far more complicated and I hear not one whine there about it while I see lots of players using bombers in game there. Regardless.
Just as players who choose to fly fighters in aircombat need to learn SA, ACM and leading a bogy for a firing solution, so IMO should players who want to be a bombardier. IMO there should be a learning curve that goes beyond simply determining what button to press to open bay doors, waiting till the X appears over the exact spot you want the bombs to impact and a final key press to drop the bomb(s).
Otherwise equalize the learning curve. How? Level the playing field by making bombing super simple once again and give all fighters the old AW "lcos" gunsight (and spins off!)
( j/k on that last part. ;) )
I may be all wet and offtangent. But it's my opinion accumulated from years of arena gameplay too.
-
"Otherwise equalize the learning curve. How? Level the playing field by making bombing super simple once again and give all fighters the old AW "lcos" gunsight (and spins off!)
( j/k on that last part. )"
I wasn't kidding when I brought up the same thing during Q & A.
I mean ... you know the gunnery is much harder now in AH II (wink) and I am having a heck of a time hitting anything.
Why should I go offline and practice for hours attacking the drones at every percievable angle and speed trying to hone my defection shooting skills and ACM. IT JUST TOO DAMN HARD ... I JUST CAN'T GET IT !!!
I should have the option of using the lead-computing gunsite so I don't have to work hard to achieve anything that I need to do to become a better dogfighter.
-
Here's a couple of topics from back in 2001 which represented (very well at that IMO) the problem at the time (bombers too powerfull of an effect on gameplay)
http://216.91.192.19/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3401
http://216.91.192.19/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5151&highlight=simplistic
In the meantime....
-
mora,
He left out the parts about stabalizing your airspeed before calibrating (remember, fly with the bomb bay doors open for a few minutes before calibrating as they are draggy) and the part about clicking on your target on the clipboard map to set the target altitude.
If you don't set the correct target altitude your bombs will always fall short as you are default calibrated to sea level.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
DoK-
I just don't get it. I log very little time anymore and never practice, yet I can log in and still calibrate and hit my target.
It's so much easier than dogfighting, I just don't understand why people cannot do it.
...
Not to me. And based on things I've seen on the BBS, a lot of other people who should be able to handle this are also dropping long or short and can't figure out why.
I'm sure it's something simple and obvious, but obviously for some people the instructions that exist aren't making it.
And, no, I do NOT want to go back to GPS-guided bombing from B17's hovering at 35K. The bomb patterns work nice now. It feels right.
If I could change the calibration process, it'd work something like:
- Open map, zoom in, click on target point - at any time while in flight. That sets up the drop "computer."
- As you approach target you go to the bombardier view and have the classic needle showing how close to settled the bomb sight is. The needle should have a lot of hysterisis in it, so you really need to fly level for a few minutes for it to be balls-on.
- Openning doors will upset the centering (slows plane down), as will any manouevers - so you must be in drop configuration on the way into target.
- Then drop as normal and the "computer" has calibrated automagically during the run-in while the needle "centered."
If it worked like that bombers wouldn't be too uber, they'd still need to nice level run-in, but at least you'd know that if you followed those steps you'd probably hit something.
-DoK
-
Speaking as someone who could hit anything in WB 1&2 but cannot hit a thing in AH2 here....
A possible reason could be the target altitude setting. When you click on the target using the clip-map, it is a very imprecise thing. I always sort of wondered if I was of 1/10th of a milimeter on my screen could I be off by 10-20 feet of elevation. My eggs usually fall right next to the target (getting 'some' damage) but NEVER hit directly.
Soda gave me some pointers at the con for training myself offline by adjusting the arena settings. Like putting in a 125MPH wind that goes up, makes the climb to 20K take one minute :D he also showed me that you can set the dive-bombing crosshairs, then when you think you have the calibration set you can exit (U or Y IIRC) and check your calibration without dropping anything on anything. Thanks for the tips Soda!
-
DoKGonZo,
I don't think your idea would work. I almost always, 98% of the time, nail my target with the current system. With your proposed system it would drop to, maybe, 10% of the time.
Why? Because I almost always have to manuver in the last 20 to 30 seconds before the drop. The final course adjustment, usually 2 or 3 degrees to line up the target, comes at the very end and given the resolution limitations of the AH navigation system you're not going to be able to reliably pass over an object that is one mile square. Particularly if, as in nearly every run I do, I am targeting a small subsection of that square mile.
In your system that final manuver would upset the targeting and I'd miss because the targeting computer wouldn't have settled in time. With the current system you can do up to about 5 degree course change without messing up the calibration, so long as you don't climb or dive much.
-
Dok-
You can set the detonation altitiude anytime during the flight now.
I usually do it right after I take off just to have one less thing to do later.
I also use this time to set my Delay and Salvo depending on my target.
Slapshot:
Exactly what I was thinking. Nothing worth doing is easy, guys.
-
Originally posted by Icer
Too late.. NO WINGS FOR YOU MORPH!!!!!!!
:rofl
lol
:(
-
bombing is very easy..
kind of like driving
once you learn how to correclty ...lets say..parallel park..you can do it forever..
but for the people who dont know the corretc way to P-park..they always look liek sheite doing it..
I swear ..I will be happy to help anyone bomb..
i think the biggest thing is what Karnak says..
YOU DONT have to hold the aim point Perfectly steady the whole time!!!
just the start and end has to be marking the same point...
the speed thing...yes consistent is a must..i was talking to CrwoMAW the other day..he said..Why not check ur e6b to see if you are at the SAME exact speed you calibrated at...Goo didea..takes a few more seconds of time..but if you are unsure great way..
I usaly only bomb in b-17s...im almost always at 200mph at 40 inches of Manifold pressure..
please feel free if u see me slaying in MA to ask for a bom run clinic
Love
BiGB
xoxo
TOD TODTODTODTODTODTODTODTODTOD
-
Originally posted by Karnak
mora,
He left out the parts about stabalizing your airspeed before calibrating (remember, fly with the bomb bay doors open for a few minutes before calibrating as they are draggy) and the part about clicking on your target on the clipboard map to set the target altitude.
If you don't set the correct target altitude your bombs will always fall short as you are default calibrated to sea level.
Yes, I have done all those things aswell. I just flew a few bomber sorties and maybe I'm getting the hang of it. I just drop late and the accuracy is good enough.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Speaking as someone who could hit anything in WB 1&2 but cannot hit a thing in AH2 here....
Soda gave me some pointers at the con for training myself offline by adjusting the arena settings. Like putting in a 125MPH wind that goes up, makes the climb to 20K take one minute :D he also showed me that you can set the dive-bombing crosshairs, then when you think you have the calibration set you can exit (U or Y IIRC) and check your calibration without dropping anything on anything. Thanks for the tips Soda!
Glad I could help Edbert!
Seriously though, calibration is not hard, it's just a pattern of actions that can't be rushed. If you follow the steps you can be pretty much laser accurate without too much trouble, people just tend to wait too late and rush there calibration (or miss steps) and then scatter their bombs all over.
30 min offline with the correct arena settings and you can learn to calibrate accurately. It's that easy.
-
Explain this...
When using my CH Gear, I can put bombs on target at 20K probably 9 out of 10 times. I know all the steps and how to do it.
When using a first generation, gameport, Sidewinder, Im lucky to get near the target.
Based on my tests between a good setup and old cheap junk, It appears that the quality of hardware has an effect on things. Perhaps new players havent invested alot of money in controlers and are just checking out the game. Maybe, Just Maybe, if things were improved in this area, it might encourage more new players to stick around.
I also think of anyone that has a shakey hand. Maybe its Age catching up, all those physcodelics they took, or maybe both. Perhaps its a bit too difficult to hit that spot for them.
My Suggestion, two fold, Make a Button that replaces the cross hairs on calibration, and also leave an option to use the current setup for those that want to do it. I dont see how this will hurt gameplay, and maybe it will make the game fun for more people. The only arguement that comes to mind is folks wanting to dictate how it should be for others.
-
Originally posted by Grimm
Explain this...
When using my CH Gear, I can put bombs on target at 20K probably 9 out of 10 times. I know all the steps and how to do it.
When using a first generation, gameport, Sidewinder, Im lucky to get near the target.
Grimm - My guess is that you are sipping out of a coke bottle that has "mysteriously" been filled with Jack Daniels!!!!
bud!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Grimm
Explain this...
When using my CH Gear, I can put bombs on target at 20K probably 9 out of 10 times. I know all the steps and how to do it.
When using a first generation, gameport, Sidewinder, Im lucky to get near the target.
Based on my tests between a good setup and old cheap junk, It appears that the quality of hardware has an effect on things. Perhaps new players havent invested alot of money in controlers and are just checking out the game. Maybe, Just Maybe, if things were improved in this area, it might encourage more new players to stick around.
I also think of anyone that has a shakey hand. Maybe its Age catching up, all those physcodelics they took, or maybe both. Perhaps its a bit too difficult to hit that spot for them.
My Suggestion, two fold, Make a Button that replaces the cross hairs on calibration, and also leave an option to use the current setup for those that want to do it. I dont see how this will hurt gameplay, and maybe it will make the game fun for more people. The only arguement that comes to mind is folks wanting to dictate how it should be for others.
Sounds good.
And while we're at it, lets put a button on my fighter that gives me a gunsight that automatically corrects for the enemy planes movements. Because I'm not very good at dogfighting and I would play more and keep my subsciption if we made the aspects of the game I cannot master easier for me.
Grimm, I could not disagree more.
-
Good Point Icer!
But I use Jack to steady my hand!!
For the record, I did not drink any beer at the CON ( a couple glasses at Hooters) I never drink any Mixers either. I was just drinking Cokes. All my Adult Beverages can from pulls right off the the JD bottle! LOL!
"It tastes just like Candy!" ;)
-
Muck,
I put it too you like this, I have mastered the present calibration system. I know how to get bombs on target. Now I have the option of a calibrate button to replace the cross hairs. I still put bombs on target. Game play hasnt changed.
Now, My dad starts flying and does bombers, His hand isnt steady anymore, he does all the steps, has to keep alt, course and speed steady. If he doesnt have the physical ability to hold the cross hairs exact, He cant play with any accuracy. Game play hasnt changed.
Now make the suggested change, and he can bomb accurately and he is able to fun. Game play still hasnt changed.
Changes you suggested (in jest) to Fighters would have HUGE gameplay implications.
Im just looking at is as a way to make bombing more fun for the causal bomber pilot and those that may have physical problems or inferior hardware.
The only game play issuse I can think of is that it might mean more bombers in the air. I personal think this would be a gameplay plus.
can you explain how this change would be a negative to gameplay?
{edit addtion} just to clarify, Im not suggesting the old laser sight, all conditions would be the same as the present system, just as change to the cross hair part of the calibration.
-
Bombing should NOT be a 'given' I see no advantage in game terms to making a fighter pilot work for months to become little better than piss poor cannon fodder....but in a bomber...WHAAAAAA....I cant hit anything after 2 flights....geez
Anyone who takes their time, asks a few questions and or reads my (or the other) tutorial can bomb from 20k well enough to really tick off the enemy.
The current bomb sight requires at least a LITTLE PRACTICE....ya know...that thing you do to get good at something....so you actually feel like you accomplished something when your a success.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Most don't understand the undertaking that HTC just pulled off in the last year and a-half with the limited amount of physical resources that they have.
Indeed that is true. I do have no idea, but how can I when there is no news from HTC about what is really going on for months or years at a time? I saw some changes with AH2 but nowhere near enough to justify the length of time it took to complete. Just this lamen's opinion though.
Originally posted by SlapShot
We haven't even seen the surface scratched on the foundation that HT and crew just layed down over the last year and a-half. It's gonna take time to slowly roll this stuff out and when it does surface we will all probably think that HTC walks on water.
Now that sounds good! I very much hope it is true.
Originally posted by SlapShot
We got to see the working inside of the Ki-84 ... IL2 has nothing on these guys. HTC is only held back by their own imposed limitations (business and/or tech model) and not by technology.
Now that is a powerfull statement. Just out of curiousity Slap.... have you seen/played IL2 latley?
I play IL2 FB AEP often. I have in the past (Usually in private squad forums) bashed AH and praised IL2 FB AEP. Perhaps I shouldnt have. However, to compare the current form of AH to FB IMHO there is no contest.
Im not trying to slam HTC or thier product here..... I am just saying what I belive to be true. If thats outa line then I do appoligize.
-
Grimm,
He doesn't have to hold it steady. If he can time it so that his begin click and end click are over the same point it works just fine. In between the start and end clicks the crosshairs can wander all over the place and it has no effect.
Nomak,
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. IL2:FB:AEP is complete garbage compared to AH in all ways other than graphics, and those are a mixed bag.
Heck, the cockpits in IL2 are friggin useless as none of the instruments are ledgible.
The view system is laughable in its limitations, like you're flying with a back brace and neck brace.
The flight models are a joke and the damage models worse.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Grimm,
He doesn't have to hold it steady. If he can time it so that his begin click and end click are over the same point it works just fine. In between the start and end clicks the crosshairs can wander all over the place and it has no effect.
Yes, I understand that as I have stated already. what if a person cant time that out so well? Or Myself with a crapy stick cant seem to make it work well.
As I have stated, I have no Problems. Im looking at it as in More Fun for More people.
Im finding it interesting the resistance from you guys about making it a more fun game. With my plan, it would be exactly the same fun for you. it would just open it up to more folks.
Nobody seems to have any gameplay negatives.
::Shrug::
Its kinda like the combat trim I guess, Use it if you want, dont if you prefer not too.
Its kind of a dead horse now, I just wondered if anyone had any gameplay reasons against it.
-
Hold crosshaors over same point for 10 to 15 secdonds while holding down calibration key.(Start and end at same point)
Thats the part I cant do, I find it impossible to hold the stick steady for that long a time. Therefore my bombs always fall either short or long. Hence I dont fly bombers ever.
-
Now that is a powerfull statement. Just out of curiousity Slap.... have you seen/played IL2 latley?
I have IL2 .. I have seen it ... played around with it and have watched Icer play it. Absolutely gorgeous !!! IL2 gameplay does ziltch for me.
From what I saw ... the inside of the Ki-84 cockpit is just as pretty as any I have seen in IL2.
It all there Nomak ... HT and crew just need to turn it on. Problem is, if they turn up the volume, what does it do to their net code/playability. They play a very delicate balancing game between the Client and the Server ... turning up the eye candy ... what will it do to lag ?
You see, the real difference between AH and IL2 is that HT has the corner on the Client / Server comms ... think about it ... if the IL2 boys knew what HT knows about Client / Server, don't you think that they would provide arenas larger than 32 players with all their eye candy or would all their eye candy cause a huge clog in the pipe if they went larger than 32 ... even 64 ? What is stopping them from hosting 700 players ?!?!?
Just about anybody/artist can make spectacular looking objects (planes), but not everybody can make it all work with 700 people on simultaneously ... except HT.
You can have your IL2 spectacular looking planes/terrains/etc with 32 players ... I'll take HT's very good looking planes/terrains/etc with 700 players.
<> bud ... good to see ya around !!!
-
Im sure that onceeveryone settles in they will post more details and pics. Still need to get over the Hooters girls showing up at the con, and all the strippers at the party!! ;} Or am I still in a mead induced halucination!!
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I don't think it's as obvious as it appears Drediock. One of the things we were talking about was the relationship between the difficulty of a task and the effect that has on requiring players to adopt a swarming behavior to be successful at accomplishing that task.
I think the conventional line of thought as you point out above is that if a task is easier, it just makes it better for the horde. But if you think about it, that's not really the case. In fact, it's the opposite. The more people you require to accomplish a task, the bigger the groups that form.
Look at this hypothetical situation with two different settings at the extreme ends. Two teams of 100 players with 20 fields want to capture all the fields. Team A is a horde with all players flying in one big group. Team B is the extreme opposite and all players are evenly distributed across all airfields, 5 players to each field. If a base capture were made extremely difficult and required 50 After further consideration people to achieve successs, obviously Team A would win as Team B would not be able to capture a field. Now if capture were made extremely easy and it only took 2 people to achieve success, which team's strategy would work best?
I understand what your saying and even agree with you to a certain extent.
This is assuming that all sides are or close to even. Thats the only sticking point.
On one hand you have a base thats easier to capture making it possable for fewer people to take a base. Which is cool because smaller groups could have an effect on base capture.
On the other hand with the base so far apart from the town a horde can devote limited resources to the feild while just storming in and quicksnatching the town.
After further consideration I have to admit the idea has merit.
and Im all for smaller groups being able to make a difference, which at t the moment is a thing that has been neutered.
And I think if it works according to your plan you will see Smaller fights not bigger ones which in my opinion is a good thing as I am am Tired of this big blob vrs big blob furball which the game has evolved into
But I think the key to giving the defenders a chance with the airfeild so far away is going to be the VH's. and hardness thereof.
But Im willing to shut up on the matter and give it a fair shot
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. IL2:FB:AEP is complete garbage compared to AH in all ways other than graphics, and those are a mixed bag.
Heck, the cockpits in IL2 are friggin useless as none of the instruments are ledgible.
The view system is laughable in its limitations, like you're flying with a back brace and neck brace.
The flight models are a joke and the damage models worse.
FB graphics are far superior. Damage modeling in FB is far more detailed. FB offers complex engine management systems i.e. variable prop pitch, engine mixture contorls, radaitor/cooling system venting controls.
FB offers dynamic campaigns for online or offline play. Including career type scenarios. Custom online and offline missions can be generated and played as co-op or head to head missions with as many as 32 players and hundreds of AI aircraft. (Sounds alot like TOD to me)
FBs updates have come far more often and had more content than HTCs (as I said earler ... to my eyes anyway)
Pacific fighters is now available from UBI and has 128 player dogfight capability. Along with hords of new aircraft and maps and dynamic missions.
I dont think you have any idea what you are speaking about.
Now that being said........ HTCs Aces High is still the most fun I have ever had online. In my heart I want AH to be the best combat sim available. I just dont believe that it is right now.
SlapShot.....
From what you said they are working very hard to improve the game in everyway possible. I have always held you in the higest respect and If you came away from the con believing that than I believe it also.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
I dont think you have any idea what you are speaking about.
Actually I have a pretty good idea what I am speaking of.
What you said was pretty much what I said. It has the graphics edge, and nothing else.
Gobs of aircraft are meaningless when they are so poorly modeled.
Oooo, 128 on at once. Wow.
Oh wait....
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Now that is a powerfull statement. Just out of curiousity Slap.... have you seen/played IL2 latley?
I have IL2 .. I have seen it ... played around with it and have watched Icer play it. Absolutely gorgeous !!! IL2 gameplay does ziltch for me.
From what I saw ... the inside of the Ki-84 cockpit is just as pretty as any I have seen in IL2.
It all there Nomak ... HT and crew just need to turn it on. Problem is, if they turn up the volume, what does it do to their net code/playability. They play a very delicate balancing game between the Client and the Server ... turning up the eye candy ... what will it do to lag ?
You see, the real difference between AH and IL2 is that HT has the corner on the Client / Server comms ... think about it ... if the IL2 boys knew what HT knows about Client / Server, don't you think that they would provide arenas larger than 32 players with all their eye candy or would all their eye candy cause a huge clog in the pipe if they went larger than 32 ... even 64 ? What is stopping them from hosting 700 players ?!?!?
Just about anybody/artist can make spectacular looking objects (planes), but not everybody can make it all work with 700 people on simultaneously ... except HT.
You can have your IL2 spectacular looking planes/terrains/etc with 32 players ... I'll take HT's very good looking planes/terrains/etc with 700 players.
<> bud ... good to see ya around !!!
Yeah, I'll be sure to let O. Maddox know what a 3rd rate programmer he is...........:rofl :lol :rofl :rofl :lol :rofl :lol
"Just about anybody/artist can make spectacular looking objects (planes), but not everybody can make it all work with 700 people on simultaneously ... except HT"
This ones my favorite:lol
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Yeah, I'll be sure to let O. Maddox know what a 3rd rate programmer he is...........:rofl :lol :rofl :rofl :lol :rofl :lol
"Just about anybody/artist can make spectacular looking objects (planes), but not everybody can make it all work with 700 people on simultaneously ... except HT"
This ones my favorite:lol
Where did I say the O. Maddox is a 3rd rate programmer ? Whoever the hell he is.
BOIL ... errr ... I mean MOIL ... show me another sim like Aces High that can support 700 people online ? Tell me how and where I can sign up, cause I would love to see it.
-
There's something inherintly waek about limited players in an arena.
I always hated that about games like America's Army.
That being said, 128 in an arena is a nice size, but I still prefer the 400-500 we normally see here.
Now, from what I am reading, the competition is catching up on HTC here.
If I had the time or the patience to try another sim, I would right now.
I'm one of those morons that likes their sims as complex as possible, so the idea of engine managment sounds pretty good to me.
-
How many players in AH are usually in any one sector at a time? more than 100?
hmmm
-
ya lots of times.... that where everyones complaining about the "hordes" ;)
-
"show me another sim like Aces High that can support 700 people online ? Tell me how and where I can sign up, cause I would love to see it"
Better yet, you show me one ?
Reguarding Mr Maddox....................... ..do some homework.
I never said you stated he was a 3rd rate programmer, it was a jabb
-
FFS GRAPHICS AND LAG HAS NOTHING IN COMMON!!!
When will people learn that graphics have no effect on lag what so ever.
Lag=Latency is the time it takes for a packet of information to get from you to the server and vice versa. It also includes the time it takes for that information to get processed on the server inorder for it to be ready to be sent out to clients again.
The information sent to server and clients has nothing to do with the graphics. It is information about the state of ingame objects and events that affect these objects.
Positions, alititudes, vectors, velocities, gun fire, gun hits, droped bombs, changes in all of the previous.
It has nothing to do with graphics.
Once the information is recieved the client renderes the graphics based on the information recieved. But note here it renders of recieved infomration, the graphics are never sent over the net.
If the client renders a 100,000 polygon or 200 polygon plane does not matter for the lag.
What increase in graphics does affect is the frames per second. This because more detailed graphics take longer times to render. Not even this is entierly true as new graphics cards dont suffer from increased polygon count anymore. The big theif is textures and loading of textures. The most costly grahpical operation is swapping textures.
So anyways... LAG HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAPHICS...
What causes LAG is a) bad network connection, b) bad netcode that sends tooo much information and hence choaks it self down on the band width, c) bad server code where data takes too long time to process.
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
FFS GRAPHICS AND LAG HAS NOTHING IN COMMON!!!
yes and no...mostly yes...but...
On a slower machine that is working hard just to keep up, the low performance CAN cause SOME net-lag. This is particularly true with any TCP connection, that is why most games use UDP. Of course if packet loss becomes an issue with UDP we see that flyer lag.
Don't get me wrong, I pretty much agree with you and was thinking the same thing when I read that.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
"show me another sim like Aces High that can support 700 people online ? Tell me how and where I can sign up, cause I would love to see it"
Better yet, you show me one ?
Reguarding Mr Maddox....................... ..do some homework.
I never said you stated he was a 3rd rate programmer, it was a jabb
No .. the oness is on you to show me ... I have been on Aces High when there were 700 people online.
As far as Mr Maddox ... not worth my time ... I could care less.
As far as your jabb ... fine ... was not needed tho.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
FFS GRAPHICS AND LAG HAS NOTHING IN COMMON!!!
When will people learn that graphics have no effect on lag what so ever.
Lag=Latency is the time it takes for a packet of information to get from you to the server and vice versa. It also includes the time it takes for that information to get processed on the server inorder for it to be ready to be sent out to clients again.
The information sent to server and clients has nothing to do with the graphics. It is information about the state of ingame objects and events that affect these objects.
Positions, alititudes, vectors, velocities, gun fire, gun hits, droped bombs, changes in all of the previous.
It has nothing to do with graphics.
Once the information is recieved the client renderes the graphics based on the information recieved. But note here it renders of recieved infomration, the graphics are never sent over the net.
If the client renders a 100,000 polygon or 200 polygon plane does not matter for the lag.
What increase in graphics does affect is the frames per second. This because more detailed graphics take longer times to render. Not even this is entierly true as new graphics cards dont suffer from increased polygon count anymore. The big theif is textures and loading of textures. The most costly grahpical operation is swapping textures.
So anyways... LAG HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAPHICS...
What causes LAG is a) bad network connection, b) bad netcode that sends tooo much information and hence choaks it self down on the band width, c) bad server code where data takes too long time to process.
Tex
Take it one step further ... the more data in a packet ... the more likely that the packet can lose data.
b) bad netcode that sends tooo much information and hence choaks it self down on the band width
The more graphics needed to render the objects ... the more data that needs to be sent ... see above.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
The more graphics needed to render the objects ... the more data that needs to be sent ... see above.
Why would that be so Slap ? I'm no programmer but I thought there would only be positional data/hits etc going back and forth.
Isn't that why AH is fine on a modem connection ?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
A dive bombing B24 :)
......
It was impossible to determine the internal damage and the aircraft was scrapped for spare parts.
Dan/Slack
... and a life-time supply of fresh underwear was given to the entire crew. That's an amazing photo.
-
Originally posted by Redd
Why would that be so Slap ? I'm no programmer but I thought there would only be positional data/hits etc going back and forth.
For the poly count of a model you're right, but when you look at more details, like for example bomb bay doors opening, etc...that kind of thing amounts to more traffic. There are other examples too I'm sure.