Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Urchin on January 21, 2005, 07:59:05 PM
-
Not an indictment or anything, just a question.
Looking for something to get excited about in AH again.
-
7 minutes this post has been up, and no one hit him with
2 WEEKS
-
Cuz it got old 2 weeks ago!
:rofl
Oh Gawd, I need some pancakes... :rofl
-
2 WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKK SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS;)
-
Two Weeks
-
"Its Quaid!..get him!"
-
LOL, only 336 hours left.
-
soon...not yet...but, soon
We will let you know.
As a matter of fact our people will call your people and setup a conference. Till then just wait till we contact your people. Dont call us...we will call.........heh your people
-
Urchin - if you find out, let me know. I need a game with a purpose - not just "Chess Without Kings" - shooting guys down for the hell of it, and watching them pop right back up at 5K 2 minutes later, and repeating the process over and over and over and over and.....
Look how long it took for AH2 to arrive - tells us that these development projects are huge. Thing is, how many people actually want TOD, and would stick with it?
If I had to guess, I'd say 2007/2008. But I don't think HTC would want to spend years developing a new concept if only ~25 guys are going to use it.
Grave Doubts (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94174)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
If I had to guess, I'd say 2007/2008. But I don't think HTC would want to spend years developing a new concept if only ~25 guys are going to use it.
In the news forums, they have laid out a small roadmap of how they are developing the game. Getting the AH2 out the door was the first incriment, and the one that took the longest (at least I personally believe that the wait between 1.11 and 2 will prove to be the longest delay we encounter).
Now they are working on implementing graphic improvements, as well as getting the new Terrain editor ready to go.
Then they will work on ToD.
They were shooting for the end of January for the next version. With that in mind, I think we'll see a beta for ToD by the end of Summer, and a playable version before Christmas.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Look how long it took for AH2 to arrive - tells us that these development projects are huge. Thing is, how many people actually want TOD, and would stick with it?
Grave Doubts (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94174)
Thats an interesting point. I am not overly anxious for TOD to arrive. I fear that it may change the game into something that I dont want to play.
Dont get me wrong..... Im not passing judgement until the time comes but like I said im in no big hurry for it to get here.
-
sikboy,
I just went looking in the News forums, but couldn't find the roadmap that you spoke of. Do you have the URL?
I wish you were right in your time estimate, but the TOD concept has been bandied about since the middle of 2002. 1.11 came out in Dec 2002, but no TOD. Big disappointment. Then we heard that AH2 was not going to include TOD. Another big disappointment.
Now we're in the TOD limbo. I don't know much about the AH code, although I'm reliably informed that it is written in C++. What I still don't understand is why the AH2 code (new graphics, new flight models) had to be done ahead of TOD, which as I understand it is an intelligent mission generator. I can't see how one would be dependent on the other. - Not saying there isn't a reason, just that I don't know what that reason is.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
sikboy,
I just went looking in the News forums, but couldn't find the roadmap that you spoke of. Do you have the URL?
I wish you were right in your time estimate, but the TOD concept has been bandied about since the middle of 2002. 1.11 came out in Dec 2002, but no TOD. Big disappointment. Then we heard that AH2 was not going to include TOD. Another big disappointment.
Now we're in the TOD limbo. I don't know much about the AH code, although I'm reliably informed that it is written in C++. What I still don't understand is why the AH2 code (new graphics, new flight models) had to be done ahead of TOD, which as I understand it is an intelligent mission generator. I can't see how one would be dependent on the other. - Not saying there isn't a reason, just that I don't know what that reason is.
Beetle, the most recent part, about the terrain editor and graphic improvements preceding ToD was posted here:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136388
As for why HTC chose to program things in the order they did, I can't answer. But I don't think that we're in ToD limbo, I think we're finally nearing the start of ToD implementation, and further, that such implementation will take considerably less time than putting out AH2.
-Sik
-
Sikboy - thanks for that link. It's encouraging, but the implementation date is unclear.
Originally posted by Nomak
I fear that it may change the game into something that I dont want to play.
Nomak,
Unfortunately, AH has already changed into something some people don't want to play. I recall some players quitting or cutting back their time in disgust at various issues - the horde mentality is one that sticks out. I have my own reasons for why I discontinued my account, and for me, a successful deployment of TOD is the only thing that's going to make me want to come back.
-
"I fear that it may change the game into something that I dont want to play. "
For the umpteenbazillionth time.....TOD is not replacing the MA. So those who like the MA have nothing to worry about.
I for one can't wait (literally) for TOD.
In a nutshell .... I've always been fascinated with the stories of WWII aircombat. For me the Aces of/over the Pacific/Europe series was the ultimate WWII aircombat "sim" It was great for those who wanted to role play as a WWII pilot. But it wasn't even multiplayer let alone massively multiplayer... I just dreamed of the when a game like the Aces series would come along which was a MMPOG.
AW, WB and AH weren't it. They were all fun but the only thing they had that remotely resembled WWII were infrequent "scenarios" and special events. For 7/24 these games only offered the MA style gameplay and IMO that is the equivalent of an endless, online demolition derby - albeit in simulated WWII aircraft. Well after 7 years I'm bored to tears of MA gameplay. I yearn for that "Aces over..." type of game still. While IL2 and WWIIO have been fun substitues, with thier quasi-historical atmospheres to play in, for immersion even those two games leave a lot to be desired (lame or laggy hosts and the other has become 24-by-7 "airquank.")
Anyway. I'd wager a LOT of people are waiting for TOD. I think it will appeal to alot of MA players as well as those who've left for or only been playing games such as IL2, EAW and WWIIO.
And I really wish that HTC would create a bi-monthly newsletter they can email to people who want to stay abreast of TOD's development.
Just my .25
p.s. In 1998 AW did come very close with it's novel "auto-scenarios." However the lack of company support and too many serious gameplay bugs left that development to whither and die on the vine.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
[
Unfortunately, AH has already changed into something some people don't want to play. I recall some players quitting or cutting back their time in disgust at various issues - the horde mentality is one that sticks out. I have my own reasons for why I discontinued my account, and for me, a successful deployment of TOD is the only thing that's going to make me want to come back. [/B]
Agreed...... I understand your point completly. I have laid down my acct in disgust more than once.
However after playing multiple other combat sims and spending time not playing at all I have decided that AH is by far the best out there.
I have come back into AH with a fresh attitude and Im finding that Im having more fun than ever. I think some other vets have done the same. Im having the kind of fun I want and simply ignoring the stupid stuff.
Alot of it is that I have tried to check my ego at the door and given up on thinking that I have to be the best 1v1 pilot in the game. I still get competitive, however I dont let it get to me.
Im having fun and thats all that matters. Mabye you will do the same in the future.
c yas up.... Dave
-
I wish i could agree with ya Nomak. I am also with Urchin waiting for something to "Really" bring back my interest. I hate to say it but IL2FB has really become my obvious choice of flight sims. The only reason i still have an account is because of guys like yourself, Lazerus and my squadies. I am currently paying 15.00 a month for a chat room. With that said, it is also one of the main reason why i am burnt, the community has become a love/ hate thing for myself. There are many guys in the community i would much rather put my DOC up there prettythang then to have to talk to em
:D
-
LOL guess my SIG explains it all :rolleyes:
-
THe naysayers in this forum are legion. Post anything positive about anything and you will immediately attract someone who happily explains (no doubt with a gloomy, end-of-the-world expression) that, "this is going to end AH as we know it, and I have already cancelled my account, and there's no fun to be had here, and..."
I don't get it. If you have already gotten out of the game, why do you feel the need to criticize it? What good will it do you? What good will it do the game or the community?
-
Well, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't tired of the gameplay, but it is mostly the chicken**** ganging horde *****es that get old after a while. I'll fight X on 1, which is a good thing, since that is practically the only way anyone will fight in the MA nowadays.. but even with numbers and alt about 95% of the MA is to timid to do more than make a few clumsy, easily evaded newb swoops.
Hell, the attitude is so pervasive that yesterday, the #1 fighter ranked guy refused to engage until friends showed up... today, the #6 fighter ranked guy ran like a ***** after I shot his two girlfriends down.
Back when people had balls, this game was fun. Chasing around a bunch of eunuchs isn't. Killing AI is more fun, at least it tries.
-
Your right, more then anything, the 1 thing that has effected me is the Quake mentality that has infected our community. It really is not the game itself, unfortunately its the game that suffers.
TOD really is more my interest/style that i am looking for now days is all. The only reason why IL2FB sparks my interest is, i prefer the historical plane sets on the servers i fly. Truely i wish more people flew CT because i would be happy as a clam there.
So S! HTC, like i said its not the game. :aok
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
"Its Quaid!..get him!"
LOL!!!
"Have you brought any fruit with you to Mars, ma'am?"
"Two weeks."
"What?"
"Two... weeks... two we... wee..... two weeks!"
I think i'm the only one that saw that :D
-
Bout a fortnight.......
-
I agree with Misfit's post above ^. I hate the Quake mentality, and the whining that hit this board when ENY limiting was introduced with Patch 8 made me realise that a large swathe of the player base has naff-all interest in WW2, and just wants an arcade shoot-em-up and the best possible planes in which to do it.
It's bad enough that guys whined that they couldn't have a P51D or LA7 because of country imbalance. But when you had those same guys threatening to cancel their accounts because of it - well, that's sad.
When we have an arena which uses realism as its backdrop, and where realistic missions can be played out using the plane choice that would have been available at the time, that will interest me. The horde/fragfest/uberplane shutout/numerical supremacy smashdown holds NO interest. And neither does the ace wannabe Spit V skirmish hamster wheel.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I agree with Misfit's post above ^. I hate the Quake mentality, and the whining that hit this board when ENY limiting was introduced with Patch 8 made me realise that a large swathe of the player base has naff-all interest in WW2, and just wants an arcade shoot-em-up and the best possible planes in which to do it.
It's bad enough that guys whined that they couldn't have a P51D or LA7 because of country imbalance. But when you had those same guys threatening to cancel their accounts because of it - well, that's sad.
When we have an arena which uses realism as its backdrop, and where realistic missions can be played out using the plane choice that would have been available at the time, that will interest me. The horde/fragfest/uberplane shutout/numerical supremacy smashdown holds NO interest. And neither does the ace wannabe Spit V skirmish hamster wheel.
Ummmm....its the Quake mentality that caused the NME persecution factor. Those that couldnt be bothered to organize decided to whine and complain about how unfair it was.....I kept waiting for Michael Moore to do a movie about the inequities of the MA .
The 'hoard' is called organization.
-
:D
-
TOD is the type of a gameplay I am looking for since I played Aces over Pacific first time. Historic roleplay environment with human as opponents; structured environment, and goals to achive (ranks, kills records, mission objectives etc.). I am basicly in AH now, because I am waiting for TOD.
-
Originally posted by ALF
Ummmm....its the Quake mentality that caused the NME persecution factor. Those that couldnt be bothered to organize decided to whine and complain about how unfair it was.....I kept waiting for Michael Moore to do a movie about the inequities of the MA .
The 'hoard' is called organization.
:rofl
Jumping in a la7 and taking off in a sector where there's a huge green dar bar and bottom feeding like a low life isn't what I'd call organization.
Lord help us, Beet is with us on this post :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And neither does the ace wannabe Spit V skirmish hamster wheel.
Damnit, I missed that... I knew my hopes were too good to be true hehe.
:aok
-
you depressing bunch of depressedness.
AH2 is great fun still, just you have to look for your fun..
what....you expect good things to be put in your lap with a complimentary bottle of whine?
i dont get it.
back when i was a lad, we were taught to 'make fun out of the gravel in the driveway'
and that was only a few years ago..
you whiney buggers are just no fun in general anyway, AH is just your vent for the excess steam.
the Ma has bad points. But its nowhere near as bad as you "i havnt played for 6 months, yet i know everything about AH" moaning minnies.
:D
-
Originally posted by Stang
Damnit, I missed that... I knew my hopes were too good to be true hehe.
LOL. I'm like Fariz. I want actual missions with actual goals just as he describes. I did cancel my account, but I came back in November with a 2-week shades account. I think I played for about 1½ hours and realised it was the same old same old, and didn't play any more. Lord help us, Beet is with us on this post
You think you have it bad? I have to swallow hard when I express my point of view on this, because I'm in complete agreement with MiniD! :lol
-
"The 'hoard' is called organization."
by your defenition.... a riot would be called "organization" as would a gang rape or lynch mob.
and beet... the anti BK avatar suits you. If anyone is the opposite of the BK's ... well... shubie is but... you are in the top ten.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
"AH2 is great fun still...."
For *you* it sounds like it is. So good for you.
"...just you have to look for your fun.. "
I certainly agree and I do but I find it elsewhere.
To be 100% clear I'm not paying 15/mo to play in a game where I have to go on a Holy Grail type of quest to scrounge for little bits of "fun." Where I'm supposed to (impossibly) ignore the waves of suicide jabo morons, heavy bomber idiots doing the Stuka-thing and hordes of lemmings playing "war" aka landgrab for the reset? lol.
And with the CT being a mini-MA, as well as a ghost town, and scenarios beinf weekend only things in all honesty all that AH has to offer is MA gameplay. And that to me is plain unappealing. Heck, the MA and CT can't even be a place to "practice" for scenarios as I cannot join in on those due to thier scheduling.
So here I am today only because TOD is under development (hopefully) and it sounds just like what I've always wanted tp lay. But if HTC cancelled "TOD" I would not be here a minute longer.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
Im having fun and thats all that matters. Mabye you will do the same in the future.
c yas up.... Dave
You ego is still here, you just slightly older. "Before you wanted to be everything, now you think you can teach people what is everything". =)
I remember that when I saw spit diving on formation of ju88s in "Perl Harbor" It was so much empathy that I almost burst into tears. If MA giving you that level of immersion, palms sweeting, heart beating and hands shaking after the fight, then it is yours fun, and I am happy you found it. I know that I am having it now only in big scenarios, the feeling of being there and then. MA is good in its way, as good is DA sometimes. Just often when I fight 1 vs many I think about my tomorrow plans and what I need to buy for next week... I want AH to be for me again the ww2 flying sim of the highest quality. For this I need TOD, or something alike.
I think that MA shall be still here, and it always will be more popular than any scenario-structured environments. Falling bricks always easier to sell than the niche wargame. Very few people have fun flying an hour to have 3 minutes fight. Still, some people have more fun in it, that you will have going up in MA in some furball field and shotting down 20 planes in 5 min. Try to understand that we all are very different.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Looking for something to get excited about in AH again.
Maybe your looking for all the wrong things?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and beet... the anti BK avatar suits you. If anyone is the opposite of the BK's ... well... shubie is but... you are in the top ten.
It's not an anti-BK avatar. It's just reversed. One interpretation could be that what I want out of a flight/war sim/game like AH is the antithesis of what you and the BK want. And that wouldn't be so far from the truth. Neither of us is wrong - just different. My views are very similar to those of Misfit, Fariz and Westy above. ^
-
fsir enough westy, my post was light hearted, no offence meant :)
each to their own.
-
How bout a small volatge shock everytime ya die in game, might slow down the suicide's :D
-
Originally posted by Fariz
You ego is still here, you just slightly older. "Before you wanted to be everything, now you think you can teach people what is everything". =)
Believe it or not I teach because I really just enjoy Teaching/Helping people. If you feel the need to assign that to my old self proclaimed "AH Domination Ego" than so be it. Its just not the case though.
The ever growing list of people in AH that I have helped would feel the same way I believe.
c yas up.... Dave
-
Originally posted by Fariz
TOD is the type of a gameplay I am looking for since I played Aces over Pacific first time. Historic roleplay environment with human as opponents; structured environment, and goals to achive (ranks, kills records, mission objectives etc.). I am basicly in AH now, because I am waiting for TOD.
Here's hoping they have a broad selection of vulching missions for you to choose from ;)
-
:rofl redd
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"The 'hoard' is called organization."
by your defenition.... a riot would be called "organization" as would a gang rape or lynch mob.
Almost, but not quite Lazs... the "organized" mob would run away from any person it ran into shrieking and yelping for help.
-
I'm just looking for a good fight, something that has become so rare as to be almost impossible to find in the MA.
I spent this tour flying the Spit V, an airplane that is almost diametrically opposite what I normally fly. I found that the game changes almost not at all. The only real difference in flying any plane other than the La-7 and the Spit V is that instead of getting run down by an La-7 and then fighting the planes behind it you get into fights with the other planes then the La-7s (and Pee-Fifty Runs) come blowing through looking for cherrypicks. You still fight 3-4 vs 1 on average.
I'm just sick of the MA I guess, the timidity has gotten completely out of hand. Your choices are fly an La-7 and cherrypick, fly something else and fight 3-4+ vs 1, or fly in your horde in whatever you want and get 2 or 3 kills a day. None of the options are very attractive to me.
So I'm done for a while I think. Joysticks unplugged and sitting in a corner. I don't really see coming back for a while, unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the game is organized.
-
Thats an interesting point. I am not overly anxious for TOD to arrive. I fear that it may change the game into something that I dont want to play.
The Main Arena wont be transformed into the MA will it???
-
You ego is still here, you just slightly older. "Before you wanted to be everything, now you think you can teach people what is everything". =)
Fariz if you beleive that vile piss ladden remark your even dumber than I had though.
If more people exisisted in the game who were like Nomak them maybe things would be alot different.
Since the advent of AH2, squads who gave a watermelon about fighting and improving onces abilities have all but disapeared. I have no idea why but this is, indeed the case none the less.
Now, you have hordes of squads, recruiting any newbie they can get their hands on and teaching them how to be hordling lemmings. That is fine if that's what you want to be.
No one cares about standing out anymore. Back when i first started playing, you feared meeting certain people in a furball. You knew that if you had me them face to face you were almost certainly done for. No one cares anymore about standing out because of how well they can fly... They dont care because they think that bombing fighter hangers, hording one single con, vulching a field until they are dead to ack or people stop rollling, if the best way to play the game.
What Nomak is trying to do is show some new players the "other side" of the game. The one he showed me a long time ago. If there were more people like him doing the same thing they came would most certainly be much different, and at the same time, not much more different from how it was back in AH1.
Urchin, I've known you for a while now. I know that you've got alot of tallent, both from fighting with and against you. If you ask me I think you'd be very well suited to help some new players out. I'm only saying this because it looks like you want to change things, or help to try. It might give you that enjoyment from the game you're looking for.
Sorry for writing so much.
morph
-
TOD and timidity...........
I cannot envisage any version of TOD that will motivate toward less timidity.............(translated as extreme caution to sustain any combat.....)
IMO role playing, combined with role development in a mission orientated environment will lead to more caution, not less.
If it is limited to a clever mission planner then it will just replace the CT as a "mission arena".
TOD could yet be many things.............all we know is that game play will be mission led and that avatars can be multiple and can develop over time gathering "benefits/rewards" in a WETO setting.
Given this will not be an arcadia experience then it seems to me that the only reward thru development is ride choice based........
placing this in a historical context means that the avatar may be promoted or transfered (offerred promotions or transfers)between squadrons (and therefore changing ac types) or even within squadrons (where a squadron has more than one ac type).
These become "options" in the game play.
These options allow access to certain types of mission with differing rewards. (coastal patrol may induce a quicker dog fight but bomber escort brings more rewards etc etc)
However to access a P51D for bomber escort so many "hours" in coastal patrol is required.
Stuff like that anyway..................
................plus without AI (fighters, bombers etc) folk will all too often find they have no opponents (unless we are sitting in ready rooms waiting for thier opponent to gather) hence IMO AI stuff is essential to fill in gaps.
.............of course it may not be like that but when you begin to break down the stuff that has to be done above a simple mission planner.............I reckon Hitech has many months of work to do
2006 would be good going.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
So I'm done for a while I think. Joysticks unplugged and sitting in a corner. I don't really see coming back for a while, unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the game is organized.
Sorry to see you hang it up, Urchin. I'm eternally grateful to you for your 109 tutelage! :aok
As to what you said here, the real problem for you - and for me - is the way the game is organised. Or rather NOT organised. I remember countless threads about this in the late 2002/early 2003 time frame. Threads like this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86416 ), this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74773), and this one of mine (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70712). A common theme throughout these threads is that the furballers steadfastly refuse to accept the need for any rules or other game controlling influences.
I said all along that all games have rules, but that the absence of any rules or structure in AH was going to lead to a permanent state of anarchy, and one which would not sustain adult interest. I leave you to judge the accuracy of my prognosis for yourself. IMO, the current lamentable status quo is the RESULT of the lack of rules/controlling influences.
What I find funny is that at least two of the "no rules" proponents from 2 years ago have since departed the game because they're no longer having fun.
-
ToD will NOT be a cure for timidity.
Remember ToD will promote mission success and NOT kills.
Sometimes fighting against the odds will be necessary for the mission. But some missions will not reward that.
Say a mission is a bomber escort. Then dogfighting the planes that have the mission to intercept the bombers will NOT be a priority. Get them of the bombers and stay with the bombers.
If its a recon mission and you run into a greater number of fighters then fighting them wount do the mission any good.
So timidity will not be cured by ToD.
ToD will give more meaning to sorties and will give much more immersion.
Also when it comes to MA play I think the reason some vets are "boored" is because there is so damn many players who have played the game for sooooo long. Everything gets booring after a while if you do it too much over a too long period of time.
Tex
-
I miss seeing an enemy P51 slashing into a fight and worrying that it might be Hangtime or RWY (and then finding out it was) or having a 190 do a wicked slice back and dying to Udie and on and on. 2 v 2 fights where the victor could nurse their way home and be fairly sure that you could up and the next sortie would be a good fight. Maybe its just in my head.
Heres to hoping that TOD come some time so I may fly the AH skies again.
-
Back when people had balls, this game was fun. Chasing around a bunch of eunuchs isn't.
The Old beta Ogre map with its 20k mountain wall would solve the running..
(make all bases uncapturable and let it run for a week to break up the same ole drama)
we need a re-make of that map....
If i can solve my CTD's I might even play this game again.... (losing a 262 last week on landing is not cool.. note I never CTD in a zeke wtf is going on buzz kill.....)
those 38's do look nice though.. now up the production (breaks out cat O nine tails...)
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Redd
Here's hoping they have a broad selection of vulching missions for you to choose from ;)
Actually I once tried to vulch during the scenario, it was first BoB in AH. Was not very successful, lost engine and died =)
-
Originally posted by streetstang
Urchin, I've known you for a while now. I know that you've got alot of tallent, both from fighting with and against you. If you ask me I think you'd be very well suited to help some new players out. I'm only saying this because it looks like you want to change things, or help to try. It might give you that enjoyment from the game you're looking for.
morph
No, Morph... I honestly have nothing to teach anyone. My "skill-set" is a little outdated for todays MA. I worked at becoming good at 1v1s. In the process, I became reasonably good at X v 1s, but that is something that is more plane dependant than pilot dependant.
I can maybe keep track of 4 guys, 5 at the outside. 3v1 I'm usually alright. But even then, I need to be in a plane that can take advantage of the mistakes that people make, or I'm just as impotent as anyone else. Furthermore, once you get past 1v1, you are relying on a healthy dose of suckiness from your opponents.. 2v1 in anything vs anything will usually come down to the 2 winning if they have half a clue. It gets exponentially harder the more people pile in.
So, my options are to fly a manueverable plane that hits hard (i.e. a Spit or Nik), and hope for the best, fly an La-7 timidly, or fly whatever I want in the horde. Those aren't just my options, those are everyone's options.
Being able to survive a sortie is actually important to some (I'd say most) people. So for most, option 1 is out right at the start, even if they'd like to learn how to fight. That leaves option 2, which is becoming quite popular (well, when combined with option 3 anyway), and option 3.
You don't need to learn how to run away in an La-7, it is pretty much level out and leave. And do you seriously think people need help when they are fighting 5 on 1? About the only thing I could think would be "How do I kill this guy before everyone else does, I keep getting assists". Yea, that'd be a wonderful thread in the Training Forum.
It basically boils down to this game has become an exercise in frustration for me. I don't have any fun playing it, and I typically log out a lot more pissed off than when I logged in. So I think at long last, the time has come for me to hang it up.
-
TOD and timidity...........
I cannot envisage any version of TOD that will motivate toward less timidity.............(translated as extreme caution to sustain any combat.....)
IMO role playing, combined with role development in a mission orientated environment will lead to more caution, not less.
If it is limited to a clever mission planner then it will just replace the CT as a "mission arena".
TOD could yet be many things.............all we know is that game play will be mission led and that avatars can be multiple and can develop over time gathering "benefits/rewards" in a WETO setting.
Given this will not be an arcadia experience then it seems to me that the only reward thru development is ride choice based........
placing this in a historical context means that the avatar may be promoted or transfered (offerred promotions or transfers)between squadrons (and therefore changing ac types) or even within squadrons (where a squadron has more than one ac type).
These become "options" in the game play.
These options allow access to certain types of mission with differing rewards. (coastal patrol may induce a quicker dog fight but bomber escort brings more rewards etc etc)
However to access a P51D for bomber escort so many "hours" in coastal patrol is required.
Stuff like that anyway..................
................plus without AI (fighters, bombers etc) folk will all too often find they have no opponents (unless we are sitting in ready rooms waiting for thier opponent to gather) hence IMO AI stuff is essential to fill in gaps.
.............of course it may not be like that but when you begin to break down the stuff that has to be done above a simple mission planner.............I reckon Hitech has many months of work to do
2006 would be good going.
Not necessarily. First there will be no base capture so that rules out 90% of main players right away.
Second it all depends on the depth of the mission victory conditions.
An escort mission should require that XX% of bombers (or what ever you are escorting) make it to and from target and that your XX% of the players in your mission survive.
A bomber mission should require that XX% of the bombers survive and that XX% of the target gets destroyed.
A defense or bomber intercept mission would require that XX% of the bombers get shot down and that XX% of the target remains intact and that XX% of the players in your mission survive.
Fighter intercept or sweep missions would require you to 'sweep point XXX' and kill XX% of the opposing fighters and that XX% of your own survive.
I would also suggest a time limit for the mission to be completed so that you don't have the bombers/escorts just flying around until the other side runs out of fuel.
This way both sides will be forced to make contact with the enemy rather then avoid them. It would be possible for both sides to fail their respective missions.
Just taking off and landing should not be rewarded. There should be very low minimum points for completing the mission, then a high multiplier for the number of kills. You would deduct for bails and ditches. Capture should be treated the same as a death. Deaths should have a very high penalty in terms of point loss or demotion.
With a harsh death penalty you get rid of the suiciding 'at least I got the hangar / CV / building' types. With very low points for just completing a mission and a high multiplies for enemy kills the timid or avoiders of combat will progress very slowly and be forced to come out from behind their mothers skirt (ie hiding behind the horde).
With a penalty for ditches and bails the player will be encouraged to make it home in his plane. If not he may just bail out whenever he gets in trouble.
ToD is not necessarily a new thing. It maybe new in terms of on line subscription flight games but in some box games this very thing takes place in the good on line wars.
Missions should be significantly difficult and the victory conditions need to be in depth enough to encourage combat not just surviving the sortie.
HT has also mentioned player rating. This would allow folks in a mission to vote or rate a player or mission leaders performance.
If you go hide while the rest of the guys are out fighting those other players can let you know how they felt about that.
It's not the kills that the timid haters like, it's the fights. It doesn't necessarily matter if someone gets killed, it's the human v. human competition that makes these types of games fun.
-
I've been reading the 370th FG history lately. They flew 38s with the 9th AF in support of the ground troops in 44-45 from prior to the invasion through the end of the war, transitioning to 51s in late March 45.
I'd love to be able to try and fly a tour like that in TOD. It was a mix and match of ground attack, escort, airfield strafing etc. Tons of flak, getting bounced by always higher bad guys etc. Bombs, napalm, flak damage, engines out, poor weather. The worst of the worst.
No idea how they managed to keep going.
Don't know if that's something that would be a part of TOD, but I'd sign up for that tour.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I've been reading the 370th FG history lately. They flew 38s with the 9th AF in support of the ground troops in 44-45 from prior to the invasion through the end of the war, transitioning to 51s in late March 45.
I'd love to be able to try and fly a tour like that in TOD. It was a mix and match of ground attack, escort, airfield strafing etc. Tons of flak, getting bounced by always higher bad guys etc. Bombs, napalm, flak damage, engines out, poor weather. The worst of the worst.
No idea how they managed to keep going.
Don't know if that's something that would be a part of TOD, but I'd sign up for that tour.
Dan/Slack
I am almost sure ground targets attack is (or will be) implemented. There are trucks convoys, trains, depots, shore batteries already in the game, it shall be just codded into a mission system: "Train left point A and moving to point B. In shall be probably in sectors this and that. Your flight will be splitted into attackers and escort, expect light enemy fighters presence in the sector".
After the "invation" they may even make the AI convoys of panzers moving to "front", with flaks and trucks, so you can attack it with p47s, etc.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Not necessarily. First there will be no base capture so that rules out 90% of main players right away.
etc.
Wingman shall get bonus if his leader survivies. For wingman it shall be the bigger bonus, than for killing anything. This will encorage wingmans to stay with leaders, and will be another way to make people want to get promossions (to fly leaders next time).
-
The TOD arena with its realism and immersion would be wonderful. But look at how other proposals have been taken on board.
Mention "RPS" to some AH players, and the effect is like holding an inverted cross in front on Count Dracula's face. And yet if people had half an interest in WW2 combat, they'd go along with an RPS.
Look at the mass whining when P8/ENY limiting was introduced. There are some 70 different planes in AH, but some guys whined their way through a whole box of kleenex if they couldn't have a P51 or LA7. And yet if people had half an interest in WW2 combat, they'd want to try some of the other planes.
I don't buy all this crap about the "sandbox" - being a place where people can have "fun".
The TOD arena would be great, but the outrage shown by a whole mass of AH players towards other realism proposals leaves me with grave doubts (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94174) about whether it will ever see more than 25 players, and indeed whether it will be deployed at all.
-
Only 24 more to go then :)
I'm looking forward to it as a change of pace - something new.
Urchin has expressed my current state of burnout completely :(
How ironic that one of the great things about AH, and one of the worst things about AH are the same: People.
-
Wingman shall get bonus if his leader survivies. For wingman it shall be the bigger bonus, than for killing anything. This will encorage wingmans to stay with leaders, and will be another way to make people want to get promossions (to fly leaders next time).
I think that's what HT was implying with the playing 'rating'. After the mission your wing man and others in your flight will rate how you did. If you are a terrible wingmen or don't stay with your group then I would imagine you would have a low rating.
What this rating will actually mean I don't know.
I'd love to be able to try and fly a tour like that in TOD. It was a mix and match of ground attack, escort, airfield strafing etc. Tons of flak, getting bounced by always higher bad guys etc. Bombs, napalm, flak damage, engines out, poor weather. The worst of the worst.
With the new te and ability to create objects to place in the maps I hope we see bridges and airfields that are laid out differently with static aircraft waiting to get hit.
I hope its possible to create an active front where you have GV spawns behind the front so that when the GVs spawn they drive down the roads back toward the front just asking to be strafed, bombed and rocketed...
Similiar to how the trains currently work.
HT has implied that AI ground vehicles are planned and I magine there will plenty for fighter bombers pilots to do.
-
The TOD arena would be great, but the outrage shown by a whole mass of AH players towards other realism proposals leaves me with grave doubts about whether it will ever see more than 25 players, and indeed whether it will be deployed at all.
Well what's good about the arena being mission based is that the arena doesn't need to sustain large areas of combat like the main.
The mission you are in only needs enough active players to make that mission fun.
I would agree the larger the better but say there's only 25 guys , 15 allied 10 axis (hell that's packed by Ct standards :p)
You could still have some fun and good fights with 15 escorts, 10 AI bombers and 8 LW interceptors etc...
-
These bonuses and points should mean something (however they are allocated) there should be some reward............. some form of personnal development............. a hook.
The immersive factor would be to enable the individual greater mission choice (across more ac types) or where historically a squadron was blessed with two models of a plane type the higher scoring individual gets the choice.
Players icons would show rank in some way.
To reproduce boxed off line mission games may be enough but basically you end up running the game from beginning to end and then binning it.
Look at a scheme that places an avatar as an inexperienced rookie in either the WETO axis or allied forces of mid to late 43.
He has a choice of squadron (types) to join.
Then we start the clock on the 2nd half of WWII in the WETO.
As he gathers points so his opportunities/choices grow.........he is offerred transfers to other units..........these may have a different ac type or may indeed have the latest ac type (the ac being introduced into the game as the clock ticks)
Once offerred, transfers are always available and can be taken any time.................maybe like country changing in the MA they are limited to one every 24 hours.
The structure is built around the individual but folk staying together may also benefit.
Where folk do not transfer then a group (squadron) may be offerred a new plane type as a whole (a refit). In this way the less able also grow by sticking with a squadron.
Multiple avatars mean that if folk want to vary their experience then they switch avatar either within or across nations
The launch version would feature the 8th versus the LW.........at the end of a 1 or 2 year run (representing mid 43 to mid 45)the clock is reset. However this time ( the 2nd tour) development has opened up avatar opportunities in the RAF and Italian (pity about 44) air forces with additional mission sets and opportunities for these in the Med.
The 3rd Tour could add the Eastern front. The 4th the Pacific probably time shifted such that august in the Pacific plays along side may in Europe.
HTC would have then later options of extending the tour period starting in 42 and roll the plane set from an earlier point in time.
just an example..........stuff may vary
My point is that mission planning and points gathering alone does not cut it.......to hook the player in there has to be an element of role development to entice the wannabe element out of folk such that they buy into the role play and strive to achieve the next stage.............the next transfer............the next promotion............the next ride type enhancement.
To do this there is more infrastructure required.
-
-
These bonuses and points should mean something (however they are allocated) there should be some reward............. some form of personnal development............. a hook.
The hook is the alternative style of combat.
The 'points', 'scoring' and 'victory conditions' need to set in a manner to direct the course of game play in that direction.
The 'rank' and 'promotions' are just a way for individuals to track their progression. If the type of player that is attracted to such an arena is like me or even Urchin I can tell you that neither of us care about 'ranks' or 'role playing'. We care about the quality of combat.
That's the hook.
Now what benefits there are to rank and score need to be balanced and focus on facilitating combat over just handing out uber aircraft or calling yourself GeneralCaptianHauptwebel etc...
Those that avoid combat or those that just hang back hoping others will complete the mission for them ought not advance or do so at a snails pace. Those that take the greater risk should get the greater reward.
Even if a player is only motivated by the idea of being a general or of getting a better aircraft, make him earn it by killing and surviving.
If things are done well in this regard combat maybe more structured but of better quality then the main.
A good number of people in the main care about 'winning' not score or 'ranking'. Winning to them means resetting the map or capturing that base.
Change the definition of 'winning' and keep it geared toward combat and some behaviors will adapt.
IIRC the way I understand the multiple avatars is that once a tour starts you are committed to a side. The multiple avatars will allow you to move between fighter / bombers and possibly fighter-bombers.
I don't have time to search the old threads to find that discussion but I am pretty sure thats how it was laid out.
Currently with the plane set now at hand theater choices are extremely limited. Mostly AH has aircraft ready for a mid to late WETO and maybe a late MED (Italy).
Pac still needs help in terms of new planes and imho eastern front is almost impossible.
Event hough there has been 2 BoB events in AH even that time frame is unbalanced in terms of aircraft.
No period bomber for the RAF.
110C-4/B with the DB601N (IIRC under 10 were ever produced)
Ju-88A-4 (no A-1 or A-5, No Do-17zs or He-111s)
Even the Ju-87 is a late model.
No 109E-3s etc...
-
Beet1e to be fair everytme someone waives RPS around it is in the context of replacing the MA setup that hundreds enjoy right now with that type of restricted gameplay. Otherwise we share a very similar wish for more historical types of gameplay.
Tilt, Wotan and Dan... i hear ya! Although I'd really would like to HTC layout more a LOT more detail for now I enjoy reading your speculations based on the meager bones that have been tossed. :)
I too would like to try that avenue of missions Dan. And for me the game would be simply the challenge to succeed and survive. I personally could care less about gaining rank or points unless those mean better performing aircraft and better missions then I'll have to play along with it I guess.
Wotan said it best, "We care about the quality of combat." And for me the greatest factor towrads that quality lies in the immersion from being in a WWII aircombat environment.
I want to fly a P-36 defending the Phillipines in 1941.... an F4F as CAP while the invasion force hits Morocco.... to fly an IAR-80 intercepting P-38/B-24's at Ploesti... or suicidaly taking a JM3 up over Tokyo in 1945 to tackle B-29's....
And this I want to do when I log on any time of day, any day of the week. the days of wishing I could join in on a scenario being held, once again, soley on a Saturday or Sunday, will be over.
-
No, Morph... I honestly have nothing to teach anyone. My "skill-set" is a little outdated for todays MA.
Urchin, you understate your skill by far. Even if you are only half the pilot in AH2 you were back in AH, i am sure you will still be outflying and "outsmarting" about 90% of the MA crowd.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The TOD arena would be great, but the outrage shown by a whole mass of AH players towards other realism proposals leaves me with grave doubts (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94174) about whether it will ever see more than 25 players, and indeed whether it will be deployed at all.
Almost since the inception of ToD (as opposed to the Mission Theater), HTC has admitted that they believe ToD would target a different type of player than the MA. I have to believe that they will target advertising to recruit that new type of player.
Sort of a "Field of Dreams" moment here.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The hook is the alternative style of combat.
I dont see the $ 's in that hook not enough players for it.
If Hitech is gonna devote serious development time then he needs a numbers increase in the player base well beyond his investment.
One man year initial development is what ? $60,000.00 (you tell me)
2 year pay back is $30,000.00 per year above costs.
Lets say costs are a puny $5,000.00 per year
Ongoing development (missions) $20,000.00 per year
Break even revenue for the first 2 years $100,000.00
Thats an additional 300 players over the norm because of TOD to start profitable return in year 3.
-
Most of the added costs for ToD are shared with AH2 development and plug right into the main. Nothing has been exclusively produced for ToD, yet (at least that we have seen).
I am sure there are / will be added cost but I think they may be overstated in your thread. If they aren't I am afraid that HTC maybe making a financial mistake to think that he will build a player base of 300, at least in the short term.
Besides an AI bomber / GV script and a server side mission generator where's the huge cost?
The only way you get in new players, in particular the type of player drawn to this type of game play, is by making it competitive (in terms of game play) with the box sim online wars. Offline box sim players have an infinite amount of control over their own missions and mission set parameters. They will be less inclined to give up that control and pay a fee on top of that.
The way to ensure good game play (whether perceived or actual) means filling the wholes in the plane set, a quality mission script and decent terrain. Role playing is way down at the bottom.
2 of the above are happening regardless of ToD.
The online wars I mentioned above are run with no monies generated from the players (besides donations). They are free to registered squadrons. The scripts and parsers are written by 3rd parties. These are the folks that will be attracted to this type of game play. They will be less attracted to something that isn't 'complete'.
Explore this site to see the level of detail:
Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx)
I fly regularly with these types. The ones who I have talked with don't care about playing general or scores. They like to get together and fly in a structured environment, they like combat and competition. There's little draw towards the 'role playing'. I don't doubt that for some playing 'fighter pilot' may add to their experience but I don't see it replacing game play as a primary motivating factor.
In the short term I doubt that there will any real added server / bandwidth load (besides the initial download). Most of the players will be either current AH subscribers or ex-pats returning to try it out.
If the selling point for ToD is primarily 'role playing' that just wont keep folks attention along.
Focus on gameplay, make quality missions that encourage combat, and not only will folks try it out but they may stick around...
-
I see your point batz and I dont dispute that some who play on the IL2 servers will enjoy what TOD may offer re more indepth mission based activity.
Blokes I know who play there (mostly firebirds) seem to enjoy the imersion, they seem to enjoy more realism. more planning, more intracacy etc etc, actually the combat over time ratio is not very high even when the designer has created AI opposition.
If HTC just copies this with the possibility of a larger arena size then I think he will fall short of attracting the numbers he needs.
I take it as a given that TOD will at least attempt to achieve what you describe
If TOD is just to open another 100 or so accounts then HTC is probably wasting his time (investment wise)
At best he will take some where between 50% and 70% of what is already on the IL2 servers more likely not IMO (they get "rewards" for doing it them selves)
He would attract more newbie type players (and more $) by hitting the arcadia market and building the MA into a total war game for younger players.
TOD does have the capability of holding its players longer ie lower turnover and lower population.
But for it to really blossom then it is not the enthusiast that it must attract......(it will already do this)....... it must hook in the tiring young arena player to extend his account life beyond the norm.
If you look at all role play stuff out there in their myriad forms they create very large numbers of accounts of some longevity.. I would have thought this would be the primary driver(large account numbers)
The TOD role could actually be the "Tour of Duty". or (through multiple avatars) Tours of Duty that players will "live thru" experiencing the multiple mission types and plane sets and load outs variations that evolved over a period eg 43 to 45 WETO.
-
There's a difference in historical mission profiles, i.e. immersion and 'role playing'.
But history should not supplant game play.
None of us want to be bored with endless flights with no contact etc...
I don't think too many will take 'rank' any more serious in ToD then they did in the main or any where else.
It's up to the mission designers to find a way to balance immersion with quality game play. Ultimately, I believe it's the quality of game play that will determine whether or not ToD is a 'success', not how its scored or how people earn rank.
Now 'carrots' (such as rank and better aircraft) that can be used to help focus people in a general direction. However, if folks careless about the 'carrots' then it wont help direct behavior. The best way to do that is make a deliberate effort to script game play so that it best facilitates combat.
When I spoke about boxed game 'on line wars' I wasn't just referring to FB/AEP/PF. There have been plenty of variations over the years from CFS, EAW, Janes, BoB ect... FB/AEP/PF is just the most current.
Oleg has stated in the past that his research shows that only about 10% of the folks who bought Il2/FB will fly 'on line regularly'. Even fewer in those on line wars or with 'full difficult settings'.
It would appear to me the ToD player base is already a limited section of on line flight game players overall.
How you get and keep these players is all about quality game play.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
There's a difference in historical mission profiles, i.e. immersion and 'role playing'.
But history should not supplant game play.
None of us want to be bored with endless flights with no contact etc...
I don't think too many will take 'rank' any more serious in ToD then they did in the main or any where else.
It's up to the mission designers to find a way to balance immersion with quality game play. Ultimately, I believe it's the quality of game play that will determine whether or not ToD is a 'success', not how its scored or how people earn rank.
Now 'carrots' (such as rank and better aircraft) that can be used to help focus people in a general direction. However, if folks careless about the 'carrots' then it wont help direct behavior. The best way to do that is make a deliberate effort to script game play so that it best facilitates combat.
When I spoke about boxed game 'on line wars' I wasn't just referring to FB/AEP/PF. There have been plenty of variations over the years from CFS, EAW, Janes, BoB ect... FB/AEP/PF is just the most current.
Oleg has stated in the past that his research shows that only about 10% of the folks who bought Il2/FB will fly 'on line regularly'. Even fewer in those on line wars or with 'full difficult settings'.
It would appear to me the ToD player base is already a limited section of on line flight game players overall.
How you get and keep these players is all about quality game play.
If buff guns are as lethal in TOD as they are in the MA a lot of German pilots are going to give up on TOD very quickly. I think it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed before its release. And no I don't attack buffs from the low and slow 6.
-
ref: buff guns.
I do not know if they have different setting in the MA from scenarios. But in scenarios the buffs get murdered. And when I flew in the MA back in 2003 they were ALL easy meat.
I for one hope that HTC doesn't dumb down or create a silly shoot em up arcade to appease the slowest common denominator.
I'm sure new people will quit if they have to tackle the effects of basic physics or if the do not get auto-aim, padlock, "glass" cockpits and in-flight ammo/fuel/quad dammage power-ups too.
-
Wotan:
They like to get together and fly in a structured environment, they like combat and competition
This is a big piece of what role playing is.
HiTech
-
I was differentiating between the avatar / rank persona type type role playing and the less specific 'just playing the game'.
One could argue that a quick hop in the main is 'role playing' and they would be right on some levels. The same with many of the fine AH events and scenarios. There's plenty of role palying and immersion but not along the same lines on creating a virtual life and career.
I think that if the main draw of ToD is simply avatars and 'careers' (rank) then I would agree with Tilt in that the level timidity (the unwillingness to risk your virtual life) may make good quality combat few and far between.
My hope would be that game play would be more based on 'combat' and the results of combat rather then just flying around building up experience or rank.
In scenarios you would fly for an hour so just to get that 10 or 15 minutes of intense combat. The best scenarios were designed in a way that this would happen. The old ToD / Squad Ops was one of the best at this.
-
Originally posted by Stang
If buff guns are as lethal in TOD as they are in the MA a lot of German pilots are going to give up on TOD very quickly. I think it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed before its release. And no I don't attack buffs from the low and slow 6.
Actually concerns for TOD buff are a) AI gunners, how accurate they will be b) How it will work in big formations of AI+manned buffs c) Buffs .50s lethality in TOD.
It is not an easy issue, make buffs guns not lethal enough, and experienced AH pilot will return home with 10 sculps per misson. Make it too hard, and people will be frustrated easily by being killed every single or every second attack against buffs formations.
Finding ballance won't be very easy, and I guess it will take several versions before at least some people will be happy =)
-
Can I get everyone's business contact information please? Just post it here, thank you.
I'd like to write to your firms and give you some unsolicited business advice about your future products or services. I don't have to know anything about your future products, I can just speculate and tell you how you will fail.
Thank you and I look forward to offering this advice.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
There's a difference in historical mission profiles, i.e. immersion and 'role playing'.
But history should not supplant game play.
None of us want to be bored with endless flights with no contact etc...
I agree game play is all............. folk should be able to dip in and out along side those who want to "develop" within the Tour.
Its the idea of individual growth development which I promote here......and role, points or rank should be subserviant to such growth.
Further avatar growth development should be subserviant to the game play supplied thru the mission machine............
We can see that folk enjoy on going upgrades in terms of new rides and new stuff...............hence a TOD loosely based upon the ride and armament deployment of 43 to 45 will offer upgrades.
basically Avatars have an entry level which in 43 could be the "rides of the day" eg P51B or p38J. 109G6 or FWA5. Even at the entry level Avatars have some options to vary the mission choice.
Folk joining in "44" have a higher entry level. (the entry level rises as the tour progresses)
However by earning points folk also gather more options. They may be offerred transfer options to other newly formed groups with new ac (ahead of the entry level) They may be offerred early access to ac upgrades within the existing group type.
Some groups may get differing minor upgrades......... new weapon systems (rockets, gondalas, bigger drop tanks?) or field based engine modification options(GM?).....as these are introduced the avatar grows new options of game play and mission variety.
Some very success full avatars may be offerred high level stuff (262/162/163 elite group membership, a combat test in a 152)
Some options may be with respect to promotion into "responsible roles" which bring greater reward and give an element of partial control over mission and game play.
Whilst using history and using rank and using role the purpose is to create growth beyond completing the next mission. A hook.
Some other minor thoughts.............
Event anticipation........a schedule of missions posted in advance will allow folk to sign up and plan/practice.......... some missions (eg alternate missions) could be set on the scheduler so that folk can sign up for them in advance. Thus groups (squads) can fly together as freinds etc. Folk registered and not inplace with xmins to go loose the assigned slot.
Basically in this way folk can get as immersed (or not) as they wish.
Avatar accounts..............
if AH2 comes with 2 free TOD avatars in the $15/month but some folk want more choice of mission options then they can buy them say in pairs at an extra $5/month(example). Some times they may only want them for short runs but it builds in an extra possible revenue stream.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Thank you and I look forward to offering this advice.
If you were a client I'd be intrested in hearing it.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I'd like to write to your firms and give you some unsolicited business advice about your future products or services.
Its a hobby of mine............. anybodies business.........but I would never call it advice...........just trying to tease thru the options like one may try to calculate the best move in someone elses chess game.............
-
I've never had a client ever offer unsolicited advice about how I should invest my time and money. That would be rude.
That is all I'm trying to say. Thinking through the possibilites may be fun for you, but it is their business. How they invest their time and money is none of your business. And many of the people on this board are not even clients.
It is my opinion and I've stated it. You are free to disagree, but I'm not going to play BBS tag about it.
-
What planet do you live on? Users and consumers all over this world have always given manufacturers and service providers thier unsolicited opinion, advice and feedback on current or future products.
If a client of yours never did any of that maybe you ought to ask yourself why. Perhaps it's your industry or line of business? Or maybe you do not come across as open minded or as someone who is a listens.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Can I get everyone's business contact information please? Just post it here, thank you.
I'd like to write to your firms and give you some unsolicited business advice about your future products or services. I don't have to know anything about your future products, I can just speculate and tell you how you will fail.
Thank you and I look forward to offering this advice.
ROFL! It's not HTC's product I'm worried about. I'm sure it will be splediferous...
It's the player base, and whether they are prepared to accept TOD that is a much more realistic concern.
As I understand it, based on the discussions above and what I knew from before, TOD is going to be much more of a team effort, with much less scope for personal glorification - just as real WW2 combat was. (The accolades came later - to those who survived, and maybe posthumously for those who didn't) It's not going to be an arena in which you can pick your favourite uberplane, grab ten wingmen and go blasting away at anything that moves that has a red icon. It's not going to be an arena in which you can dictate the locations of the bases, or whine for the fields to be moved closer together.
Lazs and I think Nopoop estimated that if an RPS was introduced, 90% of players would quit. If this estimate is accurate, one wonders how popular TOD would be given that not only will the planeset be restricted as with an RPS, but so too will be the gameplay.
How attractive will TOD be to the masses who have made declarations like "I fly for me, not for you/So what if you dies? It's a game/If I've brought bombs, I'm going to drop 'em. I don't care about *your* war/It's MY $14.95/ You want me to fly *your* way, give me your CC details/Waaaah - if ENY comes, I go/Waaah - I couldn't have an LA7" - ???
How attractive will TOD be to those who simply want an egofix? We all have our own idea of how numerous those guys are!
Just some thoughts.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I've never had a client ever offer unsolicited advice about how I should invest my time and money. That would be rude.
Or usefull.
HTC has provided this forum for the general discussion of Aces High. In that sense, discussion about the future direction of Aces High is neither unsolicited, nor rude. You could make a case that all ToD topics should be moved to the "gameplay Feedback and requests" forum, but I believe that there must be a certain degree of overlap.
I have full faith that HTC has given great consideration to most of what is being discussed here. I also think that having external viewpoints expressed in a considerate manner, especially in instances where opposing viewpoints are conserned, is valuble and constructive.
If HiTech didn't find some value in the thread himself, I don't think he would have read it.
-Sik
p.s. you're it :p
-
What is wrong with you people?
Do you visit your local grocery store and ask to see the manager, then stand in front of the cash registers and start pointing out to him how he is using his resources foolishly and he his going to lose money.
Talking about what you'd like to see in a product is one thing, but don't go telling people how to manage their resources, time and money.
"It's the player base, and whether they are prepared to accept TOD that is a much more realistic concern." -- Beet1e
This is not your concern. It is not your business. You are not even a bloody customer.
Sorry for the disturbance, I'll exit stage left.
-
Never mind. This is getting too untracked.
-Sik
-
Beet1e your discussion always seems to revolve around TOD being aimed at the current player base and you are constantly referring to past discussions where an RPS was "suggested" to replace an existing free-for-all MA setup. TOD will not replace the MA so IMO past discussions for/against changing the MA to use an RPS are moot and irrelevant.
And while I'm sure there are players currently using the CT and MA who will enjoy "TOD" in my opinion most who would like "TOD" have already left AH - for other games such as IL2 or WWIIO.
IMO if TOD isn't wrought with design flaws* or plays like an online shoot-em up arcade IMO it will appeal to a player base (IL2, EAW, WWIIO and more) that is FAR larger than what is currently subscribing to play in the MA.
The * denotes potential valuable unsolicited customer/potential customer "advice" and feedback which is offered pro-bono by myself and others who have past experience with this specific type of gameplay. HTC aren't dummies and I'm sure that TOD will be well thought out and designed. But they cannot think of everything. They'll miss loop holes in the gameplat that and there will be features discussed that they may like to implment. HTC has been open to and have used customer "advice" and suggestions" very nicely in the past.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Can I get everyone's business contact information please? Just post it here, thank you.
I'd like to write to your firms and give you some unsolicited business advice about your future products or services. I don't have to know anything about your future products, I can just speculate and tell you how you will fail.
Thank you and I look forward to offering this advice.
Post one quote that says 'HT you better do it this way'...
This a discussion forum, we are discussing the different things we, as individuals, would like or expect to see in a game. Tilt and I disagree in some respects and I suspect HT may have a different view all together. I ma sure most of the posters have their own wishes as well.
If you don't want to participate in the discussion or if you feel this type of discussion is out of place why bother to say anything at all?
HT can decide for himself how much unsolicited advice he can take. In fact 90% of the threads on this forum are 'unsolicited advice'.
Tilt,
We have drifted somewhat away from the original reason I replied.
You made the suggestion that there's the possibility of greater timidity in ToD. I would agree if the structure of the game is mainly focused on career and advancement as a goal. Career, advancement and better aircraft are all fine carrots to reward given types behaviors, flying to live, flying with a purpose, working as team etc...
I just wouldn't like to see this aspect of 'role playing' become the primary reason most participate in ToD. It's similar to the main in that base capture used to provide something to fight over. It added to combat, now for some (a good number of folks actually) base capture and map resetting are their primary focus and reason for playing.
Combat suffers.
I would hope that ToD would be designed from the ground up with the idea that game play and combat are the corner stone and that everything else be built around it.
Its my opinion that those who take the greatest risk (death and a harsh penalty) get the greatest reward (killing the enemy and fullfilling your mission). Simply suriviving a mission ought to provide a low minimum reward. On top of that the missions, I would hope, are designed to facilitate combat rather then just, 'recce sector XXX and land'.
I undertsand HT has some sort of training planned and maybe those types mission would work for training. If there are to many of those or too many where there is no contact with the enemy then folks may pick and choose the less risky missions just to advance.
Jabo mission may or may not include contact with the enemy, these are inherently risky anyway depending on the ack etc...
Before some mentions it, I don't think missions should be so difficult that there's very little chance to survive or complete it. Newer players wont put up with that for long.
Howver, I am for immersive historic missions, scoring advancement and rank etc...
As I said in scenarios you may spend the majority of time flying about but then once the combat commences, even though it maybe brief, it defines the experience (at least for me).
-
Westy - fair enough. All I'm trying to say is that you can have the best product in the world, and still not be able to sell it, eg. the best skiing equipment money can buy will not sell in Africa.
If we're talking about new or repeat customers for TOD, I might be one along with many others who have put their accounts on hold because the MA holds no interest. But if we're talking about attracting hordes of NEW customers at a stroke, I'll believe it when I see it - and I'll be delighted if I do.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I would hope that ToD would be designed from the ground up with the idea that game play and combat are the corner stone and that everything else be built around it.
Its my opinion that those who take the greatest risk (death and a harsh penalty) get the greatest reward (killing the enemy and fullfilling your mission).
hmmm
I suppose really we would expect the combat/time ratio to be much higher in the MA than in TOD.
So TOD then hopefully offers better structure and so higher quality combat...........
However the quality of combat is also down to the quality of opponent............ there can be no certainty of out come here.
If escorts are tasked to escort then should they really be rewarded for leaving their post to chase interceptors into a furball.
If interceptors are tasked to strike at bombers then should they really be rewarded for engaging escorts to practice their ACM.
If ground attackers are tasked to hit a certain ground target, should they drop ord and engage the first LW they see and be rewarded?
The only mission with true combat only appeal you speak of would be CAP.
How much Rhubarbing did the 8th actually do?
Post 43 how much did the LW do in the WETO.?
But folk of Urchins motivation would fall into CAP roles in which they could develop.
For me that alone would get boring if it was the only mission type I wished to repeat.
The choice of WETO and the 8th pushes the design toward a strategic air war and to focus on air combat at the price of (historic) mission objective would strike me as odd.
But none of the above really decides upon whether the opponent is "timid" and only chooses combat he can win or a "lunatic" who HO's every opponent with fingers crossed.
-
Actual combat time is a limitation of range and fuel consumption.
Quality combat means the intensity of the fight once its on. Its not dependent on overall combat time.
Unit v Unit combat is a different thing the 1 on 1 or groups of individuals in a fur ball. A unit maybe effective even though the individual skill levels with in the unit are some what low.
When folks flying as a unit understanding their role and are given proper direction they can become an effective fighting force.
f escorts are tasked to escort then should they really be rewarded for leaving their post to chase interceptors into a furball.
The escorts primary role should be to see to it that the bombers make it to and from target.
Then to ensure they minimize their own losses.
The escorts should have a greater freedom of action then interceptors. I would hope they weren't forced into close escort all the time.
If their success is dependent upon the bombers survival it only stands to reason that they would do what ever it takes to protect them. If the bombers don't make it to target or lose a large % then the escorts have failed their mission and should get no credit at all. If they defend the bombers and get a few kills they they should get points for the mission and a multiplier applied for their kills.
If interceptors are tasked to strike at bombers then should they really be rewarded for engaging escorts to practice their ACM.
If you are tasked with bomber interception you must either kill xx % of the bombers or ensure xx% of the bombers target remains intact. On top of that you must minimize your own losses.
If don't kill or stop the bombers from destroying the target then you should not get credit for the mission.
If you complete the mission you should get the mission points and a multiplier applied for any kills you got.
If you just run off to furball and ignore the mission then you should get nothing.
if ground attackers are tasked to hit a certain ground target, should they drop ord and engage the first LW they see and be rewarded?
Ground attackers should be required to kill XX% of their target to get credit for the mission. Any kills they get on the ground or in the air would be part of a multiplier.
Where you end up with lots a of timidity is when by just completing the mission alone, regardless if you killed anything, you earn the same as the guy who killed multiple ground targets then shot down 2 enemy. The guys that do that ought to earn more and be rewarded more then the guy who did little except take-off.
If not you will run into those who just hang back and avoid risk. As I said the greater the risk the greater the reward.
All sorts of missions can be run if the victory conditions are set in a fashion that rewards mission success first but then rewards performance. Folks would be more encouraged to fight rather then hang back and hide.
You can have historic mission profiles and encourage combat at the same time.
mission success = low minimum points
kills = high multiplier
If not you get guys who will hang back and earn a living off of what others are doing
no mission success = no points at all
This will discourage those who would run off and ignore the mission
bail or ditch = you get mission points + whatever multiplier for the kills you got - points for the lost aircraft
This will encourage folks to try and make it home in their aircraft. If not they might just bail in the face of trouble.
death or capture = - points (hopefully in a high enough amount to make death painfully)
This will encourage folks to avoid suicide.
With out a high death penalty there's less encouragement to survive. If its too high and not offset by a high kill multiplier then you encourage folks to avoid risk.