Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kirin on December 01, 2005, 10:04:55 AM
-
Greetings aces
First I'd like to state that AH is still the best of not only massive multiplayer flight sim out there. But as a true simulation fanatic it lacks in many ways. Most of these are due to gameplay concessions others maybe due to lack of importance to the developing crew. With the daily MA airquake routine AH has lost its appeal to me. CT has been/is a failure which does not promise good success for ToD, unless enforced which is highly improbable IMO.
1. Planes
1.1. Complex engine management
Not until the coming of the IL2 series I noticed the importance of complex/realistic engine management for a realistic representation of aircombat in the WWII era. It's like the avionics of the modern sims. Hard to learn but very satisfying when mastered. How can you compare the performance of the different planes online when they cannot be flown as in RL. The difference between constant speed props and variable or fixed pitch props was important back then. It is neglected here. E.g. early spitfires with two stage pitch (as read on account on a German ace) were overreving in dives or not getting full power. The Fw-190 with its advanced Kommando-Geraet was taking work-load off the pilot which was vital in a dogfight situation. The proper use of mixture and supercharger settings was mandatory on earlier planes. Misuse meant less performance or other disadvantages like pourring black smoke. In AH the method of throttle control is firewalling it all the time. In RL certain engines wouldn't tolerate such mistreatment. But more important AH features a very generic WEP system which is the same on all planes (equipped with any kind of WEP/overboost/injection system). Again the IL2 series demonstrates how different the systems were on the various planes and how wrong operation can lead to engine failure. An injection system can run out of supply; not so in AH where it is treated like overboost. And in AH engines are either running full performance or have stopped. There is no transition from full power over losing power to not being able to generate enough lift to keep the plane flying. It's on or off - which leads me to DM later.
1.2. Historical flight controls
Again every plane in AH features the same generic controls even if its counterpart didnt have them in RL - e.g. inflight rudder trim in the 109s. So how can you re-create a realistic dogfight if the planes are handeld differently than in RL. In a game players will exploit every opportunity you give em which leads to the unrealistic, but sometimes very sucessfull, use of certain planes in MA. If I play a simulation I want to control the plane like it was controled in RL. If it has no trim or combat flaps I don't want em! For compensation we got combat trim which is neither realistic nor a good substitute. I know there have been several discussion on how trim works in a real plane and how that cannot be simulated here but that does not explain the generic trim system in AH.
1.3. Historical cockpits/gauges
AH has come a long way from the ugly generic cockpits in the beginning to the more appealing half-realistic ones in the latest installement. I am very pleased with the overall looks and usability but two things put me off. First why we have to bear those unrealistic, modern ammo counters, trim tabs and beacon light. None of these gauges are vital. I wish for ammo-counters in the planes who had them. There is absolutely NO reason a simulation should feature ammo counters if the plane its simulating didnt have em. For once there is no difference between RL and a computer sim concerning the knowledge of how much ammo you have left. Same with trim tabs. Include them historically when appropriate and leave away those wandering red lines. Beacon should be along with netstatus somewhere on the clipboard. Second why are there still no metric gauges in the planes that used em? Imperial and metric measures are a simple linear conversion. I pops the immersion if I fly by knots in a 190 when every document I read on it is about kmh. Any flight sim enthusiast with interest in WWII history should be able to convert meters to feet if cannot free himself of the imperial world he lives in. Oh and yes, why are we shown TAS? Come on let us calculate or use tables as the real pilots had to.
1.4. Damage model
Back in 99 AHs damage model was state of the art. But with the time passing by other sims with more refined dm appeared. As shown in the damage list AH has a number (20 or so) or parts that are either fully working or broken down. You can plaster a plane all over, as long as the part does not go red you would't notice any effect. In IL2 for example if you receive hits on the wing it starts dropping - from very gently to same effect a missing wingtip has in AH. Same with the engine in AH either running full power or seizing. And as far as I experienced AH does not model self-sealing tanks. But it's mostly the binary nature of the DM which throws me off. And why do we need the damage list at all? You can judge the damage by the gauges or the response of the plane. CTL D is unrealistic and gamey.
2. General gameplay
2.1. Icons/View system
No doubt AHs view system is state of the art. With the track IR support (which I advocated for months) and now the great 6DOF it leaves all other sims behind. Which is neglected by the icon system again. Many discussion have been held on this subject. True, a monitor cannot never substitute the real world view. But the easy-mode icon system we have now does not represent the struggle friend/foe identification meant in RL. I read countless accounts of pilots who could not ID their enemy or who IDed wrong. Losing sight is not possible in AH - it was back then and a good tactic to get away. Friendly fire was a fact in WWII. Things that faciliate FF ID should be historical plane set, historical missions and better long range plane shapes. Know what direction and altitude you expect the enemy to come from
. Know the planes shape and camo; learn the tracer color (another short coming of AH). After playing IL2 full real for a while you develop such skill and it becomes a big part of the fun/challenge. A compromise are the icon settings as seen in most AH scenarios.
2.2. Inflight radar
Goes along with the icon situation. It's true we need "some" kind of radar but now pointing out every single contact in realtime. Same goes for the player position. In AH navigational skills are neglected. But they were/are a good part of being a fighter pilot. With good ground gfx navigation is a challenge to master and highly satisfactory.
2.3. MA
Many of the shortcomings of AH are gameplay concession necessary when using a setting we have in MA. As already said if we had a historical plane set along with historical missions icons could be reduced and inflight radar could be made more historical. Don't want to go into every detail I don't like about the MainArcade but as shown on the donought map the strategic part feels synthetically put on top while 80% enjoy the FT furball mayhem. Seeing the whole planeset to be reduced to like 3 planes is a real shame.
---
So, getting tired of the typing... Haven't said all I had on my mind. Don't get me wrong AH is still the best and most succesfull massive multiplayer sim . I'd like to compare AH to CounterStrike: Highly sucessfull, addictive, easy to get into, hard to master. But far from the more realistic games (FPS in that case) on the market. Unrealistic tactics lead to sucess under the given setting while trying to apply RL tactics lead to failure.
It's a pitty that a game has to appeal to masses to be sucessful while those who go the hard way can't survive.
I spent years and hundreds of dollars here but its getting old quicklier after every break I take. I will keep my account running but you won't see me in MA for while at least. My hopes lie on ToD. But I doubt its success. Either ToD light along with the masses or it will fail to get people from the MA.
-
Nice post. While I agree with you on many points let me say this. There is always a delicate balance between realism and playability. In a product such as this the market is relatively small, it is a niche market. Shift the focus too far into the realism end of the spectrum and playability suffers to the point your niche becomes microscopic, confined primarily to the 'die-hard realists' and those willing to attempt to surmount a prohibitively daunting learning curve. So, the goal is to make a product with as high a degree of fidelity to realism as possible while maintaining a level of playability that appeals to the masses who are NOT 'die-hard realists'. In this I think AH has does a fairly decent job, there are some areas that lack, even compared to its predecessors, such as a compelling strategic model, but that is rather minor in the overall scheme of things. By and large AH is accessable to a casual gamer with no desire to 'micro-manage' every minute detail of his aircraft, while still remaining reasonably true to history for the realism buffs who delight in as 'perfect' a recreation of the flavor of the era as possible.
Zazen
-
A point on flight controls and beacon light.
Combat trim isn't a bad idea because actuating trim controls based on what you need is in fact second nature. It's a natural thing and you don't think about it, you just do it by feel. Given that we don't have the tactile response of the joystick in feeling the airplane tell us what it wants to do, the computer does it for us. This is acceptable.
Beacon light? Why even bring it up? Would you prefer a popup box that says "your connection sucks, the connection in WWII was better and thus you don't get to play" Maybe you could install an instant 88mm flak burst to blow you up as opposed a very easy way to monitor your engine that blends in and looks like something you'd see in a cockpit. Think of the beacon light as a maplight if you want to...it's acceptable.
If you want to calculate TAS...be my guest. It's noteworthy that you don't have to calculate it, however. It's shown on a chart with given altitudes and power settings and stays the same. If you're flying at 5000' at XYZ power setting truing 230kts, tomorrow at 5000' at XYZ power setting you're going to true 230 kts. Run up the prop to a WXY power setting and things will change a couple knots. In every airplane I fly I already know what I will expect as TAS without looking in the book. I know if I'm going to be at 8000' I can expect XYZ airspeed or if I go up to 12000' I'll pick up a couple knots TAS and might climb as long as the headwind there isn't stronger than at 8000'
I for one "Play" this "Game" so if HTC found a way for players to have an accurate measure of fuel in their tanks...I'm fine with that. If you don't want the E6B or the TAS computations then don't use them. There is your realism. Again...E6B acceptable.
The rest of the stuff...I didn't really read.
-
Agree with much of what you say bro.
However for the MA all the realism you and I want can not and will not happen. People would quit playing it.
The dammage modell I have already whined about a few times today in another thread I made and I agree to 100%. Il2 and Targetware both have very nice ways of modelling it and far more modern. AH's DM (as to things must be shot off in order to change the performance) is really still back in 1995.
I too have very very high hopes for ToD but I too doubt its success.
Having seen what the community has become I am quite sure there will hardly be any players in ToD. I only hope I am wrong.
-
Not all of IL-2's engine management is realistic.
Read some of the history and note how many pilots comment about fiddling with the engine during combat other than the throttle. I have never read of one that did. IL-2 way overemphasizes engine fiddling and allows some very gamey settings to give certain aircraft ahistorical advantages.
I agree about the ammo counters and trim. The Beacon light complaint is silly though.
As to icons, come up with a viable alternative that doesn't involve massive amounts of dot chasing and creating a milkrunners dreamworld.
-
Nice post Kirin!
I agree with a lot of what you are saying about the planes, but I have to disagree with the gameplay notes. The main arena is not a WWII simulation, it is a strategy game that uses WWII equipment. A lot of people playing this game completely miss that point.
When TOD is released, your comments may be more applicable, since that is supposed to be more historical.
-
Good post. I agree on most points.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Good post. I agree on most points.
That's your shortest post ever.
:D
Would be nice to see a more complex damage model.
-
Kirin: Most of your request remindes me of precisly why warbirds no longer has a big following. They decided there game play should try to be realistic , as aposed to having realistic flight models with a fun game play.
With the exception of the damage model (which would be nice to upgrade and would add some coolness factor, it realy would not change fights a lot)
Not to slam the CT, but why do you think the CT isn't very busy? Could it be the most player do not wish that type of enviorment (I.E. the type you are requesting), and prefer what we have in the MA?
TOD will be more of the game play you desire with navigation and more of a WWII enviorment, but to change the MA style of play would be very bad for HTC.
HiTech
-
wow...Kirin he must like you...never seen him make such a responce! WILD!
-
Originally posted by Stang
Would be nice to see a more complex damage model.
Yea, the all or nothing damage model lacks. Making the damage model more gradient and varied and therefore sophisticated would not harm playability but make the game that much more compelling for the realism buffs.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by hitech
...with navigation...
Wow... :)
-
Cool HT very Cool.
ok, edited... quite a bit...
-
Well a better damage model would be nice ....
but on others, at some point you have to deal with the limitations you have with home computers.
you have a limited amount of key's on a keyboard, AHII is already overflowing with secondary keystrokes, like shift-G for a hook when landing on carrier..... How long until you are out of buttons?
secondly time is constraint.... noone wants to spend the time to make things 'realistic'- We have scenerio's for that, and that is task in orginization that isn't possible day-to-day .. hour-to-hour.
Thirdly on Icons... like you realize .. we are stuck in small little low-res boxes (compared to the human eye). So icons are nesscary.
I assume you've played IL2 servers with no Icons? This can work, but barely... it's harder than it would be for a real WWII pilot due to view constraints and low-res. and it ONLY works at all because it can be setup as Axis vs. Allied
....and one other thing .... normal, realistic, real life is more or less boreing .... that is why we have entertainment such as AH.... I don't like simulateing boredom :D
-
I agree with HT 100%. I believe he said said that a few times already.
I really can't wait until TOD comes out.
-
Wilbus re read what I said, Never said I was going to change the damage model. All I said was I would like it changed also, but life is not so simple when it comes to A never ending list of things to do, and all must be weighed for what is the most important.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by cav58d
wow...Kirin he must like you...never seen him make such a responce! WILD!
ht didint write this there are no spelilng erors its puntuarted and gramaticlee corekt.:noid :noid
-
Sorrry, edited above post.
As far as my opinion goes though, an improved DM would be on the list of top most wanted things and top of "what is most important" after ToD, but that is just me of course.
-
Being its still a game I want the ammo counters moved back up in the spit
cockpits. Sometimes "realism " can get carried away
-
Damage is dependant on the amount of energy, be it in ergs, joules, foot-pounds, applied to the aircraft components. This is already tracked by the virtual data-logger in each aircraft. The problem is an aircraft can have 99 percent damage to all of it's monitored components, and still fly at 100 percent efficiency. Sure, one .303 hit anywhere on the aircraft will vaporize it, but if the aircraft is flown by, say, Wilbuz, I will be toast before I can ever land that last hit.
When damage reaches 100 percent, and a component is destroyed, we can feel the difference. Loss of roll rate, elevator authority, or lift. Since the exact amount of damage is already being logged in real time, how difficult would it be to model this damage? If a wing is at 50 percent damage, give it 50 percent less lift. Now, I am paying a price that I can feel, for that piece of swiss cheese attached to my left fuselage.
Rotax447
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
If a wing is at 50 percent damage, give it 50 percent less lift. Now, I am paying a price that I can feel, for that piece of swiss cheese attached to my left fuselage.
You wouldn't want it nearly that extreme as a cannon hit on almost any wing would doom the aircraft. 50% towards loss of that wing should reduce lift by 5 or 10%. Noticable and enough to affect you, but not automatic destruction.
-
Deleted for flame
-
Exactly Rotax and it is that little "all or nothing" that is "anoying" me. Would be nice to see some kind of improved DM, something like you sugested in the near future. Not requesting a total makeover. But I don't know how much time it would take for HTC and how many other things that would need to be put on hold.
An improved DM would be my #2 fun raiser at the moment just after ToD.
-
I'd like to see pilot fatigue factored in, a la BF2, a bar indicates when your pilot starts to fail physically after excessive high G turns and or injury. Even the arcade-like shoot-em ups don't allow players to sprint forever, which is exactly what AH "pilots" can do in the context of flying a combat airplane.
if you get wounded in Americas Army your aim and abilities are seriously hampered.. it's just silly that gamers can pull as many wazoo G turns as their stick can twist and not wear out their pilot physically even a little bit... this would seriously put a lot of stick stirrers / macro geeks in check.
Add a perk pilot, some super stud who is in great shape, and / or increase the pilots stamina after consecutive successful landings... say 5 successful in a row boosts your pilot to perk health.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
I'd like to see pilot fatigue factored in, a la BF2, a bar indicates when your pilot starts to fail physically after excessive high G turns and or injury.
uhhh, it *is* factored in. in both instances.
but then you knew that already, right?
-
Realism.....
Player A ups from a base that has no Radar. Player A barley has wheels up when Player B shoots him down.
Player A is now done for the month. 14.95 for 5 minutes or less of play.
Now THAT is realism ALMOST.
Wanna make it really REAL. Die , and get a nice email.
To whom it may concern,
We here at XXX regret to inform you that RedTop died in combat on Dec. 1st , 2005 at 0945 am. He was taking off from A58 when he was Vulched by a lone P-51D. He will be missed from Aces High.
Thank you for playing and hope to see some of your friends in our Main arena.
You IP has been banned and will nolonger work in our game. This is due to our realism model. We thank you for your 14.95 to play our game and we are sorry your expierance didn't last more than 2 minutes.
Have a nice Life.
-
Adding many of the things that you are asking for would exclude more and more people from playing. As it stands now, without icons, attempting to play would be pointless. To be honest, I am rarely able to see the planes any more (yep, I even lose sight of the planes inside 400 yards). Without icons, I wouldn't even know where the were.
The latest updates to the plane graphics have added more 'realistic' gauges. Frankly, they suck as most of them are illegible without zooming in to read them. The 'realistic' moving cockpits are great. They block the dash, often, at the most inopportune moments.
Contrary to what some would have you believe, the real point of AH is for people to find opponents and have fun fighting them. The inflight radar fascilitates this goal and does it quite well. In reality, many (if not most) WW2 pilots flew hour after hour and never saw an enemy plane. Perhaps a realizm nazi would find this 'exciting'....I just find it boring.
By all means, model complex engine management....add oil leaks, coolant leaks, fouled plugs and any other engine problem you can think of to that equation also.
For me, most of this stuff would only make the game more difficult, without adding enjoyment. So, what would be the point?
Just curious, didn't MS make a combat version of Flight Simulator? If so, was it fun and exciting? (...and yes, MS Flight Simulator bored me to tears :))
-
Originally posted by Elyeh
Being its still a game I want the ammo counters moved back up in the spit
cockpits. Sometimes "realism " can get carried away
AMEN!!!
Put the counters back where they can be SEEN in default straight-ahead view!! No more of this spit/p47/p38/ki84 hiding the ammo counters!!
-
NoBaddy--good to see I'm not alone on the guage thing. I was wondering if my eyes were going bad or something.
J_A_B
-
I'd like to see pilot fatigue factored in, a la BF2, a bar indicates when your pilot starts to fail physically after excessive high G turns and or injury. Even the arcade-like shoot-em ups don't allow players to sprint forever, which is exactly what AH "pilots" can do in the context of flying a combat airplane.
Bull**** dude. Everytime you black out, it becomes easier to black out. If you jerk too suddenly after waking up from a Black Out, you'll go right back in.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
AMEN!!!
Put the counters back where they can be SEEN in default straight-ahead view!! No more of this spit/p47/p38/ki84 hiding the ammo counters!!
Glad to have someone else aboard on this issue.:aok
Thanks Krusty
-
Red Top
Thats Friggin Funny:lol
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull**** dude. Everytime you black out, it becomes easier to black out. If you jerk too suddenly after waking up from a Black Out, you'll go right back in.
Every fake pilot has the exact same physical conditioning, none are affected more than other.. yea, I see the realism.
Multiple black/red out should result in pilot fatigue even after hes can see again, ergo affecting his ability to respond with lightning reflexes. Even something as simple as having an out of breath fake pilot whose hard breathing after a blackout translates into diminished abilities forcing the gamer in charge to traverses the make-believe sky until said fake pilot catches his breath.
Oh wait, this is all fake and fiction in the name of "gaming", no need to breathe or get tired..... as we all know WWI pilots never got tired, and certainly never had cause to breathe air... then again the AH maps have no air to breathe, but dont let that stop you from bragging about "ACM skills"
It would threaten those of you who rely on the tireless generic AH pilot whose reflexes stay 100% sharp even after a punishing flight (now that's realism).
-
That's your shortest post ever.
Yes.
I've learned the art of being generally vague, but opinionated at the same time!
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Every fake pilot has the exact same physical conditioning, none are affected more than other.. yea, I see the realism.
And how would you "model" it?
It is just as unrealistic to have every P-51D perform the same as well, but you don't whine about that.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
And how would you "model" it?
Ask HT. He said improving your pilots 'skills' would be part of ToD.
-
I just want planes, vehicles, and weapons modelled in here as they performed in the war. I don't think I have much interest in anything else that involves or invokes the word "realism". At some point, we stop dealing with facts, and start dealing with opinions and beliefs, and those discussions always go downhill quickly.
-
I suggest ultimate realism mode. No icons/radar, we fly for four to five hours, fight for one minute then everyone gets lost and finds their own way back to base. On the way home, guys flying slow and alone get cherry picked or gang banged. Actually thats sort of what I do except its half hour flight and I usually make it home.
:D
-
You realism guys do realize that every aircraft performed differently,
even with the same type some were better fliers than others. Are you
going to model different skill levels of maintainers and armorers as well?
Maybe take a deep breath and consider how important these triviata
actually are to the game? I know cowl flaps, shock cooling and seat
adjustment are absolutely vital to your suspension of disbelief, but what
about frozen oxygen masks, a head cold or bugs on the windscreen?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull**** dude. Everytime you black out, it becomes easier to black out. If you jerk too suddenly after waking up from a Black Out, you'll go right back in.
That's only because you're still pulling hard Gs. Pull Gs until you black out wake up and then pull 3 Gs and you won't be blacking out. Also helps if you learn to fly in the "grey tunnel zone" instead of blackout but YMMV.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Ask HT. He said improving your pilots 'skills' would be part of ToD.
That is in the context of having a persistant character in ToD.
How would it be modeled fairly in the MA? I can't think of a way to do so.
What? Have points to distrbute to your MA pilot's abilities?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
And how would you "model" it?
made everybody flying AH do medical (eyes, weight, heart, blod pressure, reaction time) exams (including G test)
transfer this certyfied data to AH pilot sheet and add weight to plane weight ;-), G resistance and other parameters
easy and cheap , right? ;-)
just wonder how many would not fit to cockpit seat :-)
-
Comparing aces high with il2 is like comparing doom to quake, there both arcade as heck, but there is nothing wrong with that in terms of buisiness because they both make money.
Targetware beats il2's engine management hands down, and it doesnt take much to give il2 a run for the money in the flight model area. The trim ranges are also too gamey in il2, example, the aileron trim in a p40 b doesnt trim the plane completely level under 150 too mph, you still need to hold stick right until about 215 or so, or trim rudder to help.
When it comes down to it il2 is not much different from aces high in terms of realism, the flight model is better in AH than il2, il2 has better graphics, same people play em tho. If your a realism freak Targetware is right for you, but then again most people are not interested in freakish realism and i would never make a realistic air combat sim if i was in it for the money.
Ah simulates intense air combat{the feel, the 150 pulse heart rate kind), il2 simulates the graphic realism{the pornographic kind}, targetware simulates the historical expirience{the fanatic kind}.
dont go complaining about realism on an AH board! tho i must say you have recieved more thoughtfull responses than i ever got!
but then again i cant structure an argument to save my life :cry
-
Originally posted by senna
I suggest ultimate realism mode. No icons/radar, we fly for four to five hours, fight for one minute then everyone gets lost and finds their own way back to base. On the way home, guys flying slow and alone get cherry picked or gang banged. Actually thats sort of what I do except its half hour flight and I usually make it home.
:D
Been there...done that...
Air Warrior called it "Ultra Realism". You could never find anyone to fight. So, eventually...you couldn't find anyone there because they stopped coming to the arena. That's really the point, what good is all the sim realism stuff if you don't have anyone to fight?
-
Player A ups from a base that has no Radar. Player A barley has wheels up when Player B shoots him down.
Player A is now done for the month. 14.95 for 5 minutes or less of play.
Now THAT is realism ALMOST.
Wanna make it really REAL. Die , and get a nice email.
HAHAHAHA Exactly Red.
This I want all the realism of WWII crap, oh but I want unlimited life, cracks me up.
God please hurry with TOD HTC - Then hopefully we can get back to the good ole day of the MA.:aok
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
At some point, we stop dealing with facts, and start dealing with opinions and beliefs, and those discussions always go downhill quickly.
I believe you are wrong, and in my opinion, you should be shot.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
MA is fun !
TOD should make FR guys happy .... I just wish they would save all this FR BS for the TOD threads, where the HTC crew consider their requests, instead of trying to convert the MA. .......
HT is dead -on target with comments, on War Birds arenas..... they are Full Realisum and gameplay and fun is an absolute pos compared to AH MA !
Regards....
CHECKERS
-
I'm a big, big fan of realism...but I think the real response to this is covered by HT and a few others;
Unless you are a player who enjoys single missions which will, quite literally, last hours...you really don't want that kind of realism. Most of us are not properly trained combat pilots, so we have to learn as we go. How much fun would a new customer have (remember, HTC has to have a reliable, recurring revenue stream or our nice little pretend world goes poof!) if he/she had to spend way too much time getting to a fight (gotta move those bases WAY far apart to be 'realistic'), then micro-managing the engine(s) throughout the fight, etc...maybe I'm wrong, but that begins to sound amazingly dull and frustrating, even for someone who wants a simlulator vs. an arcade game.
We have to keep in mind that 'perfect' realism would simply NOT be as attractive as some might think. It's even possible that if all these detailed changes were implemented, that even the advocates might not get what they thought they wanted.
Gameplay, and the gaming experience, is far more important in the context of a business. This is NOT a scientific or academic environment where absolute realism is mandatory. HTC needs to construct a world that a) is worth experiencing, b) satisfies repeat, paying customers, c) effectively attracts new paying customers, d) can run well on a crazy spectrum of equipment and budgets, e) is maintainable and f) remains scalable. Oh, yeah...and it has to be FUN.
I'm always glad to see new additions and enhancements to the environment, but I don't have any trouble understanding that compromise has been, and must always be, a significant part of designing a game play system.
Look at it this way...If I have only 2 hours to play...I want the bullets/shells/bombs flying in pretty short order. That's what I'm really paying for. If it took me 15 minutes to checklist and start up, no radar to find a fight, no icons to keep from wasting time chasing the wrong contact, no fuel consumption data so I keep dropping out of the sky, etc...I don't think I'd stick around. Oh, yeah...and a base change would take days/weeks, right?
I'm not saying anyone is 'wrong'...I just personally think that we sometimes start splitting some really impractical hairs on this subject... Not that there aren't some good suggestions put forth, just that some others of them bear reconsidering.
Only, with respect, my opinion.
-
Realism is a double-edged sword.
If you want realism, you'd have a game that was 99% boredom and 1% stark terror. The stark terror bit might make for some entertaining game play but I think only the extreme realism fanatic would put up with the 99% boredom - and I suspect having a client base made up of such fanatics wouldn't sustain a company since, eventually, most of them would probably be carted away in strait jackets by concerned relatives due to their insisting on wearing Luftwaffe uniforms everywhere they went, stalking WWII air veterans and making threatening phone calls to air combat historians whose opinions differ from that of the fanatics.
-
You can have amazing realism, you dont have to have the boardom, its about pacing, droping you in for the most entertaining part of a historical event, spawn points help you get to the area of interest, disengage circles cut down on the flight time home, warp points get you all over the map fast, which are becoming populare in mogs now and i hear ah will be picking it up for TOD.
Its like a historical movie, or historical fiction, it stays within the bounderies of realism yet you can be creative there, and historical movies can be really cool when done right, same idea with pacing a game in terms of the basic concept of showing what needs to be shown to entertain and inform, while keeping the "boaring" stuff out. Tho its highly subjective as to what is boaring. When sims start talking about chess pieces or colors for countries thats a big turn off for me, and FFA plane sets, just doesnt do it for me anymore, tho i admit a few years ago it was fine and dandy, but after a while its just mental masterbation.
If thats all you want fine! Some of us want some historical content and more gadgests to play with, why we come to a sim for that? well thats our problem :rolleyes: im not an Ah sell out, im a TOD pusher and have been since i learned of the idea, i think it will really expand the horizon for the future of AH and my 14.99 a month.
-
It's a bit difficult to drop someone in the midst of an exciting historical event in an on-line persistent world. That's only fairly easy to do in a solitaire campaign in an off-line sim because you can "fast forward" through all the boring stuff. When you have a few hundred people on-line, it's somewhat non-trivial.
-
Well thats what TOD has stated it will do, so lets hope it works. Who knows how these warp points will fit in.
-
Originally posted by eilif
Well thats what TOD has stated it will do, so lets hope it works. Who knows how these warp points will fit in.
I realize that but that is probably the Holy Grail of massively on-line military simulations...to have a realistic persistent world that is also fun to play in.
I suppose it's possible - it's also possible that six super-models show up at my door in ten minutes and demand some good ol' zarkov loving but it's not probable.
-
Originally posted by zarkov
I suppose it's possible - it's also possible that six super-models show up at my door in ten minutes and demand some good ol' zarkov loving but it's not probable.
I'll send them over after I'm done with them.
:aok
-
The ol' realisic vs game-mode discussion always brings good points to the table.
Of course, myself, I prefer more "realism" over "gamey" type play but that's me.
It's a tall order to come up with the balance between realism and Air-Quake.
My honest belief is that HTC could make the game so realistic it would knock your socks off, however the MA would just simply adjust thier gameplay to compensate for said factors, like they do now.
This is the reason I have always tried to stress game variety and teamwork. There is a couple factors that (IMO) will always make people in the MA do the things they do.
First, the game is based on "points" {rank,perks,score,name-in-lights) this in my opinion will always cause or contribute to the Air-Quake game play we seem to complain about.
2. I will the destroy the enemy with every means avail. If said plane is faster, I will just grab a faster one. If your coming to said base in a GV and I missed with my rocket or 20mm's I will just up Lancs with umteen many bombs and drop ALL of them on your head.
3. If there is a chance your country may be moving forward to capture territory {bases} I will simply just fly in and kill your barracks. I know I may encounter some resistance, but for the most part I know I can just dive in with a fast fighter do what I need to do. The field AA will be somewhat of a nuisance but will rarely shoot me down before I complete my mission.
4. Because I can: dive bomb with planes that were never designed for such duties. Attack targets that would normally be a very bad idea without proper planning and forces.
I don't want this to turn into a "play my way" thread, that's been done a million times on these boards. I don't care how people play, it's thier $14.95 a month and they can play how they like. It just makes no sense to me for people to still complain or gripe about what the MA has become.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
My honest belief is that HTC could make the game so realistic it would knock your socks off, however the MA would just simply adjust thier gameplay to compensate for said factors, like they do now.
That's not necessarily a bad thing - that's what people do in real life. They adjust so as to gain the maximum advantage at something, especially if lives are on the line. I doubt the RAF switched to night bombing because they felt it might be amusing; they did it to prevent getting shot down by the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe didn't call them a bunch of "dweebish gaming-the-game gotta-wins" (well, maybe they did), but they adjusted and sent night fighters out after them. And so forth. This sort of one-ups-manship happens all the time in war.
The trick is to create a "world" such that when such one-ups-manship occurs, the result is something historical OR something which COULD have been reasonable possiblity in real life. THAT'S the real trick and it's non-trivial. You have to have pig-headed play-testers who'll try everything to "break" the world you create.
-
Agree with many points of Kirins post. But I also realize that a balance between the Sim fanatic and one who plays for fun is delicate.
Anyway......I don't think the Pilot who dives on a field through 30 AAA guns to vulch a few on the runway and runs away or HO's when cornered gives a hoot. Gameplay at least in my mind is the important issue. I'd love to manage my flight and engine controls carefully but why do that when some dweeb is gonna fly throttle to the wall to dive, HO and run away? He burns his engine out is of no importance to that type of player.
-
He burns his engine out is of no importance to that type of player.
Ah, but with pseudo-realistic engine managements in the game, if he burns his engine out you get to gloat about it. Besides, the 'vets' have more stuff to thump their chests about!
-> "You foo' ! Ain' no green dweeb HO sissy know how to actually manage flyin' planez!"
-
I have to say I disagree with most of the original post points.
IL2 has a ton of features I would not like to see in AH. The ONLY superior feature in IL2 comparing with AH is the damage model, which is AH's weakest point at the moment. The rest I don't think is better than AH and IL2 view system killed it completly for me. I can't stress it enough how bad it is after I got used to AH.
* No rudder trim? When did pilots had to hold their stick twisted for 30 min in WWII? I don't have pedals.
* Plane ID? all countries use the same plane set, how are you going to tell them apart. In a CT or senarios that might work and I'd like to see that. In MA it's pointless. Also, players with weaker machines that can't run 1600x1200 will suffer greatly.
* engine management - AH have RPM and throttle control. What more do you need? Manually pressing a button at alt X to switch charger gear? I don't mind but I find it completly uninteresting.
* Historical cockpits/gauges - IL2 gauges are useless. I can't read them on my screen and I was forced to use the numbers at the corner of the screen. I find it less immersive then the new AH2 cockpits. Also, having your units in meters and km/h while others in your coutry speak in feet and mph is annoying. You may fly a german plane but Rook is not Germany or Britain.
* inflight radar - here we agree. The bar dar is enough data to simulate controler information and is needed in order to find the fight. Dot dar is a little too much. This, I believe, can be set by areana parameters (giving us only bar dar).
The difference between us is that you like flight simulators and I like air combat simulators. I prefere having the ability to fight as close to real given the restrictions, while others prefere the technical actions of "flying" to be as close to real. I just don't get the sense of flying, while sitting on a chair infront of a desktop computer, fiddling with a plastic joystick, staring at a 17" 2D screen and pulling 6G while drinking beer. No amount of implemented switches in the cockpit will change that, so I give it up.
Both approachs are good and valid. I like the fact that HT took the game down my path. IL2 is good for making movies.
Bozon
-
many of the engines in questions were run on stands for hours at a time at full military power plus a little extra boost with no adverse effects. If the parts were available then crews would go through motors that had been run at full military power in combat but mostly... they just ran em again...
planes made it home with no oil or cylinders shot off in radial motors... Nothing we do in the MA would kill a good aircraft engine of the era... liquid cooled motors would of course be much more vulnerable and...
fuel injected motors should be more prone to fire from engine hits than they are... other than that... I don't really see any big deal in the 5 minute flights we make.
There are two types of people that grab the fastest planes with the biggest guns....
The guys who are greifers and like every gamey advantage they can get and...
the guys who are griefers and like every gamey advantage they can get but like to pretend they are fans of that plane or "realistic warriors"
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
I want real life pain to be modeled.
eskimo
-
Posted by lazs2
planes made it home with no oil or cylinders shot off in radial motors... Nothing we do in the MA would kill a good aircraft engine of the era
I have to disagree with ya there, the main things that jump out against that argument is prop over rev, and engine cooling.
With prop over rev modled you cant just dive full throttle zooming down 10k to vulch somebody, you have to slow down the prop and if its a manual prop, adjust it to the rpm you need to keep the engine from blowing.
With a correct cooling/heating system modled your planes, take the p38 J for example, will over heat and blow the engine even if you have wep off and throttle full if you are low and slow tumbling around, there by not allowing enough airflow to cool the engine. As it is we just cant use the wep for a couple of minuts till it "cools" down. Another wierd thing, the corsairs ran out of boost since it was injected into the engine and they only had a certain amount, so once boost ran out, your done, not in ah:rolleyes:
I found these things hard to learn how to use and frusterating at times, but it adds a whole new game play element that makes it much more intense when there are more variables at play.
-
Originally posted by bozon
* Historical cockpits/gauges - IL2 gauges are useless. I can't read them on my screen and I was forced to use the numbers at the corner of the screen. I find it less immersive then the new AH2 cockpits. Also, having your units in meters and km/h while others in your coutry speak in feet and mph is annoying. You may fly a german plane but Rook is not Germany or Britain.
Actually, I find the lack of a metric gauges option to be really annoying. The Imperial system of measurements appears to be the last yoke of the British Empire that the US has not yet cast off; instead, it appears to cling to this last vestige of enslavement like a newly emancipated slave unsure of what to do with his freedom.
-
While this game is played by many international people, the base of operations (Texas) the country it's run in (USA) and the people that code it (HTC, last I checked all were US Citizens) all use the Imperial system. If it's called that, I'm not sure of the term. We use miles and gallons, and feet.
Considering the following:
1) it's just a game, we all don't really die if we get things wrong so we don't have to have flight training for 6 months. It's easier to use what we already know. Hell it could be worse, we could have "0%" and "100%" instead of 0mph, 550mph, or whatever.
2) IL2 instruments bite the big one. Have to agree there. I NEVER use them. Always find myself saying... "Hm.. now wtf is that instrument?!? What is it telling me? Or is it just decoration!??!" I just use the numbers in the corner. With this proven example of how useless "super realistic" cockpits are, there is a reason we have semi-realistic cockpits. The reason? They work better.
3) While there are many foreign players, by far I'm betting the largest number of subscribers are US citizens. The off-hours always have very few people. The peak US hours are always packed.
So, we know a) the largest demographic of players in the game, b) what instrument system those players will understand and c) that super-realistic cockpits don't function well most of the time, while semi-realistic ones have proven themselves for 6 years now (AH has been going strong for 6 years, right? It's been so long I can't remember).
-
Originally posted by Krusty
While this game is played by many international people, the base of operations (Texas) the country it's run in (USA) and the people that code it (HTC, last I checked all were US Citizens) all use the Imperial system. If it's called that, I'm not sure of the term. We use miles and gallons, and feet.
I agree totally. Which is why I'm puzzled by why you haven't gone your own way instead of clinging to outdated British ways. But hey, I guess we all need a security blanket but delusional behavior on the part of adults is a little pathetic. It's like a teenager declaring their independent and don't need their parents and then asking if they can borrow the car.
-
Originally posted by zarkov
I agree totally. Which is why I'm puzzled by why you haven't gone your own way instead of clinging to outdated British ways. But hey, I guess we all need a security blanket but delusional behavior on the part of adults is a little pathetic. It's like a teenager declaring their independent and don't need their parents and then asking if they can borrow the car.
Aaah, you can stop being puzzled. You see we HAVE gone our own way. We chose the Imperial over the metric. See...that was easy. :)
-
Originally posted by zarkov
I agree totally. Which is why I'm puzzled by why you haven't gone your own way instead of clinging to outdated British ways.
I see you are from Houston. That is in the US iirc, but I'll check again. I am not an American just for the record and hate imperial measurements.
Still, the world of aviation uses "feet" for alt, "gallons" or "lbs" for fuel and "mph" or "knots" for speeds. Old habits die hard.
Bozon
-
See Rule #4
-
Like many things, how much realism is the best depends on the person who is judging and on perspective. Of great importance, too, is HTC being able to generate money with its product.
In Air Warrior originally, you couldn't do accelerated stalls (like having the stall limiter on at all times), the sim was run in half time, there were no black outs or red outs, there were no spins, each plane had a hit bubble, not independently targetable parts, there was no convergence setting, no drop tanks, the damage model was extremely simplistic, etc.
Then the game was enhanced to allow for accelerated stalls, spins, blackouts, redouts, and for 1:1 simulation timing. There were a lot of people who didn't want even that much realism. They didn't want to have to deal with stalls, spins, blackouts, etc. So Kesmai had a full-realism arena and a relaxed-realism arena to appeal to both camps. The arenas ended up having comparable attendance.
It is interesting to me to see that, in Aces High (and WWIIOL and some other games), the level of realism is *way* beyond what people got in the full-realism arenas in Air Warrior. It is into the territory of what people back then worried was unplayable by the mass market. Yet we see that the game is still accessible enough to draw large numbers of players -- many more than Air Warrior used to have.
This is the aspect of perspective. My guess is that all of these sims will get more and more realistic over time, and many things that some people today regard as unwanted distraction will end up being accepted as a fine part of the game (much like trim, being able to set gun convergence, blackouts, being able to target different parts of an aircraft, p factor, prop torque, etc.).
Realism also isn't just one axis, with one adjustable parameter to adjust the amount of realism. There are many axes. There is realism in how the plane flies and is managed (plane handling, flight controls, engine controls, etc.). There is realism in how things look (clouds, ground, trees, other aircraft, damage effects, etc.). There is realism in how things are damaged (how guns fire, how they do damage, how bombs are dropped, how they do damage, etc.). There is realism in the combat environment (what alts fights take place at, which plane sets are fighting, composition of forces, etc.).
It seems that most people want maximum realism in how things look and how damage effects work.
It seems that a lot of people want low realism in combat environment (so that they don't have to fly for an hour for a fight, so that they can fly whatever plane they want, and so on). Those who want more fly scenarios. But there is a group that would like everyday flying to have a more realistic combat environment, so it's good to have areas available for both groups of people. Tour of Duty seems like it will solve this.
Where people are really split is how much realism there should be in how a plane flies and how it is managed. Maybe the best way to handle that would be to have arenas dedicated to various amounts of realism. Whether or not that would be worthwhile to do commercially depends on how many people want more realistic aircraft management. Or maybe it just comes naturally as time goes by. Again, think about the things people have today that in the past were considered too complicated for any mass market of ham-fisted arcade-game players or that were considered to be unwanted distraction from the fun of flying and fighting: aircraft trim, control of prop RPM, separate control of different guns with different convergence, prop torque, p factor, spins, even accelerated stalls, blackouts, and redouts.
For me, the most important realism is in aircraft flight and management, followed by damage effects. I can then get realism in combat environment with scenarios. Last on my list is realism in visual detail. That is probably the opposite ordering of a typical Aces High player, though.
-
elph... no... you are wrong. over revving is probly the only thing that would kill an aircraft engine but... that is not a big deal..model it or not. It is just not that big of an "engine management" deal... just boring. Not gonna make everyone a pilot or change gameplay... just add tediousness.
as for overheating... the liquid cooled motors were more vulnerable but.... not for the way we play... slow turning and such for a minute or less would have been nothing.
It probly wouldn't hurt to have fuel injected motors catch fire from any engine hit tho.
radials did come home with cylinders shot off and no oil tho.. that is why the navy insisted on em for carrier planes where the plane needed to get home.
but what difference does if all make? the griefer gamers will all just continue to pick the plane with the biggest advantage anyway.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
elph... no... you are wrong. over revving is probly the only thing that would kill an aircraft engine but... that is not a big deal..model it or not.
as for overheating... the liquid cooled motors were more vulnerable but.... not for the way we play... slow turning and such for a minute or less would have been nothing.
:lol :cry wow! those have to be the most one sided over generalized statements i have heard on a BBS in a long time! Might want to do some reasurch before you start saying things like that. :noid
-
I got a better idea... why don't you show me where a plane overheated in a minute or less from dogfighting.
planes would often come back with dry water tanks for their water injection... this took from 5-10 minutes to do... How did they manage to use up all that water?
In a dogfight most pilots just shoved the throttle to the stop and flew the plane till the fight was over.
do you have a reason for wanting to make things worse than they were in real life? people not sitting still for you to B&Z em? nasty little turn fight planes dodging your la la?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I want real life pain to be modeled.
eskimo
Some people definitely would fight better.
-
As an ex Warbirds player I can tell you what killed it.
Lack of development. IEN sat on it and did doodly squat and thought that the $ would roll in forever, and they could just sit back and take a nap. Wrong. We left, and we didn't go back.
Warbirds is actually less "realistic" than AH2, imho, I consider AH2 to be more of a solid sim, in most categories. There was a day when that wasn't true, but not now.
Looking forward to ToD. :aok