Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on January 07, 2002, 05:10:00 PM
-
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/025696.html (http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/025696.html)
hard posted this over at AGW. This should give you guys time to re-evaluate the game. Me, I haven't played in about 2 weeks. Sometimes it get's boring waiting for targets to crest the hill.
My AH addiction is in full swing again :)
-
You really think many people will download the 300meg + game?
They should give the game out in magazine CD's as a DEMO (for allpurposes the full game is barely up to demo standards anyway), it would be much better on some folks.
-
As far as I know it's only about 100 meg. With broadband 300 meg isn't that much, and for a free d/l who's going to complain :rolleyes:
-
I don't quite understand this move...
I was going to applaud that they finally came to their senses and decided to give the game away and charge for the on-line play. I was saddened at the realization that they will only be giving away a "trial" version that expires and requires you to buy the boxed game. Does anyone even carry it anymore?
Now I'm wondering who this is supposed appeal to? I have the CD.. it would be easier for me to patch it (well.. half the download) and play... and I would have done that if I thought it merrited my time.
I guess this is earmarked for those that haven't played at all yet? Maybe the FPS types? I'm pretty sure most at AH and WB are familiar enough with the goings on to have already worked it through in their minds. So they come to other people's <companies> game forums and peddle their wears.
I dunno.. it just seems this company keeps screwing up everything.
AKDejaVu
-
I'd like to try it online again. But it has not significantky improved for me (fps, overall performance or user interface) with all the patches. Even a free week isn't that appealling after reading thier boards (and the Officers Club) and seeing the myriad of gameplay problems that still exist.
Westy
-
But it has not significantky improved for me (fps, overall performance or user interface) with all the patches. Even a free week isn't that appealling after reading thier boards (and the Officers Club) and seeing the myriad of gameplay problems that still exist.
In my setup the game has improved a lot from last spring when WWIIOL was launched.
I think you should not put too much weight on gripes on WWIIOL boards... There are people who's only hobby seems to whine about WWIIOL and I know many more serious players do not read that board at all.
WWIIOL has it's problems of course. But if you think about the complexity and scale of that sim, is it any wonder? For a perspective... HTC is currently having server and connection problems with 460 players online with game that is less advanced and detailed and has less players.
-
Well, i'm sorta still half on holiday, I'll give it another try.
-
Do you really think they have enough control over their product to say "well, we are gonna make it a free download, and then charge people by the month"?
Granted, I really dont know that much about these things, but the above does seem to cut out a few actors from the supply chain. My guess is that CRS have some deal with the distributers of the game. Hm, maybe Im using the wrong terms here, I mean the guys making "the boxes" as well as the guys actually putting the game on their shelves in the computer stores. Surely they wouldnt feel all too pleased if CRS made it a free download?
-
I'll try again, I have nothing to lose.
Jochen-
You may think the board is only populated by people that live to whine- I don't think so. I was one of the people that saw problems firsthand, yet to many on the board I was just a whiner. Granted, there are some that do go over the top, but the general handling of anyone with a complaint was denial and abuse. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard, "If you don't like it, leave."
-
Jochen, you have some glaring errors in your post.
First of all, it isn't the server having problems with 460 people. Unlike WWIIOl, where they were so inept that for the first several weeks the game was being bought in stores- they still hadn't linked up the servers, nor were they running above 30% capacity. This was due to poor server setup and poor server management. Aces High is running into problems with bandwidth which is slightly more expensive than a server.
"WWIIOL has it's problems of course. But if you think about the complexity and scale of that sim, is it any wonder?"
WWIIOl itself IS the problem. I would agree with you about complexity and scale, *IF*, 30% of what's advertised on the box was in the game or working. But considering only the basics of the basics of the game (yes, I intentionally said the basics of the basics) are implemented, then complexity and scale went right out the window. Currently it's just a tank simulator, half-assed flight something (not a simulator) and a poor first person shooter. The game barely works, and when it does- you see just exactly how little of it is actually present.
-SW
-
Jochen, I know the difference between a greifing player, a happy player as well as a disenchanted player who has valid issues with a game. It's also very apparant to me when a player has internet or PC related problems spews out on the boards that he's seen a major bug, cheat or hack. I see little greifing on WW2O boards (most greifing seems to go on in the arena), a lot of simply socially unacceptable behavior by both disgruntled players as well as "fan bois" (and remember, one must be a Playnet/WW2O customer to even post there so all posts no matter how good or bad have it IS a customer posting and CRS is severely remiss in not policing thier boards better) and a mountains of bug/gameplay problem posts.
Bunker blocking with vehicles, aircraft with missing physics in the FM, graphics problems (tearing) walls becoming "physical" online gameplay issues, manned guns with shields that don't against small arms, spawn camping (with the bad damage model it's not as if you can prevent it by "destroying" the vehicle), players hiding in walls and under floors, laying prone and than crawling on the belly to go verticaly up a tree, bugged towns and bomb blast issues for several examples of what seems to be what one can look forward to once they get past the program load up and getting online.
And is AH the only game online now where it is so simple as running the program, select online, enter your id once and you're in? No browser required, no secondary app needed. What is it with this Playgate crap? Gamestorm and EA had that baloney too with thier Gilz and I forget what the older version was called. The Zone was just as bad with FA.
And unrelated but who won the AMD PC contest there? The drawing was supposed to be on December 12th and there's no word on it at all. CRS has not responded to any questions about it on thier boards either.
Westy
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Westy, it's because the other games are "portal" games or something like that. It wasan attempt to make money by various companies, and it's pretty much failing across the board, just look at EA.com's attempt. They've got a few games left on the portal, but their major online games are the stand alone non-portal type (Ultima Online and Motor City Online, and eventually, The Sims Online.)
Anyways, I might give the free week a chance, I can play NCAA 2002 on the PS2 while the free trial downloads. ;)
Chances are I won't care for it. I just want to fly. I hate most FPS games, and the tanks aren't all that fun to me (tho multi-crewing a tank with my friend was fun, even tho we fought over who drove and who gunned!)
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Jochen, you have some glaring errors in your post.
First of all, it isn't the server having problems with 460 people. Unlike WWIIOl, where they were so inept that for the first several weeks the game was being bought in stores- they still hadn't linked up the servers, nor were they running above 30% capacity. This was due to poor server setup and poor server management. Aces High is running into problems with bandwidth which is slightly more expensive than a server.
Not quite - you also have some serious errors in your post. The hosting facility CRS used went tango uniform the week before boxes hit shelves. They had to move all their 70+ servers to a new provider the very week of launch. This, of course, would be a challenge for any company - especially one launching a game in the poor shape of WW2OL.
Of course - there WERE other major problems that were solely the Rats fault, and the server architecture was untried. But you downplay the technical issues way too much. Also, I think it's fair to say WW2OL's technical requirements on bandwidth and servers eclipse AH's, so it's a bit of an unfair comparison. WW2OL is able to get 1000+ in one server consistently in a far larger world, and pushes a lot more data than AH.
I got no problem outlining the bad decisions and poor management of WW2OL - there's plenty of fodder there to choose from. But I think you should be fair, and not overplay the negatives just cause you don't like the game or the company.
Originally posted by SWulfe:
"WWIIOL has it's problems of course. But if you think about the complexity and scale of that sim, is it any wonder?"
WWIIOl itself IS the problem. I would agree with you about complexity and scale, *IF*, 30% of what's advertised on the box was in the game or working. But considering only the basics of the basics of the game (yes, I intentionally said the basics of the basics) are implemented, then complexity and scale went right out the window. Currently it's just a tank simulator, half-assed flight something (not a simulator) and a poor first person shooter. The game barely works, and when it does- you see just exactly how little of it is actually present.
-SW
Bring out the pom-poms, but you're going way overboard, SW. The game works quite well now for many people (albeit on systems well above the box specs), and there's far more than 30% of the box features in game. It's a complete game, although the gameplay is distinctly different than any MMP flight sim before it. And yes, there's still LOTS of tweaking to be done, and features to add, but plenty of folks I know can login and have fun. Including me, although I've been really diverted by IL2 and GPL lately. In short, 1.5 at least resembles the game promised on the box closely enough that review sites are giving it a second look.
Keep in mind, SIMHQ gave the runner-up award for MMPG to WW2OL, right behind AH. And they continue to draw in 1000+ players routinely. So - your viewpoiunt is not shared by many, including a reputable source like SimHQ.
I see posts like this, and "MG" comes to mind, although no one here is nearly as caustic as he. MG won't like AH - EVER. I don't care what groundbreaking features HT puts in; he'll still find problems, point to old issues, and generally hate the sim. He simply has a pathological hate for AH and HTC. I think there's a few people here who have that same pathological hate for WW2OL, and refuse to see or acknowledge ANY positives about the sim, or give it ANY credit for attempting something on such a scale.
The trial is a good idea, though late. Give it a shot with an open mind, and you may just have a bit of fun.
Alas. Someone go ahead and give me my pom-poms now, since I'm obviously nothing more than a fanboi.
Oh - PS: Congrats to HTC. Well-deserved awards, from all those places. More and more folks I know are heading this way.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Spitboy ]
-
Actually it sounds very desperate. I mean, if they are now going to give the game away instead of stiffing everyone with a $50 up front cost, you have to wonder why...
My bet? WWIIOL is dead by the end of February seeing how Playnet has already filed Chapter 11.
-
They're not giving it away. You download the free 7-day trial. If you want to continue playing, you need to go buy a boxed game to get a CD-Key.
It's simply a demo that let's you try the game out online before you have to shell out the bucks for the box. Something many here asked for.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Spitboy ]
-
You're still forgetting the fact they are giving the game away, key or not. No longer do I have to shelve out $50 first to play.
It still sounds desperate.
V.
-
If you are talking about the basics of a complex system, then yes more than 30% of what's on the box is in the game.
Now, I was talking about what's exactly printed on the box. The sea portion is still missing. The flying part has a horrible FM, and produces pathetically low fps for a game with such low details by today's standards. The tank part is the most complete- but it isn't. Damage model needs work, and there's still the problems with armor interracting with some solid objects. Have they fixed the hook up problem with artillery yet? Last time I saw, that didn't work at all- you had more luck attaching your soldier to a truck to be hauled around than an artillery piece (or whatever they haul around).
Some people look at it with a different view point I guess. Sure, if WWIIOl were a free d/l (which it is now, but it's way to large to be worth my time and it's only a trial version) like AH or WB, then maybe I would overlook the glaring issues it has. Or the fact that the tech support doesn't exist. Or the fact that it's not even half of what's advertised on the box. But no, they released it as a 50$ boxed game. They advertised it as a complete game. It's been how many months since they released it? It still isn't close to what it should have been.
I've got nothing against CRS, but you can't honestly expect someone to look at something objectively when it's ADVERTISED AS COMPLETE only to find out it's less than half baked and the yeast is bad.
I was skeptical of Il-2 and pointed out it's many issues, I still bought it.
I even bought B17-II only to find out it too wasn't going to deliver what it promised, but atleast it was slightly more than half-baked.
Unlike MG, who wants to bash anything that won't run on a MAC, I am only pointing out the errors/problems with the game. Nothing more.
-SW
-
Vruth:
And how is it a bad thing to let folks try the game before shelling out $40 for the box? If you want to play more than 7 days, you still have to shell out $50. This just gives you a chance to see if it'll be worth it. That's PRECISELY what folks have been blasting them for NOT doing over the last 8 months. Now they finally listen, and people still find a way to turn it into a negative?
In fact, it's a lot bigger risk for them, since many people may not like the game, and won't purchase it after the trial. I fail to see your logic.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Spitboy ]
-
"Alas. Someone go ahead and give me my pom-poms now, since I'm obviously nothing more than a fanboi."
Fanboi? nah. Eternal optimist, yes :) I regard 'fan boi' as a derogaroty term and I've "known" you too long to see you labelled with that Spitboy.
My pov is they have a lot of bad impressions they created to overcome. The "cloud of fubar"" that hovers over them won't go away with a 7 day freebie or substanceless "PR" which is Hatchs' specialty. That's in my eyes anyway.
I personally hope they have a 1.6 coming before this free week because, for me, trying 1.5 offline along with reading the continuing problems with gameplay on thier boards just doesn't ignite any desire to really try it out online again.
Course free is FREE so I probably will try it anyway. However the amount of enthusiasm and enjoyment I do it with is more or less in CRS's hands. All factors effecting program peformance and gameplay are under thier control at this point. Let's see if they step up to the plate and make good hosts by ensuring they have all the bases covered for thier guests that week. Starting with the download, making an account (no way will I provide a cc# for this as I've seen too many troubel reports about billing- valid or not my CC# is not needed anyway right?) and here's a toast to the server(s) being able to withstand the influx. In other words let's hope it's not another "piece of 'glass'" at fault. :)
Westy
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
What, no pom-poms yet? Come on people, you're slipping! :)
> The sea portion is still missing.
Technically, no. It's there. Just rather embryonic. Boats can be fun, but they're mostly useless. They see about as much use as the boats in AH, from what I hear. To most they are just a fun diversion from the real draw of the game.
> The flying part has a horrible FM
Debateable. It certainly has holes, but in some areas it has pluses. Overall I get a nice sense of immersion, and I find the plane performance disparities resemble the history I've read about. Stukas don't shoot me down unless I've done something really dumb. I mark it as "acceptable", personally. Not great, but good enough to enjoy.
> and produces pathetically low fps
Not for me. But yeah, performance is rough. You need a high-octane box to play well.
> for a game with such low details by today's standards.
Debatable. You need to judge it on a level playing field - and frankly, there's nothing to fairly judge it against in terms of # of units viewable, amount of cover and objects (non-sprite or procedural) in the terrain, and viewable distance. Nothing comes close.
> Have they fixed the hook up problem with artillery yet?
About three months ago, if I recall. Plus the AT guns were re-worked to be much easier to move around. They see a lot of use these days, and can be very effective.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Spitboy ]
-
Here's how I see it; I get to look at it again with no risk. CRS gets to point to the increased numbers and clearly illustrate the interest in the concept. Everybody wins.
Yes, it is definitely a desperate move, but this should be no revelation at this point. Chapter 11 is not good news, no matter what spin you put on it. But let me add what I do finally see from them I haven't yet; the willingness to listen to suggestions and do what it takes to make people want to come and stay. Maybe they haven't come all the way yet, but it (the trial) is an indication they are trying. They are trying to address technical support with player help. Will it work? I don't know, but at least there is some hope it might.
I still harbor doubts like anyone else. I guess I just don't see what I have to lose if I try it. While it won't be the end of the world if CRS goes under (to me) I have no overt desire to see it happen. Further, if they can somehow rise phoenix-like from the ashes and put together a game I can like, I just have another option- and you know I like options. ;)
-
Spit, no poms poms because this sim speaks for itself..just remember that almost two years ago I was being nice and asking some AGW members to "consider" Aces High if they were a flight sim enthusiast...and then the flames began...nice to know that folks have 'matured' over there...sometimes force feeding makes you that way ;)
-
Starting with the download, making an account (no way will I provide a cc# for this as I've seen too many troubel reports about billing- valid or not my CC# is not needed anyway right?)
I dunno Westy. Haven't actually played the game in several weeks, and only briefly followed the initial announcement.
I hope not - kinda defeats the purpose. Also, I highly suggested to CRS that:
1. They wait until 1.6 for this, which sports a new GUI that is supposedly much more user-friendly and has better tools for mission organization and communication.
2. They make a special private forum for free trial folks to get help, and allow knowledgable, mature users to answer/act as moderators.
3. Have all their ducks in a row, with actual working tech support, in-game guides available, and some of the really annoying bugs fixed (like clipping issues, unit biasing rules, and yellow flags).
In short - I think this is their last slim chance to make a go at their original vision of being a large MMORPG. If they blow it, they're either gone, or they will scale back to be a niche sim with a small (but fanatical) userbase. That means axing most of the staff, chunking off CRS from Playnet, and going the HTC route if possible (small team).
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Spitboy ]
-
What? I have to spend a couple of hours to download the monster, play it for just seven days and if I want to play more than that, I have to go out and buy it? As if.
Why can't I just download it and pay the monthly fee like Aces High or Warbirds?
V.
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
If you are talking about the basics of a complex system, then yes more than 30% of what's on the box is in the game.
Alot more than 30%
Now, I was talking about what's exactly printed on the box. The sea portion is still missing.
Funny I've driven a boat all the way to England from northern France, there was actually a successful invasion of England a couple of months ago.
The flying part has a horrible FM, and produces pathetically low fps for a game with such low details by today's standards.
Again wrong. The cockpit models are the 2nd best out there, only topped by IL2's textures. What low details are you refereing to? Seriously that makes no sence to me. The FM has all the important forces modeled, they just need to tweek the numbers to get them right. That's probobly not at the top of their priorities list, yet. Stalls and spins are where it's the worst.
The tank part is the most complete- but it isn't.
What's not complete about it?
Damage model needs work
In what way? WW2 online sports the best damage model out there :) I wish I could post the damage logs from the beta, you would see just how much they take into account. But I can't talk about that for another couple of years.
and there's still the problems with armor interracting with some solid objects.
There will probobly always be clipping issues in this game. Look how HUGE the map is. There are toejamloads of solid objects to deal with, literaly thousands upon thousands.
Have they fixed the hook up problem with artillery yet? Last time I saw, that didn't work at all- you had more luck attaching your soldier to a truck to be hauled around than an artillery piece (or whatever they haul around).
dude when was the last time you played? They fixed that back in july or august i believe.
Some people look at it with a different view point I guess. Sure, if WWIIOl were a free d/l (which it is now, but it's way to large to be worth my time and it's only a trial version) like AH or WB, then maybe I would overlook the glaring issues it has. Or the fact that the tech support doesn't exist. Or the fact that it's not even half of what's advertised on the box. But no, they released it as a 50$ boxed game. They advertised it as a complete game. It's been how many months since they released it? It still isn't close to what it should have been.
I can't argue with any of that, in my subjective opinion, that this version (1.50) finaly meets what was on the box with the exception of system specs. (system specs have been wrong on 90% of the games I've bought.)
I've got nothing against CRS, but you can't honestly expect someone to look at something objectively when it's ADVERTISED AS COMPLETE only to find out it's less than half baked and the yeast is bad.
No i don't think you could look at it objectively, your too hung up on past mistakes to give them another chance :)
I was skeptical of Il-2 and pointed out it's many issues, I still bought it.
IL2 was the best release of a boxed flight sim ever. It has issues, but no show stopers that I have run into.
I even bought B17-II only to find out it too wasn't going to deliver what it promised, but atleast it was slightly more than half-baked.
YUK! that game pissed me off!
Unlike MG, who wants to bash anything that won't run on a MAC, I am only pointing out the errors/problems with the game. Nothing more.
-SW
True, but I hope that you give it another go around with the free trial. With an OPEN MIND. The game still has frame rate issues to be sure. To me this is worst in the 1st person and flight aspects, but I really don't notice it while in tanks or artilery or trucks.
-
The U-Boat's are in? I read somewhere about fleets and other such things that you can take command of being in the retail box version. Have they gotten that far yet?
The cockpits might be nice, but they are a far cry from the best. They don't display operational/readable instruments without a seperate 2D view, and then it's only slightly readable. The plane models are nice. The tank and person models are nice too. But that's about where it ends. The trees are nothing spectacular, and the other terrain details just don't catch my eye like other games. Bombed out buildings look really bad- I'll go find some screenshots to show you what I mean. The terrain is also clipped very closely when you are flying, so at 5,000feet it looks like you are at 25,000feet in Aces High.
I read a few days ago about soldiers still being able to run through walls and other such things.
Anyway, I'm not going to get hung up on the infantry or tanks or boats- I'm simply not interested in any of that. It's the flying aspect I like, and no matter how well it interacts with the surroundings, the frame rate is still unacceptable for flying.
I might have a closed mind, but that's still 50$ in my pocket that I can put towards something that's actually worthwhile to me.
EDIT: My time is also limited too, so I can't just waste it giving something a shot that has a very bad track record.
-SW
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
"The cockpits might be nice, but they are a far cry from the best. They don't display operational/readable instruments without a seperate 2D view"
Erhh..just what game are you talking about?.
Daff
-
They've managed to get rid of the instrument view and make the instruments readable in the normal view?
That's news to me.
-SW
-
Im going to have to check this out, i was really impressed with all the bugs i saw fixed since the release of the game. This will give me a chance to check it out online, since i wasnt about to risk even $10 to see if it was any better.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Am0n ]
-
When does this trial go into effect, or is that info not available yet?
-
Too bad I deleted a pic from my server which showed that Bf-109's gauges in WWIIOL are actually smaller than in real.
-
uhmm what was that about cockpits (or chickenpits as ppl say in WWIIOL)...
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/109chickenpits.jpg)
Anyway in one topic artguy from CRS said "They were happy with the cockpits" or something like that... well it looks like they intended to make cockpits look like real but somehow they fcked up their art and aren't interested to correct their work. I'm still paying my 10$ but haven't played in 2 months. I downloaded v.1.5 and tested it OnLine but it's still far away from AH.
-
SW as far as I know nothing hasn't changed in cockpits and instrument view... I checked it 10 min ago.
-
<shakes head> Damn shame too, look at all that room on the instrument panel! There's more than enough room to atleast double the size of those instruments.
*sigh*
Maybe WWIIOl 2.0 will be the one where flying works great.
-SW
-
CRS still lied about the product I bought. I honestly can't get over that. They LIED to me, and all the improvements in the world won't fix that.
-
Guys stop comparing AH and WW2OL. They are two entirely different products. Too me, WW2OL is a FPS and Tanking game, AH is a flight sim. End of story.
They cater to two seperate groups of people with different tastes. Sure there is some overlap, but in general they are different.
I hope AH never goes down the FPS path, and sticks to vehicles. I think integrating a FPS game with a sim is just not there yet. The horsepower required is to much and the programming needs way to much $$$ backing.
IMHO WW2OL tried to be too complex in some areas and should have dumbed it down. Especially in the flight model, an easy mode flight model should have been put in, not a 50/50 job. WW2OL was intended as a game for the masses.
I think the trial is a good idea, but CD-Key purchase requirement is stupid. If CRS want to survive they need to go to the download free/subscribe online model. There is a new wave of games round the corner, like Planetside from Sony. Sure its the future battlefield, but if it works ... well ;)
I look at engines like OFP and think THIS is what WW2OL should have been (albeit with a better multiplayer core).
-
1.50 aint no better then 1.20 some roadkill tired pointless gameplay.
For the most part damaging a tank only forces a "despawn" unless you are an allied char / s35 driver.
110s staple lw fighter......
The clipping is so outragous that to hear you say "there will always be clipping" just confirms my opinion that it will always be a pos.
I kept a subscription up since it went pay to play. I may pop in 1 or 2 times a month to check how its is.
Well it still a pos.
Theres a whole toejamload of issues that have been beaten to death on their board. They still haven't fixed the "flag" bug.
FPS goes all over the scale I average 35 or so but it goes from 65 to 20 just in level flight. (i know it must be me and my "system" and if I only do this or that then I'll get all them stable frame rates :rolleyes :)
Even if you Tweak from end to end what are you left with? toejamty dweeb gameplay.
What I'm tired of is folks who kept sayin how much better it is from release..........
How much worse could it have gotten?
The chickenpits aren't nothing to brag about a black dash with unreadable guages? lol
It aint like I've only been in the game onetime. I continue to check on its status and the more I check the more I am convinced they outa close up shop and burn their servers.
All this talk about "potential" is for folks who who refuse to admit it would be better to start from scratch then to keep tweaking the pos they have out there now.
But if you enjoy it well go ahead and have fun but dont keep tellin me how good it is.....I know it sux.
-
IMHO WW2OL tried to be too complex in some areas and should have dumbed it down. Especially in the flight model, an easy mode flight model should have been put in, not a 50/50 job. WW2OL was intended as a game for the masses.
I don't agree. We already have many dumbed down sims like AH, WB and FA, there is no need for more.
If you look at WWII online sim history you can draw pretty straight line from AW to WB and then to AH. Same concept, only details have evolved. Even AH is only polished up version of AW which was introduced in 80's.
WWIIOL is different. It has ambition. I agree that capability of CRS haven't been completely up to task but you got to give them credit for trying. If WWIIOL fails, there will be lenghty wait before anything similar will be available. And no, I don't think AH will ever go to direction of WWIIOL.
-
Riiiight, AH is dumbed down.... sure.
And Windows XP is only a polished up version of Windows 3.11.
No you don't have to give CRS credit. The product has been a non-event compared to what it should have been. Anyone can have a 'concept'. I have a 'concept' everytime I go for a dump.
While you may not see other WW2 battlefield sims hit the market, games like Planetside will definitely fill a large portion of the markets lust for an online MMP battlefield. And there are more coming.
CRS have failed to meet their own goals. It boils down to inability, and bad business planning.
AH may not be a 10000 player battlefield. But it has its niche, and the business is stable, and I believe the HTC crew are making money. To say that AH is 'dumbed down' and just a polished up version of AW is an insult to what the HTC crew have acheived. And they did it without the same amount of BS and self-promotion the CRS crowd have come out with.
$$$ will be the final judge, if in 6 months (my guess is 3 months will be enuff even) HTC is here and CRS ain't then the proof is self evident as to what is right and what is wrong.
Originally posted by Jochen:
I don't agree. We already have many dumbed down sims like AH, WB and FA, there is no need for more.
If you look at WWII online sim history you can draw pretty straight line from AW to WB and then to AH. Same concept, only details have evolved. Even AH is only polished up version of AW which was introduced in 80's.
WWIIOL is different. It has ambition. I agree that capability of CRS haven't been completely up to task but you got to give them credit for trying. If WWIIOL fails, there will be lenghty wait before anything similar will be available. And no, I don't think AH will ever go to direction of WWIIOL.
-
Originally posted by Staga:
uhmm what was that about cockpits (or chickenpits as ppl say in WWIIOL)...
at least WW2ol german planes have real german gaugages, unlike some other online combat flightsims *g* ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan:
$$$ will be the final judge, if in 6 months (my guess is 3 months will be enuff even) HTC is here and CRS ain't then the proof is self evident as to what is right and what is wrong.
If CRS survived 6 months after the disastrous release there is a great probability it will survive another 6 months, or forever. The demand for this type of virtual battlefield is clearly great and nobody else is even close to what WWIIOL represents now, despite all its problems. It is significantly much more better, stable and less buggy than before 6 months and the player base is stabilized and rather growing again. And each update makes WWIIOL better and better.
I hope in 6 months (and longer) there still will be both: HTC and CRS.
czpetr
-
Originally posted by Czpetr:
And each update makes WWIIOL better and better.
You mean closer to what it was advertised as, right?
Seriously, you can't believe you are getting some great new updates that are making WWIIOl so much better- all the updates are just making the game what it should of been at the release.
-SW
-
Jochen-
Don't even go down the path of who has the better f/m. No one wins there.
As far as the CRS model is concerned, it is for all intents and purposes dumbed-down while it contains the glaring omissions it currently does. I'm not sure this is a bad idea, given the focus of the game should probably be infantry if CRS wants to survive. Getting the FPS guy to take an occasional sortie will be much easier if the f/m is less challenging.
-
"WWIIOL is different. It has ambition."
Can you tell me what "ambition" is? I can and it's nothing physical or tangable. It goes hand-in-hand with "potential" which is what WW2O has oodles of in the bank. Which it seems content to leave in the bank collecting interest for a rainy day. Well, it's been a torential down pour for about six months and even CRs knows the ships about to flounder.
Well you know? HTC has ambition and potential too. the big difference is HTC has been demonstrating thier ability to actually do something with it. For three years they've set relistic goals, didn't wind up customer expectations with bs 'aar's and secret sniipets of just hpow damn good thigs under test were. With HTC ambition and potential are not some out-of-sight, elusive "pot of gold at he end of the rainbow" that they keep saying they'l get to one of these days .... soon.
The cold reality is WW2O is also the same as AW and in just the same way you say FA, AH and WB's are direct off shoots of AW.
The only real different is that WW2O basically uses a fraction of vehicles,planes and ships that these sims/games have available for online play. And offering less program/gui/game features too. Otherwise everything you point to me that is in WW2O I can show where it has aleady been done (being done) in AW, FA, WB's or AH.
The one thing really superior that WW2O has that the others do not is that huge terrain (which is part of the problem too) which IMO is by far the best looking in any online.
WW2O online play is literally the same as it is in AH or WB's. It's still "capture the flag" or a "spawn point frag fest" over, and over, and over, ala Main arena. There is no "war." And just like AW, AH or WB's people join squads, fly specific aircraft/vehicles and create missions for a feel of purpose. So yes imo the fact is WW2O gameplay is no different than what is availabnle in the AH CT or WB's WW2A's. WW2O play is tends to center around a small part of the whole terrain available and is also inundated with gamers gaming the game (actually more than AH or WB's from what I read).
On the other hand AH has a far superior FM for it's aircraft, has superior functionality in every aspect of the program, far superior clouds, superior gunnery & ballistics, view system, superior ordinance use and ordinance damage model. Even the GV's are superior imo. WW2O is no more realistic but they did add things to make it harder which some feel makes it more 'realistic.' And the naval part is light years beyond what WW2O is able to offer for the foreseable future. AH even has amphibious craft :). The AH strat with supply by trains, barges and convoys is only somthing WW2O could dream of. And a damage model. AH has one! :) I can damage aircraft and vehicles and actually SEE that damage. I don't put much value to the reported complex damage model that CRS brags about via logs and neat colored 3dMAx graphics because it's just that - a log that looks neat. Aircraft gear can still tip trucks and tanks with landing gear. And watch out for hitting a 5 pound road sign! Damaged tanks still block entry ways to bunkers to prevent base capture and aircraft do not lose parts or wings.
Still, I'm stangely interested in trying WW2O out again for a week when that free trial comes along. I just don't have any illusions about what WW2O is and has been to date. CRS/Playnet and it's ardent supports heralding of WW2O's ambition and potential holds about as much substance as the air I can hold in my hand.
Westy
-
Well spoken Westy, and I agree.
I don't see WW2OL as any threat to AH. However I'm curious to see the reality there with my own eyes and will no doubt take part in the free 7 days if and when it will be available.
Judging from past experience it might be hard to get online during those days though.
-
Westy, your most recent post you forgot to mention the infantry portion. None of the other games you mentioned has infantry. Now, if you're just talking in terms of goals, then yes, you're right. The methods of achieving the goals are different though. In AH you can use nothing but fighters and a goon and capture territory. You can also use ground vehicles if you so desire. In WWIIOL, you have to use infantry to take the base, but usually, you need some support from at least ground vehicles. Of course, I haven't played since they went pay to play, so I don't know if this is still the case.
Your other points are very much valid.
Swulfe, you're right, every release does get them closer to what was originally promised. However, doesn't that make it better than the state in which it was originally released?
-
Sure, it makes it better.... but everyone uses that in a positive way.
Like "It's good now, but it's getting better!", when they should say, "Well, atleast it's almost what it should of been 6 months ago."
-SW
-
"In WWIIOL, you have to use infantry to take the base, but usually, you need some support from at least ground vehicles."
Not really. You only need one sneaky trooper to get in and bump the table to get an emmediate mass of army spawning.
I'd not forgotten infantry. Soldier, infantry or a bailed pilot with .45 is all *basically* the same. I' thought I had mentioned that by saying WB's had it first but since WB's is a fight/air combat sim why would they develop it further? I must have missed that thought -> to hand -> to typed text phase with that one :)
After six months I'm not sure why I can still type out a wall-of-text post in response to a post like Jochens. Maybe because I'd had high hopes for WW2O too? And while I'm happy (and was with AH) I still was eccited at the thought of having a real fun war sim to play too. But I remember watching what amounted to someone hyping up thier project, with creative embellishment and fluffy PR, to back up thier claim that they got it all figured out on how to make a water rocket reach the moon. But while gazing skyward all that happened was a quick crash that followed that so brief a "woosh". And I keep hearing every four weeks or so how they made a fix and how it will make the thing go ever higher and higher. Well sorry. They've yet to clear the roof line let alone reach the clouds. Forget the moon at this point.
Westy
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
hmm, I thought they were gonna change the way towns changed hands, like needing more than 1 infantry in the town. Guess I dreamt that one up! My mistake there, Westy. :o
Yup, Swulfe. Actually, 6 months ago shoulda still been beta testing. They should not have released until the game was stable (in other words stress test, possibly with full open beta phase) and then should have indicated on the box exactly what was in the game at the time of going gold, mentioning features (like boats) would be included in future updates. But of course, that's all hindsight, and moot. They (CRS, Strategy First, and Playnet) screwed up the release in many ways. Some people can't get over that, and that's their perogative. To me, if it's fun, I'll pay to play. When it went pay to play, it wasn't fun enough for me to pay $10/month. I doubt it will be when the trial comes out, but I'll give it a chance. :)
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
"In WWIIOL, you have to use infantry to take the base, but usually, you need some support from at least ground vehicles."
Not really. You only need one sneaky trooper to get in and bump the table to get an emmediate mass of army spawning.
That`s not so easy now. You probably played it a long time ago. If you want to spawn army in contested town you have to capture army base and I guarantee it`s not possible with one snaky trooper. You need the support of heavy weapons. And you need to capture all town flags to spawn "mass of army", until that, you can spawn just troops and AT guns.
"And each update makes WWIIOL better and better."
Originally posted by SWulfe:
You mean closer to what it was advertised as, right?
Seriously, you can't believe you are getting some great new updates that are making WWIIOl so much better- all the updates are just making the game what it should of been at the release.
-SW
I knew that the game features doesn`t match to what was advertised to public at release so from my point of view - each update makes WWIIOL really better and better.
czpetr
-
Udie,
sorry but WW2OL cockpits are IMHO the worst around, pretty useless. There was room to design and put nice gauges into those cockpits, but only God knows why they didnt.
I've been around the board for a while (even the beta tester's one) and really the FM is the last thing they are worried about. The result is there: Ju87's dogfighting and winning against RAF fighters.
Nice graphics, terrains, land objects and tanks war. A big delusion for me: I love online flight sims. I canceled my account just few days ago after, lets say, 20 updates?
-
Originally posted by gatt:
Udie,
sorry but WW2OL cockpits are IMHO the worst around, pretty useless. There was room to design and put nice gauges into those cockpits, but only God knows why they didnt.
I've been around the board for a while (even the beta tester's one) and really the FM is the last thing they are worried about. The result is there: Ju87's dogfighting and winning against RAF fighters.
Nice graphics, terrains, land objects and tanks war. A big delusion for me: I love online flight sims. I canceled my account just few days ago after, lets say, 20 updates?
Yeah if your in it only for the flight aspect, you're not going to be happy. I like the ground part myself. I get off on killing 20 dudes w/ my AA gun :) That said I haven't even played it in 2 weeks. The game play is slow, but gets exciting for short burst. Right now I need more instant gradification ;). I still like the game though and can see past the phucked up release. I hope they make it...
-
I'd like to use an anti-tank gun again. With the changes that have ben made it may be more worth trying now. Although I do think they'd be better off implementing AI truck drivers to haul people and equipment around with. I'm not too keen on thumbing and begging for rides :)
Westy