Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: pervert on February 12, 2011, 07:56:04 AM
-
Not sure how everyone would feel about this, but what about having AI planes in the WW1 Arena?
-
I'd recommend fixing the WWI Arena and then having live players.
Regards,
Wab
-
I'd recommend fixing the WWI Arena and then having live players.
Regards,
Wab
And how would you go about fixing it? I reckon numbers build numbers and there will never be a million people on at any one time so why not AI to suppliment the real players? They were thinking of doind something similar in combat tour. :salute
-
I'd like to see a mission based arena implemented for WW1. So you'd have a mission to patrol a sector, protect bombers, destroy baloons etc. The host would create a counter mission to destroy the bombers, protect that sector or baloon and so on. If no players took that up in time it would chuck some AI planes at you to make things interesting.
Perhaps HTC could add a couple of slow AI two seaters as fighter fodder. AI planes ought to have a distinctive skin and/or icon as well.
-
And how would you go about fixing it? I reckon numbers build numbers and there will never be a million people on at any one time so why not AI to suppliment the real players? They were thinking of doind something similar in combat tour. :salute
You are correct in the idea that numbers tend to snowball once a critical mass has been achieved. However when HTC first opened the door on AH they didn't already have numbers. And they didn't fill with AI. They built the numbers by showing dedication and interest in their arenas, by active and frequent improvements, and by providing a functional strat system to underpin the action so that there was a broad variety of activities to take part in and a rich depth to the game play.
First, some WWII Taliban will come in here and claim that no one likes WWI planes and so it will always fail. WWI fanbase will always be a smaller number that fans of WWII. Granted. However RBII3D built a significant, dedicated player base over a decade. RoF, despite its initial stumbling, is continuing to build a respectable player base. Even in AH, Lusche has show data that there may be up to 400 HTC customers that periodically pop into the WWI during a tour to see if anything has improved since they were last there. They don't stay. There is a profitable WWI market that is available to be harvested with the right effort.
Second, lets perform a thought experiment. HTC claims the 4 furball only arena format is the best choice for WWI. Lets instead take the WWII Late War Arenas, remove all strat, all base captures, all towns, factories, radar. All GV's, all bombers, all fighter bombers, all bombs, all rockets, all tanks, C47s, and reduce the paneset to 4 planes. Next, put up a new map with a couple of fields arranged in a simple circle. And leave it that way for a year. Would that help or hurt their business? The fact of the matter is its not 1995, its 2011. With the depth of game play players have come to expect in their MMOG, that would simply not be acceptable. HTC knows that. They would never attempt that. It would put them out of business. And yet, the WWI arena is expected to succeed under those same conditions.
Whats the fix? Personally, here is my recommendation:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,304627.75.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,304627.75.html)
If they would refuse to do anything along those lines, the next best choice IMHO, would simply be to open up the WWI arena to permanent Free-Play. That would get some people in there. That would get more people familiar with HTC and get the client downloaded. Eventually some of them might subscribe for the WWII arenas too.
Failing any of that, yes, throwing in some AI might be an improvement over whats there currently. But that's a pretty low bar to aspire to. ;)
Regards,
Wab
-
I think thats a great idea! So far i know there should be a working AI at HT developed for CT?
But i think it should take place in a specific area of the map - as we still want to be able to do duels...
-
I'd like to see a mission based arena implemented for WW1.
Heck, if they are going to go through the effort for WWI, they might as well finish Tour of Duty for both WWI/WWII instead of putting more effort solely into a completely dead arena.
I'm deeply disappointed that ToD never materialized, I feel it could of made a huge difference in Aces High.
-
Iv'e always wanted an AI mission capability for the CM run arenas.
In AvA for example we could create a series of massive escorted bomber and intercept missions where each real pilot joining replaces an AI.
The same sort of thing could work in the WWI arena.
The LW MA's don't need it.
-
ANYTHING to increase a draw would be a good thing! WWI, and AvA as well.
The biggest issue is the scoring...............
It is unfair to count AI kills as kills (anybody that has ever flown an offline mission knows the AI is not that great) but then how do we apply hit% & killpoints?
-
ANYTHING to increase a draw would be a good thing! WWI, and AvA as well.
The biggest issue is the scoring...............
It is unfair to count AI kills as kills (anybody that has ever flown an offline mission knows the AI is not that great) but then how do we apply hit% & killpoints?
You do realise that so long as they couldn't ho the P-51 AI mission in this game would wipe the floor with 80% of the playerbase in this game :rofl
-
:rofl Didn't really look at it that way. You just might be on to something, LOL. :salute
You do realise that so long as they couldn't ho the P-51 AI mission in this game would wipe the floor with 80% of the playerbase in this game :rofl
-
You are correct in the idea that numbers tend to snowball once a critical mass has been achieved. However when HTC first opened the door on AH they didn't already have numbers. And they didn't fill with AI. They built the numbers by showing dedication and interest in their arenas, by active and frequent improvements, and by providing a functional strat system to underpin the action so that there was a broad variety of activities to take part in and a rich depth to the game play.
First, some WWII Taliban will come in here and claim that no one likes WWI planes and so it will always fail. WWI fanbase will always be a smaller number that fans of WWII. Granted. However RBII3D built a significant, dedicated player base over a decade. RoF, despite its initial stumbling, is continuing to build a respectable player base. Even in AH, Lusche has show data that there may be up to 400 HTC customers that periodically pop into the WWI during a tour to see if anything has improved since they were last there. They don't stay. There is a profitable WWI market that is available to be harvested with the right effort.
Second, lets perform a thought experiment. HTC claims the 4 furball only arena format is the best choice for WWI. Lets instead take the WWII Late War Arenas, remove all strat, all base captures, all towns, factories, radar. All GV's, all bombers, all fighter bombers, all bombs, all rockets, all tanks, C47s, and reduce the paneset to 4 planes. Next, put up a new map with a couple of fields arranged in a simple circle. And leave it that way for a year. Would that help or hurt their business? The fact of the matter is its not 1995, its 2011. With the depth of game play players have come to expect in their MMOG, that would simply not be acceptable. HTC knows that. They would never attempt that. It would put them out of business. And yet, the WWI arena is expected to succeed under those same conditions.
Whats the fix? Personally, here is my recommendation:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,304627.75.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,304627.75.html)
If they would refuse to do anything along those lines, the next best choice IMHO, would simply be to open up the WWI arena to permanent Free-Play. That would get some people in there. That would get more people familiar with HTC and get the client downloaded. Eventually some of them might subscribe for the WWII arenas too.
Failing any of that, yes, throwing in some AI might be an improvement over whats there currently. But that's a pretty low bar to aspire to. ;)
Regards,
Wab
I don't think AI is a low bar to aspire to, if it had the random aspects of say RB3D it could be quite an immersive online game, the work has already been done for combat tour seems a shame to not experiment with some of it on a small scale in the WW1 arena. I have seen a few guys saying they are from Dawn of Aces and are giving it a go.
-
The problem with AI in AH is that it is crap. I tried a bunch of offline missions made by Ranger and others, and although many were ingenious and creative, the AI was still crap. Even the worst AI from boxed flight sims is still better than the AI in AH.
So, on that note, I don't know how AI would help the WW1 arena.
I don't bother with the AH WW1 arena because RoF has so much more to offer for WW1 air combat, i.e. the Spad 13, SE5a, Fokker D.VIIF (BMW engine), and even the lawnmower aircraft like the DH2 and Fokker E.III are a heck of a lot of fun. I enjoy the mission rotations that "force" people into crates they might not be familiar with because sampling the different time periods of the air-war is like a plate of delicious hors d'oevres. Air combat that is always the same matchup, e.g. Camel vs. Dr1, or worse, Dr1 vs Dr1, won't hold the interest of many people.
AH also needs a separate dispersion model for the WW1 machine guns. From what I can see with the .target feature, there's no dispersion difference between the WW1 crates and WW2 aircraft with fuselage mounted machine guns. Am I crazy? Is there a difference?
Anyway, wabbit has it right. A WW1 arena needs a lot more content before it will be successful. What's there now is a recipe for low attendance.
I would recommend:
1) Central Powers vs Entente format
2) Flight model review for the Dr1 and Camel (the Camel's speed matches a prototype that was a testbed for different engines, the F1/3, not a production model; the Dr1 should be slower than the Camel)
3) Dispersion review (see Leon Bennett's Gunning for the Red Baron)
4) Content like balloons, artillery, etc.
5) At a minimum, the addition of the SE5a, Spad13, Fokker D.VIIF, and a German two seater like the Halberstadt Cl.II (or, since AH is all about late-war, maybe a Cl.IV). The Albatros D.Va might be considered if the Camel and Dr1 are appropriately slowed down.
6) Give two-seaters the opportunity to spot artillery like they could do in Dawn of Aces.
Then you'd have a WW1 arena. :)
-
Currently, the AI fighters leave a lot to be desired.
AI bombers however could add a whole lot to scenarios and AvA.
To help the WWI arena, the AI fighters would need improvement.
-
Heck, if they are going to go through the effort for WWI, they might as well finish Tour of Duty for both WWI/WWII instead of putting more effort solely into a completely dead arena.
I'm deeply disappointed that ToD never materialized, I feel it could of made a huge difference in Aces High.
Hmmm dead arena??? lets see if we take away all the WWII planes but 4 and eliminate bombers, tanks, and boats and ONLY have furballs how active would WWII be??? No just give the WWI guys some love and see the numbers climb, some new fighters, some bombing objectives and some 2 seaters to carry the bombs etc it has all been said but PLEASE don't call the WWI area dead because it is unfair.
-
Hmmm dead arena??? lets see if we take away all the WWII planes but 4 and eliminate bombers, tanks, and boats and ONLY have furballs how active would WWII be??? No just give the WWI guys some love and see the numbers climb, some new fighters, some bombing objectives and some 2 seaters to carry the bombs etc it has all been said but PLEASE don't call the WWI area dead because it is unfair.
You can't build a WW1 arena on the model of WW2. Until the last few months of the war, tanks played a very small part in the combat, and the Central Powers only built a few dozen of them. Their design philosophy was infantry support and the infiltration of enemy positions, not the destruction of other tanks (more comparable to a light armored vehicle). I don't know what kind of role you think boats are supposed to play.
-
I don't think AI is a low bar to aspire to, if it had the random aspects of say RB3D it could be quite an immersive online game, the work has already been done for combat tour seems a shame to not experiment with some of it on a small scale in the WW1 arena. I have seen a few guys saying they are from Dawn of Aces and are giving it a go.
Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant that merely improving upon whats there is a low bar to aspire to. As in it wouldn't be hard to to that.
:D,
Wab
-
You can't build a WW1 arena on the model of WW2. Until the last few months of the war, tanks played a very small part in the combat, and the Central Powers only built a few dozen of them. Their design philosophy was infantry support and the infiltration of enemy positions, not the destruction of other tanks (more comparable to a light armored vehicle). I don't know what kind of role you think boats are supposed to play.
Did P51 fighting P51 fighting P51 have much of a role in WWII?
For an MA vs SCenario, some realism can be sacrificed for fun game-play.
Wab
-
Of course, and that's why I did not object to the idea of more bomber aircraft and targets for them to bomb, even though aerial bombing was a distraction compared to the role of artillery spotting.
Have you looked at the tanks from WW1? You could put two of them 100ft apart and I'm not sure either would decisively destroy the other one. :P
-
Its all very strange,Ive been a subscriber to ah2 for a few years now and to my recollection there was never a big shout on the forums for ww1 gameplay far more for the usual stuff (we all know what the usual stuff is) and yet along come the powers at be and amidst much flag waving present us with the ww1 duelling arena.
A year or so has passed since then and nothing has changed,its exactly the same in every respect,even the obvious flaws in the flight models are still there.
Those of us that frequent the arena on a regular basis keep on starting threads such as this in the forums, some with great ideas for improvement with very little effort required on htc`s part all with the same result THEY ARE COMPLETELY IGNORED.
What was the point of the ww1 arena ? was it some sort of tax dodge ? I cannot understand why anyone would spend a considerable amount of time to create something and then just abandon it in this way.
frustrated as hell,
shotdown
-
Have you looked at the tanks from WW1? You could put two of them 100ft apart and I'm not sure either would decisively destroy the other one. :P
Well, they might by accident. :) I dunno. Those tracks look awfully exposed. They seem they'd be pretty easy to blow a link out if hit.
They can certainly take pot shots at the troop trucks. Roll onto a command post and take out some sand bagged gun positions if they are lucky. Maybe roll onto the adjacent airfield and start taking pops at canvas and wood hangars.
But yes, they are no Panther. ;)
Wab
-
Its all very strange,Ive been a subscriber to ah2 for a few years now and to my recollection there was never a big shout on the forums for ww1 gameplay far more for the usual stuff (we all know what the usual stuff is) and yet along come the powers at be and amidst much flag waving present us with the ww1 duelling arena.
A year or so has passed since then and nothing has changed,its exactly the same in every respect,even the obvious flaws in the flight models are still there.
Those of us that frequent the arena on a regular basis keep on starting threads such as this in the forums, some with great ideas for improvement with very little effort required on htc`s part all with the same result THEY ARE COMPLETELY IGNORED.
What was the point of the ww1 arena ? was it some sort of tax dodge ? I cannot understand why anyone would spend a considerable amount of time to create something and then just abandon it in this way.
frustrated as hell,
shotdown
Maybe you know more, but I'm certaintely not qualifyed in any way to compare a flight model to the real thing. Whats up with the modelling? The only obvious thing about camel is it seems to take the same amount of time to roll to eithier side? Torque should make it go quicker in the direction the engine spins? I've tried switching off auto trim etc but to no avail.
As far as fighting goes I can still win 1v1s in an F1 against the good dr1 sticks, it just takes a lot longer :D I don't think its as bad as everyone perceives it to be tbh.
-
Flaws?
Heck, maybe we should play a game that is run by a real pilot then? :headscratch:
-
The problem with AI in AH is that it is crap. I tried a bunch of offline missions made by Ranger and others, and although many were ingenious and creative, the AI was still crap. Even the worst AI from boxed flight sims is still better than the AI in AH.
So, on that note, I don't know how AI would help the WW1 arena.
I don't bother with the AH WW1 arena because RoF has so much more to offer for WW1 air combat, i.e. the Spad 13, SE5a, Fokker D.VIIF (BMW engine), and even the lawnmower aircraft like the DH2 and Fokker E.III are a heck of a lot of fun. I enjoy the mission rotations that "force" people into crates they might not be familiar with because sampling the different time periods of the air-war is like a plate of delicious hors d'oevres. Air combat that is always the same matchup, e.g. Camel vs. Dr1, or worse, Dr1 vs Dr1, won't hold the interest of many people.
AH also needs a separate dispersion model for the WW1 machine guns. From what I can see with the .target feature, there's no dispersion difference between the WW1 crates and WW2 aircraft with fuselage mounted machine guns. Am I crazy? Is there a difference?
Anyway, wabbit has it right. A WW1 arena needs a lot more content before it will be successful. What's there now is a recipe for low attendance.
I would recommend:
1) Central Powers vs Entente format
2) Flight model review for the Dr1 and Camel (the Camel's speed matches a prototype that was a testbed for different engines, the F1/3, not a production model; the Dr1 should be slower than the Camel)
3) Dispersion review (see Leon Bennett's Gunning for the Red Baron)
4) Content like balloons, artillery, etc.
5) At a minimum, the addition of the SE5a, Spad13, Fokker D.VIIF, and a German two seater like the Halberstadt Cl.II (or, since AH is all about late-war, maybe a Cl.IV). The Albatros D.Va might be considered if the Camel and Dr1 are appropriately slowed down.
6) Give two-seaters the opportunity to spot artillery like they could do in Dawn of Aces.
Then you'd have a WW1 arena. :)
The flight modelling where did you find this information?
The spad I'd love :) and the idea of germans vs allies. Like I said above would the average MA player be that hard to model in AI?
-
Have a look here (from J.M. Bruce):
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/camelperf1.jpg?t=1297614105)
F.1/3 was a prototype, but many authors and books use that column when they publish performance data for the Camel. B2312 was a production model, with a production grade Clerget 9b manufactured by Ruston Proctor. Other production models that were tested had similarly disappointing performance.
And the Dr.1:
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr1profilepublications.png?t=1297614345)
The 115mph that it does in AH is a repetition of an error found in many books, unless you think Dr1s were flying around with 145hp Oberusals. And the 110hp Oberusal never produced as much power as the 110hp Le Rhone.
----------------
Edit:
I also find it suspicious that I cannot put the Camel into a spin. The most I can do is to get it to fall flat like a leaf, which is just bizarre. RoF is better in this respect, but there are ways that AH is better, i.e. the Camel's poor rudder authority, and the necessity of left rudder in both left and right turns.
-
but PLEASE don't call the WWI area dead because it is unfair.
Like a bad colonoscopy, the truth hurts. All I said was if they are going to go through the work to create a 'Tour of Duty' for a dead arena called WWI, HTC should also do it for what makes the company money; the WWII environment.
-
Interesting, the big man seen this gav?
Regards the F1 FM I find it a little bland in comparison to the DR1, I can eaily outroll an F1 or D7 using snap stall rolls in a DR1, when I try this in the F1 all I get is a shudder a big loss of speed and well no roll :lol But that may well just be the way it was :headscratch: would like to hear Hitech's opinion on this :old:.
-
I have no idea whether HT has seen that data or not.
As for roll rates, I only have a highschool physics understanding of torque. With the placement of the Dr1's ailerons way above the roll axis, I would expect it to roll poorly. Snap rolls are something different, however.
Have you tried snap rolls without using combat trim? These aircraft fly very differently if you leave them untrimmed, i.e. if you fly them as they were flown (except the SE5). But I agree that the AH Camel just mushes through a lot of maneuvers, whereas the historical aircraft was described with words like "firecracker" and "buzzing hornet." :eek:
-
Interesting, the big man seen this gav?
Regards the F1 FM I find it a little bland in comparison to the DR1, I can eaily outroll an F1 or D7 using snap stall rolls in a DR1, when I try this in the F1 all I get is a shudder a big loss of speed and well no roll :lol But that may well just be the way it was :headscratch: would like to hear Hitech's opinion on this :old:.
would like to hear hitecs opinion on anything to do with ww1. ;)
-
Pervert, I just tested it out, and it is easier to get the Camel to snap roll if you leave combat trim off. Try it out and tell me if you get the same result.
-
With a proper Allies vs CP WWI arena, with observation and scout missions, I would be back in a flash.
Vlasov
-
Pervert, I just tested it out, and it is easier to get the Camel to snap roll if you leave combat trim off. Try it out and tell me if you get the same result.
I have mine switched off most of the time anyway, its slightly better but it still does the shuddering speed loss thing the DR1 doesn't :(
-
All:
Many of the suggestions for improving WWI are good, but I think we are perhaps over-complicating matters. The Furball Lake sustains a healthy population of players while being in no way essentially different from the WWI furball *except* for number of plane types. So while the other remedies are useful, the vital cure must simply be the development time to add new models to WWII.
-
And more plane types will not be added if it does not appear profitable to do so. Catch 22.
When HTC first released AH, they had faith in the business model because of Warbirds. They don't have the same with WW1. I'm not clear how involved HT/Pyro were with the initial release of DoA, it was released about the time iMOL stepped in, but they did not have the opportunity to see it grow. From what I hear DoA was successful for a while. There's a bunch of former DoA fliers who play RoF, and probably even more who play OFF. What I am convinced of, however, is that you can't build a WW1 arena on the model of WW2. The aircraft and ground vehicle abilities just aren't there. This was a war that stagnated for lack of offensive weaponry, after all. WW1 needs its own concept in order to be viable.
-
What I am convinced of, however, is that you can't build a WW1 arena on the model of WW2. The aircraft and ground vehicle abilities just aren't there. This was a war that stagnated for lack of offensive weaponry, after all. WW1 needs its own concept in order to be viable.
Well, again, I reject the assertion that we have to be slavishly bound to the exact historical events for an MA design.
I think there is broad artistic license available as long as it ends up being a fun arena to play in.
I think an over obsession with historical accuracy could be a recipe for self-defeating, puritanical boredom.
WW1 needs its own concept in order to be viable.
I'm interested in your concrete proposal. What do you think would be a workable, popular format? Come on! Go out on a limb, Man! ;)
Frankly, I'd be open to just about any idea. I'd prefer just about anything over its current format.
:rolleyes:,
Wab
-
You can't build a WW1 arena on the model of WW2. Until the last few months of the war, tanks played a very small part in the combat, and the Central Powers only built a few dozen of them. Their design philosophy was infantry support and the infiltration of enemy positions, not the destruction of other tanks (more comparable to a light armored vehicle). I don't know what kind of role you think boats are supposed to play.
Wow how far can you spin my thought, I never said anything about modeling WWI after WWII, I said take away all things guys LOVE about WWII and see how it goes. I would like to see them put back the old DoA code that THEY were doing when they left the "other guy" with the planes objectives etc and see how many fly there. It will be alot more than it is now.
What better time to do it when the govenment will probably help with payroll for "new" jobs :rock
-
Frankly, I'd be open to just about any idea. I'd prefer just about anything over its current format.
I will think about it. :)
-
:rofl Didn't really look at it that way. You just might be on to something, LOL. :salute
It absolutely PWNS me, first time, every time.
-Penguin
-
It absolutely PWNS me, first time, every time.
-Penguin
I always end up in an endless looping maneuver with the A.I. P-51. Without the human error element, you can just sit right on that stall horn and follow each other around all day! :lol
-
A thought:
Can we make the WWI arena a "capture the flag" arena?!?! :pray
Oh wow... that would be a blast with airplanes...
-
Till 2001 I was thinking that the enemy countrys in MA are AI ,till waffen3d wrote me that he PM a rook guy to join our Black Knight Bish Squad.
Nobody is Perfect......My Name is not Nobody