Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Joc on January 07, 2002, 05:23:00 PM
-
Ummm,Where do I start? :) I reckon all of us have lots of ideas,views/opinions on how we would all like to see the CT,so maybe we can all put em forward now so we can get a fair idea of what we all want here.
Personally speaking,Id like to see the name of the CT CHANGED,when I played in the MA,just as I logged into the MA Id see the CT and always thought to myself 'sounds like a duelling arena or something' the name didnt really tell me anything about it,and I think this is vital for bringing more guys into it.
How about 'WW2 Arena' or 'WW2 Historic Arena'? something that says to guys that are into this kinda setup 'This is for me'
Setup,I really appreciate what the staff are doing,and are making a lot of effort in making it as interesting as possible,but maybe keeping it as simple as possible is the best thing to do?.
Again speaking for myself,all I want in a WW2 arena is a good large map,how about,instead of having years of the war,rotate a map every week,say Europe 1 week,desert the next,Pacific the week after that and Russia after that,with ALL the planes availabe appropiate to that map,(maybe make B17 and Lanc perk planes along with Arado and 262 etc)this would give everyone the maximum amount of fun and freedom to plan missions or whatever thay wanted to.
These are just my views and thoughts,Im sure you lot have plenty of you own so lets hear em!!!
Like quite a few of ya I brought my squad here from MA believing this arena has the chance to be THE best arena in AH,Im dedicated to it,as you are,so lets hear your ideas :)
-
One idea I had is to rename the CT on the arena selection page by the setup name. While "Combat Arena" looks good, "Baltic Besieged," fpr example, sounds even better imo.
Westy
-
I'm personally pushing the name "Combat Environment Arena" or CEA as a new name. It goes well with the SEA, don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Sabre:
I'm personally pushing the name "Combat Environment Arena" or CEA as a new name. It goes well with the SEA, don't you think?
While it goes well with SEA, that makes it seem like it's an occasional event rather than ongoing. I like using the name of the current setup (Baltic Besieged or whatever), or something more descriptive like "Historical Arena" or "Rooks vs. Bishops" or something similar. And maybe "Main Arena" needs to be renamed as that connotes the primary place for people to congregate. How about "Anything Goes Arena" and "Historical Arena" for the two names?
-
Did AW have this type of arena? In WB, I think it was called the Historical Arena (how quickly I forget - we all just referred to it as the "HA").
If a name change is to help, I think it should be something that has immediate recognition, like Historic Arena, etc. Just MHO, but I don't think we should start from square one again and try to build recognition for a brand new acronym.
For the CT to be successful and interesting, I think it'll have to support rotating theaters. Late-war NW Europe and mid-to-late war Eastern Europe are represented pretty well now. The mid-war Mediterranean Theater could probably use a P-38H or J, the Stuka, the Me110, P-39 and P-40. Maybe a B-25 and an Italian SM-79 or 84 to really fill it out.
The most overlooked theater (for Axis aircraft) is definitely the PTO. Even with the addition of the Ki67, the Japanese planeset is too small to make an interesting PTO setting. For example, there are no Japanese carrier-based attack aircraft in the game. We need those, plus the Ki.84,
and a twin-engine ground attack aircraft like the Ki.102. I think one key to getting people to fly on the Axis side is lots of interesting a/c choices, and we need more of these for the Pacific Theater.
-
Originally posted by oboe:
Did AW have this type of arena?
AW had "Axis v. Allies" in both Full Realism and Relaxed Realism. I never flew any of the RR arenas, but I had the impression that there was a reasonably large group of dedicated people who flew A v. A in RR. In FR it was a dismal failure, much to my chagrin. I never could figure out why, but my best guess was that people just could not be pried away from their favorite late-war hot rod fighters. Also, I am told that the squadron rules in AW made it difficult to switch sides.
I am hopeful that AH will be different. Certainly the initial showing is far better than it was in AW.
- Oldman
-
IMO, the feature that really separates the CT from the MA is the specific situation setup, and goal set for each side to accomplish to "win the war". I would choose a name that advertises that feature: "Campain Objective Arena", "Combat Mission Arena", or some such. This will attract the strat freaks, who won't mind a limited plane set and limited icons/dar.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: popeye ]
-
Sounds like another air force euphamism to me, only means anything to an air force guy :) I think WWII arena is probably the best name anyone's come up with for actually doing what a name's intended to do. Describe the environment and draw people in. Sorry Sabre, not picking on you personally, but I think this is a perfect example of what it shouldn't be named. It needs something that sells, and at this point in history, wwii sells :)
CRASH
Originally posted by Sabre:
I'm personally pushing the name "Combat Environment Arena" or CEA as a new name. It goes well with the SEA, don't you think?
-
No offense taken :). HA doesn't work for me simply because it was a WB thing. WWII arena isn't IMNSHO descriptive enough of what we're trying to recreate here. How about "Theatre of Operation Arena?" TOA.
-
WWII Campaign Arena?
-
Dont forget that if we are talking about a possible name change,it isnt for us that are already playing in there,its to bring OTHERS in,I still think short and simple is best,how about 'WWII Battle Arena'? If we're going to concentrate on various battles,then this may be a good choice?
-
Well I played 2 years WB, so please don't blame me if i compare AH too much with WB, but well its hard to lay off old habits.
What I'm really missing in this whole great game are more planes, for special more early war planes like P40's, P39's, Spitfire MkI, 109E, 110's and so on. In WB we had a rolling plane set (rps), with changing availability of the planes during the time of 3-4 weeks. On the german server the newer planes came slowly from far beyond the frontline to the center airfields while bomber could only be taken from main fields at the edge of the map and some mediums, which brought up some interesting tactical components into the whole game. I would really enjoy it if it would be possible to bring up some rps in the CT with the existing aircrafts, maybe by changing the perk value of the planes by time, until they get free (not all of course). For example at the beginning each side starts with somewhat of 2 or 3 planes, but all free. The next day there could come up some newer planes to each side but they cost up to 10 perks. The next time some other newer planes come, so the one of the day before drop in value to 5 perks while the newest still cost 10, and so on until there are the F4U's and the Me262 for 20 perk points and next day all starting right from the beginning with only 2 or 3 planes for each side. Well this whole idea would bring quite a lot of work for the CM staff or whatever they are called here like, but somehow the CM's in WB liked their work. ;)
Anyways I love the CT and I hope it will develope and become more popular like the WW2 Arena in WB, so the MA will die out. :)
P.S.:
Ah and if you are thinking about a change of name I would also like more a name like WW2 Combat Arena or that way. It was only a lucky shot for me that I encountered what the CT was about.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Geeesy ]
-
<S>
How About the Historic Reinactment Theater
:)
Also I think that to make it just that wee bit more challenging Maybe the CM's could Implement <on future Maps> Field Cities that are laid out differently. So say make 5 differently sets of towns and sporadicaly place them adjoined to fields, just to stuff us Bomber pilots up a bit :)
<S> Shroom
-
rename it the "main arena" and close down the real main arena forever. If you do that you should get upwards to 100 players a nite.
lazs
-
I think what happened to AW's version is that we not only had the axis vs allies arena in FR with a historical planeset, we also had the fighter town arena with a full planeset(just fighters). And that's not counting the regular main "melee" arena. Prolly that we had maybe one arena too many given the number of players at the time.
I was never much for the main arena in AW unless it was a squad thingy. I usually hung out in FT where the flyin time between fights--which is what I come for--is generally a lot less. Same thing holds true here so I've been hangin out in CT. The crowd and fights are very much like our FT or AvA arena was. Its been a lot of fun. Hope it lasts. If it doesn't I'm sure there'll be some alternative to the MA. The numbers here are just exploding of late--which is a good thing. But unlike AW's situation in its later days we're in a position where we were prolly an arena short. So I figure something like this will be around for a while yet.
Drano
Originally posted by Oldman:
AW had "Axis v. Allies" in both Full Realism and Relaxed Realism. I never flew any of the RR arenas, but I had the impression that there was a reasonably large group of dedicated people who flew A v. A in RR. In FR it was a dismal failure, much to my chagrin. I never could figure out why, but my best guess was that people just could not be pried away from their favorite late-war hot rod fighters. Also, I am told that the squadron rules in AW made it difficult to switch sides.
I am hopeful that AH will be different. Certainly the initial showing is far better than it was in AW.
- Oldman
-
You want more folks in that arena?
I like the WWII Battle Arena personally. That said, a name change won't help the CT much if at all.
I'm somebody who doesn't normally have long stretches of un-interrupted time to fly, so I don't go to the CT often. Some other things keep me out too, such as limited plane choices and radar that makes it tougher for me to find a fight.
Keep it Axis v. Allies and such, but try not limit the plane sets too much. I think the majority of folks have favourite planes they like to fly, or at least favourite types. Bottom line for me, if it isn't American and armed with .50's, I won't bother very often. Cannon birds are an interesting diversion, but they aren't my "thing". To get more people in the CT, make sure that some representatives of most different plane types are present. Even if it's not perfectly historical. The more plane choices available in a given CT setup, the more folks you will have interested in that setup IMNSHO. When you are choosing limited matchups, choose the most inclusive ones you can that include the larger groups of enthusiasts first. IE, there are a lot more P-47 enthusiasts, than say Yak enthusiasts, so if you have to choose a specific setup, one that includes Jugs makes more sense. (Or maybe that's just my bias showing. :D)
The more you limit the CT, the less folks you will have. I really believe it's that simple. The MA will ALWAYS have more people, because by design it can accomodate everyone. To make the CT different and interesting you need to limit it, but you must always keep the limits to a bare minimum. IMHO. I'm not just talking about plane choices here, although I think that's the biggest one that stops me from playing in the CT much. I don't always need or even want my Jug to fly, but I want something similar. Give me an F6F, a Mustang, or (we can hope) a Wildcat and I'll be a happy camper. Now I'm giving a specific example, but I think you can see what I mean.
Luckily as the planeset expands, the CT will get better and better IMO.
-
Part of the problem with CT is that its identical to MA, just with a restricted plane set. As Lephturn noted many are attached to certain plane types and, in light of that, they aren't going to fly in an arena that is pretty much a mirror of MA insofar as underlying gameplay goes, moreso when their preferred rides aren't available. Myself, I have no real preference, I'll try pretty much any plane.
That having been said, if you like CT, go for it. I tend to agree with the sentiment of others here that it isn't ever going to be a big draw under its present layout. Its just too much like MA. Restricted plane sets are nice when they work, but its often hard to find a playability balance with historical restraints in the way. The last layout was a good example of that imo. Allies had a far superior planeset.
What I'd rather see is a furball arena. Small map(s), no base captures, no "winning" as it were, no plane restrictions beyond the perk layouts (fiddle with that if you like), allow base disruptions but only for very short periods, no GV's, very short downtimes for acks. That sort of thing. The idea being you encourage fast and easy fighter combat only and setup the arena in such a way as to support that end. I just see a lot more uniqueness with something like this as I do with CT.
Vortex
-
Indeed, the CT doesn't appear to be designed for mass appeal, for many of the reasons already listed in this thread. It seems to be designed as a more difficult alternative to the MA, appealing mainly to those players who have "outgrown" the MA (this is why the average skill level in the CT is a bit higher).
While this is not the course of action I would take with the CT, it does have its advantages--in time the CT may become a good tool for keeping players in AH who would otherwise become bored and move on to different games. While things like the CT's ICON setting aren't especially realistic, they do much to change the dynamics of the fight and provide a new challenge for players. The rotating planesets are another example--most AH players prefer to stick with one or two rides that may or may not be available in the CT, but once they become bored with the MA they may view the CT's shifting planesets as a new challenge, forcing them to learn a new ride every so often.
I do have one suggestion concerning the current CT design--planesets should last a full month (a full tour), as opposed to two weeks. This would work better with AH's scoring system. Otherwise, it would be desirable to shorten the length of the tour in the CT to match the 2 week planesets.
J_A_B
-
"What I'd rather see is a furball arena."
We have one. It's the Dueling Arena. Turn on Killshooter, and it's ready for furballing.
-
how about calling it the "virgin sheep theater"? that'd increase the numbers...although it'd mostly increase the numbers of players from west virginia and kentucky. :D (wales and ireland for your europeans)
The Tuckster
"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Col. Chuck Yeager, USAAF
(http://members.aol.com/tuck0006/images/lawnd2a.gif)
(http://members.aol.com/tuck0006/images/tucksspita.jpg)
-
I'm thinkin' it's gonna need "WWII" in the name somewhere, given that I think anything else you add would work :)
CRASH
-
While I don't think having the "right" name is the cure all to higher numebrs in the CT I do think that it help make it looke more appealing and intriguing on the surface.
Over the past 13 some years the "arena" has had names such as "Page xxx", "xxxx theatre" "xxxx room" .and "xxxx arena" but IMO these were all very neutral and ambiguos monikers.
The "Main arena" sounds fine for what it is. The name covers is like the arena itself where inside is an anything goes atmosphere.
IMO make the HA/CT name more colorful and creative - but without being outlandish.
Westy
-
Why not call it the Strategy Arena.We all know its WW2.
We would have been using the Stalingrad map right now except for a bug or something.I never got a chance to see it even though I downloaded it.
Buzzbait and others are working hard to make more historical maps to make it more realistic.
Hey you map making guys.
Many thanks.
-
'WW2 BATTLE ARENA 'good name eh? only we'll have to petition HT I think to get name change...
-
S!
Not me making the maps.
Thank 10 Bears, Sundog, Camo and the rest of the terrain guys... :)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
...designed as a more difficult alternative to the MA, appealing mainly to those players who have "outgrown" the MA (this is why the average skill level in the CT is a bit higher).
Hmmph...so when do I know that I am good enough to fly in there? Is there like an entrance exam or something that I have to take? :rolleyes:
I cant wait 'til I get big an' then I can fly in the big boy arena. Sheesh...its already started. I know that a lot of guys have wanted this and I know that the player base has probably grown sufficiently to warrant having 2 separate arenas. But the inevitable 'our arena is better because its harder' and 'only gamers fly in the MA' crap has started to rear its ugly head. I was never involved in WB but I have heard enough and read enough about this split in the player base over there and was hoping that this kind of attitude would never show up over here. I guess I was wrong.
-
My 0.02 $:
I don't think the 'better' players fly the CT. But, as the numbers are much lower than MA, you'll quickly feel the difference when 5 good sticks like wilbuz, hblair,eskimo, proffate... are logged on as enemies.
OTOH, I've seen a lot of 'inexperienced' (no offence) players this last week, which is good IMHO.
As a result, opposition level may vary drastically, but I wouldn't say that only the 'experten' fly CT. A lot of them stayed faithful to the MA.
-
My preference for CT-style of play has nothing to do with my skill level. I would just rather fly against the historical counterparts of whatever plane I'm flying. And I'd rather enemy pilots work a little harder to spot my plane and keep track of it once they've visually identified me.
-
FWIIW, from a newbie who is still trying to get his system to let him fly.
My most extensive immersion in a flight sim is/was FA 2.0, where the most fun I had was in the Realistic Arenas. I met quite a few really good people, who always went out of their way to help a newb figure out what he was doing wrong, in order that in the future, I would become a decent challenge for them. From what I have seen within the posts on this BB, the same seems to hold true here as well.
I sincerely hope that I shall soon be able to fly in the CT, as my personal passion in a game is to be able to help achieve some type of team oriented goal, while still being an Individual, within a Team. " Axis vs Allies " is definately "My Cup of Tea". I have always detested being shot down by somebody who was flying the same plane or seemingly the same side as I was, as I gather happens regularly within the MA.
I have no objection to a 1 vs 1 in the same plane in a "Dueling Arena" setting, as I am expecting it to happen. { Just a personal preference thrown in. }
At the moment, I don't have any constructive Ideas to contribute, yet feel that those that have been brought forth seem to have merit for the most part. Most of them seem on the surface to have been thought out to some degree, and not just thrown out as a whine or gripe. Hopefully, ideas will always be brought forth, and considered in this manner.
To those that are working HARD to get this Arena working and playable, who LISTEN to those that play here, and also REPLY to those that make suggestions, all I can do at the moment is say THANK YOU & KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE.
-
How about Axis vs Allies?
Elysian/cmorris
-
What Oboe said. And to add to what he said I like the CT with it's settings as it allows for more WWII era type tactics as well WWII era type aircombat. It's not perfect by any means, but it's many steps closer to WWII era aircombat and stategy than the MA is.
Westy
-
Originally posted by ET
We would have been using the Stalingrad map right now except for a bug or something.I never got a chance to see it even though I downloaded it.
I wanted to see it too so I loaded it up off-line--it's pretty cool--brrrr...
dh
-
How about........
World war two online?
Think it'd catch on?
-
Thanks for the input fellas.
As far as the skill level being higher in the CT, I don't agree with that at all. Some nights there might be old vets in the CT, others there may be mostly green pilots. Also, I don't see a devisive split happening in the player base either. You can't let the opinions of a handful of CT pilots convince you that there is some 'split' in the player base. There simply isn't.
Now, I think there IS a closer feeling of community in the CT, that is simply because their are far fewer pilots in the arena, about 8-10% of the MA population most nights. I don't think this is because of skill or quality, just the fact that there are fewer pilots, and people tend to behave more when they aren't in a crowd of several hundred people.
So, in closing, sling, gimme a big smooch right there --> :o
;)
-
No thanks HB...save that homo stuff for your squadmates. ;)
I didnt say that you or any of your staff were portraying CT flyers as 'elite' and 'better than MA flyers'....just some of the players are. I guess its inevitable that this attitude would surface....just wish it wouldnt have. :(
-
I am fairly new to AH coming from about 6 or 7 years in WB's. I personally prefer the CT just because of the historic matchups of aircraft. I enjoy flying either side and the many types of planes available. I have found to this point, the people very helpful and very friendly in the arena. I look forward to meeting you all, and look forward to the different future matchups. Keep up the good work.
Seahwk
-
Wheeew, I'm confused. I think we need a poll :D
I mostly see people talking about historical maps and plane sets which is absolutely fine with me but I belong to another group over and above that.
I want an arena that provides more challenges e.g.
No icons whatsoever (calls for development of an Axis transport and maybe another bomber)
Remember when the hog first came out and it was so unwieldly that it was almost impossible to take off without going off the runway? This was because they evidently were attempting to model the humongous torque which gave the Corsair the dubious title of Ensign Eliminator. Much whinning got it toned down.
Why can't the airplanes in this advanced arena (that's a good name which appeals to the ego of most dweebos) be torqued up a bit so that it more accurately replicates the real world of the WW2 aviator? FW190s should be stall/spin prone and 109s should be tricky to land and take off and older Spits should cough, sputter and shut down in a negative G dive. I'm not advocating that it should be necessary to have extensive instruction in 3 different progressively more complex airplanes but that some effort should be made to make the flight model more challenging than that of the MA. Maybe you won't get the numbers but you'll surely draw the dedicated.
Beeg
-
Sling~
Just so you don't get my point mixed up, I DO NOT fly in the CT on any sort of regular basis. I think I've had like 3 flights in there since it opened. I think the current CT setup is stupid and shortsighted and the people running it are more interested in themselves than in what's best for AH right now. IMO the CT team is more interested in creating its own little world than in making something that the average AH player will enjoy, and that's a dang shame considering that ALL of us are paying for their little playground. I don't like it much and it sure as heck isn't what I'd do if I had any say.
However, that's not to say I can't see certain positive aspects of the current setup. Like it or not, the settings ARE more difficult than the MA and they probably DO appeal to players who would otherwise become bored with AH. The average skill level in the CT IS a bit higher because new players don't fly there. That doesn't mean the CT is "better" than the MA; that's just the way it is.
Since this is the CT forum I try to post here on a more positive note. I usually bring up my concerns in private. The fact is, not many people care about MY opinion so publicly ranting about the CT isn't going to accomplish anything.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J.A.B
IMO the CT team is more interested in creating its own little world than in making something that the average AH player will enjoy, and that's a dang shame considering that ALL of us are paying for their little playground.
Well it is clear that you do not have access to our forum, because if you did, you wouldn't make such statements. Like I explained to you in our email exchanges, we are trying to create an arena that is an alternative to the main arena. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything selfish on our part. We are not yet using all the tools that will be available to us. We are still having to use 3 sided terrains main arena terrains, and a limited planeset in some areas. This will change in the future.
-
I believe the CT team IS trying to create an alternative to the MA--I think I mentioned this in my earlier post. I also believe that the CT team is less interested in making a POPULAR alternative than in making an arena that they personally like.
Those two ideas aren't contradictory.
As for WHY I feel you aren't interested in the average AH player? Simple.
The CT is lucky to get 40 people and is often empty or nearly so. There are usually more people vulching each other in the TA than flying in the CT. It's pretty clear that the CT has utterly no appeal to the normal AH player, yet the format isn't being signifigantly altered.
There are 2 possible reasons for this:
Reason 1: The CT team has decided upon a "niche" they're catering to and will stick with it despite lack of mass appeal.
Reason 2: The CT team is completely incompetent and actually thinks the setup they have might eventually have mass appeal.
I do not for an instant think ANY of the CT team members are incompetent, let alone all of you. Therefore I assume number 1. In order for number 2 to be true (which it obviously isn't) the CT team would have to be composed of total retards. Far from thinking you're a bunch of retards, I actually like the CT team.
Again, while I do not agree with the way the CT is set up, I can see that it DOES have some advantages. In particular it appeals to some players who are bored with the MA and might quite AH completely if not for the CT.
My main gripe is I feel there should be a POPULAR alternate arena before "niche" arenas are created.
J_A_B
-
Hblair, I think there IS a bit of selfishness involved, abeit good-natured selfishness.
It is a fact that the CT is under-populated. There are usually more people vulching each other in the TA than flying in the CT. Yet the setup isn't being signifigantly altered.
I think it's because the CT team likes its idea and is determined to stick with it regardless of its lack of appeal to the average AH flyer. There ARE advantages to this, in particular it's likely to keep players in AH who would otherwise become bored and quit. While such an approach has advantages, I dislike it because it ignores 90% of the player base. IMO there should be a POPULAR alternative to the MA before "niche" arenas.
The alternative reason--the CT team is totally incompetent and actually thinks the current system might develop mass appeal. This would suggest that you can't figure out why nobody likes the current setup.
Now tell me, is the CT team sticking with the current setup because they like it (good-natured selfishness), or are you all stupid? Honestly, I don't think ANY of you are stupid. Far from it. Therefore I simply disagree with your approach.
There is also the chance that HTC is totally unwilling to work with the CT team and is simply not giving you the opportunity to make it work. In this case the CT team has its hands tied and my other comments are totally wrong, but I feel this is unlikely.
EDIT: I read this board every day.
J_A_B
-
S! JAB
It is obvious you have not read the other posts on this board.
If you do so, you will understand why the current situation exists.
-
You might read this board every day J.A.B. but apparently you haven't all of this board, because you're answer is in the Combat Theater topic. And it's not some kind of conspiracy either. :)
-
Provide me a link please, as I'm not sure what topic you're referring to.
I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. I just think there's a group of guys who like their idea and want to see it work, perhaps a little too much.
J_A_B
-
-
JAB I'm not surprised much at your posts seeing how you've been a longtime disgruntled 'AW expatriate in AH' even before AW died but I am wondering what is the point of your posts in this topic. All I see are insults and personal slurs slung by you left and right not only at the CT but the CT team themselves. Yet I see nothing from you as to what YOU think they should be creating instead. You allude to things but are very vague. The only concrete idea or suggestion from you was that the planes should rotated on a monthly basis instead of two weeks.
The CT team was picked very recently by Pyro after he called for volunteers to help create an alternative to the MA. This may have stemmed in part from years of customers calling for an HA type of arena here. Pyro chose the few CT TEAM members out of all the applicants for good reasons. Still, anything they propose and do is overseen by Pyro and HTC. It's not like they were given an arena and Pyro said "Go hog wild. Do whatever you want with it boys!"
The bottom line is nothing they have done warrants your abuse and imo you are way off base. The CT is "costing" you nothing. The arena has existed for quite some time and the CT members as well as map makers work for free to try and make somehting out of it. So what does it matter to you that they have been empowered to? You have the DuelingArena to use freely as a fighter-town, the MA is still there just as you like it (ref our past 'discussions' about radar and the MA in the General forumn a while back) and the TA is there if you're into a frag fest.
Why not lambaste HTC for wasting resources on the DA (or even TA) when you could possiby get one of those set up the way you think it should be. Which only you know about as you've not expressed it here very well, if at all.
Westy
-
Insults? Personal slurs? Abuse?
Hah!
"I do not for an instant think ANY of the CT team members are incompetent, let alone all of you. "--said by me.
[sarcasm] Yeah, that's soooooooooo insulting!
I don't feel I was particularly harsh, any more than I feel YOU are being especially harsh right now. If the CT team were to respond and say they think I was out of line, then I'd apologize to them.
I simply stated my opinion without "tidying it up". That is how I FEEL about the CT--and actually I wish I didn't feel that way. But I do, so why should I lie and pretend I feel otherwise?
Your own post highlights what I see wrong with the CT setup--it was created, in your own words, as "an alternative to the MA". In this regard it fails miserably, unless you consider an arena that's generally out-populated by the TA to be a rousing success. Interestingly, you don't actually disagree with my opinion, only with my presentation of it (and I was admittedly a bit "controversial"). Do you agree then, that the current CT setup has no mass appeal?
The CT team's responses suggest that they know things which I don't, and this is very likely (as in 100% likely). Unfortunately they don't use that information to explain WHY they stick with such an obviously flawed system, so I am forced to assume they are keeping it because that's what they want regardless of popularity. I actually am hoping for a response from them that explains what's going on better than what I've seen in this forum. Just because I feel a certain way doesn't mean I LIKE having that feeling.
As for me being a "disgruntled 'AW expatriate"....no, actually I am more like "An AW expatriate who is proud of his heritage".
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Do you agree then, that the current CT setup has no mass appeal?
Well...OK, J_A_B, so it clearly does not presently have mass appeal, and perhaps never will. What would you do to change it, while still maintaining a historical arena approach?
- Oldman
-
i've been here over 2 years my squad (5 guys) we average prob around 2700 kills a tour in the main and none of my guys ever even seen a jabbunch o'numbers in the main.
I've flown in the ct since its first day and I aint seen a jabbuncho'numbers in there either.
Im sure he has main stats i just dont care to look.
Hes said before all he flies is a p51 so the ct will never be for him so what.
in every game that has had or has a ha ct ava its the same. a small group folks (no more then a handfull) fly it regularly.
So what.
Its up to the guys that fly there to make it what it is.
No "tweak" of the arena settings will change who flies there.
All we need is a good map and a good planset The rest is all bs.
Field capture didnt bring in numbers, more strat didn't, scoring, shorter flying times didn't and nothing in this thread will.
Laz is right people enjoy quick fast fights even if ya make the ct a "main arena" with a different name it probrably wouldn't work.
Do a search of this guys threads everyone I have ever ready sounds like hes an aw refugee malcontent but it could be just me.
If ya dont like the main try the ct if ya find ya dont like it well I dunno what to tell ya I have fun there but I haven't left the main for it.
-
So just what is the CT to you? Someone who obviously and admittedly does not fly in there? Very loudly does not like the it's existance least and has nothing to add to the discussions but lots of "ugly." Why do you care so much?
As for your posts you were indeed insulting. Directly, indirectly and not just towards the CT and the CT team but also the people who like the CT and it's concept.
To start claiming those who fly in the CT are bored with the MA or that HTC is using it as a tool to retain AH players who otherwise would be off to other games is bull and I found that your reasons why I like the CT to be very insutling. I'm do not fit your "profiling" of the CT player in the least bit. I simply like the CT because it creates an environment more towards what aircombat in WW2 would have been like than the MA can. It's that simple. I'm not looking to recreate WW2 itself. I know that is hard to get that across to many people it seems but thier inability to comprehend that is thier problem, not mine. The changing of different settings is all that is available to try and make the CT environment closer to that that found in early-mid 1940's than the late 20th century MA - given the current state of PC technology. I also like meet an aircraft historical counterpart more than I do fantasy mathc ups dound in the MA. I have no problem with the MA though and I like
to fly in thier at times too. Not as much anymore since the CT has some resources put towards it.
But you really got rolling with the insults (which you call opinion but it's still insulting no matter what YOU wish to call it) when you said "the current CT setup is stupid and shortsighted and the people running it are more interested in themselves..". Not stopping there kept on reenforcing your contempt for HTC and the other kids for having thier very own playground to use with "IMO the CT team is more interested in creating its own little world than in making something that the average AH player will enjoy, and that's a dang shame considering that ALL of us are paying for their little playground"
How the hell do you know what the average AH player will enjoy? Give me a break. Speak for youself please. The CT is in the creation phase and if it's dead a few months from now you might be able to deduce that the average AH player did not want a CT after all.
However like I said earlier I do not see you on any crusade against the unused Dueling arena and ill used Training Arena. I think you have a problem and you're not letting it out. I think it has something to do with a "Fightertown" or maybe you simply have a hair across your bellybutton and the CT and it's players are what you've chosen to use to try and work it out on.
After that last post with the quip about the playground you've been back pedaling trying to defend your choice of words (typical) as well as introducing some generic and undefined "POPULAR alternate arena." Yet you've not shed one bit of light as to what the hell that is supposed to be. (And the CT forumn wouldn't be the place to do it either.) It becomes quite apparant that you think the CT is robbing AH and you of something but either your not sure what thatsomething is or you're simply not going to tell anyone.
"The fact is, not many people care about MY opinion so publicly ranting about the CT isn't going to accomplish anything."
Please don't confuse expressing a valid opinion with delivering a spiteful, insulting tirad that may have a valid opinion buried in it somewhere. As for the CT team expressing themselves? Most won't I'd bet. A certian level of restraint is expected on thier part in much the same way the AW TOS-cops and forumn volunteers had to be.
And last, "Do you agree then, that the current CT setup has no mass appeal?"
Current? It does not. However all that is there has been in place for less than a month. Since there has been a team of volunteers selected to create the environment what is in the CT is a "place holder" as the new terrains and features are created. Which has been explained several times. No one has said, "IT is finished! Behold the CT. Use it well!" I definately think the CT holds mass appeal. AW's "AvA" was a hit (not withstanding the gamers that helped wreck it some) the WB's WW2A is very popular, FA has a very popular Territorial Combat arena and WW2O shows people want historical match up. (Even though the execution failed miserably and thier mistake is trying to replicate WW2 itself) of WW2 ).
If you don't like the CT concept and wish HTC would offer an alternative to the MA using a setup you think works then I would rather you went to the General forumn and started plugging away there for it and left the CT players, such as myself, alone.
-- Westy
(proud of my heritage too! I'm Irish-American and came from a decent family.
OH! And I once played an online game three years ago that has since gone out
of business)
-
the last few posts have helped the CT out in what way?
-
I almost started a new thread rather than respond here, but here goes...
Before the CT Team was chosen, there was much discussion on the boards regarding what the CT should be. It was clear, or seemed to be at the time ;) that there were several issues with the MA that CT advocates wanted to see addressed. First there was the icon issue. A small but vocal crowd wanted icons reduced or eliminated. Than there was the radar debate. Again, there seemed to be a fair-sized crowd that wanted dot-dar eliminated, and/or wanted to be able to fly NOE and avoid both the bar-dar and dot-dar. Another group was the Strat-advocates. These individuals wanted to see changes that would give more purpose to their efforts to effect "the war." Longer rebuilds and increased impact of hitting strat targets like cities, factories, stations for example. Finally, there was the HA folks. They wanted two-sided historical matchups and (at least some of them) terrains that were historically representative, if not completely accurate. Remember too that when the CT was first opened (before a team was called for and selected) many people said, “I’d fly there, but there’s no point without base capture enabled.
From all these suggestions and requests, the CT team (with Pyro as the guiding patriarch) built an initial view of what the new CT would look like. Note that we had to work within the current framework allowed by the software, with the current plane/vehicle set, and with the baseline idea that it would be a 24/7 arena that wouldn't and couldn't require a full-time monitor.
So, how close are we to what the majority of CT advocates seemed to be looking for? We have an arena with reduced icons (can't do no icons, and I don't think we should), radar that more accurately reflects the imperfect radar and GCI systems of the day, historical matchups that rotate at least every two weeks (at least that's our goal), and will soon have a suite of unique and historically representative terrains. We've implemented strategic victory conditions that allow a side to work towards a more specific goal than just capture all the bases, but still include base capture. Because of the lack of CT-specific terrains, strat is arguably the least perfectly implemented, but that should change soon.
This begs the question, where are all the people who said they would drop the MA like a hot potato if there was just an alternative that offered no dot-dar/historical matchups/reduced icons/better strat (take your pick)? What we’re fighting IMO is the gravity well of the MA. People log on to see 300-400 in the MA and 15-20 in the CT. They want the more realistic combat environment the CT offers, but are put off by the numbers. It’s a catch-22: I don’t want to fly there if there aren’t enough people, but there won’t be more people unless I fly there. That’s why we (Pyro and the CT Team) continue to look for ways to draw people in. The CT is like a new product trying to break into a well-established market. We may feel that we have a better basic product, but people won’t try it unless we offer something extra, something unique. That’s where I have high hopes for the new terrains coming down the line.
Remember about a month back when the MA was down for an evening? The CT was full, and even after the MA came back on line at least half the people stayed in the CT for the evening (150 in CT vs. about 150 in the MA). There was some praise for the CT from those who hadn’t tried it before; more importantly, there were few if any saying how bad the CT sucked in comparison to the MA. That gives me hope that we might eventually find a formula that will bring the people into the CT of their own volition. In the meantime, keep those suggestions coming. We really are open to them, and some have already been implemented. Remember too that each time we make a major change to the format (such as when we went from “capture all enemy bases to win” to “capture these specific bases to win” as a way to focus the action a bit more), we have to give it enough time to see if it helps or hurts CT attendance. Too many changes all at once or changes made too rapidly work against us.
So to answer at least one criticism posted above, we are trying to create a niche…as big a niche as we can:D. No one ever expected the CT to draw more than the MA. We are not, however, following some private vision, with no regard for what the community says they want. If the CT is to have a place in the greater scheme of things, it has to be different than the MA. How different it has to be, and in what ways so as to please the greatest number, is the quest we’re on. In the mean time, you who enjoy and support the CT must do your part. Post your ideas, play in the CT as much as you can, and share your positive experiences from the CT in the General Forum. And as always, thanks Pyro, to the terrain builders, and to you in the community who suffer through these growing pains.
Sabre
CT Team
-
I'm curious if you folks have entertained the idea of holding a weekly mini-scenario type event in CT? I'm just thinking out loud here so this might be completely outside what you folks would like to do with the theatre.
What I'm driving at though is something that's small in scale, can be run with a minimal amount of people (10 to 20ish?) in a relatively short period of time (a couple hours total perhaps) that maintains the "theme" for the arena for that period. As an example you might pit two teams against each other. These could be squad based or simple sign-ups taken here. The goal would be for each team to play attacker and defender in a given scenario. Again, one would want to keep this quite small in scope. Things like destroying/defending a fleet, destroying/defending an air base or strat targets, destroying/defending supply lines, etc.
Letting each team play either side allows you to balance things out to a degree. However it also requires that you keep things pretty small in scope and probably give a set "time-to-comple" for the attacking side. You could tally the results based on overall completion of goals, amount of targets hit (or not), etc etc. Keeping that part relatively simple would be good too so as not to create an administrative headache.
I dunno, perhaps this is too much like TOD? I just noticed that as a weekly event but have yet to participate in it so I'm not sure what its all about. Thought I'd throw this out to chew on though as it might be a means by which you can get folks familiar with the arena at least once a week. From there, who knows, you may make believers out of those folks and see them more often throughout the week.
Just a thought anywhoo...
Vortex
-
Vortex, you're describing what the AH special events team calls a Snapshot. We used to have these every weekend until the TOD came to town.
I don't see why the CT team couldn't try to run something like that every so often. give each side a very specific objective for a couple of hours, perhaps just by creating a detailed mission in the planner. hblair, sabre, et al, what do you think?
-
Thank you Sabre for the response. That does more to inform me about why the CT is where it is today than anything else I've seen so far. A shame I hadn't seen a post like that a week ago :) My frustrations would have been considerably eased before my response to Sling.
Oh, and Westy--thanks for the posts. I'm still laughing.
"How the **** do you know what the average AH player will enjoy? "
Poor Westy, can't ask a question without resorting to the use of swear words. Are you still going to claim you're totally emotionally detached? So, what color is the sweater and skirt, and do you carry a baton or pom-poms?
"Well...OK, J_A_B, so it clearly does not presently have mass appeal, and perhaps never will. What would you do to change it, while still maintaining a historical arena approach? " --Oldman
Right now I think the first thing they need is BOTH the CT and the MA re-named, combined with a new "advertising campaign" for the CT. The CT team made a large error in using up most of their "attention time" when their arena was still not using its full potential, and they're now suffering the same fate as WW2OL is.
I still feel the "totally new map/planeset every other week" is a mistake that will drive away the casual player. Far from feeling like WW2, it feels more like a time machine warping around between different battles. As soon as version 1.09 becomes available they should (IMO) switch to a more permanent system and use a WarBirds-style RPS combined with a 2-sided Axis vs Allied planeset. After more early-pacific planes become available they could possibly take this even a setp further and alternate every other month between Europe and the PAC, although that might not be a good idea since the PAC doesn't generate the same kind of interest that the ETO does.
As an alteration of that (perhaps a better alternative), would be a modified version of the current setup, but offer more continuity. For example, with the 2-week planesets, they could do a 1941 ETO for two weeks followed by a 1943 ETO for 2 more weeks using the same terrain but with the newer airplanes. This would simulate the "march of technology" and reduce the "new arena every other week" feeling that the CT currently suffers from. With version 1.09, they could do say 1940, 1941, 1943, 1945 all in a row.
You could also do a 1941/1943 Mediterranian theatre month with the current planeset--in fact it'd be great fun.
Obviously, with AH's current planeset, it would be more practical to use 2-week planesets. You will exhaust your options too quickly alternating it every week. Furthermore, weekly rotations to totally different theaters makes the "not connected to reality" problem even worse--it will create a sense of detachment.
I think I would stick with the 3K ICONS. This setting seems popular. If people were to start complaining about it though I would not hesitate to switch back to 6K ICONS.
I'm not sure how AH's DAR setup works, so I don't know exactly what IS possible and what ISN'T. If possible, I would eliminate DOT DAR completely, but leave BAR DAR available over the entire arena. I would also leave BAR DAR off under 500 feet. Not having DAR BAR arena-wide is a monumental mistake and that right there drives away a fair number of players.
I would have no perk planes in the CT unless absolutely necessary. Perk rides don't belong in a supposedly historical arena. I would, however, limit the use of planes that are "too good" (like the Tempest or Me-262), probably by keeping them at limited bases. A 1945 ETO setup, by my standards, would feature (in addition to Goonies and ground vehicles):
Allies: Spit 9, P-38L, P-47D30, P-51D, B-26B, Typhoon, Mossie, Hurri 2D, all unlimited. Tempest, B-17G and LANC would be at limited bases only.
Axis: 109G6, 109G10, 190A5, 190A8, 190F8, 190D9, Ta 152, Ju-88. Jets would be at certain fields only.
Such a setup would involve the Germans being defensive and having to hold off the Allies, thus making up for their lack of a competative bomber. Strato buffs would be discouraged by use of unlimited 152's. Special bonus would be given to the Germans if they managed to puch the Allies far enough back.
I would also make dang sure that the maps I used were sized to fit the player base--no 512x 512 monstrosities that are made for 1000 players. 128 x 128 is plenty big.
You will notice that much of what I recommend for the CT is stuff that I am dead set against for the MA. Just because I don't like something for an MA setting doesn't mean I don't like it at all. I just get POed at attempts to, essentially, turn the MA into an HA.
J_A_B
-
"Poor Westy, can't ask a question without resorting to the use of swear words. Are you still going to claim you're totally emotionally detached? So, what color is the sweater and skirt, and do you carry a baton or pom-poms?"
Lame reply. I don't consider "hell" a swear word. Especially in the context you try to make it. It's not like f&ck, sh&t, or prettythanghole now is it? I use "hell" in RL during RL discussions also. As in "how the hell did he miss that ball?" Or "like hell I want my taxes raised" Would saying "aytch- ee -double hockey sticks" instead help?
Face it JAB, you are and always have been a heckler to AH not only here but even worse elsewhere(re: the old "BW" ng. Because I call you out on it repeatedly here doesn't mean you can hide from that by calling me a chear leader or claiming it's me that has the emotional baggage when it's your AW ubilical cord that's the problem. Well, "mother" is dead. Get over it and move on with your "online" life. You've behaved repeateadly like the bratty, pain in the bellybutton child who gives the new stepparent touble for no good reason other than they are here and "mom" is gone. You caused any grief in this topic. No one else. The answer was ALWAYS there but you missed it or simply chose not to read it.
As for the rest of your post. Well finally you wrote something to actually discuss. I agree with most of what you wrote. A creative naming convention, rotate maps/planes less, etc etc. From my reading what others have suggested it's not much different form what folks want the CT to be. My only exception would be for icons to ever going back to MA range. I'd always vote "no" on that issue until HTC develops a different realistic, but usable, radar and/or icon system.
Westy
-
"Face it JAB, you are and always have been a heckler to AH not only here but even worse elsewhere"
Face it Westy, you just can't handle any negative feedback regarding AH. Your paranoid responses are, however, good for my personal amusement so please continue.
Funny how you only see what you want to. You claim that all I've ever been is a "heckler" while ignoring tha fact that I have often been complementary of AH at the same time. You truly have a gift....for warping reality.
J_A_B
-
"Face it Westy, you just can't handle any negative feedback regarding AH."
Sure I can. I generate quite a few comments and posts on what I feel is missing, is wrong or needs changing IMO in AH. You're blind to that or, as is typical, just spouting crap to be confrontational in a most juevinile way. Same as the last few times. You always devolve the discussion into a junior high level pissing match.
Anything good you may have said said about AH has been quite minimal in comparison to the very large amount of ranting by you saying how bad things are here. All the "problems" you have with AH, from HTC, to the arenas right on down to the community has been bountiful and it certainly seems to me to be a direct result of AW going bye-bye. And from reading another recent posting by another player in this very topic I'm not (surprise!) the only one who thinks that's part your problem.
So I'll cry and lament with you for a moment. It'll help. Trust me.
Moments up. Oh well.
- Westy