Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Blinky on October 15, 2017, 07:42:32 PM
-
I've been playing alot of War Thunder lately...
Yep. I'll play for about 5 mins and be reminded how great AH's mechanics and flight model is, then play it for the rest of the night.
So; Thanks War Thunder!
-
Flayed1 and I watched some player-posted videos of that game, and I was not impressed by .. something.. about the gaming community there, just by listening to the vox chatter going on. I got the vibe that there is much more class and maturity overall in AH than the competition.
I feel right at home here.
-
Flayed1 and I watched some player-posted videos of that game, and I was not impressed by .. something.. about the gaming community there, just by listening to the vox chatter going on. I got the vibe that there is much more class and maturity overall in AH than the competition.
I feel right at home here.
Actually - there is zero chatter. I've yet to hear a single person. Maybe you were hearing a discord, as that is what I've been told they use mostly. Utterly boring actually.
-
See Rule #4
-
To say that War Thunder has a better FMs than any plane in AH is laughable.
-
I've been playing alot of War Thunder lately...
Yep. I'll play for about 5 mins and be reminded how great AH's mechanics and flight model is, then play it for the rest of the night.
So; Thanks War Thunder!
This is why hot chicks keep one ugly friend, to be reminded how superior they are.
-
If you search for professional 3D digital aircraft models, the internet is saturated with them. We can probably thank WT for inspiring this glut and the reasonable prices.
https://www.turbosquid.com/
https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/aircraft
-
To say that War Thunder has a better FMs than any plane in AH is laughable.
Who said that? I've not seen where anyone has said or posted that anywhere on these message boards
After being an Alpha and Closed Beta Tester for "World of Planes" now renamed as "War Thunder", and quitting almost completely once open beta started... I found that WT would never be in the same class/group of games as Aces High, WarBirds, AirWarrior etc.... Too much bias towards certain plane types.... I found it to be a waste of time to try and offer any help in trying to get things implemented or fixed....
I did not care to join the "suck up" crowd, to play footsie trying to get things changed for my or my friends liking....when it should have been about "what can we do to make this game more realistic, better realistic flight modeling, etc....instead of nerfing things to where planes fly, respond to how some suckup wants them verses trying to get them to resemble their real life counterparts....
Just my experienced observation of a few wasted years of my time.....
Those of us who were there... YMMV
TC
-
Who said that? I've not seen where anyone has said or posted that anywhere on these message boards
You were not an early enough riser to observe Creton's post.
- oldman
-
I have seen WT... I have tried to fly WT..... my Son flies WT with a mouse he does well. I have tried to set my flight gear up to try this game with no success I refuse to fly any flight sim with a mouse after investing my money into my equipment. In watching my son for hours play the game... it is very arcade like. no real community or general full time arena. short battles. however the graphics look cool the flight model stinks and the support is worse.
just my .02
-
I have seen WT... I have tried to fly WT..... my Son flies WT with a mouse he does well. I have tried to set my flight gear up to try this game with no success I refuse to fly any flight sim with a mouse after investing my money into my equipment. In watching my son for hours play the game... it is very arcade like. no real community or general full time arena. short battles. however the graphics look cool the flight model stinks and the support is worse.
just my .02
Has your son every tried AHIII? Wonder if he'd like it...
Coogan
-
I have seen WT... I have tried to fly WT..... my Son flies WT with a mouse he does well. I have tried to set my flight gear up to try this game with no success I refuse to fly any flight sim with a mouse after investing my money into my equipment. In watching my son for hours play the game... it is very arcade like. no real community or general full time arena. short battles. however the graphics look cool the flight model stinks and the support is worse.
just my .02
I would be very very interested in what you son likes about WT vs AH.
HiTech
-
He has a great point. I think it would be a very interesting read - considering the younger kids are playing WT, I would like to see what he'd like about it more, if so at all. Aside from the graphics that is. Also, is he playing arcade mode? Realistic mode, or simulator mode? I dabbled a little in realistic though it took me hours to get my stick set up. Doesn't take long for me to get bored and come back to AH. Though im sure the same could be said vice-versa, as this is what I'm used to.
I must admit - late at night with the MA low and just wanting to lay in my bed and fly with one hand on the mouse - I'll play it lol.
-
WT has amazing models as does their battle damage appearance. A shot hits a turret and pens, you'll see a hole in the turret for the duration of the battle, providing you survive the pen and of course, the entire battle. If it doesn't pen, it leaves a mark that also is persistent. Mind you, I run WT on absolute MAXED graphics. :)
The FM on the other hand, bleh. I've tried some of the things I can do here over there, and only met the ground. :bhead This is with flying mouse. :noid
-
Dale... Wyatt flies both AH and WT. him and I have sat down and talked about it this may times. he is a member of forum also.
he likes AH's FM but, gripes about the Eye Candy AH "its not as "shiny and blingy". and he REALLY likes the diversity of more aircraft of WT. he is challenged by the learning curve in AH but, appreciates it. he whines about the FM in WT and what he calls random nerfing of different air frames.
he is 14 years old and has a couple thousand hours in WT(been flying WT for 3 years) vs only a few hundred in AH for the most part the Eye candy and the need for a Jet arena as well as the graphics still look dated.
I agree on some points. we both prefer the AH Game structure over WT along with other features AH has to offer.
He would be thrilled to talk with you in detail. PM for our number.
-
I would be very very interested in what you son likes about WT vs AH.
HiTech
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
Hitech,
Most of my group left AH (possibly all) and some are now flying WT in simulator battles mode.
WT has three modes, Arcade, Realistic and Simulator.
If you really are interested in why we are there instead of in AH, I would be happy to share.
-
Hitech,
Most of my group left AH (possibly all) and some are now flying WT in simulator battles mode.
WT has three modes, Arcade, Realistic and Simulator.
If you really are interested in why we are there instead of in AH, I would be happy to share.
OH Boy this should be good! :rolleyes:
-
When it comes to graphics, WT/IL2 are on top, when it comes to flight modeling, IL2 - DCS - AH are all pretty close, when it comes to the best multiplayer experience, it's AH.
What I'm trying to say is that all these combat flight sims, they all have certain features that are better than the others, some large differences and some small.
I think that all game devs of any genre should play their competitions games at least once... get an idea of what makes those games good, and what makes them bad. Then use this knowledge to make their own game better.
Just my opinion of course.
-
OH Boy this should be good! :rolleyes:
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/895/845/2f9.jpg)
-
I've been trying IL2CODTFMATAG server and it makes a nice switch from AH3 but it is a difference that works for me and maybe not everybody, If I had to give up one it would be the IL2. Whenever I have tried WT I didn't like it, simply can't see the point of the arcade modes and the FRB type thing....I guess I didn't have trackIR and I couldn't really enjoy it with the view mechanism and a hat switch. I don't like the idea of upgrades and experience levels for gunners, I just want to fly the effing planes. The guys on the ATAG server seem like a nice bunch, one guy sent me a track IR3 and another a hatclip and they refused postage! It is very different than AH3, there is only one terrain (It is basically the end of the battle of france, BOB, and operation Sea Lion) with fixed objectives for a rotating list of missions, no icons, you can easily blow up the german engines, you've got to stay on top of prop pitch and manifold and radiators a bit, very limited plane set, I have no idea how you use the bombsite, I need the trackir they gave me, teensy populations, AI flying fighters and bombers, occasionally dubious flight models, no visual radar or information about where you are on the map, you slosh around in the cockpit quite a bit, slightly lousy control setup control, etc etc. And for me a biggy is there is no ALT-X to let you run to the bathroom or give your arm a break.
From a user interface point of view AH3 is superior. The only thing lacking is a good comprehensive indexed/searchable manual. The information about the game is a bit diffuse and can be difficult to track down. WT I found hideous with too many steps between logging on and flying, and a bunch freemium nonsense clogging up the works. The only thing I would add to AH3 is something like the single player individual missions in IL2COD. Pre-scripted Icon Launched Air Start simplicity to basically practice maneuvering and shooting at AI aircraft.
I'm guessing that the people that actually LIKE WT enjoy playing a game about flying while the people who like AH Warbirds IL2 etc. want to fly. (The tanks....well that's another thing altogether.)
I'm not deluded enough to think that flying ah3 is like really flying a high performance airplane but with these things you bring your own fantasy and suspension of disbelief with you and I think it is frankly easier for me to suspend disbelief with a joystick, rudder and the AH view system than it is with mice or game controllers or even trackIR. Maybe it is the reverse for somebody else who isn't hung up on interfaces or has a younger brain.
-
WT has amazing models as does their battle damage appearance. A shot hits a turret and pens, you'll see a hole in the turret for the duration of the battle, providing you survive the pen and of course, the entire battle. If it doesn't pen, it leaves a mark that also is persistent. Mind you, I run WT on absolute MAXED graphics. :)
The FM on the other hand, bleh. I've tried some of the things I can do here over there, and only met the ground. :bhead This is with flying mouse. :noid
The problem is the same as the entire IL2 franchise, on which the WT game is heavily overlaid. The graphics are disassociated from the actual "effect" of the damage. The engine damage is arbitrarily stupid. The graphics are just alpha masks showing "through" the wing like IL2 used to do. Overall it's super arcade and disassociated from any realistic modelling at all. And, naturally, the Soviet planes absorb 75% more damage pound for pound than any other plane or tank type in the game... You can be set on fire several times or bombers can burn forever with no ill effects, leaking oil, gas, coolant, flaming from every engine and still be 90% combat effective at a perch they airspawned in with no risk from any enemy fighters getting up to them most of the time.
I, too, was eager to test the WT waters, back when they swore up and down til they were blue in the face about modeling every plane's handling and behaviors to historic specifications -- which meant arbitrarily following soviet "secret documents" (it's a Russian company folks) instead of actual physics-based responses like AH has. They kept straying more and more and more from simulation, and the last straw for me was when I tried for months on end but could not get it set up so that my joystick inputs actually controlled the plane. Even in sim battles they just sent desired inputs to the AI pilot so the fly-by-wire system was interpreting everything you did. Even in level flight or a shallow climb in the P-40 you'd see the elevator twitching and the nose wobbling. You couldn't keep it even, couldn't compensate for actual angles with rudder inputs, it was all 100 % nonsense. You were never actually controlling the plane, ever, and it felt like it too.
Horrible game. I should know. I had over 300 hours in it all told.
-
OH Boy this should be good! :rolleyes:
Especially since WT openly killed of SBs and disavowed any interest in pursuing it past the money-grubbing arcade game they have. They want the cash cow, not the prestige.
-
Only thing WT really has is the massive variety of planes and country represtentation.
AND
The system that closely matches them up: A majority of the planes in WT would end up as hanger queens here.
-
Only thing WT really has is the massive variety of planes and country represtentation.
AND
The system that closely matches them up: A majority of the planes in WT would end up as hanger queens here.
:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
They have all these biplanes and early war rides that would basically be unused even if they were modeled here.
-
The problem is the same as the entire IL2 franchise, on which the WT game is heavily overlaid. The graphics are disassociated from the actual "effect" of the damage. The engine damage is arbitrarily stupid. The graphics are just alpha masks showing "through" the wing like IL2 used to do. Overall it's super arcade and disassociated from any realistic modelling at all. And, naturally, the Soviet planes absorb 75% more damage pound for pound than any other plane or tank type in the game... You can be set on fire several times or bombers can burn forever with no ill effects, leaking oil, gas, coolant, flaming from every engine and still be 90% combat effective at a perch they airspawned in with no risk from any enemy fighters getting up to them most of the time.
Yeah if you're comparing WT to IL2 1946, and CloD I would agree. The current IL2 BoX series on the other hand doesn't suffer from anything you've mentioned, and is nothing like WT/1946/CloD. It's an entirely different dev team from the old games. It's more closely related to Rise of Flight than anything, which had some of if not the best damage modeling in any Flight Sim to date.
-
OH Boy this should be good! :rolleyes:
He probably want his own forum to do it too. :devil
-
OH Boy this should be good! :rolleyes:
The reason we left AH Melee and the reasons we left FSO are actually very different. And the responses to this thread reinforce my total lack of regret for doing so.
However, there are things AH could learn from WT and there are certainly things I wish WT had that AH and WB did have once upon a time.
If HT is interested I would be happen to discuss them as I would love for AH to move in a direction that would draw folks like myself and my group back to AH.
If he isn't interested, no skin off my back and I shall go back to my War Thunder/DCS flying coffin.
(http://postimg.org/image/3kxffoow5/)
(https://s26.postimg.org/dnc7if3t5/IMG_0448.jpg)
-
He probably want his own forum to do it too. :devil
:rofl
-
I didn't read anywhere in Dawger's posts where he was attacking or berating anyone or Aces High in this thread, so why are y'all doing it towards him?
sometimes it is the actions by players in this community that causes others to pack up and leave.....
-
Only thing WT really has is the massive variety of planes and country represtentation.
AND
The system that closely matches them up: A majority of the planes in WT would end up as hanger queens here.
You mean false matchups? Like as soon as you get to Fw190s you get mythic planes ruling the tier and owning the skies? You mean paper designs that never saw the light of day? You mean artificialy fluffing aircraft lines and padding them across multiple tiers where they are outmatched JUST to pad the planeset to make it look like there's something there? When there's no difference AT ALL in how the play across 3 tiers of ranks?
You mean how you can't get to 1944 without fantasy jets and F8F bearcats owning the entire skies?
You mean how there is no middle game and you lose any pretense at balance past tier 1?
You mean how they give one nation a plane, then pad another nation with the same plane, but move it up a tier for no reason?
You cannot make any claims that WT has a more fleshed out planeset or any kind of balance -- the utter lack of balance and horrific imbalance and fake made-up flight models to pad fantasy planesets rammed into a line up JUST to make it seem like there's some kind of equivelant planes there even though there never would have been in reality is what has driven so many serious flight sim players from the game.
WT is 90% steer poop. Pure and simple. They do it that way intentionally to pad out their grind-fest game because they make MONEY off of people unlocking upgrades for planes (which just makes them 100% pure fantasy performance planes anyways, regardless of which tier they are mis-placed in).
If you even pretend that there's any kind of better representation of nations I dare you to look at Japanese and the newly-included Italian lineups. Puh-leeze. Get real.
-
Does WT still have the aim/flight assist control system?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UhKLU0iNoU
haha love to imagine u old farts listening to this
-
You mean false matchups? Like as soon as you get to Fw190s you get mythic planes ruling the tier and owning the skies? You mean paper designs that never saw the light of day? You mean artificialy fluffing aircraft lines and padding them across multiple tiers where they are outmatched JUST to pad the planeset to make it look like there's something there? When there's no difference AT ALL in how the play across 3 tiers of ranks?
You mean how you can't get to 1944 without fantasy jets and F8F bearcats owning the entire skies?
You mean how there is no middle game and you lose any pretense at balance past tier 1?
You mean how they give one nation a plane, then pad another nation with the same plane, but move it up a tier for no reason?
You cannot make any claims that WT has a more fleshed out planeset or any kind of balance -- the utter lack of balance and horrific imbalance and fake made-up flight models to pad fantasy planesets rammed into a line up JUST to make it seem like there's some kind of equivelant planes there even though there never would have been in reality is what has driven so many serious flight sim players from the game.
WT is 90% steer poop. Pure and simple. They do it that way intentionally to pad out their grind-fest game because they make MONEY off of people unlocking upgrades for planes (which just makes them 100% pure fantasy performance planes anyways, regardless of which tier they are mis-placed in).
If you even pretend that there's any kind of better representation of nations I dare you to look at Japanese and the newly-included Italian lineups. Puh-leeze. Get real.
Like how if you try to queue up your I-15 for RB that you'll almost constantly run into things like Spit 5's with quad 20's and such? :noid Queue up a G5N or G8N... :bhead
-
I would be very very interested in what you son likes about WT vs AH.
HiTech
Anybody with mouse only control can get into the game and have fun instantly.
No need to buy joystick, subscribe to payment plan and go through long learning curve.
Add on top of this quite good 3D graphics with lots of eye candies, tons of available planes and GVs and you can see how the game can be quite addictive for thousands of people who play it now.
Nothing wrong with it. For the same reason so many people play World of Warships and World of Tanks having lots of fun.
HTC is struggling in bringing new players into the game but the solution is simple. Move existing subscribers to two countries (Bishops and Knights) and open one country (Rooks) for 500+ new players with mouse control only on free to play basis and it will be fun again. As soon as people from WT will discover the big-scale non-stop war on AH arenas they will start migrating to AH naturally, so there will be no need on spending money on ads. (There will be need for buying new servers soon though).
-
its all about pimps, give free subs to me, dr bone , eeehhh who else? yeah TKO from the jokers and maybe this game will get some sugar (cant forget bone doing loops 30 feet radius dat fm´s dog...)
-
love ah btw, at least when people all over the world played it and graced us with their uniqueness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikdVukRE7wA
-
Dale... Wyatt flies both AH and WT. him and I have sat down and talked about it this may times. he is a member of forum also.
he likes AH's FM but, gripes about the Eye Candy AH "its not as "shiny and blingy". and he REALLY likes the diversity of more aircraft of WT. he is challenged by the learning curve in AH but, appreciates it. he whines about the FM in WT and what he calls random nerfing of different air frames.
he is 14 years old and has a couple thousand hours in WT(been flying WT for 3 years) vs only a few hundred in AH for the most part the Eye candy and the need for a Jet arena as well as the graphics still look dated.
I agree on some points. we both prefer the AH Game structure over WT along with other features AH has to offer.
He would be thrilled to talk with you in detail. PM for our number.
I agree with your son that we needs more jets especially the meteor!!
-
".....and he REALLY likes the diversity of more aircraft of WT."
This is how I feel about AH. Huge lack of diversity on aircraft........follow questionable FM of some planes, weak .50 cals and overkill of 20 and 30 mm.
-
More version of current models in AH have been asked for at a number of times, gives more diversity for less effort.
-
Not that I'm against more models at all...
But I doubt that has anything significant to do with player aquisition and retention. If you are new, the 124 existing models should keep you occupied for quite some time. Most of the long time players rarely stray from the same dozen types they are usually flying/driving.
And the 36 new models of planes and GV (not counting the updated ones) apparently had no influence on player numbers either, not even those which turned out to be more popular ones.
I doubt someone is not playing AH only because he can't fly a Bf 104F4/Trop or a Beaufighter.
-
love ah btw, at least when people all over the world played it and graced us with their uniqueness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikdVukRE7wA
Good to hear from you Dr. Bone. Top Gun was the first squad I flew with seriously. <S> Bravo330 - A.k.a Blinky, Erich
-
Ironically if many of the obscure planes were remived nobody would notice. I think there should be more incentive for people to use a wider variety of planes (without forcing them to do so). The question is how do you incentivize it effectively?
-
Not that I'm against more models at all...
But I doubt that has anything significant to do with player aquisition and retention. If you are new, the 124 existing models should keep you occupied for quite some time. Most of the long time players rarely stray from the same dozen types they are usually flying/driving.
And the 36 new models of planes and GV (not counting the updated ones) apparently had no influence on player numbers either, not even those which turned out to be more popular ones.
I doubt someone is not playing AH only because he can't fly a Bf 104F4/Trop or a Beaufighter.
I think you missed the point.
-
50cals ... weak? Uh... if you MISS, anything is weak.
Like how if you try to queue up your I-15 for RB that you'll almost constantly run into things like Spit 5's with quad 20's and such? :noid Queue up a G5N or G8N... :bhead
Yes! Like how if you queue up in any biplane you're put into games where several different midwar (1942) LaGGs with 20mm own the skies against biplanes with 7mm guns (1936-1938). How about how the I-16 guns are twice as effective as any other nation's 7mm guns. How about how the UFO flight models on the Ki-10 made them the laughing stock of the game every time. Took ungodly amount to kill and you could point their nose up and never stall, ever. You could literally hang on the prop with no ill effects.
Or let's look at tier 2? Bf109E-1 in the same tier as Fw190A-4s, XP-55 prototype planes, F4U-1As, P-38Gs, and worse. Or how about you get boomerangs vs Ki-100s and Typhoon MkIAs?
Or how about how they artificially make you grind a Bf109F-4, then make you grind a more expensive and more costly-to-repair Bf109F-4/Trop when they are the same plane? Rinse and repeat for many other planes with multiple identical versions.
There is no balance at all. It is the most decried matchup system in flight sim history, lamented by even the people that still play the game.
So.. yeah. That.
-
I do believe this forum post has escalated it seems.. And strayed from it's original course might I add... I love AH, the mechanics are what I'm used to, as is the FM. I'll always be around. So far the only thing I could ask for was more or less disregarded, and I'm okay with it. It wasn't crucial, and It's not gonna turn me or probably anyone else away.
As far as diversity? I think AH has it. I'll tell you, it ticks me off to have to put many hours into 1 tier just to fly the plane I want. Especially when I barely want to play the game. In here, you can fly the plane you want when you want. Unless of course the ENY is down, or you don't have the perkies for it. Though ENY hasn't been much of an issue lately, and not many people risk flying the 262's when they can't afford it, because they might lose their gear 15 ft from the end of the runway (me).
With that being said, we should all relax and love the game we are given. And if you can't? Well... I'll buy you a beer anyway. <S> all.
-
My son is a gamer. I can't even begin to guess how many games he has beaten or played. He added me to his Steam account and the game list there is unbelievable.
That said, I asked him what he doesn't like about AH. His reply was the time involved to get to any action. He hates wasting the time it takes to climb out to a fight, the time it takes to chase down runners, the time it takes find a fight that doesn't involve upping under a vulch fest and so on. It's a combat game where most people seem to want to avoid combat, and so he plays other games where the action is pretty much instant.
-
Fugi, the flip-side to that is it's also forcing people to die in the slaughter when they're in lower-tiered planes that have no business being matched up against premium super-planes and the like. That mentality punishes the many to feed the few (whales). Like hunting a blindfolded deer tied to a stake, somebody will die. Sure, you can call that "action" but the quality of said action is truly lacking.
-
Sure, you can call that "action" but the quality of said action is truly lacking.
Makes sense to me. But it appears that there are many people out there - a lot of people - who are just fine with this, in exchange for whatever it is that pleases them about WT. Agree with them or not, it could be a useful fact.
- oldman
-
My son is a gamer. I can't even begin to guess how many games he has beaten or played. He added me to his Steam account and the game list there is unbelievable.
That said, I asked him what he doesn't like about AH. His reply was the time involved to get to any action. He hates wasting the time it takes to climb out to a fight, the time it takes to chase down runners, the time it takes find a fight that doesn't involve upping under a vulch fest and so on. It's a combat game where most people seem to want to avoid combat, and so he plays other games where the action is pretty much instant.
I've heard much the same from my son who's business is gaming computers. He's told me he thinks AH will always be a niche game, and the learning curve and time to get into the action and to be at all competitive is too much for most gamers. I'll try to get more specifics from him next time I speak with him.
-
The way two countries sit there and pound on one country 90% of the time is a problem. If you have a difficult time seeing that.. I cant help you see it. ( this typically fuels the vulching mentioned above)
The other major problem is m3 resupply.. cutting back on apparent action shown on the gameplay map. Large fights for bases have been replace with groves of m3s and supplies. Even jf you draw a new player from steam.. its going to be hard hooking him into a game model that promotes avoiding combat.
Its not the planeset.. its bigger than when we had 800 folks online nightly.
It isnt the graphics.. they are better than when we had 800 folks online nightly
-
Makes sense to me. But it appears that there are many people out there - a lot of people - who are just fine with this, in exchange for whatever it is that pleases them about WT. Agree with them or not, it could be a useful fact.
- oldman
Yes, this is the simple apparent reality. Now the trick is to figure out a way to increase the "stickiness" of AH once folks try it, and still maintain the quality and challenge that keeps us here.
-
The main thing is, the vast majority of people don't actually want open world PvP. They want bite-sized rounds with well defined goals. If you want to see examples, take a look at stuff like DayZ or Rust (open persistent world) and then look at PUBG. Orders of magnitude more players playing PUBG because you play a round in no more than 40 minutes, and nothing you did affects you going forward other than cosmetics and you maybe got better at the game.
Same with WT. You play a round that is theoretically set up to be "fair"(Krusty's points notwithstanding), you either win or lose, you earn some points toward the next thing you want to buy/upgrade. In 30 minutes or so you have done something with a beginning, middle, and end and you can see you made some kind of progress for something.
As far as the flight model, airplanes in WT basically range from slow and turny to faster and less turny, and they stall if you get them too slow, with varying levels of upgradeable guns. This is enough for most people. They don't want the Ensign Eliminator modeled correctly or flat spins, because those things don't add to their feeling of being an awesome game pile-it.
And regardless of if they're serviceable, at the end of the day people want graphics. It doesn't matter to Aiden with the $3000 alienware and 32" 144Hz 4k display that you can have over 100 planes on the screen at once. All that matters is it doesn't look as good as the next game over.
That's why this is and always will be a niche game. At the height of popularity, IMO people were tolerating the parts of the game that they didn't like to get the stuff they did. It seems to me lack of instant action is likely one of the main things that they were tolerating. When options came along that looked better and gave them the instant action, they vacated.
At least for me, instant action isn't what I want out of this game. What this game provides when it has numbers is what I want.
Just MHO.
Wiley.
-
The main thing is, the vast majority of people don't actually want open world PvP. They want bite-sized rounds with well defined goals. If you want to see examples, take a look at stuff like DayZ or Rust (open persistent world) and then look at PUBG. Orders of magnitude more players playing PUBG because you play a round in no more than 40 minutes, and nothing you did affects you going forward other than cosmetics and you maybe got better at the game.
Same with WT. You play a round that is theoretically set up to be "fair"(Krusty's points notwithstanding), you either win or lose, you earn some points toward the next thing you want to buy/upgrade. In 30 minutes or so you have done something with a beginning, middle, and end and you can see you made some kind of progress for something.
As far as the flight model, airplanes in WT basically range from slow and turny to faster and less turny, and they stall if you get them too slow, with varying levels of upgradeable guns. This is enough for most people. They don't want the Ensign Eliminator modeled correctly or flat spins, because those things don't add to their feeling of being an awesome game pile-it.
And regardless of if they're serviceable, at the end of the day people want graphics. It doesn't matter to Aiden with the $3000 alienware and 32" 144Hz 4k display that you can have over 100 planes on the screen at once. All that matters is it doesn't look as good as the next game over.
That's why this is and always will be a niche game. At the height of popularity, IMO people were tolerating the parts of the game that they didn't like to get the stuff they did. It seems to me lack of instant action is likely one of the main things that they were tolerating. When options came along that looked better and gave them the instant action, they vacated.
At least for me, instant action isn't what I want out of this game. What this game provides when it has numbers is what I want.
Just MHO.
Wiley.
Very smart and insightful responce. Very agreeable points.
-
Skimming through all that's been said.. yes, just skimming.
I've loved this game ever since I burned up all of my brother Flayed's perks on Tempests after watching him play way back before I started my own account in 2004.
I play it, I step away from it. I have fun one night, get disgusted another night. I take breaks from it. Balanced out with real life, it's an escape. AH has always had a fun factor, so much so that I'll even launch in something I suck at (tanks, for example- I'm terrible and can't hit **** :P ), expecting to get pulverized. Good for laughs, because, bottom line, it's all about fun. I don't get to wrapped up in losing it because it's all just pretend. Perks, damage points, rank, it's just virtual BS. I'm pretty grounded enough in the real world to not get so wrapped up in the virtual. Big deal. :rolleyes:
Yes, this is the simple apparent reality. Now the trick is to figure out a way to increase the "stickiness" of AH once folks try it, and still maintain the quality and challenge that keeps us here.
Yep.. learned in my novice live music experience it's the "hook" of a tune that makes it good and worth listening to over again.
Just my two bits.
-
I think you missed the point.
And what did I miss?
-
That said, I asked him what he doesn't like about AH. His reply was the time involved to get to any action.
This is THE reason I don't play anymore. My time is very limited right now, but I do have some free time. I don't enjoy logging in and possibly spending the night of "chasing the fights" all over the map. After a couple hours of this, I log off frustrated and either go to bed or play some other game to enjoy some escapism for a little while. Now, I don't even bother trying and instead play standalone games where I know I will have a good night, regardless of the map or community online at the time.
The problem with Aces High is the fight is not continuous like it once was. I can't speak for the gaming community, but I want to log on with my limited time, find some good fights and log off satisfied with the experience. Last time I played Aces High it was more akin to foreplay with an inflatable doll that has no bodily orifices; bits of excitement but no real chance for climax. I am planning on returning to Aces High next year, but if things are the same, my presence will have a very short duration. I'm not enthusiastic about the upcoming experience considering the T34 and the P51 look to still dominate the killboard.
The worst thing Aces High ever did was abandon the automated Combat Theater. That would have allowed for constant action by potentially permitting players to fill AI roles inflight, as they logged in, allowing for near instant action. Imagine logging in knowing that you can take part in a bomber escort or interception at the top or bottom of every hour. It would encourage more part time players instead of the same dreary list of old farts that are always on Aces High. While FSO and scenario fulfill a need, they fall way short on the 24-7 availability.
-
and the P51 look to still dominate the killboard.
The Pony is just leading, but is far from being actually dominating the killboard or the arena.
The problem with Aces High is the fight is not continuous like it once was.
And that may be accelerating the development AH is facing. To me, it seems like off hours has dropped much more in numbers than US prime. Which would be no surprise to me, as I too have shifted my activites to verly late night (=US prime as well) instead of Euro noon or Euro primetime.
Unfortunately, playing at 3am is not sustainable for me.
-
Does anyone have statistics on the number of people who would be playing if the people who don't play because not enough people are playing were playing? :D
-
I agree with your son that we needs more jets especially the meteor!!
HTC is staffed by Colonials and cannot admit we invented the jet engine, we will never see the Meteor :old:
-
Does anyone have statistics on the number of people who would be playing if the people who don't play because not enough people are playing were playing? :D
:x
-
I tried WT... the scenery is nice but the flight mechanics/flight models... **shudders**
When I'm up in a Cessna 150 or 172, I can feel the aircraft, I can feel the actions. When I flew around in Sentimental Journey I could feel the aircraft shifting and pitching... in WT I feel like I'm back in the 1980's playing Star Wars at the arcade. WT's FM is too gamey and too simplified. The eye candy is nice, but I can't really say much positive in terms of FM.
I'll stick with AH.
-
That said, I asked him what he doesn't like about AH. His reply was the time involved to get to any action. He hates wasting the time it takes to climb out to a fight, the time it takes to chase down runners, the time it takes find a fight that doesn't involve upping under a vulch fest and so on. It's a combat game where most people seem to want to avoid combat, and so he plays other games where the action is pretty much instant.
I think this is a major difference between simulation type players and Xbox players. Most simulation players are trying to recreate the events that are fathers and grandfathers went through during world war two. If this involves flying escort for bombers for 90 minutes with only 5 minutes of action, and the bombers make it to target and back home again, a sim player is OK with that.
AH has player made missions, But they are too far and few between. What aceshigh needs is something like a automated "maximum effort mission"...
Aceshigh does an automated check every two hours.... It detects that lets say the Bishops have not captured a base from the Rooks in the 2 hours. It generates a maximum effort mission against a Rook base. If the base is taken in a certain time frame the Bish are rewarded perk points, if the mission fails the Bishops lose points, and Rook received points for a successful defense.
Set-up a few simple rules...
Exempt the side with the fewest players from the maximum effort missions.
The Max effort mission has to be a frontline base... It can't be a randomly selected base ten sectors across the map.
And maybe their needs to be a minimal population in the arena... ie... Missions are generating only when the arena has a population of 75 or more. etc. etc. etc.
CAV
-
And regardless of if they're serviceable, at the end of the day people want graphics. It doesn't matter to Aiden with the $3000 alienware and 32" 144Hz 4k display that you can have over 100 planes on the screen at once. All that matters is it doesn't look as good as the next game over.
Does that even apply anymore? Look at AH now. Look at WT now. Look at WoW 2.0 now. They're all looking rather similar. Much like a slew of modern FPS games, they reach an upward limit on their lighting, textures, and HDR rendering, etc. AH with max settings now looks pretty damn good, to be honest. Maybe the introduction was gradual enough that people forgot what AH2 looked like, but in the alpha test it blew me away how awesome just the lighting alone made the game look 100x better.
AH3:
(https://s28.postimg.org/fmx04cx3x/fm2-5.png)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HnoPmyeOgvA/WIwsU7UVCLI/AAAAAAAALas/sCAGEr-zWp0_ODbE5Jiaac7PiPmLnppBgCPcB/s1600/Desktop-01.28.2017---13.44.16.png)
Compare that to AH2:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/leet.png~original)
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Aces%20High/HotPersuit_zps25020e72.png~original)
When you look at AH3 now (excluding the few 3d models that are still being upgraded to AH3 standards) it's a match for any other game in terms of textures, 3d shapes, modelling overall, terrain, ground objects, you name it.
I think it's a curious thing, and maybe part of the problem (that old memory of what AH used to look like) but I rather like how AH looks now.
-
I'm not sure like where this post has gone very much. I was just talking about the flight mechanics....
Y'all can have it. :bolt:
<S> all.
-
AI would be a nice additive for FSO. Numbers are still dropping getting to a point that I care less to parcipate.
-
AI would be a nice additive for FSO. Numbers are still dropping getting to a point that I care less to parcipate.
With AI in the scenario room, a continuous fight could be maintained 24-7. As a player log in, they would take control of an AI aircraft already in flight. A single player online could fight some historical based action without the downtime of trying to create a fight in the Main Arena.
-
Does that even apply anymore? Look at AH now. Look at WT now. Look at WoW 2.0 now. They're all looking rather similar. Much like a slew of modern FPS games, they reach an upward limit on their lighting, textures, and HDR rendering, etc. AH with max settings now looks pretty damn good, to be honest. Maybe the introduction was gradual enough that people forgot what AH2 looked like, but in the alpha test it blew me away how awesome just the lighting alone made the game look 100x better.
AH3:
(https://s28.postimg.org/fmx04cx3x/fm2-5.png)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HnoPmyeOgvA/WIwsU7UVCLI/AAAAAAAALas/sCAGEr-zWp0_ODbE5Jiaac7PiPmLnppBgCPcB/s1600/Desktop-01.28.2017---13.44.16.png)
Compare that to AH2:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/leet.png~original)
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Aces%20High/HotPersuit_zps25020e72.png~original)
When you look at AH3 now (excluding the few 3d models that are still being upgraded to AH3 standards) it's a match for any other game in terms of textures, 3d shapes, modelling overall, terrain, ground objects, you name it.
I think it's a curious thing, and maybe part of the problem (that old memory of what AH used to look like) but I rather like how AH looks now.
In gameplay, it doesn't particularly matter other than the cockpits but what really smacks my eyes are the round bits in the other games vs AH3. In the others, round things are round, in AH the curves on parts of the models still are a series of visibly straight lines. Newer models are a lot better, but they're still there. I expect it's so FR stays high when there's a lot of other vehicles around.
I know I was blown away the first time I launched a busy FSO in AH3. I was expecting worse performance than AH2, and my frame rate barely twitched when I went on the runway. Miles ahead of the slideshow I got in AH2 with the same hardware.
The thing that bugs me is, it's good enough for gameplay, but I think it impacts a lot of peoples' first impression of the game. Can't remember who said it, might've been Lusche, but the cockpit is one of the biggest first things you see when you start to play. If it's one of the later ones, it looks pretty good. If the newbie happens to be a Tempest or A20 aficionado, not so much.
The water looks good, there are others that IMO look better. The terrain and trees look ok, again miles better than AH2, but when you look at the terrains in the others they're laid out more logically and look quite a bit better. Again, I understand that's because the maps are freaking enormous so to make it run the detail of the contours is a lot lower and the amount of repeating stuff is higher.
Don't get me wrong, AH3 looks good, but the compromises it has to work around because of scale means it can't look like the others without requiring more computer than God to run adequately.
Wiley.
-
:)
-
Some folks went nutz over the idea of having AI in the MA. Why argue with more targets to shoot at? Bots are not exactly something challenging once you figure them out, but at least provide SOMETHING over NOTHING. It could help HiTech peg the resupply thing that's an issue as well, with Bot bomber streams hitting factories.
Bot bomber streams from countries with lowest numbers will use B-17's, B-24's and B-29's, with streams from countries with higher numbers using G4M1's, He-111's and Ju-88's. Have the bomber streams with a total number of bombers 13 sets (39 bombers) to start. 3 bomber streams launching every hour that fly to and from target hitting factories and fields, with field targets being carpet bombed (no precision targeting) and not hitting towns at airfields. Escorts can number half, flying close escort matching the stream they are escorting. Example: A bot bomber stream consisting of B-17's would have 51B's, 47 D-11's, and/or 38G/J's escorts; A bomber stream of G4M1's would have Ki-61's, Ki-84's, and/or A6M5's; etc, etc. Give them a height range of 15-20k depending on their target. If a Rook bomber stream is going to hit a Bish factory that's way in back next to Nits, it would fly 20k. If it was to hit a field next to Rook lines, 15k. Factory raids could be every 2 hours(from a low side country) to 4 hours(from a high side country), and the City Center and HQ won't be targets.
Basic idea, a nightmare to implement, but a possibility? :headscratch:
-
Some folks went nutz over the idea of having AI in the MA. Why argue with more targets to shoot at? Bots are not exactly something challenging once you figure them out, but at least provide SOMETHING over NOTHING. It could help HiTech peg the resupply thing that's an issue as well, with Bot bomber streams hitting factories.
Bot bomber streams from countries with lowest numbers will use B-17's, B-24's and B-29's, with streams from countries with higher numbers using G4M1's, He-111's and Ju-88's. Have the bomber streams with a total number of bombers 13 sets (39 bombers) to start. 3 bomber streams launching every hour that fly to and from target hitting factories and fields, with field targets being carpet bombed (no precision targeting) and not hitting towns at airfields. Escorts can number half, flying close escort matching the stream they are escorting. Example: A bot bomber stream consisting of B-17's would have 51B's, 47 D-11's, and/or 38G/J's escorts; A bomber stream of G4M1's would have Ki-61's, Ki-84's, and/or A6M5's; etc, etc. Give them a height range of 15-20k depending on their target. If a Rook bomber stream is going to hit a Bish factory that's way in back next to Nits, it would fly 20k. If it was to hit a field next to Rook lines, 15k. Factory raids could be every 2 hours(from a low side country) to 4 hours(from a high side country), and the City Center and HQ won't be targets.
Basic idea, a nightmare to implement, but a possibility? :headscratch:
I like the idea of having them for scenario and FSO events. MA they do not have a place.
-
Some of the reasons arcade players give for not playing AH are the same reasons I do play AH. It's all about flying the airplane. When you fly an airplane, you take off, you climb to altitude, you fly to your destination, and you fight. And when you are finished, you fly the plane all the way back and land it, if you can. This is what Aces High is about. And this is why I am here.
For those who would rather fly a console game, they are the ones missing out. :salute Hitech
-
Some folks went nutz over the idea of having AI in the MA. Why argue with more targets to shoot at? Bots are not exactly something challenging once you figure them out, but at least provide SOMETHING over NOTHING. It could help HiTech peg the resupply thing that's an issue as well, with Bot bomber streams hitting factories.
Bot bomber streams from countries with lowest numbers will use B-17's, B-24's and B-29's, with streams from countries with higher numbers using G4M1's, He-111's and Ju-88's. Have the bomber streams with a total number of bombers 13 sets (39 bombers) to start. 3 bomber streams launching every hour that fly to and from target hitting factories and fields, with field targets being carpet bombed (no precision targeting) and not hitting towns at airfields. Escorts can number half, flying close escort matching the stream they are escorting. Example: A bot bomber stream consisting of B-17's would have 51B's, 47 D-11's, and/or 38G/J's escorts; A bomber stream of G4M1's would have Ki-61's, Ki-84's, and/or A6M5's; etc, etc. Give them a height range of 15-20k depending on their target. If a Rook bomber stream is going to hit a Bish factory that's way in back next to Nits, it would fly 20k. If it was to hit a field next to Rook lines, 15k. Factory raids could be every 2 hours(from a low side country) to 4 hours(from a high side country), and the City Center and HQ won't be targets.
Basic idea, a nightmare to implement, but a possibility? :headscratch:
Yep! My thoughts exactly! I know absolutely nothing about writing code for games but for those in low number times, cant see any adverse effects! True its not the same as Prime Time(more pvp) but it could have great action! Maybe the push back is because there is no one to PM and call POS and NOOB? lol. I brought this same idea up to several players I know that would give thoughtful imput to that idea, several months ago. Consensus was, 3...hard to boast about killing AI(no ego boost for those that need it)...2 They are having trouble in the "staged missions" in Axis vs Allies arena. 1... They just hate change, M3 experiment sure caused a bunch of Hoopla!
-
Some folks went nutz over the idea of having AI in the MA. Why argue with more targets to shoot at? Bots are not exactly something challenging once you figure them out, but at least provide SOMETHING over NOTHING. It could help HiTech peg the resupply thing that's an issue as well, with Bot bomber streams hitting factories.
You mean strat runners aren't bots? :D
I lost interest in AI games the first day I played Air Warrior those many moons ago.
-
Some folks went nutz over the idea of having AI in the MA. Why argue with more targets to shoot at? Bots are not exactly something challenging once you figure them out, but at least provide SOMETHING over NOTHING. It could help HiTech peg the resupply thing that's an issue as well, with Bot bomber streams hitting factories.
A lot of people just don't want to shoot at AI. They want their fights to be with humans, period. If it's between fighting AI and doing something else, they'll choose doing something else.
As far as scheduled AI bomber streams hitting the strats, I believe after about the first week they would have roughly the same effect as having the strats scheduled to go down on the same timeframes. Very few people hunt bombers at alt. A group of bombers like you describe would be an overwhelming force for the number of people that are generally available at any one time to intercept.
Wiley.
-
I agree on all points. However, I cannot 100% dismiss the potential. Say you're upping a fighter sortie and going to have some fun but you see a random number of formations between 1 and 3 sets (and randomized whether mixed type or same type). Wouldn't that add a little extra interest to your mission? Sure you can avoid them and go on your way, or you can try to engage.
It would add a little flavor. Same as folks that have asked for a moving frontline that has some AI firing at each other, etc. Something to interact with.
In this case you would need bare minimum:
1) NO OTTO!!!! Otto was the bane of WB. None of that "you die if you get inside this zone" type of AI gunners. They should be dangerous, but they're AI not human so they shouldn't be so bad nobody wants to engage them.
2) They should miss their target a lot too. Because they're AI and not players, their target (randomize it to be hangars, field towns, or strats) shouldn't be in dire threat if you don't stop them. Make them have a randomization factor in their calibration or just hard-code them to miss by a mile at times (or just negate their bombs a random % of the time so no damage done?). That would also allow bomber pilots to tag along in-formation as if pretending to be AI then dropping real targets by properly calibrating and so forth. A little cat-and-mouse game and a little AI cover for the bombers, albeit of dubious quality.
3) It can't be all the time, every time. It should be generated once an hour plus or minus 15 minutes - numbers open to debate - and only affect a target within 1.5 sectors of a full dar-bar sector. No rear-sector raids with no chance of running across the enemy. No mindless spam. It should at least go into harm's way but the balance is to make it an addition, not a deciding factor, and not something you should rely on.
And this is all just brainstorming a possible inclusion. I'm not saying I'm for them, exactly. I'm just saying while it's not my cup of tea I think I can see a way they are included into the main arena without harming it in any way, and possibly helping it. Because of that I can't flat-out dismiss the suggestion in my head, you know?
-
I lost interest in AI games the first day I played Air Warrior those many moons ago.
A lot of people just don't want to shoot at AI. They want their fights to be with humans, period. If it's between fighting AI and doing something else, they'll choose doing something else.
I'd be gone for good as well. AI (something other than the circular traveling objects we have) might be alright for training and getting some bugs worked out offline (only). But online? Online means simply with and against other humans in my book. Period.
-
Again, I agree but I can't help seeing some possible hint of another system. Even in FPS games I prefer real players and not AI, but then there's that mode where you're in a raid, or something PvE (horde mode, in the common terms?) where you're working with a team of real players against AI bots against long odds so it's still challenging.
I wouldn't say "I'd be gone" if AI were introduced in some way. Not all ways are bad. It would really depend on how bad it was if I'd bail or not. It would never replace coming across other players, though. That's the main reason I still like Aces High.
-
aper above said:
""HTC is struggling in bringing new players into the game but the solution is simple. Move existing subscribers to two countries (Bishops and Knights) and open one country (Rooks) for 500+ new players with mouse control only on free to play basis and it will be fun again. As soon as people from WT will discover the big-scale non-stop war on AH arenas they will start migrating to AH naturally, so there will be no need on spending money on ads. (There will be need for buying new servers soon though).""
I would say this be a great idea for AH to do on April Fools day or something like that. Would be fun.
-
Having a third country full of noobs getting clubbed sounds terrible. Having two countries to compact action seems like something good.
I always hear it doesnt work.. but with lower country switch times and the ENY system i think they are wrong. :cheers:
-
Or 5x5 sector terrains. Distance and numbers of players is part of why you think two countries will solve things. Distances allows self segregation like we see all the time by our numbers into the illusion two countries is the solution. Having the third country gives those in the two fighting countries who have less of a risk tolerance to do less risky things for their $14.95, aside from Hitech's concern for balancing. Our game is not full of people looking for a fight, most are accepting of having to fight as part of being in the game. That is a lot of $14.95's a month.
A 5x5 terrain with our current numbers would allow ranging to other fights by those who want to get at available targets to fight. Instead of pulling their hair out and calling them wussies. There would be the illusion of less risky territory while the 2.5 sector distance of each front would force all of the players in each country into combat if they leave the tower. They could choose to change fronts for one Lazerr whacking them with the illusion of a lesser Lazerr at the new front. Then Lazerr would take a while to follow them and start whacking them again. I'm not sure what would have to change from the land grab game perspective but, this would make visiting all of a country's feilds with a P38 looking for scalps a reality. It would suck for CV battle unless terrains then would be land terrain or ocean terrain. Not sure how many customers want to be limited only to the planes on a CV for a week.
The reality of being able to get at everyone anywhere on a terrain at will, is like a kid dreaming how wonderful it would be to get locked in a candy store over night. But, small arenas and no where to run seems to be the hall mark of many other kinds of shooting games these days. And then all we would need is aimbots to even the odds.
-
5x5 maps is insane. You realize each sector is 25 miles square, right? That's 125 miles at maximum. That's so short even an I-16 could fly that with enough fuel to fight and not refuel before they were done.
Bombers had ranges of 1000+ miles. Now you're compressing the space for an arbitrary fighting style just because you like that style. That cuts short all other fighting styles outside of what you want others to do.
In short, that idea only smacks of "I want you all to fly THIS way and no other way" -- and that's bad.
There are other solutions. Micro-maps is not one.
-
Seems like all maps could have a "furball island" similar to the one on NDIsles. (Could be anywhere on the map.) Furballers and WarWinners can ignore each other and play the game they enjoy -- everyone is happy. :D
-
5x5 maps is insane. You realize each sector is 25 miles square, right? That's 125 miles at maximum. That's so short even an I-16 could fly that with enough fuel to fight and not refuel before they were done.
Bombers had ranges of 1000+ miles. Now you're compressing the space for an arbitrary fighting style just because you like that style. That cuts short all other fighting styles outside of what you want others to do.
In short, that idea only smacks of "I want you all to fly THIS way and no other way" -- and that's bad.
There are other solutions. Micro-maps is not one.
That's hardly enough room to get my B-17's to altitude.
Coogan
-
The reality of being able to get at everyone anywhere on a terrain at will, is like a kid dreaming how wonderful it would be to get locked in a candy store over night. But, small arenas and no where to run seems to be the hall mark of many other kinds of shooting games these days. And then all we would need is aimbots to even the odds.
Krusty you should have your conversation with Lazerr, 5x5 would keep everyone unable to hide like Lazerr wants. And bomber guys, Lazerr would be on 200 telling you to go home to yur mommies or fight. A two country 5x5 would do the same thing because distance matters to how players utilize an arena. Lazerr just wants everyone unable to do anything but let him whack them for upping anywhere. Most FPS games work that way with arenas smaller than one of our sectors. It would change the MA into one giant 24x7 DA, where as the distances and three countries in our game take the place of the match timer in those other FPS games.
People need a timer or distance to have a breather, or they don't want to up into getting whacked over and over and over. Aces High dosen't have skill level fighting arenas to give players a choice along with a way to keep Lazerr out of the weenie arena. Otherwise the MA in 2007 would have been a ghost town with 1000 of us all in the DA.
-
See Rule #4
-
Last time I played Aces High it was more akin to foreplay with an inflatable doll that has no bodily orifices.
thats what i had in mind too!
:cheers:
where did you get yours? ghi says they can be hacked, careful out there! :old:
-
WT does a great job at directing EVERYTHING towards promoting human versus human fights (NOTE:they do fill in with AI when humans drop out). That is the biggest difference for me. AH has a great persistent world and the ability to have hundreds in the same area but it is too easy to avoid human versus human aerial fights and it gets boring.
In AH's defense, it is easy to have a small map with only 32 players.
Of course it is easy to avoid combat when there are only 100 in an arena. Years ago, that was not the case with 500 in an arena.
-
It is extremely hard for me to accept the excuse that it takes too long to fly to the fight, then turn right around and complain of upping at a vulch fest.
You either like a fight or you don't. One of those situations or the other fills your bill.
Wish I could fly now..... still down because of the flood. Hopefully I will be setting up my system in my RV in the next few weeks.
-
See Rule #4
The problems show up when it comes to the number of players who like to play like YOU do.
The pure "fighter guys" are the majority and you will never fill an arena with players that want to do nothing else. So we must have the GV guys, the bomber guys, and yes even the "run to ack" guys who are afraid to fight.
Whats needed is some way to get all these players to play together.
-
It is extremely hard for me to accept the excuse that it takes too long to fly to the fight, then turn right around and complain of upping at a vulch fest.
You either like a fight or you don't. One of those situations or the other fills your bill.
Not particularly. Some people don't enjoy trying to get off the deck while the swarm tries to get them. They want a "fair" fight, and they don't have the patience/time to come over from the next field to get it.
Wiley.
-
I'll take the less than 10 mins it takes to come over from the next field every time...
If that's too long to find a fight someone has ADD...
-
I'll take the less than 10 mins it takes to come over from the next field every time...
If that's too long to find a fight someone has ADD...
No, in the ten minutes your flying to a fight, they have had two or three fights already, thats how they look at it.
-
A 5x5 sector arena would solve this especially if feilds were at 13-19 miles. Without a time clock to end the round and ground everyone with 30-45min rounds and a 5min break, everyone one would up into someone looking for a pick or sit in wirbles and manned guns. There would be no breathing space but, no one could hide or run from a fight. It would be like a WT arena running 24x7 with no time outs. And WT arenas are little tiny things smaller than one of our sectors. The one sure thing in that type of arena, you know when the clock will ground all of you.
24\7 3 feilds crammed together worked at Furball Lake in the DA because the people playing there were oriented to 24x7 dweeby, gamey, game play. The combat style was everything about 12v1 furballs and HOing that constantly gets roasted here in the forums. Forcing players to fight in our Melee arena would foster worse dweeby game play to survive and "not loose" than we see today. But hey, even I see something is needed and why I copied the NDisles center island furball and tank town setup into my next terrain. And most of the airfields in each country are 19 miles from each other.
You guys understand our Melee arena is built of many tiny one base combat arenas allowing for contiguous combat across all of them. The distances between "All" of the tiny arenas is the fight timer, and time out timer in our 24x7 persistent world. So the closer you make the fields, the smaller you make the world, or even change to two countries. The less space you give players who don't want to "loose", who are a majority over those who want to fight. So you have to be careful how much pressure you place on the "not loose" players before they stop playing this game.
And the only thing players like Lazerr can come up with is Hitech should reconfigure the game to force people under his guns 24x7. A 5x5 three country arena still gives a tiny bit of breathing space, not much, but maybe enough to keep those who don't want to loose at all costs. They will simply get caught more frequently by Lazerr than on a 10x10. And bombers, from Lazerr's perspective, you are hiding from the fight. :lol
-
See Rule #4
You lose all the other aspects of the game. With AH you have a multi-faceted arena. With AH you can have more than 16 versus 16, much more. You have tactics, and strategy. What you describe is just a straight boxing match, nothing more.
-
Here are IL2, WT and WoT arena comparisons. And I think the new popular ship combat game the arenas are 10x10 timed play.
19x19mile for the average IL2, 15.5x15.5 for WT, and WoT generally is .6x.6 due to play ability with rendering of terrain objects but, on desert teerrains can be up to 15x15 due to a lower object count. So you can see how the magic of our game is almost an airfield in every sector constituting almost 100 - 25x25 mini combat arenas 24x7. You guys should should really build a few terrains and all of this becomes obvious.
(https://s20.postimg.org/60ghjndct/oceania273.jpg)
And a 5x5 would work as you can see there are enough feilds, 14 to a country, to keep 150-200 players at each other with no place to hide. It would probably have to be a 6x6 to even out the feilds. If Hitech asks for one of these, I think it should be named: Blame This One On Lazerr
Isn't it interesting the bulk of the feilds on this new terrain are in a 6x6...... :O
(https://s20.postimg.org/s11fdqb19/oceania275.jpg)
-
I like the look of that. Is it possible to make it 6x6? So 2, 2 sector to 7, 7 sector? So 6x6 rather than 5x5? Just thinking it may be better and provide some areas to plop some strats down.
-
You would need Hitech to define a new small terrain type for the Melee arena.
I'm hoping this one is accepted and works as a test bed to see how being that close together effects game play. Most of the combat can be reached with a fighter sweep with drop tanks in a short period of time. Or a 262 and boxes of B29s will have fun sharing presents all over the place from 30k. That may cut down on those irritating nights of two countries keeping all the combat out of reach of the third. And if they turn their backs on the third country, a lot of mischief can happen across three unguarded sectors. Players like Lazerr should be able to range about the terrain and show up uninvited to fights around the map inside of that ring.
So this terrain has eyecandy topo features, clouds across the whole map, and bases close enough together just short of making this WT or some xBox hero shootem up game. So the only other change to keep the AH three country magic, will be a 5x5 or 6x6 Melee terrain to make the attention span of gnats players happy. When NDisles is up they energizer bunny themselves into a gamey furball stupor with those three airfields in the center 12 miles apart. Unless the nits and rooks turn their backs on the bish who like rolling those stupid undefended bases as a hoard.....xBox heros of the new millenium I guess. Thier motto, don't fight anything that can shoot back if there are two or more of them. :rolleyes:
-
A 5x5 sector arena would solve this especially if feilds were at 13-19 miles. Without a time clock to end the round and ground everyone with 30-45min rounds and a 5min break, everyone one would up into someone looking for a pick or sit in wirbles and manned guns. There would be no breathing space but, no one could hide or run from a fight. It would be like a WT arena running 24x7 with no time outs. And WT arenas are little tiny things smaller than one of our sectors. The one sure thing in that type of arena, you know when the clock will ground all of you.
24\7 3 feilds crammed together worked at Furball Lake in the DA because the people playing there were oriented to 24x7 dweeby, gamey, game play. The combat style was everything about 12v1 furballs and HOing that constantly gets roasted here in the forums. Forcing players to fight in our Melee arena would foster worse dweeby game play to survive and "not loose" than we see today. But hey, even I see something is needed and why I copied the NDisles center island furball and tank town setup into my next terrain. And most of the airfields in each country are 19 miles from each other.
You guys understand our Melee arena is built of many tiny one base combat arenas allowing for contiguous combat across all of them. The distances between "All" of the tiny arenas is the fight timer, and time out timer in our 24x7 persistent world. So the closer you make the fields, the smaller you make the world, or even change to two countries. The less space you give players who don't want to "loose", who are a majority over those who want to fight. So you have to be careful how much pressure you place on the "not loose" players before they stop playing this game.
And the only thing players like Lazerr can come up with is Hitech should reconfigure the game to force people under his guns 24x7. A 5x5 three country arena still gives a tiny bit of breathing space, not much, but maybe enough to keep those who don't want to loose at all costs. They will simply get caught more frequently by Lazerr than on a 10x10. And bombers, from Lazerr's perspective, you are hiding from the fight. :lol
:rolleyes:
Whod think a drunk guy rolling a mouse around in a cartoon game could get into your head so much.. lol
-
I play AH at the weekend and not 7 days a week maybe thats why i dont get bored :old:
War Thunder is garbage, if it was good i would be playing it :old:
They may have more players but so does Lego Batman
-
I play AH at the weekend and not 7 days a week maybe thats why i dont get bored :old:
Same here. Most times it's mainly a weekend thing. During the week, I might play for a bit such as this week as I've been down with seasonal viral crap. Found out over the decades that this is the only game I play, and I just can't get wrapped up in virtual world (game) ... stuff.. problems, rank, achievements, score, perks.. all non-tangible things, really.
I'm from the 70's/80's "Commodore 64" generation of kids. We had gadgets and computers, but man, it was by far not our mainstay of entertainment. We still got out into the fresh air, the bikes, and the dirt.
-
My Commodore 64 playing Elite was awesome :joystick:
Apparently War Thunder is owned by Woody Allen and the bloke who is charge of North Korea
Chuck Norris :old:
-
My Commodore 64 playing Elite was awesome :joystick:
:rofl LMAO Waaaaay the hell off topic here, but my dad played that game A LOT back in the day. :joystick:
-
The problems show up when it comes to the number of players who like to play like YOU do.
The pure "fighter guys" are the majority and you will never fill an arena with players that want to do nothing else. So we must have the GV guys, the bomber guys, and yes even the "run to ack" guys who are afraid to fight.
Whats needed is some way to get all these players to play together.
WT Simulator Air Battles are generally 50-75% bomber and close air support pilots. They have an AI ground war with a front line that moves based upon the efforts of the players in the aircraft. Each side has 3 fields and they can be destroyed and if all three are lost, you lose.
WT has an "economy" and the easiest way to earn is to blow stuff up.
As I said before, everything is directed at forcing folks to fight each other. You can fly nap of the earth but the terrains are small and your target set is 5.
You can't sit in the tower. After 4 minutes you are booted from the room. There is no autopilot. You can't retreat to a GV because none are available. You can fly around in your own AAA and field AAA is extremely deadly but your side will lose if everyone does that. There is no inflight radar or any indication of where the enemy might be but the terrain is small and it is almost impossible to avoid the fight.
I am not trying to promote WT. I am only expressing the reasons we are no longer in AH and how AH could benefit from the information.
WT simulator air battles focuses everything on funneling the fight. I imagine they do the exact same thing in every other game mode they offer but I don't play in those because I like simulator air battles.
I and several of my group mates have been flying online for a very long time. We remember Hitech from his days at Warbirds back when it was online crack at $2 an hour. Technology has vastly improved over the intervening two decades but the basic premise is still the same. People want to fight other humans online without a lot of time and effort wasted in finding and traveling to the fight. WB and AH have somehow lost sight of that in trying to be all things to all people.
I miss the MMO aspect of WB and AH but I miss the fight more so I went where the fight is.
-
You have a very myopic view of Aces High. The open sandbox is not the only game available in Aces High.
Nothing you have listed is not being done in Aces High III today. And if you do not like our configuration, you can make your own. If it proves to be popular, then we have no qualms about making it a permanent configuration.
I am not going to get into the merits of one game over another as that is a matter of perspective and agendas. I would ask you to do the same, as this is our forum.
-
We’ll put, Skuzzy.
-
:salute Skuzzy
-
:rolleyes:
Whod think a drunk guy rolling a mouse around in a cartoon game could get into your head so much.. lol
You would be surprised how many players have your sentiments about the game even if they won't hunt a fight like you will. They don't mind getting caught in the middle of a fight with friends around. Distance\time to a fight forces them too often to be solo against "many" by being out of sync with their friends and they run away. And the lower numbers late night loose their inspiration to really fight due to the distances and getting stuck alone having to fight several bored hungry players. So this experiment after seeing how closer feilds are the first to be fought over on BowlMA, is to try and compress the arena once again down from a 10x10 to a 6x6 visa topo features and shorter base placements. If you look at BowlMA, effectively it's a 20x20 compressed into a 10x10.
I'm just trying to get everyone into a fight faster while giving the bomber guys the sense of having time and distance needed to do their thing. I don't care about what players think will make the perfect terrain, I listen to how they can or cannot use the existing terrains to see how game play expectations have change from past eras. Patience is no longer a virtue but, until Hitech changes the underlying format of the game. I will attempt to be creative with the current format.
-
We’ll put, Skuzzy.
:neener:
-
Not particularly. Some people don't enjoy trying to get off the deck while the swarm tries to get them. They want a "fair" fight, and they don't have the patience/time to come over from the next field to get it.
Wiley.
It is a quick fight. Compared to a long flight to a fight.
I guess those type folks need to make a list of requirements to meet for their enjoyment... seems when you meet one requirement they add another and another. I believe they lost the idea of reality. Too many hours online using "C" codes and buying their ability possibly.
-
You forgot the root of it, tiny arenas that fit with room to spare inside of one of our sectors.
Have you ever considered that a two sided war game is not much different than Hitech setting up the MA so when a new map first pops up, only 9 feilds can be upped from in the center. And for every enemy field captured, another field in your own country becomes available to you just behind the first three. He makes one of the first three un-capturable, but if the other two are captured. You either mount one desperate push, or watch the two other countries from the tower kill each other to get more feilds opened. And you still have to meet a percentage captured to win the war. Allowing for the condition the third country is stuck on one field and everyone switched sides or logged out to play another game.
Some of our gamers come from games with that kind of desperation level and tiny arenas. And some think they want that kind of desperation level in our giant arena with out tiny numbers. Still, this might even be an interesting unconventional play arena like we have capture the sheep and a queued fight DA, but with say 6 feilds per country to race to the win.
I bet if it was not forced on everyone as the MA, it wouldn't see many trying it out.
-
I kind of get what you're saying but I honestly don't think it would work as well as you describe. Not for a persistent arena. That kind of gameplay only works in timed games or limited objective setups. When that field is captured... well the desperation could kick in, sure... But then what? Either you take it back and the desperation fades, or you can't/don't take it back and the desperation fades over time, taking you right back into the problem you have already: motivating the fight to continue.
When you only have 3 minutes on a clock and no lives left, that desperation can be a great motivator. When you can reup infinitely and have as much time in the world as you can remain logged on, it just doesn't hold up.
It's like adrenaline. Or the Galaxy Quest turbo button. "It's meant for short bursts only!!!"
-
Don't tell them that, any kind of change is like a delivery truck with tons of chocolate bars bumping them out onto the road in front of an elementary school. For one day you get zomby hyper grade schoolers. Day two, they are all grumpy on sugar withdrawal.
Otherwise, distance\time is the real problem with our arenas and keeping the short attention spans engaged. Krusty you should build a terrain and get your assumptions shattered by how the community dosen't utilize you genius of solving their problems with your assumptions about the game.
-
No need. You've already got that covered.
-
Here is one to keep in mind. NDisles is up with that central island with the tank town and three airfields 12 miles from each other. There are 68 players in the arena and the furballers and tankfurballers are duking it out in the center while at least one base capture is being run by a few guys I was listening to on country.
Distance\time is the factor that the attention span of gnats era has to work with. It's not going to be the small numbers but, their perception as small numbers of how much effort it takes to do anything because of distance\time. As long as the bish don't whack that center island and take away using it by all three countries like they often do in the evening, it generates a lot of activity because of the short distance\time to the center.
I haven't seen any notification that Hitech has reduced the life span for a terrain down from 7 days. The last terrain flew by, so the short lifespan of the last terrain does not seem to bother anyone today. They just keep playing on with what they got. So more frequent changes in scenery may well go with the expectations of the attention span of gnats era.
-
It's laughable to say you can't find a fight in the MA... People run...Don't chase them...Make them think your running and kill them...People run to ack...Fly away and they will chase you,then you kill them...
Got a few friends that want to fight ....start a custom arena and fight...You don't have to change any settings...And this is free...Don't pay...Who cares...You can fight ur friends at will anytime...
Don't come here and say war thunder is where the fight is...Cause it isn't...Just like you couldn't hack FSO...Let me guess no fight...
-
Having a third country full of noobs getting clubbed sounds terrible.
Noobs getting clubbed? He-He. They will figure out eventually how to stay organized and attack your cities and bases wave by wave and you'll find yourself staying in trouble all the time. With mouse control they will never be competitive as fighter pilots (and they will hate you for this :) ) but they will do better in attack planes and even better in bombers and GVs. So be prepared to the war that have never been seen on AH's arenas before. And if you ask them to DA with you they will not do it. Instead they'll bring fifty bombers and flat your base with the ground (who cares that you fly better).
Having two countries to compact action seems like something good.
Instead of shrinking the game to the size of WarThunder's sandbox (which for AH is a road to death) AH's gameplay should be expanded to biggest maps with maximum number of people playing. And these players do exist. 20,000 - 40,000 of them playing WarThunder every day.
-
Noobs getting clubbed? He-He. They will figure out eventually how to stay organized and attack your cities and bases wave by wave and you'll find yourself staying in trouble all the time. With mouse control they will never be competitive as fighter pilots (and they will hate you for this :) ) but they will do better in attack planes and even better in bombers and GVs. So be prepared to the war that have never been seen on AH's arenas before. And if you ask them to DA with you they will not do it. Instead they'll bring fifty bombers and flat your base with the ground (who cares that you fly better).
Instead of shrinking the game to the size of WarThunder's sandbox (which for AH is a road to death) AH's gameplay should be expanded to biggest maps with maximum number of people playing. And these players do exist. 20,000 - 40,000 of them playing WarThunder every day.
I agree.. x2 the action either way... 200 people or 20,000.
-
So will sheep improve the game :old:
-
Too long to find a fight? :headscratch: I have gotten out of my old routine by logging in and changing country to the lowest number side and defending bases. Instant action! Get a little altitude and smite those field vulchers. They don't know what to do with a fair fight. :airplane:
-
I would be very very interested in what you son likes about WT vs AH.
HiTech
Not his son but I can tell you my opinion. Instant action. That’s it.
-
Its all about the action: The twirling, diving, turning, climbing, sicssoring dance that ignites the senses and tension! A beautiful choreography that ends up in the "Death" of one person over the other.
:airplane:
:joystick:
-
Not his son but I can tell you my opinion. Instant action. That’s it.
Therefore it appeals to only that particular "cattle chute" demographic.
HT's game has endeavored to appeal to a much broader spectrum from the less patient to the more patient, to the immediate combat, to the strategy and resulting eventual territorial goal-oriented combat (such as bomber missions have instigated), to those that excel in fighters, to those that SUCK at it (like me) and prefer bombers or tanks.
Wouldn't be here if it were purely fighter-based.
-
Just watched a bunch of WT videos again to observe the terrain and objects in the terrain. Along with everything setup like an FPS shootem up game with all the HUDs you can imagine, live time aimbots, live time info on target damage, enemy detectors, on and on and on. It's trading a human in a special ops suit for an airplane suit, or a tank suit.
Our terrains are 1 sector = 25milex25mile, either 20x20 or 10x10 where as their terrains are 10 klick x 10 klick or 15x15 depending on the amount of objects that will be stuffed into the terrain. Our world is 24x7 persistent theirs is how ever long the match period runs. So in their tiny world they can have killer graphics and "round" things everywhere. Trees that can be knocked over, designated structures that can be knocked down and run over, and so forth. They even have realistic tank tread paths in dirt that stay persistent due to this.
I'm not sure what the maximum number of objects are that can be present in our terrains, it looks like in a space smaller than one of our sectors they are pushing that number to give a very limited number of guys at a time, the illusion of COD with wings or treads. Not a bad trade off if your audience only wants boom and bling while looking like keystone cops chasing chickens using shotguns with aimbot lazer sights. Everything else looks rockin and baddddddd. I wish our tanks were as durable as their tanks, our tank world is a grim incredibly dangerous place compared to their keystone cop world. But their tanks got all that bling like working exhaust flaps and exhaust, tank tread paths in the dirt, sinking in water when they drive into it that looks like sinking into the water. They can kill each other by ramming a tank and pushing it off a cliff into water. I wish we had that tank damage modeling so our tanks could drive up to each other and slug it out round after round in the 10v10 melees they have. In the end it looks like 10 keystone cops surrounding an elephant and beating it to death with .22s. Buuuuuttttt, it gots allllll datttt BLING..... Oh thier M4's with rockets have an aimbot so they can zero in all of the rockets on a single tank, WoW...I'm still not sure what constitutes skill in that game with all the computer aided everything.
It also looks like they use two terrain editors, a macro editor for air combat a bit like ours with the same terrain tile boo boos I run into when I cut farm tile with a river. You see a road run to the river, then pickup again on the other side because the tile was laid down with a broad brush to put in all the farm land in a few strokes. They clearly expected the current generation of gamers to not notice or care while they were going bling, bling, bling at each other. And a micro editor for tank combat terrains to create very realistic micro geological features with town objects that look like some of the Pro high definition 3D town packages I've found on the internet. The clutter and tree tiles used for both types are different, the tiles for air combat are more like ours while the tiles for tank combat are optimized to tank combat. Seems everyone in computer tanks wants long vistas to see the enemy and shoot at them unless they are inside of a town or village.
It looks like they worried about the issues we have with tanks disappearing under trees. They have obvious open vistas, trees limited to having a bit higher canopy and low density, or only clumps of trees like pines, then long open spaces in between. Once you build terrains for tank combat, you can see those things in other terrains if that was a concern by the creators. Because their arenas are so small, they can use higher detail interactive objects and more of them. And then you have really strange flight profiles, like an Hs129 with a 75mm cannon that can go vertical right after rapid firing the cannon and pull G inducing turns with that thing strapped on. The Hs129 with 75mm could barely stay in the air when it fired the cannon and had to fly straight for a bit after firing to gain back momentum. It didn't do any high G maneuvering.
So they cannot stuff 100 or more guys into their tiny arenas and have all the bling, or keep all of the interactive objects in a damaged state after a tank rolls over them for 24x7. They have to timer control combat periods and not allow other players to wander in and out of the arena during the combat timer period. More players means more objects your PC or laptop or whatever has to process for and the experience starts becoming one of diminishing returns. And watching combat in that game is watching a bunch of COD players in airplane or tank costumes flying or driving around going bling, bling, bling. But, it's not as grim as our world, you can see in WT the physics modeling has been tweaked to keep xBox, PS2 and gameboy style players happy and clueless.
It will take time to get people back into our world, the magic is when a base capture turns into 30 players or more contesting that space in an orgy of combat constantly re-upping to get revenge or defend. Or a giant furball takes place like at furball island in NDisles. Time\distance needs to be adjusted for a while so people can organically create that on their own. It's what keeps you coming back to this game. We are not WT, and I like our keystone cops better, they actually use the sights on the shotguns to aim.
-
I really hated the draw distances in WT. Too short. Objects didn't display well in the bomb site and you had a hard time spotting them to line up sometimes. You had red dots and neon indicators all over your screen pointing to stuff you couldn't see. Like pill boxes for example: You couldn't see them until you were already rolling in on a dive but you had to aim at the red dot. It was not a great system, and even the curves/bumps of the ground itself would change as you got in/out of range. I did not like that at all.
-
Therefore it appeals to only that particular "cattle chute" demographic.
Heh... I like that term a lot. The thing is, that demographic is a vast majority. Gotta have instant action, gotta have something to work towards, or in their mind, there is no game.
Wiley.
-
The AvA is already setup as a 2-sided war on small maps. Except that most don't like the historical aspect of it of not being able to fly what they want. It's a lot more realistic as well when I ran my setups. Cloudy and foggy days. Fuel at 1.0 (it's 2.0 in the MA), AAA at .25 strength (it's 2.0 in the MA). It meant you couldn't run into your ACK and hide. You had to face your enemy.
And we hardly see more than 2-5 people in there (if any at all) except for tank-Thursdays. Still, it's what people are asking for, and yet we don't see anyone in there. :headscratch:
-
Still, it's what people are asking for, and yet we don't see anyone in there. :headscratch:
The thing is, yeah people ask for it, but how many of them? It's always looked to me like the usual dozen or two people (if that) talking about it. There aren't many of them, but they're noisy so it seems like there's a demand. I could be wrong.
Wiley.
-
Yup, that's part of it, definitely. Don't confuse vocal with majority. And that "vast majority" demanding instant action? Prove it. WT isn't exactly the poster child of a well developed or run game. It has actually burned a lot of bridges with its players including killing off sim battles.
-
Yup, that's part of it, definitely. Don't confuse vocal with majority. And that "vast majority" demanding instant action? Prove it. WT isn't exactly the poster child of a well developed or run game. It has actually burned a lot of bridges with its players including killing off sim battles.
"Prove" is a bit tough, but I'd say simply put, when it comes to online PvP games, take a look at the kind of things that are popular. WT vs AH. PUBG vs Rust/DayZ/any of the other similar games. CSGO vs Planetside 2. The core gameplay is similar, but the amount of time you need to invest to get to that core gameplay is much much shorter in the former of all the above examples.
As for the sim battles, I would say apply your same comment. Don't confuse vocal with majority. The guys that liked sim battles talked a lot on forums etc. The guys that liked the arcade modes were too busy playing to post.
Wiley.
-
The purists and strategists are always in here telling the forums that the instant gratification crowd is ruining the game and will eventually kill it. And then the instant gratification crowd keeps paying the light bill so the purists and strategists can complain about them. But, they refuse to consider the instant gratification crowed has to be kept happy to keep paying the light bill which is what will really kill the game.
Right now more than ever, the light bill is more important than the purity of who knows what, or the Olympian mental minutia of strategy.
-
Agreed all... people post that they want a 2 sided war, that they want easier base capture, and we already have an arena that allows all what they want for and yet no one shows up to it.
I think the word is "vocal minority" - of which on the forums, there are a WHOLE LOTTA vocal minority posters. :)
-
I think the word is "vocal minority" - of which on the forums, there are a WHOLE LOTTA vocal minority posters. :)
Well except for me. I speak for all people. :lol :bolt:
Wiley.
-
Well except for me. I speak for all people. :lol :bolt:
Moses of Aces High? :noid
-
Moses of Aces High? :noid
My truths are not limited merely to Aces High.
:rofl
Nope. Can't even begin to say something like that with a straight face.
Wiley.
-
(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.3936115.3982/flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg)
-
Well everyone has a shred of truth to what they say.
Its like a doctors office or an A&E: People come all with different conditions from a broken ankle to neck stiffness and express their desire for their problem to go away. Thus people come to these forums with each of their own "conditions" about the game and sometimes/usually its more then one person who suffers from the same issue as it would happen.
I have a hard time seeing the novelty of AH being something trivial though. Getting the feeling of a larger scope makes people usually more interested then having lots of small instanced skirmishes. Its the scope of the game that got me originally hooked.
-
Well except for me. I speak for all people. :lol :bolt:
Wiley.
Yeah, maybe right after the "Tower of Babel" fell, when no one could understand each other.
:devil
homey
-
When it comes to graphics, WT/IL2 are on top, when it comes to flight modeling, IL2 - DCS - AH are all pretty close, when it comes to the best multiplayer experience, it's AH.
What I'm trying to say is that all these combat flight sims, they all have certain features that are better than the others, some large differences and some small.
I think that all game devs of any genre should play their competitions games at least once... get an idea of what makes those games good, and what makes them bad. Then use this knowledge to make their own game better.
Just my opinion of course.
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r315/spitpepper/untitled.png) (http://s147.photobucket.com/user/spitpepper/media/untitled.png.html)
(http://[URL=http://s147.photobucket.com/user/spitpepper/media/untitled.png.html][IMG]http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r315/spitpepper/untitled.png)[/URL][/img]
-
(https://zippy.gfycat.com/FlippantFreeFreshwatereel.gif)
-
I told you this guy was gonna drop a special kind of crazy. :rolleyes:
-
I would be very very interested in what you son likes about WT vs AH.
HiTech
I am not his son.
However...
I am a random lurker and greebo skin admirer that surfaces during full moons every few years that has not played AH or WT in a long time but I did find War Thunder very immersive with track IR to the point that when I tried to use track IR in AH I found it unenjoyable. This bad quality video shows my track IR enjoyment in WT from long ago...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80qiQN1cuPs
I haven't played WT since about the time I made this video of it but I loved War Thunders Track IR implementation. It was the best I ever experienced. WT terrains, weather and no icon arenas looked very nice. Flight models while feeling fluid were clunky but it did feel like flying a heavy plane in an atmosphere. AH flight models felt more on rails than in an atmosphere but also felt more accurate and crisper from what I remember.
-
Fester I agree with your comments on the FM in WT.
-
We already can do the terrain, no one now really builds terrains for AH3 trying to do the real world other than AvA and special events. You can see that EU winter arena is repeating tiles like ours, they look more like 2x2 to conceal the visual repetition of painting large areas with the same tile. Probably even SpeedTree trees and clutter. But, we cannot do the objects because our arena is vastly larger and would kill FPS. One of their arenas would fit into one of our sectors, so they can stuff in objects and not kill FPS with what, 16 or less per side for each timed match up. I can do the clouds if everyone wants to fly around with an FPS of 12-27. I recently did weather systems for our MA terrains and had to keep cloud blocks separated by 40 miles to not impact FPS. Those water drop objects would impact FPS in our giant arenas. Land area painted with trees, bushes, grass and houses adds up to a LARGE number of static objects for every 40 miles of view distance. Then throw in moving airplanes, vehicles, clouds. If you have the equivalent of one of our sectors filled with static objects, then that's 10-20x less objects than we have. So yes you can have eye candy to make your eyes bleed but, with 32 people per arena.
It looks like an IL2 x,y or z version game video which shows the linage of the WT product creators. If we stuff 100-200 players into one of our sectors in a fight, many people suffer the slide show effect. Back when we could get 60 bombers with up to 20 escorts, diving into that reduced just about everyone to a slide show. During the last FSO, the allies upped a large bomber force with fighters, diving through it was a slide show for a few moments. It was also a white knuckle experience for all participants not soon forgotten.
Comes down to trade offs, whether to have a giant open world with more than 32 players flying, driving and sailing around 24x7 together. Or eye candy bleed with 32 players limited to flying or driving in separate ride type arenas on a session timer.
-
TIR stuff
TrackIR is so 20th century, we've moved on to VR fester.
-
We already can do the terrain, no one now really builds terrains for AH3...
I seem to recall spending lots of time building main arena terrains when I played AH. super detailed them too if I remember right. all hand crafted mountains and hills for down hull tank positions and made deserts and stuff in one of them in addition to normal ETO texture all in one map but that was AH2.
-
AH3 we have a whole new engine...
I do anything more than the clouds in these screen captures and I kill everyone's FPS since this arena is 10x larger than a WT arena. Once again trade offs, eye candy out the yazoo and only 32 players or over 100 players and less eye candy to keep the FPS reasonable for large scale combat around several 12 mile radius across the arena.
(https://s20.postimg.org/m633rpn65/Oc40_Cld08.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/mp19au00d/Oc_Cld10.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/5yla7rc7h/Oc_Cld09.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/nm335ym4t/Oc_Cld05.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/v29ahwoel/Oc40_Cld02.jpg)
-
And one interesting new object made creating tank combat terrain a challenge, bridges. Yes WT is using repeating agrarian tiles probably with SpeedTree objects just like AH3 uses now. Hitech has been kind enough to take a look at this terrain now, I hope I've not screwed things up too badly and maybe it will go into rotation.
(https://s20.postimg.org/p90u775zh/oceania240.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/7rmmhusjx/oceania224.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/kaz3vcwb1/oceania269.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/udjuxyff1/oceania271.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.org/4t94aon4d/oceania249.jpg)