Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: oboe on March 16, 2018, 12:20:13 PM
-
Here is an updated scenario attendance chart I created with data from the logs on AH events. Congratulations, we surpassed Rabaul's average attendance with Kuban. I don't know if that is due to a better design, more preferable scenario setting+combatants, or just due to a generally increasing AH population, but well done!
It also occurred to me that the 12 hour scenario attendance may appear inflated. With a frame-based design the attendance accurately shows players who were there and played probably most of the frame. But with 12-hour designs, which have unlimited lives and openings to fly every hour - the logs show every player who flew. But it can't be true, for example, that we had over 300 players flying around in "Target for Today" for the entire event. So comparing attendance between these types of designs may be an apples-to-oranges comparison.
(https://i.imgur.com/c8tyE14.jpg)
I'm curious to know more about people's (players, CMs, designers) impressions of the design of the Kuban scenario. I left some of my thoughts with my rating in the other thread, but almost no one else did. I've heard or read somewhere that balance issues have been addressed with the designer, but I would like to know more. What balance issues? Did that refer to the plane set? Or the asymmetric target locations? Did the scoring seem fair?
One problem I heard about involved sides timing their bomb attacks to the end-of-hostilities clock, so that bombers could drop their load and then shortly after be protected from attack by the expiration of hostilities. Personally I enjoyed fighting right up to the bell, but I wonder if the issue could be dealt with by having a separate, somewhat earlier (5-10 minutes) expiration of hostilities time limit which applies only to bomber attacks. That way, bombers cannot game the clock and must remain as fair game for a reasonable amount of time after their bomb runs.
A question about frame formats: are we going to experiment with more formats? What about, in lieu of a 12-hr single frame format, we had 2 6-hour frames, with each of the frames covering a different 6 hour period, to account for people in different worldwide time zones? Or, have we ever tried a 3 frame format rather than 4? Sometimes I wonder if a 4 frame commitment keeps people from signing up. I know it has caused me to skip signing up and plan to walk-on instead, but without the commitment of being signed up, I think its somewhat less likely that I will make it to a frame.
Finally, a thought about scoring. I'll use another game as an example: Scrabble. One of the things that makes Scrabble a great game is how it is scored. As the game progresses and the word layout builds out from the center of the board, players get access to more and more double/triple letter or word bonus squares. Many times this means even if a player gets off to a bad start, with the right letters and board position he can actually swing the game in his favor right up to the very end. This can add great tension to a game. In AH scenarios the scoring can be pretty complex, but its fixed for all frames. I wonder if a scenario has ever been scored with a variable score rate, so that the later frames become more important than the earlier frames. So even a side that is down could conceivably come back and win in the last frame? In Kuban, going into the last frame the VVS was down 2 frames to 1, so we could only play for a loss or tie. And although Kuban's last frame attendance was strong, in some cases this isn't so. I wonder if having the possibility of a come from behind win would help motivate people to keep attendance high through the last frame of a scenario.
<S>
-
It was easier for me to write it out at work...the number one issue we had was the inability to escort our bombers. At all alts we just couldn't get ahead of our charges let alone properly sweep ahead. Even with TU2s we would had had issues. The axis didnt have this issue, fuel was another concern along with a wild mixture of planes. Each among them haveing its own issues we simply couldnt field the same amount of planes in the same region of air at the same time. Climb speeds top speeds fuel time and ammo limits sent planes home at odd differing times. While this is always the issue with a VVS plane set there were ways to mitigate this in the write up. Ditching the spits and increasing the yaks would have been one. Then the problem of the 190s we had nothing to match this gun wise and we couldnt keep up with our bombers while the axis could cover theirs. We were given the same tasks and one side could do it the other could not. Plain and simple.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180316/0ab753c41df3d5ea9948b151f650955c.jpg)
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
-
Seems to me that people have complained about lack of action and not scoring or frame setup. Luftwaffe won the last event but they seemed to be "sore winners". So maybe have some different frames where there are more forced situations where time is against those who decide to play too safe as I said in one Kuban scenario rate post: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,392218.15.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,392218.15.html).
I would like to see a frame where comms are busy because of action and target designation, not planning and discussing what the enemy is most probably going to do etc. Maybe even include GV players to have a GV combat under their terms (icon ranges, no GV dar etc) and have air power at their disposal as a weapon. Tankers would have to communicate and designate targets to level bombers, attack aircraft etc. I want to see a mess of pilots getting low and dirty, battling it out with level bomber still being a formidable weapon if communication is good.
-
It was easier for me to write it out at work...the number one issue we had was the inability to escort our bombers. At all alts we just couldn't get ahead of our charges let alone properly sweep ahead. Even with TU2s we would had had issues. The axis didnt have this issue, fuel was another concern along with a wild mixture of planes. Each among them haveing its own issues we simply couldnt field the same amount of planes in the same region of air at the same time. Climb speeds top speeds fuel time and ammo limits sent planes home at odd differing times. While this is always the issue with a VVS plane set there were ways to mitigate this in the write up. Ditching the spits and increasing the yaks would have been one. Then the problem of the 190s we had nothing to match this gun wise and we couldnt keep up with our bombers while the axis could cover theirs. We were given the same tasks and one side could do it the other could not. Plain and simple.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180316/0ab753c41df3d5ea9948b151f650955c.jpg)
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
I don`t think it was that plain and simple. Our bombers could have flown slower for better escort for example. I remember axis complaining about our fast initial A20 attacks to their city that was so difficult to defend- what stopped them sending a low squad there at low alt to climb to final altitude later, if nobody showed up. It was a sector length for them, a bit more for allied. Axis wanted to play safe and use their climbing power and high altitude performance, allied wanted to play safe and use their low altitude performance. both sides tried to gain a numerical advantage by dragging enemies to their high friends. Both sides tried to play their own game and complained when the other side did not follow IMHO.
-
It was easier for me to write it out at work...the number one issue we had was the inability to escort our bombers. At all alts we just couldn't get ahead of our charges let alone properly sweep ahead. Even with TU2s we would had had issues. The axis didnt have this issue, fuel was another concern along with a wild mixture of planes. Each among them haveing its own issues we simply couldnt field the same amount of planes in the same region of air at the same time. Climb speeds top speeds fuel time and ammo limits sent planes home at odd differing times. While this is always the issue with a VVS plane set there were ways to mitigate this in the write up. Ditching the spits and increasing the yaks would have been one. Then the problem of the 190s we had nothing to match this gun wise and we couldnt keep up with our bombers while the axis could cover theirs. We were given the same tasks and one side could do it the other could not. Plain and simple.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180316/0ab753c41df3d5ea9948b151f650955c.jpg)
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Bombers that can go as fast as your fighters...that's a good problem to have. :)
Based on those numbers how did you come to the conclusion that the Ju88 is faster than all of your fighters?
-
I didn't. And no its not if the enemy your supposed to protect them from is faster than you and your bombers. Our issue with the 88s are we didnt have enough ammo per plane to bring them down I mean with the right set up I could get a trio but I would be down to a handful of MGs left.
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
-
In the last eight scenarios only two of the eight had 100 players or over. Horrible. Get the players that are in game interested. If you're having fun with 75 participants that's great!
More fun can be had with more players. Get the general population interested. How? Good question. Generational attitudes change. Good luck.
-
interesting figures RE the 12hr formats, target for today having the most even in 2015 after large declines in player numbers.
-
In the last eight scenarios only two of the eight had 100 players or over. Horrible. Get the players that are in game interested. If you're having fun with 75 participants that's great!
More fun can be had with more players. Get the general population interested. How? Good question. Generational attitudes change. Good luck.
One idea - Message of the Day advertising for scenario play:
(https://i.imgur.com/CLh3sQg.jpg)
Another idea - more 12 hr format scenarios. Find out why this format draws so many players, and maximize it.
-
I didn't. And no its not if the enemy your supposed to protect them from is faster than you and your bombers. Our issue with the 88s are we didnt have enough ammo per plane to bring them down I mean with the right set up I could get a trio but I would be down to a handful of MGs left.
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
Oh...
https://youtu.be/deFfeNi7e-o?t=27m20s
-
Well sure bud from a grid away in a tail chase with only 30-40 mph difference the turds are pretty quick.
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
-
In the last eight scenarios only two of the eight had 100 players or over. Horrible. Get the players that are in game interested. If you're having fun with 75 participants that's great!
More fun can be had with more players. Get the general population interested. How? Good question. Generational attitudes change. Good luck.
Very insightful post Hajo. Hopefully we can take these fantastic ideas and brainstorm to get some more people flying Special Events.
-
One idea - Message of the Day advertising for scenario play:
(https://i.imgur.com/CLh3sQg.jpg)
Another idea - more 12 hr format scenarios. Find out why this format draws so many players, and maximize it.
:aok :cheers:
-
Well sure bud from a grid away in a tail chase with only 30-40 mph difference the turds are pretty quick.
Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk
I'm just relaying what you had stated is all. :)
We suffered the same fate chasing your Bostons around.
-
I joined AH about a year and a half ago, and have participated in every scenario in the past year (except the 12 hr event). So being a relative newcomer maybe my thoughts could help.
1) I agree that more advertisement within the game would help. When I first jumped on the forums about 6 months after I started was the first time I heard of such a thing as a scenario. Even then it took a bit to figure out it was open to everyone. And to be honest a little intimidating the first time I signed up as at the time I got the impression this was for the elite, an experts only thing. That said everyone has been nothing but supportive and welcoming, a great community and I've had a great time every single frame.
2) I signed up for my first scenario (and started flying with a squad and FSO) because I quickly became bored with the 'take off-find a fight-die-repeat' of lone wolfing in the MA. Too gamey and the 'die' part happened so often and way to quickly. :D I joined AH to experience being a part of a larger Air Force with a whole bunch of pilots with different roles all working towards a single goal. Scenarios and FSO's supply that like nothing else. Personally I like that sense of union and that above all else is what brings me back.
3) I like the RPG elements that some of my squads have tossed in. The personalized paint jobs Corky does (thank you sir!) while updating the kills throughout, awarding of medals, kill boards, Russians dancing to hard bass (check the 16th GIAP thread for details), all little things that enhance the immersion for me. Perhaps an AF wide kill board, medals during the next scenario?
4) The negativity/infighting that occasionally occurs on the forums can definitely impact perceptions. I almost didn't sign up because of some of the posts. It gave the impression that scenarios were full of much more drama than they really are. Understand that we are all competitive people or we wouldn't be here, and get a group of people together it's a miracle if everyone agrees on where to get lunch. All I can suggest is for the sake of the guy thinking of signing up is keep it constructive in public.
5) this ties in to #1 but also advertise that all walk-ons will be given a spot no matter the numbers. I was under the impression for the longest time that only the spots on the sign up sheet were available, and walk-ons were only able to cover people that couldn't make the frame.
Anyway that's my 2 cents, hope it helps. Talk of scenario's where there are 100's of pilots is the stuff of legends to me, would love to see it myself in the future.
Keep up the good work all! :salute
-
The Boston was fast. As evident by this Luftwaffe pilot's cartoon drawn during the war.
(https://s5.postimg.org/4qxd5dgs7/Boston.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/a2c9q32ur/)
-
It also occurred to me that the 12 hour scenario attendance may appear inflated. With a frame-based design the attendance accurately shows players who were there and played probably most of the frame. But with 12-hour designs, which have unlimited lives and openings to fly every hour - the logs show every player who flew. But it can't be true, for example, that we had over 300 players flying around in "Target for Today" for the entire event. So comparing attendance between these types of designs may be an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I think we discussed this some time ago, I don't know if I ever got you the break downs. I couldn't find them, so I did them again real quick.
- I removed all Gunners/Observers and Field Gunners.
- I counted all sorties launched and only kept 1 sortie per phase.
- The event was designed for three 4 hour phases.
- Tunisia was also a 12 hour scenario, however Brooke separated the logs every phase/frame. Tunisia had 4 phases/frames.
So Target for Today in May 2015 broke down like this:
Phase 1: 181 Total Pilots
Phase 2: 165 Total Pilots
Phase 3: 152 Total Pilots
Average: 166 Avg Pilots
-
I'm with Rocco on this stuff. I know I've probably said it far too many times. What scenarios can do is feed the little kid in me that found this book in my elementary school library 50 years ago now.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BookCover-1.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/guppy35/media/BookCover-1.jpg.html)
It sparked my life long obsession with WW2 aviation. My imagination had me flying to Berlin in a 51 with the 4th FG from age 8 on. First Airwarrior and now AH has offered me a chance to feed that imagination. And after all these years I was able to finally take a 51 to Berlin. I can still recall just about every time where I got sucked into an event and it became as real as my imagination mixed with all the reading and talking to vets could make it. It's a drug to me and I keep looking for it in scenarios. Hasn't happened in a while but I still believe it's possible. So yes, we need to do what we can to get folks interested, keep them interested and build the base of players again so that we can maybe fill the skies with bombers like we used to and clouds of fighters to attack and defend them. I sometimes find it hard to believe that in DGS I had 3 Squadrons of 38s flying escort, 36 pilots in just my group. DGS II I had 16 Mustangs when I finally got to go to Berlin. I have to believe somehow we can get back to that.
Could be wishful thinking on my part, but then again I've been doing that for 50 years imagining myself a WW2 fighter pilot :)
-
The best thing a player can do to boost scenario participation is to personally recruit people out of the melee arena to join scenarios.
The reason is that most players in the melee arena do not read the message board and do not know about special events.
They need to be informed and encouraged to try it out.
-
Good Stuff
Thanks for the post, Rocco.
I agree.. and the drama needs to tone down a bit.
Glad you had a good time and I hope you continue to participate.
-
One must consider also that during those scenarios where we had 200+ participants, the AH general population was much higher. I believe Brooke has stated before that, per percentage
of the current population, we're actually right on par if not a little higher than in the past.
-
The Boston is a very underrated bomber in AH. Its a poor man's mosquito. Good when you want to pork fields. Back in the days i also used the A-20 in that role, with a bit of practice you can level bomb without bomb sight with reasonably accuracy, and when the unwary fighters come up after you, thinking that they are chasing a Boston, they get a nasty surprise :D (or they kill you anyway...)
-
I think we discussed this some time ago, I don't know if I ever got you the break downs. I couldn't find them, so I did them again real quick.
- I removed all Gunners/Observers and Field Gunners.
- I counted all sorties launched and only kept 1 sortie per phase.
- The event was designed for three 4 hour phases.
- Tunisia was also a 12 hour scenario, however Brooke separated the logs every phase/frame. Tunisia had 4 phases/frames.
So Target for Today in May 2015 broke down like this:
Phase 1: 181 Total Pilots
Phase 2: 165 Total Pilots
Phase 3: 152 Total Pilots
Average: 166 Avg Pilots
I don't recall that, but my memory ain't what it used to be. Thanks for doing those numbers again - I'll update my chart numbers and also relook at the logs for Tunisia, and get numbers by phase.
EDIT: Tunisia logs already provided numbers by phase; I just changed description to reflect that it was a 12 hr event. Also updated numbers for Target for Today, thanks!
(https://i.imgur.com/kU0MEwn.jpg)
-
I'll get the hardest day numbers sorted here soon.
-
The Hardest Day Numbers by Phase:
Phase 1: 121 Pilots
Phase 2: 143 Pilots
Phase 3: 117 Pilots
Average # of Pilots: 127 Pilots
As I mentioned above, I removed all gunners, and removed any duplicate pilots from each phase.
-
Thanks Nefarious - here's the updated chart. Less dramatic, but it still shows 12 hour format has something going for it, even as Melee Arena numbers had been declining.
(https://i.imgur.com/v0p1cwC.jpg)