Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sabre on January 21, 2002, 10:11:37 AM
-
We're trying to figure out why a much-requested arena is not drawing a bigger share of the playerbase during prime time. Please choose one of the following as your number-one reason for not flying more often (or at all) in the Combat Theater:
1) I'd like to fly in the CT more, but there's not enough people in the CT when I log on. (Tell us how many is "enough")
2) The planeset is too limited.
3) I don't like the reduced icon ranges.
4) I don't like the toned down radar.
5) Other (explain, but please keep it short)
We're very much interested in what you have to say, both good and bad, so that we might improve the CT for your use. This has been posted here, rather than in the CT forum for the obvious reason; we want to here from those who choose rarely if ever go into the CT. Thanks.
Sabre
(CT Team)
-
Numbers aint the issue. If people dont log on cos there aint enough there then they'll never be enough there. At least that's how I see it.
However,
I hate, loath and despise reduced icon range. I think and always have thought that icon range should depend on plane type and altitude. A B17 at 20k is gonna be highly visible while a tiff at 4k wont be, especially looking down on it. Reduced icon range just means I fly round chasing dots that turn out to be friendly for half a tank.
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
1. Poor communication. With reduced icon and dar ranges it's hard to know what is going on. If players would take the time to use the readio or voice comm, it would make it easier to find a fight.
2. Unbalanced forces. Often see 2:1 or worse.
3. Low numbers. I'd say it takes 30+ to make the CT fun (with fairly even sides).
-
Currently this map: Spawn points are all messed up. No goons for capture, must use M3, but with messed up spawns, its broken.
Re-supply does not work either.
-
One and a little bit of four.
Although I've seen lotsa posts about the CT, the authors don't seem to be on when I'm up. When it first went up, I was kinda hoping it would be an AW "fightertown" sorta thing--few bases, no capture, full fighter planeset, no buffs--just a brawling area without milkin fluffs ....Don't get me wrong, I like blowin stuff up, and I like the missions in the MA--it is just when the numbers get high in the MA, my gunnery goes to crap--prolly my machine or xnect, so it would be nice to go to an arena where there was less lag and purely fighters.
My .02
-
The same way money call to money, people call to people. There are not enough people at the same time to atract more and more people to CT.
Do you want much more people at CT? Very easy, disable scores for MA.
If dissabling scores seems a too drastic move, then use a simplified system based only on points.
-
all four plus a few number fives.
The planesets are either mindumbingly same same or lopsided. You quickly learn every "tactic" of the limited planes for each set (especially since most of em are only a variation of the 109/190 theme). Once you learn this a "long engagement" is nothing more than working toward the advantage or running. Anything else is stupid.
lazs
-
The connection to CT is the one and only reason for me.
Tried Sunday was awful connect Netstat was jumping full scale and had 2 lost connection msgs as also same happened while DL the map.
Went to MA Host que was a bit spiky but otherwise flyable.
-
Basically what Lazs said.
Numbers are low, and usually unbalanced in this type of arena.
Plus it then typically becomes a "best plane type, Side A" vs "best plane type, Side B". It doesn't take long to learn this fight and it rapidly becomes boring.
Scenario's are fun. Doing it every day in an arena isn't too me.
-
I fly into the CT even if I'm alone. Usually (a few) people begin to show up within 10 mins.
Even with the problems, I have much more fun there than in MA. Plain simple.
I won't criticize people flying in the MA. I don't feel I'm better than the MA-player (Before you ask, I don't feel anal nor attention deprived neither, Lazs...). For your 15$, you choose the fun you want.
I will criticize people:
- not interested into the CT concept, but constantly whining about it in the CT forum. Nobody is forced to play there.
-who begged for a CT during months, but who don't fly in there at all because the sky is too blue, or the clouds are too grey, or there isn't strat enough, or there is too much strat, or there are still some bugs, or they can't have their shiny Bf-51C everytime.... They should consider it as a beta, and give constructive feedback about their experience. Rome wasn't built in a day.
-
I pop in on occasion but usually I'm just looking for a few low numbers (1vs1, 1vs2, etc) fights. Presently though the TCP switch keeps me out. The game just isn't playable on that protocol. Hopefully that's only a temporary issue though.
I don't play there regularily simply because the gameplay isn't that terribly different from MA. Its the same basic theme (random base warrior stuff) with a few subtle modifications such as plane limitations and icon range reductions. However, if sides are moderately balanced (or my addition on one side or the other will help make them so) I still like popping in for a few dogfights. I'm not much for the base warrior stuff though, historically oriented or otherwise, so that isn't really a draw for me. I can take it or leave it basically. I can't really comment on the new terrain as the above mentioned protocol problems has kept me away for the most part. Perhaps the new terrain will help add to the uniqueness of the arena, but again, I can't really comment on that as yet.
Vortex
-
Because most times there is nobody there when I log on.
Last time I entered the CT I was the only person there. I selected the Russians and after a while somebody else came into the CT and also selected the Russians. I left after about an hour.
-
Well, I flew the heck out of it until this terrain. This terrain, with ALL due respect to 10Bears, is pretty much unplayable for me.
Aside from the "missing shape" messages that fill the buffer near A48, I found that if you are Russian and try to defend the depot, you are instantly in range of the enemy base, you can see the fighters lifting off and then almost instantly pop into icon range. There are NO field guns to defend with at that base.
The white map, the congestion of the bases makes it pot luck what base you end up at, at least from my experiences with this terrain.
What I was hoping to see in the CT was not a constant TOD/scenario setting, more just plain Axis vs Allies matchups, even if they involved the entire AH planeset. With the MA perk system in place, or perk costs reduced 50-75% to help folks get into them. ;) That would keep the arena from being filled with with 262's and Tempests, yet still offer them after the player "earned" the points necessary.
-
i cant even play in the MA
mediaone is once again not listening to me when i tell them what is wrong. :(
-
Well, I was the one that whined for "Historical maps from the community"...unfortunately,none of these were thoroughly beta tested. I am now offering my services as a voluntary beta tester for the community, however you must be willing to take Criticism. I beta test for a living, so I have this little routine down. It will uncover 99% of the bugs (such as spawn points, etc) in the terrain. Let me know if you want my services, HTC.
-
What Popeye and Ripsnort said (both his posts. I also volunteer to test).
But I still fly in there whenever I logon because I'd much rather fly a Yak-9T/La5 and know that I'll run into a 202, 109/190 or JU-88 than an N1K2, a Spit, La7, a P-51 or many other "unnatural" matches. And vice-a-versa.
The bugs and bad CT connects have not been a help either.
Westy
-
I'll toss in my two cents here... I've already chatted about this with Funked before the reopening.
First, let's start with a given. The MA is clearly the most popular aspect of online AH. This is indisputable.
From there, let's acknowledge that the MA doesn't appeal to everyone. Also indisputable.
The trick is to create an alternative to the MA that will appeal to a sufficient number of people that would actually consider an alternative.
Those that desire an alternative have a long laundry list of things they want. Unfortunately, I've never seen much agreement on what the "most important" aspects of the alternative should be.
Axis v Allies? No dar? Less dar? No Icons? Less Icons? Realistic terrains? Lots of ideas, no concensus.
Here's my suggestion to you. Filter.
This isn't going to happen overnight. But so far the CT isn't really happening at all. ;)
Start with a clone of the MA with only ONE or possibly two changes. Be it the dar, the icons, the axis v allies.. whatever. Make it NEARLY like the MA... and see if anyone come then.
If they do, add another "feature" and see how much the load drops. off. Rinse and repeat.
If they DON"T come.. when it's initially pretty close to the MA.. you can reselect two different "features" to try and see if that will draw a crowd. Rinse and repeat.
It appears to me that the current "features" set is simply NOT that attractive to very many players. There's no real way to tell which "features" are having the negative effect.
If I were doing it.. and I'm not... I'd start Axis v Allied as the only change and see if folks show up for that "historical" aspect. The logic being if it is just like the wildly popular MA except for AvA, then we are testing the desirability of AvA alone and can then make a judgement on that aspect.
I just think you're trying to change to much at once.
-
I agree with Toad. :D
-
excellent suggestion Toad
-
I agree with toad also but.... It leaves out the fact that most who are not happy with the MA are unhappy because of some personal dislike of one feature or another that is the MA... They are very touchy about this supposed blashemy. Nothing short of eradicating it will do. They don't want something different.... they want something their way.
The problem occurs when these malcontents get together to form the "perfect" arena. If things don't go exactly the way they like then they are left flying an arena no better (for them) than the one they just left.... In some cases worse! Some of the "features" adopted are far worse to them than anything the MA ever threw at em.... The MA starts looking pretty good again. Plus.... to add insult to injury... There is nobody in there anyway so they stay out, compounding the problem.
my guess is that you would have more numbers if you simply had an MA copy in every respect but simply had it early war planes only... We are getting new early war planes and people will want to try em out.... erk system asside.... they ain't gonna be the plane de jour in the MA.
lazs
-
because the connection sucks. fix the tcp thing please.
-
I haven't given the CT a try yet. I don't know how many pilots you need on to make for a fun evening, but I know 2 ain't it. Up until now, that's as many as I've seen when I'm logging on. Probably more a problem of when I'm logging on tho', as it's usually near midnight.
SOB
-
Not too fond of the Eastern front thingie, am more of a "Western guy" :)
Also... , my new favourite ride is a stolen & repainted P38L
[edited]
errrm, forgot to say: I did fly and still fly the CT, I love the concept, new map is looking good too, just waiting for another setup.
-
connections suk make it unplayable.
no tweak is gonna do it.
Folks go where the fight is
we started Norway map good historical planeset between 15 to 35 folks flew there at peak usually about 10
Switched to the euro map with a limited rps after a bunch of us thought it would bring more folks.
15 to 35 folks there
same 10 or so that were their from the beginning
1.08 came out and with the new features not implemented in the ct it died.
Folks then said base capture smaller maps shorter flight times and strat would bring umm in.
well
15 - 35 folks
same 10 or so that were there from the beginning.
Now folks say they cant find a fight when the victory conditions are on a pop up when they enter the arena so it stands to reason that the fight would be 'round these targets.
Others say its too unbalanced (which is a red herring) even in numbers are 20 to 10 the limited icons and dar make it easy for 1 or 2 guys to engage 3 times their number and kill and escape.
People dance all around it throwing excuse after excuse and I believe it would be a mistake to make all sorts of changes to try to come up with some magic mix of settings. There isn't one.
Folks go where they will find a quick fight which is fine.
The ct isnt better then the main because of our settings and no one there are the "real" pilots.
The ct is what those that fly there make it.
All we need is a good map, good connections and a good planeset.
No where has a ha ct AvA ever been an alternative to the main (wb 2.xx was but that was really just a shift to a 2 v 2 side war)
No arena "tweak" as of yet has brought in new folks. Short of making in it "Main Arena #2" (which at this point with the numbers we have might be better in the long run) I doudt even with the good suggestions here we will get more then what is already there.
o/t
As for A "Fighter Town" it seems with the lack of any discipline or the presence of a trainer in the ta it has become a "Fighter/Frag Town". Really a big turn off for some of the new guys I have talked to.
-
I'm totally burned out on arena flight sims of any type. Been there done that, need something completely different.
Scenarios, missions, flying with my squaddies, I still love that stuff. If I get to the point where I can stomach arenas again I'll definitely fly the CT.
-
TOD fills any role for me that the CT would. When I fly outside of TOD, I want to be able to pick any plane any time and go immediate to furball. Be it mindless killing or getting used to a different plane, a massive furball is the best situation to accomplish that.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
TOD fills any role for me that the CT would. When I fly outside of TOD, I want to be able to pick any plane any time and go immediate to furball. Be it mindless killing or getting used to a different plane, a massive furball is the best situation to accomplish that.
Boy I couldn't agree more with this.
-
Cos no one else does ??
logged on 5.00pm Sunday GMT
CT 2 players
MA 240 players
Tilt
Hamster in training
-
TCP
-
conx bite.
-
I avoided the CT because it was dead, numberwise.
Recently Sabre drug me in there and I had a blast.
The MA is slowly becoming a "Lazs-World" Big Boring Furball.
The CT is surprisingly cool.
I love that when I up in a Russian aircraft, I know my only opponants will be German/Axis. Historical imersion can be found in the CT.
The spawn points in the current map are dicouraging however,
Many bases require a hour-long M-3 or goon drive for capture.
eskimo
-
For me, one of the biggest killers is the friendly dar bar settings.
The friendly dar bar should always be active. I have stopped going into the CT because it takes to damn long to figure out what the hell your team is doing or even where they are at.
I think that this is basic information that we should have. I don't need to know exactly where the friendlies are, but I should have some damn clue.
F.
(burnt)
-
I like the CT. The connect is bad at this particular time, but other than that it's alright. You cant please everyone all the time. for those people that want a 1v1 fight, try the dueling arena (which hasn't had anyone in it for a long time). For those people that want a furball with any plane any time, well you have the MA. For those that want inbetween that, the CT is there. I do agree with toad however, try one or two changes at a time to see what works and what doesnt.
My other only thing is maybe the scenario's last too long. If they went just 1 week, or maybe even 5 days, it might relieve some of the tedium of flying the same planes v. the same planes, and help to keep the arena populated with a few people. As for me, I usually log in to the CT when there are more than 5 people online.
but definitely, the connx problem needs to be fixed.
(http://thunderbolts.topcities.com/pictures/mysigp472.jpg)
-
4) I don't like the toned down dar.
*especially* with the low numbers and long distances. Flying a Hurri nearly three sectors to find no action when you get there is tedious in the extreme.
And constantly having my few pathetic perkies wiped is hardly an inducement.
Combat flight sims should be *action* games; anything else is MSFS.
Last time I logged on to see Hangtime and some one else as Russian, with four or five LW. Killed the LW that Hang left over for me and spent a half hour strafing a base in boredom.
-
Toad and eddick seem to ring my bell on this one.
Plus the connect issue. That hurts.
I'm not a big fan of early war or eastern front setups, but thats a minor niggling point. What i find odd is the LW contingient.. hell the CT should be LW heaven. No matter which map is up in there... it's LW. So where are they?
How about a MA setup on a europe map.. with an RPS?
Swap it once a week with a Pacific map with an RPS.
Like Toad sez.. if the MA draws, lets get the CT set up more like the MA.. but on a historical map witha significantly larger planeset.
Oh, and debugged would be nice.
Let me know if I can help...
-
The connection is bad (TCP).
If connect was better there might be enough people in there to make it exciting.
The few times Ive been in there it seemed nobody was particularly interested in strategy. I though it was gonna be more organized, people were gonna work together. But it doesnt really seem that way and I dont know why.
I like Toads "scientific method" idea but I wish the CT could be made to work also.
-
"...4) I don't like the toned down dar.
*especially* with the low numbers and long distances. Flying a Hurri nearly three sectors to find no action when you get there is tedious in the extreme....".
Agreed. I like the suggestion to at least increase the friendly bar dar. Maybe tone down the dar when the numbers warrant it.
I also like Toad's suggestion to start with maybe only a changed planeset, other minor changes and work from there.
bowser
-
Connection. Otherwise is great, especially Stalingrad terrain and setup.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Well I popped in there on Sat before the TOD and discovered that I have no perk points therefore if I fly with the Allies then I get to fly a Hurricane...whoopee. I was able to HO some poor Luftwobble and earned a whopping 1.25 points so that I could fly an La-5. Perking an La-5 seems a little ridiculous to me, but its your arena. Another thing that I dont like about it was the 12 on 3 odds we had at the time. While Ammo and MbirdCZ and I were engaging LW pilots on one side of the map, the remaing LW pilots were milkrunning bases on the other side and then taunting on channel 1 about where the opposition was. Kinda hard to defend with only 3 of us against 12. I guess it could be fun...maybe.
-
Low numbers....just like most everyone else I like large numbers of players in the arena. That said the stalingrad terrain is very nice even if it has a bug here or there. Plane set was well chosen, all in all a very nice alternative to the MA. Unfortunately joe ah driver isn't gonna log in when there's 10 people in the ct and 350 in the ma. Like I said in an earlier post you need to offer people an incentive to get the ball rolling, offer people hefty perk bonuses that are transferrable to the ma. I'll bet that most of the people that fly ah have never even bothered to log into the ct because the numbers always look so pathetic on the clipboard comin in. I also suspect that not being able to fly their spits and niks and actually having to learn to fly a new ride is just too much for most people. It's no fun when you have to hop into a 109 and the more experienced drivers are wipin' the map up with your sorry ass, so they just go back to yankin' on the stick in the ma:) Too bad, its a great alternative to the ma.
One question I do have about the stalingrad terrain is why is the weather static?
CRASH
-
For me, its easily #1
When im on there is at most 1-5 people in there. Why spend all night finding someone to kill?
-
Gorgeous new terrain
But, lots of "missing shape" errors
Can't read the map, map icons impossible to read
Limited planeset...yeck....the historical folks wanted this to be this way, and the numbers aren't. Wait, let me guess, we'll yet AGAIN blame this on...? Oh let's see, HTC hasn't added all the planes you need for a particular planeset? We've been hearing that one since 1.04 :rolleyes:
Reduced radar is fine for me...doesn't matter to me much either way on the radar issue.
I won't hide my thoughts on it....I think it should be similar to the Main, but with no radar bars, limited radar range/icons and more realism toggles turned on. All Acks MANNED, not AI. Make craters cause damage if driven through and 4 goons required to re up a base. Up the fuel multiplyer a notch and change the winds aloft daily so its not the same ole 8k day in, day out. But, in all the CT discussions, it seems only the historical fans got picked to be CMs and such.
But, that's a different rant :cool:
-
Low or no numbers. It would be fun I'm sure but as long as the MA offer's the opportunity to fly any plane you want, I'm sure the CT will have limited numbers. Even worse is the opportunity to pick a side with the "better" aircraft (ya I know...it's the pilot not the plane, but there's not that many people interested in spending the time to get good in a "lesser" aircraft. The sides are bound to be lopsided.
-
S!
Comments on the complaints and observations voiced here:
1) Bad (?) Connection.
This is obviously keeping a lot of people out. I get the TGP message too. Doesn't seem to make any difference to how the server performs for me. Aircraft seem to fly fine. In any case, I can't do anything about it. Have contacted Skuzzy who runs the server and HTC and asked for them to look into it. Hopefully it gets fixed soon. We didn't have the problem before so it isn't incurable.
2) Reduced DAR ranges making it difficult to see where the enemy and friendly are.
Personally I haven't had any problem in seeing where the action is. However I have bumped up the DAR range to 200,000 from 130,000. That should make it easier to see where combat is happening.
3) Low numbers.
Yes numbers have been reduced from the usual 30-50 we get when we kick off a new setup. Too bad, with this first new map we might have hit 70. Probably they're down because of (1) above. I am surprised at the low figures some have been suggesting. I live on the West Coast, and miss the most populated hours. But when I log on, around 12 midnight EST, there are usually between 10 and 20 people on server. And of course it is the chicken and the egg theory. You can't have numbers unless the players go there but the players won't go there unless there are the numbers.
4) Limited planeset.
Yep, that's a historical setup. We use the planes which were around during the historical period in question.
It does mean you can't fly your favourite plane all the time. It also does mean you can fly a plane like the MC202 and have a decent chance.
Did you know an MC202 will kick a LA-5FN's butt with a good pilot in the seat? Go to the CT and you can discover this important truth for yourself... ;)
There are all kinds of interesting matchups to be explored in a historical CT which never happen in the MA because you are too busy trying to escape the horde of La-7's or N1k2's on your tail.
The nice thing about a CT is that your favourite plane WILL come along at some point and then you'll get a chance to explore its potential versus historical opponents which it was designed to fight.
5. Problems with range.
Fuel burn has been modified to 1.0 from 1.5 giving 50% more air time. The Stalingrad map is bigger than it looks and more fuel was needed. Now the Hurricane can vulch the Luftwaffe fields for a while longer before having to turn for home. You still don't have to fly any longer than 10 minutes to get into a fight. (A48 and A10)
6. 'Missing Shape' Map messages.
Yeah I get the messages too sometimes. So what? It doesn't affect gameplay at all. And the terrain designer is busy working on his revisions to eliminate the problem. Which will be available next time we use the terrain if not sooner. (hopefully we have the Tu-2 then... :) )
>>>>>>>
I appreciate all the comments.
Even those from the guys who have done all they could to kill the CT... Funny how the crocodile tears come out. ;)
I'm also not going to panic and say the CT isn't succeeding on the basis of what we've been able to put up so far.
Yes it needs some tuning. That will happen.
Yes it needs a decent connection. That's going to happen.
Yes it needs maps which have all the bugs ironed out. That is going to happen too. The real question is whether you prefer to fly the same 3 maps over and over or whether you want some variety.
We are going to keep improving it, and gradually I think people are going to start to appreciate the experience they get there.
:D
-
To me the combination of 1 and 4 (low numbers and reduced radar bars) makes it often difficult to find fights.
Bad connection is another BIG restrain.
Toad's suggestion of making CT almost like MA is a very good approach.
Stalingrad map with snow is vary nice, but all targets/bases are very close to each other and the map is hardly readable because of that.
I still hope CT will develope and become my Main Arena :)
-
From my particular point of view, CT is all what MA is lacking, and a much better environment of what I think a "realistic" war sim should be.
Terrain is just awesome. Planeset is well conceived. GV's have a reason to be, and can make quite a mess of any ground target (pity we don't have T-34's). SA is a must, and definitely makes the difference between success and failure. When there are any decent number of players (let's say 10+) there's no problem in finding a fite.
Chose a time where 10+ people are in. Conx permitting, it's a lot more intense than MA. And you can chose air or ground forces. CAP, interdiction, Bomb, all of them are seen on CT.
In one sentence: If anyone wants to have a closer taste of what Eastern Front was, he owes a visit to CT.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Bad connection (TCP only). Except for that I would spend more time in CT regardless of how many's on. The terrain, countryspecific planeset and reduced icon range is a welcome change from MA. I got a real kick the other night when we did a Il-2 mission followed by a tank-battle in the snow. It looked just like *very* good WWII colorfootage. Just the terrain is a reason to expand VVS planeset and get a few Russian GV's (t-34/KV-1).
Make radar available only in tower and it's a winner.
Hope the stalingrad arena stays!
Edit: /Make perkplanes free for the country thats outnumbered/
-
Buzzbait wrote:
We are going to keep improving it, and gradually I think people are going to start to appreciate the experience they get there.
Your effort is positive and visible, Buzz!!!
I like and strongly support the work you CT guyz are doing.
Many goals reached:
beautiful and challenging terrain.
Historical planeset=historical matchups.
Good 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 dogfight.
Use of RW and radio encouraged with only dar bar (stimulate pilots to be more collaborative).
And, last but not least:
ACTIVE AND POSITIVE ATTITUDE TO CHANGE THINGS!!!
We all are bored about MA but many just want to whine!
This poll was made for this reason: have a feedback about people INTERESTED in the project. I doesn't means everything is working OK but it means that a destructive attitude is JUST USELESS. It produces NOTHING.
Buzzbait!!! And listen to the profecy: the same people that now are just destructive will join the real fun in CT sooner or later... ;)
-
Nice poll and lot of good info you guys can make use of.
I would add that the current planeset is very limited for some settings - esp. the PTO.
The CT is similiar to WarBirds old Historic Arena, and the PTO setting was one of the most popular (due in a great part to the squad rivalries that developed between MAG-11 and the 27th Sentai).
I think the Japanese forces need a half dozen more aircraft types to make a late-war PTO setting interesting. Another half dozen if you want to make early war PTO viable, but even the USN has no early war stuff.
Not sure how popular Eastern Front will ever get. Also the Stalingrad terrain killed my fps. My PIII 500 just couldn't handle it ended up in the low teens in most situations.
Our best planeset is Western Europe, late 1944. Why don't we give that a try? It might be an enticement for solid squads like the 13th TAS or the 412th Braunco Mustangs.
-
I agree with Toad.
Go with a European map.
Allow base capture.
Turn off any automatic resupply.
I like what the CT is trying to do and I liked the fighting in the Baltic map.
I did not fly the Norway map as there was no base capture and was just a place for fighters.No strategy.
I like Stalingrad map but there are the bugs already mentioned.Before this map,we had up to 4 squad members in,with more coming. But for some reason,they and I are not flying
in Stalingrad.Possibly it is too limited in scope.
-
reduced dar kills it for me. I like the idea of a two sided war with historic planesets and really enjoy learning new planes. The lack of dar and icons keeps me out. When I log on and play I want to look at the dar, find the fight, get there and know which are friendly and which are enemy. I know people say use radio to find the fight but I can tell you for me it ain't gonna happen. I don't even keep my keyboard inreach when playing. I have all controls mapped to my stick and throttle.
DES
-
Usually its the lack of people but I went in one night when MA was too full and couldn't find a Russian airfield anywhere near the action. Lots of tank stuff going on but thats not me.
-
MA: 150-250
CT: 0-2
-
Bad connection.....TCP......arrrg !!!
Not that I have tons of time to fly lately anyway :(
RASCAL
-
1. not enough players:
I like start play. I dont like 40 guys in a furball but I do want to get involved in more than 1on1 situations - this is not a dualing areana. when numbers hit 40 in the CT I had GREAT fun and tried to promote CT in my squad, but now, when I see 5 people there, I dont even enter.
need the numbers for strat play.
2. bad connection.
self explanatory.
3. eastern front:
not my cup of tea.
but I'd still show up once in a while if not for 1 and 2.
as for the settings - I LOVE IT!
icons are just right, please don't change a thing, and dar is ok too.
Seems to me its a critical mass problem. If you can fill it with enough people other would follow in a herd effect. But it's hard to get it rolling, as most people like me won't come in and sit there for hours drying to "bait" others in. sorry.
Bozon
-
Sabre,
I view the CT as being similar to Warbirds' Historical arena(HA). That arena had problems with attendance, too, and it seemed like the only thing that helped bring up the numbers there was to get multiple squads to hold their squad night in the HA. That's the only way I can see you growing the numbers appreciably.
-
"when I see 'x' people there, I dont even enter."
It's ironic in that if everyone who says they do that actually went in to fly instead of heading to the MA then numbers would be much higher.
Westy
-
Sabre said:
Please choose one of the following as your number-one reason for not flying more often (or at all) in the Combat Theater
5) Other (explain, but please keep it short)
CTs are a niche market. They only appeal to a small fraction of the total population of pilots. Those are the only people who show up, and this is never enough to justify keeping the arena going when server usage decisions need to be made. Thus, they never last. This was true in AW and WB, and is now proving true in AH. Thus, one shouldn't get excited about them--it only leads to bitterness when you see your favorite arena's plug get pulled. I know, I've been there several times.
As to the alleged puzzle of why a "much-requested" arena isn't popular, it's sort of a function of the above. Those who want CTs are a small, passionate group. They post their desires many times each, until they get what they want. Thus, they create an illusion of more support than there really is. At the same time, the vast bulk of the players, who aren't interested, don't demand that a CT NOT be set up. They aren't going to tell the others what's fun and what isn't. So you have, over time, a lot of posts for CTs and zero or few posts against. This does not mean, however, that the CT has broad-based support, although it is usually mistaken for this.
-
Et the euro map is even more "bugged" then the stalingrad map unless it was fixed..........
-
Originally posted by K West
"when I see 'x' people there, I dont even enter."
Westy
True when X=0 as it usually is during my flying times (euro).
You might have different situation as there's much more ppl online during US times.
-
Thanks for all the feedback, folks. Buzzbait has done a good job of culling through this to improve what can be improved at this time. I have to admit, I'm confounded by those who's posts above had no point other than to say "I told you it would never work," or "It will never work because ______, so give it up." It's a threat to no one if it succeeds (and I still believe whole-heartedly that it can), yet some seem to have a personal stake in seeing it fail. Salute, those who have supported and continue to support so well these efforts.
I've noticed some here saying, "Make it more like the MA and people will come." I respectfully suggest that theory has a major flaw. If it is nothing more than the MA with reduced icons or radar, or any other minor change people have suggested, people will have even less reason to go there then they do now. They'ld still look at the log-in clipboard and hit MA, because the numbers would draw them and there, and because there would be nothing truely unique to draw them to the CT. What we're trying to do is provide an alternative arena that more adequately emulates WWII combat, yet make it accessable and interesting enough to entice people to come in and give it a try.
Also, notice the number of conflicting opinions in the above posts. The challenge to the CT team is to wade through all of that and determine where the "center of gravity" of opinion really lies. Am I a history buff? You bet! Does the CT have a historical bent? Well...yeah! If it didn't there'd be no reason for it to exist, except as a simple overflow arena for the MA. As such, it would be even more empty than the CT is now (bad connects and all). Have we gone too far, historically speaking? That remains to be seen. Once the connects get fixed and the terrains more plentiful, better arranged, and less buggy we'll be better able to determine that. We are definitely not trying to create our own "private" arena...what fun would that be :D?
-
Sabre said:[/i]
I have to admit, I'm confounded by those who's posts above had no point other than to say "I told you it would never work," or "It will never work because ______, so give it up."
If you mean me, sorry you feel that way. I don't apologize for my stating my opinion, however. First, you asked for it. Second, I was once an avid CT fan years ago. It took me several heartbreaks to learn the bitter truth that they just don't work in the long run. I really wish it was otherwise, but it ain't, and I've gotten over it because there's nothing to be done about it. I wish you success and, if you somehow break the historical pattern of these things, great! I'll start showing up then. But in the meantime, my advice to you is to enjoy your CT while it lasts and don't take it too personally if it doesn't work.
I've noticed some here saying, "Make it more like the MA and people will come." I respectfully suggest that theory has a major flaw. ... What we're trying to do is provide an alternative arena that more adequately emulates WWII combat, yet make it accessable and interesting enough to entice people to come in and give it a try.
I agree. What you have to do is provide a gameplay experience that is significantly different from the MA, yet is very attractive to MA players. If the CT is just the same basic MA landgrab, only with the same map for a long time and much few plane choices, people will see it as merely MA-lite, a "demo", reduced-feature version" of AH.
The trick is figuring out what other attractive gameplay options are possible with AH as is. I think the biggest obstacle to that now is that most pilots are conditioned to expect some sort of arena-wide victory to be possible. It's not like the old days of AW where you could only capture a few central fields on the map, so nobody could ever "win the war". That was fun in its day, and it was the only game in town, but that type of thing is no longer attractive to the masses used to "winning the war".
But in a continuous arena, what else is there? If instead of landgrabbing you condition victory on relative losses, bombing damage to strat targets, etc., you pretty much have to put time limits on when such successes are measured. This turns your continuous arena into a Snapshot or TOD-type thing, plus then you limit your potential customers due to time zones. OTOH, if you do neither, you basically just have a dogfight arena, like AW was long ago. Buffs are there but they don't really do anything except temporarily close bases. This doesn't seem to be a winning formula any more. Are there any other options? I can't think of any offhand with AH as is.
-
agree with bullethead.. hard to convince people that less is more. I still think you could use the fact that we are getting more early war planes and no viable way to use em in the MA. A niche worth exploiting me thinks.
lazs
-
The connection obviously is an issue, but that will get fixed at some point.
For me.
1. Make it easier, not HARDER to find a fight. Forget radar realism... you want numbers in the arena then make it easier to find a fight.
2. Forget strat. Strat game is always lame if there are not enough folks. You can play the strat game in the MA. There just aren't enough folks in the CT to make it work, at least not yet.
3. Axis vs. Allies, but with a larger allowed planeset. The more folks that can find their favourite bird in there, the better.
In short, I don't think it will EVER work if you try to make the CT a "better" MA. You need to pick something specific and do it very well, and that thing is Axis v. Allied air combat. I'll deal with somewhat limited radar and lower icon settings as long as I can quickly find a good AvA fight. Make it easy to do that, and you'll get numbers. Keep it simple and DIFFERENT from the MA. I mean no field capture, smaller maps, concentrated on good Axis vs. Allies air combat. The more similar it is to the MA, the lower the chance of it being reasonably popular IMO.
Lephturn
-
No need to feel sorry, Bullet. It was not aimed specifically at you, though your comments were freshest in my mind. And no one ever said it would be easy. However, I think it's a goal worth fighting for. As for not getting to passionate about it...well, when you're fighting a tough historical precedent you have to be. Telling me not too will not kill my passion. Indeed, it fans the flames, making me try all the harder. So, thanks! :D
You do bring up some valid points, no denying it. Interestingly enough, lack of base capture was a major complaint regarding the CT, before Pyro asked for volunteers to CM the CT arena. We also realized there had to be more to it than that. That's why we've gone to an objective-based theme for the last couple of CT's. While it's still basicall a "land-grab," which land you grab now makes a difference to whether one side wins or looses. The idea is to funnel the action along lines that guarantee maximum contact with the enemy. Because it never leaves one side completely unable fly, those that aren't interested in the strat side of the equations aren't prevented from having fun. Jury's still out on how much true merit the idea has.
In the mean time, we'll keep plugging away. Keep the info coming.
-
lephturn thats what we had in the ct with the euro map
sector dar
ok flight times (some thought a bit too long but i was fine with it)
friendly icons at normal range
3k nme icons
no strat or field capture
the numbers were no higher then as a matter of fact I see the same folks now as then.
The thing now is the connection and the buggy terrains.
Even the euro map was buggy more so then stalingrad.
I submit that a good map and a good planset is what will get the most out of the ct.
I liked the original idea of phasing in planes. An rps would be good.
till we get a good terrain could we try the big week map? with aa "rps" sector radar 3k nme icons normal friendly icons and no strat no field capture.
I know weazel is working on the phillipines map but before we put it in circulation can we have it set up in h2h for debugging.
a playable terrain, good connection, an inclusive but semi-historical planeset, and good visual cue as to where the fight is.
This will get the guys that actually fly there a reason to spend more of their time there and may drag in a few new guys but it will never have big numbers and if it hurts ya to hear that oh well thats how it is..............
-
It'd be kinda fun to have an all out Axis vs. Allies fight. Have German, Japanese and Italian aircraft on one side and American, British and Russian aircraft on the other side (with the required substitutions) and play it out on a scaled down map of the globe.
That would allow everybody to have "their" aircraft available while still avoiding the Fw190 vs N1K2 problem.
-
Sabre said:
Interestingly enough, lack of base capture was a major complaint regarding the CT
No surprise there. I blame "Command and Conquer", "Warcraft", and the rest of the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned RTS game genre. These abominations have ingrained a whole generation with the primary desire to build and crush mighty empires shorn of all historical context, because they think that's the only type of game there is. The MA is simply an RTS game writ large. As such, it appeals to all those who cut their computer gaming teeth on RTS games. Because such are the bulk of todays gaming crowd, that pretty much limits non-RPS models to the fringes. This is not only within AH, but in the computer gaming industry as a whole :mad:
we've gone to an objective-based theme for the last couple of CT's. While it's still basicall a "land-grab," which land you grab now makes a difference to whether one side wins or looses.
That's a great idea. I don't recall it having been tried before. I hope it works ;).
Other recent suggestions:
From lazs: Earlybird arena
Yeah, if AW history is any guide, having early planes available without a rotating plane set just means no early planes get flown at all unless one is discovered to be a porked uberplane (like the AW Oscar and P40 were to start with). OTOH, having special arenas for different types of planes hasn't been too successful, either. I've seen WW1 and Korean War arenas come and go--they don't seem to fair any better than CT arenas. OTGH, I didn't like WB's RPS--it so compressed the first few years and so stretched the end that it was largely indistinguishable from not having an RPS.
From Lephturn: Mixing Axis vs. Allied instead of sticking to 1 theater
The idea of getting a larger number of popular planes has merit, but unfortunately the popular planes are mostly all Allied. Case in point, the December 2001 TD. In that, the top 10 fighters, in terms of getting the most kills, were as follows, in descending order:
Spit9, N1, 51D, La7, Spit5, F6F, 38, Typhoon, Dhog, 109g10.
It should also be noted that the top 4 on this list got more kills than the other 6 combined, and even this top 10 is less than 1/3 of all the fighters (including sub-types) available. IOW, nobody much likes to fly German planes. It can be argued that having 4 or 5 versions each of FWs and 109s dilutes the contribution of any one model. However, there are also 3 versions of spits, 2 of which are in the top 10. And all the FWs taken together don't add up to the score of the spit9 by itself.
So if you go for popular planes, you have to come up with some rather obscure or unhistorical situations for the CT. Hmm, hypothetical US/Brit vs. Russia in 1945. Russian invasion of Japanese territory in 1945. Final stages of the CBI theater.
But the problem with this approach is that it's not much different from the MA. If you want to have constant fights between spits and N1s, or spits and La7s, you don't have to go to a different arena to find that.
-
I logged into the ct last saturday night and within 30 or 45 minutes I had the best 3 or 4 fights of the last 6 months of flyin' the ma. Ran into Tuck a few times and ended up in some really intense and brutally long dog fights. I shot down a few and got shot down by a few...had some really long and intense fights. That never happens in the ma, too many people, you merge with a guy get a few turns in and he either dives into a group of friendlies to get away or your countrymen come by and gang on your victim, no chance for any long drawn out battles. After a couple of those long engagements in the CT I had to go drive vehicles for awhile just to calm down and regroup..I was worn out :) Lots of fun and a completely different experience than the MA. Somebody tell HT that "realism fanaticism has its place" :)
CRASH
-
CRASH said:
I logged into the ct last saturday night and within 30 or 45 minutes I had the best 3 or 4 fights of the last 6 months of flyin' the ma. Ran into Tuck a few times and ended up in some really intense and brutally long dog fights. ... Lots of fun and a completely different experience than the MA. Somebody tell HT that "realism fanaticism has its place" :)
Damn, you hit the all the major conflicts of interest and such in the CT vs. MA debate in a single post :).
Long fights in small numbers are a lot of fun and certainly different from the MA. So that's a plus for the CT.
OTOH, long fights in small numbers is not what happened in real life. There is was massive gangbanging whenever possible, the idea being to win while minimizing losses. IIRC, something like 80% of all kills were blindside bounces against non-manuevering targets, and most days entire air forces, hundreds and even thousands of planes, would go up to fight all at once, in an organized manner, with the attackers doing all in their power to AVOID the enemy's main strength. That's what's happening in the MA now (much to lazs' regret :D) and it's very realistic (except for the mix of planes usually involved). Yet the CT is trying to be more realistic. So score one for the MA here.
-
The connection Is an Issue that needs to be addressed. ( I believe Skuzzy is working on it) I've read threw these post and feel the CT CAN make the grade. It does need to find it's niche and common ground as Sabre said. Strats and GV's IMO need to be in the CT or you just have mindless furballs which sounds like the DA. I have been working making CT maps and Think i have a few that are worthy of the CT. A few tweeks here a few feilds there and i'll be sending it off for review. I've always asked for advice and comments from the players and have asked people into these working maps Via H2H on numbers of occasions. The limited planeset and axis vs. allies is the way to go, as was stated the early planes will be more plyable in the CT than the MA. Maybe the CT never worked, in here or any other game, but i know IT CAN WORK! And theres alot of people willing to help make it work. Give the CT 6 months then Bump this thread:)
NUTTZ
Originally posted by Lephturn
The connection obviously is an issue, but that will get fixed at some point.
For me.
1. Make it easier, not HARDER to find a fight. Forget radar realism... you want numbers in the arena then make it easier to find a fight.
2. Forget strat. Strat game is always lame if there are not enough folks. You can play the strat game in the MA. There just aren't enough folks in the CT to make it work, at least not yet.
3. Axis vs. Allies, but with a larger allowed planeset. The more folks that can find their favourite bird in there, the better.
In short, I don't think it will EVER work if you try to make the CT a "better" MA. You need to pick something specific and do it very well, and that thing is Axis v. Allied air combat. I'll deal with somewhat limited radar and lower icon settings as long as I can quickly find a good AvA fight. Make it easy to do that, and you'll get numbers. Keep it simple and DIFFERENT from the MA. I mean no field capture, smaller maps, concentrated on good Axis vs. Allies air combat. The more similar it is to the MA, the lower the chance of it being reasonably popular IMO.
Lephturn
-
My first experience with the CT was to watch the enemy park two CVs off the coast of France and procede to engage in a never ending SpitV vs 109 furball. Someone came up in a Ju-88 and sank the CVs only to be yelled at by virtually everyone else in the arena.
On top of that, everyone would comment on how much supperior those flying in the CT were becaused they were sooo into realism. Then they demanded base capture, closer fields and easier fight finding. I guess because that was more realistic too.
AKDejaVu
-
S!
Why am seeing posts by guys who don`t want a CT?
Why bother?
AK Deja Vu: If the last time you logged into the CT was back when it had the Europe map then you are completely out of touch. I have to smile when you come in here and throw in your two bits just for negativities sake... :)
Please post if the CT is something you would consider flying with some changes.
Indicate what you think those changes should be and what the existing problems are.
That`s the advice we are looking for... Constructive. ;)
We are not discussing the existence or non-existence of the CT. We are discussing ways to improve it. :D
Thanks Buzzbait
-
Buzz, actually Sabre posted that people who were not interested in the CT were the ones he wanted to hear from, otherwise I'd have stayed out of this thread and he'd have put it in the CT forum.
-
I do fly there on occassion but it's not different enought from the MA arena. I'm what Hitech called a "Reality Fanatic" and would like more reality e.g. no icons, more realistic flight model e.g. in the olden days the chog would groundloop without proper torque correction. If we're not going to have the incentive then I would rather have my fun in the MA where things pop a lot faster.
Beeg
-
AK Deja Vu: If the last time you logged into the CT was back when it had the Europe map then you are completely out of touch. I have to smile when you come in here and throw in your two bits just for negativities sake...
Yeah.. right.. so you're saying that base capture was not added? And I didn't say that was the last time.. I said it was the first time. But.. for the most part.. the story stayed the same. People just looking for the nearest fight to mix it up.
AKDejaVu
-
Beeg, "no icons" isn't a reality issue so much as it is a "difficulty" issue.
As a guy that says he has flown a lot, I'm sure you know that the PC screen is no where near as accurately sized or as finely detailed as RL.
Icons are an attempt to supply this information.
If you do without them, you aren't getting more "realistic", you are simply getting more "difficult".
-
Sabre here lately I been flying in the CT more than the MA.. I like how there is no crowd. And i did like how there was no spits but that all changed last night :(. I like the plane set and terrain. I love the snow and clouds.. If something like 25-35 people played there at a time it would be perfect.. But not more than that.
Oh next theatre change have a 38 in there please :)
CW
-
Sabre,
I am sorry to report that I cannot reply to this post because the reasons you list are the reasons I LIKE THE CT!!! and the very reasons I hate the MA. Sure, this particular setup is new and there are some bugs in the terrain, but being able to fly against the planes I'm supposed to fly against given the side/plane I choose to fly is a wonderful thing.
Not having icons on bandits until they are very close is a big plus in my book. You have to fly with a strategy in mind, not just "fly toward the nearest red icon".
The reduced radar is by far one of my biggest reasons for liking the CT. Actually having to look for the bandits makes getting a kill much sweeter ;)
As for the planeset, well, I get two sides to choose from and am forced to fly planes I might otherwise avoid which only broadens my experience base and makes things more interesting.
I'm disappointed in the numbers I've been seeing lately in the CT, but to-date, I have not been disappointed with the quality of people in there. I have flown against and with some dang good people and each encounter has only made the CT experience better for me. You don't learn much just shooting down drones or masses of newbies, but when you wax or get waxed by a pro, you feel like you've done something big! (as well you should know from all the sabre holes in my butt ;) )
As for "constant excitement", if you're looking for that in the CT, you may be disappointed. As in the real war, many missions result in little or no contact with the enemy. But with a little patience and persistence, you will find a fight. Often, the fight will find you when you least exepect it. And when it does happen, you will probably wind up having to see a chiropractor to unwind your rectum! Long periods of boredom interspersed with minutes of sheer terror. Personally, I find this exciting enough :p
My only fear is that the CT will go away or morph into another MA. This would be truly disappointing.
Buhdman, out