Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Midnight on January 29, 2003, 08:58:51 AM
-
I think most players will pretty much agree that 'random' failures for no apparent reason are too much BS for a game or sim.
I would be on the brink of quitting if I flew 20+ minutes in a bomber escort mission only to have my engine quit for no reason just as we came into contact with the enemy.
In a game, failures need to be the result of something the player did, or something that happened as a result of combat (i.e. taking fire from the enemy)
A failure occuring because of some mistake an unseen ground crew person made, or a small defect in the manufacturing process is just not something that people want to accept.
Maybe, just maybe, if HT made a second part of the game, called "Aces High : Ground Crew" where each player could manually inspect his aircraft and make adjustments/repairs with virtual tools, etc. Then 'random' failures could be the fault of the player for not checking something or fixing it properly.
That being said, I doubt HT is going to make that part of the game, so bottom line...
Vote NO for random failures.
-
I'm not sure if this counts as being random or not but I vote YES for gun jams.
Might encourage people to fire short bursts instead of hosing tracers left and right.
And how would you recreate Jim Howard's MoH-winning feat with a P-51B with guns that DIDN'T jam?
-
I thought this was supposed to be a sim? You guys that cant take a little random failure can go fly in the MA.
I say make it real.
-
SUGGESTION: Check box ( ) Random Damage. If u like it, check it!! :D
-
I am for single gun jams that are random and rare, I am not for flying 15 min and then my guns dont function or my eng cuts out with no warning or reason.
Progressive Eng damage due to overheating or over revving would be ok as long as we have the necessary controls to regulate these.
Progressive damage on engines that recieved battle damage I would be for.
I am as much a realism freak as anyone but I like to have fun too. Even then you would have a hard time convincing me that you could introduce random eng failures and gun jams based on real data.
So creating an artificial condition that causes gun jams and eng failures because you "heard" about it in ww2 is hardly real.
-
I would disagree. I think much of the war was about keeping planes running, and depending on the theatre this was very important. I think it would be just as 'fun' to try and get a dying plane back to land as shooting someone. I think this would become critical later in the 'Tour' when planes like the ki84/61 come in. That would make a zeke look very appealing.
In a perfect world these would not be truely random, it would depend on theatre, base condition, and plane type. Just as gun jams in badly mounted p51b 50s would be more common.
Like I said, make it real. Its a sim.
-
I would like to see this as realistic as possible. Random stuff, not so much, but I would like to see failures due to something the player is doing.
i.e. Pull to many g's during firing - guns jam
i.e. Run the engine on full power to long, overhead, engine damage
Lets make the failures something the player can control. If the player choices to exceed the mechnical limits so to speak, they can, but will have to pay a price
-
Random failure will turn off too many players.
Engine overheating on WEP would be fun, WEP would have to be used wisely.
Gun jams could be done like Fighter Ace 3.5, guns heat and stop firing for a little while. You have to be careful on the trigger if you dont want to miss a good firing opportunity.
-
I guess the real question here is, what kind of power are game play (arcade) concessions going to have on development. I know a few dweebs that would like to see black outs go too.
Since the game is going to be split between MA and TOD, I dont see a single reason not to keep the TOD real.
-
I would like to see AHII be as realistic as possible. Gun jams, engine failures based on reliability records (say not only does an engine overheat from WOT, but the lesser quality designs like the (cough) N1k might be damaged from engine overuse). That way its not entirely random, but is based player actions. People might just have to get used to the fact that sure, you can fly a Ki84 - but damn if it wont be a 50/50 chance of the thing breaking mid-flight.
I dont think the above mentioned requests would take away from the player base at all - I think more players would flow in. If you think about why most of us play AH, its because the learning curve is steep. People that have played online flight sims since AW Genie are still playing because you cant learn everything there is to learn in complex games like this overnight. Most games run about a 6 month course before players have "been there, done that" and get bored. We're not attracting CS players here, but flight SIM junkies, and flight SIM junkies want flight SIMs. :D
In any event, I would like to see AHII change the flight sim genre just as AH did - that means something new, like the above mentioned, as opposed to rehashing the MA rules/gameplay with sharper graphics. If you want to quake it up - as Im sure I will from time to time, thats what the MA is for.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
I would disagree. I think much of the war was about keeping planes running, and depending on the theatre this was very important...
See my original post...
I don't want to rely on some 'random' thing that might have happened based on untold variables..
1. mechanic was sick, left 2 bolts loose on intake manifold.
2. weapons loader dropped ammo belt in the mud and didn't have time to clean everything up prior to the mission.
3. a tiny crack in the engine block caused during a casting operation in a manufacturing plant.
or any other failures that a player has no control over.
Originally posted by ergRTC Like I said, make it real. Its a sim.
Check the boards. You will see that I am one of the more outspoken proponents of realism in this sim. Realism, however needs to be based on palyer controllable actions or interactions.
1. I am for gun jams based on player actions such as continuous firing or firing during high G maneuvers.
2. I am for engine damage (power loss) caused by over-stress, such as prolonged WEP or when the engine takes a bullet.
3. I am for structural failures caused by high G maneuvers when a component has been damaged (i.e. a P-51 should not still be able to pull 5+ Gs if the ailerons and flaps have been shot off. One would have to think that the rest of the wing is probably hanging on by a thread and the plane should be nursed home as soon as possible, not sticking around to stay in the fight.)
4. I am for limiting a pilot's ability to bail out succesfully under high G loads, extreme spins, or past critical velocity.
5. I am for removing 'exact' range from icons and changing them so they alpha-fade in and out depending on distance.
6. I am for adding a strat system that uses limited supplies and resources to prevent insta-spawning and endless vulching/suicide raids
7. I am for limiting player lives (in the MA) to a fixed number per hour, again to limit suiciding.
There are a lot of other realism features that I am for, but random failures that are beyond my control are NOT one of them.
-
I disagree with your opinion on randomness. Within the bounds of the aircraft (its history) I think these things should happen. This will add a large bit of personality to each plane. We will see why those guys that flew the p40 loved it so much even though it was a little doggy. If you had a choice between a beast that might break down or a yugo that you know is rock solid, that may affect your choice. I think the fact that it is out of your control is only after you pick the plane. You knew the chances when you strapped in.
Can you imagine flying the mission listening carefully to the 'highly realistic new engine noise' ;) and flinching when you think you hear a knock or two? Maybe a little backfire when you push it to full throttle tips you off something is not right. Then you decide to play it easy, and let your buddies know your plane is lowsy. Maybe a guy behind you lets you know your plane is spitting a little smoke out of the left bank of cylinders.
That is the kind of realism I would like to see. Down to personal aircraft, so when you get a good one you take care of it, even get attached to it. If you get a bad one, maybe a little selective bail out over the base (lose some major points of course, maybe demoted, but you are still alive) after you give it a couple tries....
What would even be better is that you would stick with your same ride till you either get sent back or forward 'in the game'.
For example when you spawn a new ride in the TOD, this ride is given a profile that will determine its abilities (hot engine, weak frame, unreliable oil pump, poor radiator) from then on out. Every time you fly from then on out, that is your beast till death (or ditch) do you part. Gives me goose bumps just thinking about it.
erg
-
Random breakdowns would be as much fun as paying $12 dollars to see a movie only to have the film break and the theater employees tell you to go home.
This is entertainment. It is not anywhere close to being real, and noone would really want it to be anyway.
F.
-
Then stay in the MA.
-
I agree with Midnight, plus...
...the longer you fly over 30,000 feet, the greater the chance of your guns freezing up (unless you fire them often). Buffs could still bomb from 35k, but by the time they got that high their guns would all be beginning to freeze up. Alt monkeys must pay a price.
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Part of the problem with "random" failures is that it is subjective. We can pontificate in the tavern all day long about what the chances of a lend-lease Hurricane engine failing in Russia because it had the wrong oil for the conditions. Or we can sit in our armchairs with fine cigars and a glass of port and talk about the poor maintenance and manufacturing conditions relating to late war Japanese aircraft. Or we can observe, as we walk by the lake, that slave labor made the detinator in a given German bomb and that it has some chance of having been intentionaly sabotaged.
We don't know what the right numbers are to plug into the game to reflect this. Just imagine the amout of in-fighting and mud-slinging that will go if HTC deside that this failure for that aircraft is 2% per hour and 100% power...
I'm all for modeling a gun jam from over heating or for the Me262 engine to flame out if the throttle is advanced to fast. However, I don't see how mechanical failures due to maintenance, supply or manufacture can be modeled unless the data that supports the frequency of failure for a given condition for every "like" system can located.
Note: By "like" system I mean that having accurate data for the jam rate of a Hispano does little for determining the jam rate for an MG151 or for a Type-99. We can and would go round and round about the MG151 being more reliable but never agree on how much.
If HTC has the information, I say go for it. If they don't then it is a can of worms I'd sure be reluctant to open if I were them.
-
ahhh good point mudd
But if he can I hope he does!
-
I have mixed thoughts about this one.
Personally, I myself, am not very frustrated of random failure issues. If I fly even for 40 minutes for a mission, but by some freaky reason that my engine should start sputtering, trailing smoke and oil, I would still accept that as my bad luck, and will try to nurse my AC back home. It would be even more interesting when this might happen during a battle...
However, I do admit not everyone thinks the way I do, and to considerable many people that random failures might be distasteful.
..
But still, reliability issues are also a part of the pros and cons which make up an aircraft. For instance, prototypes and early manufactiured versions of the Ki-84 was known to be more versatile and reliable, while the production versions suffered vast shortage of maintenance and material, thus making the plane, which specifications are so impressive on paper, very unreliable and uncomfortable for the pilot in actual performance.
Reliability issues, in my opinion, are things too big to just 'discard' and 'do away', saying 'hey, it's only a game'.
I can only hope for a reasonable decision on the part of HTC.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Then stay in the MA.
Are you a dork or do you just play one on the bbs?
This is an assinine request. It would be a totally forced and BS gimmic. Where you gonna get enough data to prove any system is not pure crap? How many folks in their right mind would join the Nipponese side in a late war setup, knowing that 20+% of them will rtb after launch. Poking youself in the face with a stick would be about as much fun, and at least you would have a cool scar when the 30 minutes was over.
All damage to an aircraft shoud be caused by the pilot or the enemy or friendly fire.
...and maybe birds.
F.
-
Mudd and Furious are correct,
Erg you always remain in the ct.......
-
OK.. here's another way that I MIGHT accept random failures.
Game feature: Strat targets: factories
At the start of the war, all manufacturing and reliabilty are at 100% and no random failures occur.
If the fuel factory is bombed, then a random factor could be induced which "MIGHT" effect the octane level in available fuel, which in turn could limit total output power to an aircraft.
If the ammo factory is bombed, then a random factor could be incuded which "MIGHT" effect ammunition causing a gun to jam, or a bomb ending up being a dud.
If the maintenance hangers on a particular field are damaged, this "MIGHT" cause aircraft leaving that field to have a "POSSIBILITY" of a failure due to poor maintenance.
----
Random failures based on historical data and put into the game "just because" is not something that makes sense. Most of these historical failures (like the P-51B gun jams, Typhoon's poor engine performance at high altitude, etc.) were designed out in updated models.
Failures due to poor manufacturing conditions, low quality materials, untrained aircrews and other factors should not be designed into the game as a simple random thing. Tie these things directly to a strat system that works in the game, and the vague randomness becomes more acceptable (at least to me)
In playing a game/sim, we should be able to assume that the aircraft we choose to fly will work as advertised, unless there is some measurable detraction, such as broken supply lines, factories that are out of commission, airfields that are heavily damaged, etc.
In the real war, pilots had to deal with "random" failures becuase they really had no other choice. But if you think about it, most failures could be attributed to something else.
Like your car, for example... You can drive it and drive it, and if properly maintained, it will last a LONG time with very little chance of failure.
Now, go without maintenance.
1. Oil doesn't get changed because you don't have any fresh oil
2. Radiator hoses don't get replaced because you don't have any new ones.
3. Tires don't get rotated or replaced because your too busy to get it done.
Driving the car now, you have increased the chances of failure. The engine might seize, it might not. The radiator hose might crack, it might not. A tire might go flat or blow out, or it might not. One thing for sure, you CHANCE of failure is increased, but it's not really random when it DOES happen, just WHEN is the randomness.
Anyway, as I said, if we can have a measureable and trackable factor for determining the chances of a failure, it might be better, even for gameplay. It would encourage putting in the extra effort to kill the enemy's refinery, or spare parts factory (please make this new factory HT)
Random failure for history's sake does not a fun game make.
-
Heres an idea for realism, Its works on the users front end
It will work for every one
Ya want gun jams 15 min after launch shoot off all your ammo....
instant simulated gun jam
Ya want eng failures 15 min into flight turn off your eng or take off with 25 gas and let it run out
instant simulated eng failure
Ya want no radar or clipboard gps map or adjustable head views
Put a paper bag over your head or hang a towel over your monitor, you can have all the realism ya want right on your front end.........
-
It may be possible to have it both way of course... Since we will be playing for mission points in order to increase rank. (As I understand it...) One could make the degree of system reliability player selectable "in the hanger" and the greater degree of "realism" one chooses acts as a multiplier for mission points awarded at completion.
In the above I am of course equating "realism" with "things break."
BTW: If you want to read reams and reams of conversation on this very point, have a gander at the forums at the Wings With Wires (http://www.wingswithwires.com) sight. None of this is anything new under the sun.
-
Midnight has any interesting idea there.
Lets pretend.....(wavy screen)
1. Damage done to specific types of strategic targets have some varying affect on corresponding plane performance.
examples:
Oil refinery - would produce impurities that might cause an engine to run overly hot or would reduce the quality of fuels (lower octanes, etc.)
Ball Bearing plants - poor quality bearings might cause engines to sieze, tank turrets to rotate slower, etc.
...and so on.
2. Pilots are awarded resource points (RP) for successful missions or some other activity. Think perk points.
Situation:
Your ball bearing and oil refinery have been hit. The game has determined that you have a 20% chance that your engine will malfunction and you only have a lower octane fuel available.
Your avatar could choose to roll the dice and just risk it, or could apply his resource points to improving the odds.
In this situation the pilot chooses to pay 10 RP to use the higher octane fuel that his crew chief has squirrelled away and uses 10 RP to bring the chance of engine failure down to 10% (1 RP per 1%) buy tossing the mechanic a full pack of smokes.
(wavy screen)
...anyway, this would the make possibility of failure known before flight and would give the pilot some way to lessen the chances of a scrubbed mission.
It also bases failure rates on in game situations.
Also, I think it would be well in line with the RPG aspect.
F.
-
I would prefer all kind of random events. Guns jams for sure. Engines misfunctions -- yes, though read my other post. If we will be let to spend our CP for some additional plane care, you can spend some on ordering your ground crew to check the engine, so it is much less chances for failer. So you will have to chose between keeping them for promossion or other staff, like making your plane better, or having more chances to go home alive.
I understand that engine failer can be hell of frustration, specially over enemy territory. But it shall not happen often, because it have not happen often in RL.
Actually knowing HTC I can say that AHII still will not be a clear sim, it will have lot of gameplay compromise, so unlikely we will get random engine dammages.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Midnight has any interesting idea there.
Lets pretend.....(wavy screen)
(wavy screen)
Cool :cool:
-
I'm not a big fan of the idea of random failures. However, I do believe you can instill some level of marginality in performance.
Basically, we should have to check our oil pressure, head PSI and so forth. There should be a certain random performance range where our aircraft will opperate. There shouldn't be an instant "your engine is dead", but it should be possible that someone, ever so often, experiences an overheating problem. Or perhaps a minor vibration. That type of thing.
Minor variances would be frustrating, but also immersive. Especially if they drove the need for a decision on wether or not to fly or RTB.
MiniD
-
I like what Furious says :)
It'd also help people give some serious motivation in carrying out assignments given to them. Miserable mission stats = worse conditions of the war... that will effect everyone slowly, but steadily, ever increasing.
....
But on the other hand... what about pilots playing the role such as the USAAF? They didn't have any resource targets to worry about and protect.. What will effect them in terms of balance?
(or, in TOD, will historic disadvantages such as strategical mistakes, dwindling resources effect only one side?)
-
I'm inclined to feel that any form of "random failure" should somehow be originally linked to a pilot or other players action, (Either you or someone else). I'm all for guns overheating because of to much use - or freezing because of to little at alt, Engine overheating because of to much WEP or damage but "True random" failures"?? Leave em out of AH, we already have enough to contend with due to the vaguries of the internet sometimes. Treat a CTD as pilot heart attack, System lockup as someone left a spanner somewhere, Lost UDP treat the connection degredation as pilot fatigue :D
For me Random failures which would make a real WW2 pilot go "What the F..." are amply represented in areas they could not even imagine in the 1940's.
TTFN
snafu