Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Maverick on February 05, 2003, 11:49:37 AM
-
That sums it up. If you die in the mission what happens to yor character or "career". Do you start over or do you get to do the mission over again? I can see how the "sim" folks woulfd be excited about this but what about the player that is going to spend less than 10 hours a week playing?
How do you get a mission? From a player or AI generated?
Do you sit in a "ready room" waiting for a mission to start?
As you acquire rank, what does that mean for the player?
You can see what variables I am concerned about here as I am curious how this will be a continuous play arena.
-
The word so far is
missions generated by host
new pilots need to earn their wing....ie training missions
A death penalty that is rather severe, you will will loose mission points
You will be demoted and advanced based on total points.
2nd. The Mission theater. We need a better name for this. AcesHigh "Fill In the blank"
This game will will be primarly geared toward role playing.
The outline of the game play items are as follows.
1. You will enter the game as a cadet and have to pass some training sorties to get your wings.
2. Once you get your wings you will be a 2nd LT with 500 carer points.
3. If you die you will loose aprox 100 career points.
4. If one your mission is a success you will recieve 10 carreer points.
5. If your points go to 0 you are demoted back to a cadet and have to go back threw training.
6. If you get 1000 Points you will be promoted to 1st LT.
Once your a 1st you will the loose 150 for a death and recieve 10 carreer points for mission successes. If you reach 0 your back to 2nd or 1000 your promoted. Along with a promtion comes better ground crews. So your guns might jam less,eng run better, but your expected perform a lot better. There's also medals and other stuff.
The point values in the example above are just for demonstration purposes just to give you an idea of how it will work.
Battles will last for a given period of time before moving onto the next phase of the war.
Missions with be automaticly generated by the host, and have a substantial AI componet of either bombers or ground vehicles.
Offensive missions will be primarly to protect bombers or vehicels, defensive to kill bombers, or vehicles.
You will have 2 avatars, one for axis one for allied. You will only be able to play 1 avatar per battle. There ranks will be independent.
The numbers as quoted above are only there as an examople of what ht has in mind. He stated they are not "set in stone".
He mentioned nothing about a "re-fly" option. A death most likely will be a death and will be scored as such.
-
Also just flying 10hrs a week wont matter be rank and ascore are determined by mission sucess.
k/t wont matter
-
I think the ToD will be great fun... I just hope fighter sorties are as uneventful as most were in the war :)
-
I just don't like the "demoted back to cadet and go back through training" thang. I can handle being a career butter bar but I don't wanna spend my "AH career" in training. ;0)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I just don't like the "demoted back to cadet and go back through training" thang. I can handle being a career butter bar but I don't wanna spend my "AH career" in training. ;0)
Then you should pay attention in the training missions and try to do well once you are promoted. The idea of this "sim" will be to survive and do well in your assigned missions.
-
Bailing shouldn't be considered dieing just bail and open chute close to ground and hope that the SOB you were just fighting isn't a chute shooter. If he is your dead then you can call him names on channel 1. while he laughs his arse off.
Chute shooters can't stand them. Somethin seriously wrong with them.:(
-
*takes note*
-
Anyone that would publicly take on the worst movie ever hollywood fake gay plastic fool moniker “Maverick”, like 443,000 other 14 year old boys into Unreal Tournament and Air Warrior, should just be ignored.
-
the chutes must die......
-
hmmm... i wonder about the possibilities of this importance of death and survival... very interesting...
-
Then I should what[/b]? Don't give me that arrogant stuffed shirt drivel. I like playing AH as well as anyone (as I did AW). I don't pretend to be a point hoarder nor do I claim the patience or skill to do such. Developing a system that rewards the more skilled player is fine by me. Developing one that punishes the less skilled makes no sense at all. I thought the "idea" of AHII was to increase the immersion factor for the players, not run off all but "the best". If it ends up like that, you're welcome to it.
Like I said ... I've no problem staying on the bottom rung but being kicked off the ladder altogether and forced to start over time and again isn't going to inspire me.
Get bent, ya arrogant twit. :p
Midnight is all ....
Then you should pay attention in the training missions and try to do well once you are promoted. The idea of this "sim" will be to survive and do well in your assigned missions.
-
Yup I agree arlo, and a feature that sends you back each time you die to training will discourage a ton of newbies from ever trying the TOD past their first death...
SKurj
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Anyone that would publicly take on the worst movie ever hollywood fake gay plastic fool moniker “Maverick”, like 443,000 other 14 year old boys into Unreal Tournament and Air Warrior, should just be ignored.
Creamo,
You want to explain why you posted this? AFAIK, I have done nothing to you. BTW just where do you think I got the handle from? Don't you have anything to do beside bash people or is that how you make yourself feel better?
:confused:
-
you'd have to die 5 times in 5 straight sorties to get demoted back to cadet. Thats if we use the above point system. If you are going fly like that then why bother? There will be far more action in AHC.
The point system doesnt punish less skilled folks. It punishes anyone who dies equally. If you die every sortie no matter what your "skillz" are you wont make rank.
Its not like you are going to up into a 50 man furball. Or have to dive through ack or enemy to stop a "reset" or "base capture". The missions will be structured. Lotsa of flying until you come across the enemy. If mission numbers are regulated then you wont end up in too many impossible situations. The object is to live and complete your mission. It wont be where you suicide yourself to "complete the mission". The mission means nothing unless you live.
Positioning for the advantage, flying as a unit with good tactics are what will get you kills. Deciding when to engage and when to extend will be important. Its a different mindset then:
"oh well atleast I got 3...."
AHC will be there for that.
-
And this line of reasoning makes this a good idea? Why should AHII:TOD have an additional factor worked into it to discourage players? Some of us just ain't hot sticks. That doesn't mean we won't enjoy and appreciate a non-MA setting. Telling a player that they're probably more suited for AHC instead doesn't sound like a formula for success. There will already be players that won't like it just because it won't have the non-stop action of furballs in the MA.
And yes .... I can easily picture dying 5 times straight ... even after "earning my wings" in training. I am the epitomy of the non-MA minded player that's a natural bullet magnet. I don't care if I don't gain rank or points ... but I don't wanna have to go back to training because I'm having my usual streak of bad luck (sometimes I manage to run across better sticks than I on a regular basis - go figure).
What's an acceptable player attrition rate? Even if only 10 percent get demoted back to cadet and have to start the training process all over again (while their squadies enjoy squadnight in TOD) .... how many of them do you think will put up with that? What will you say? Good riddance?
(Shakes head and mutters)
There has to be an element of game fun maintained for all players. Immersion is fine but don't go overboard and try to make it "force" players to not take chances. How fun is that? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Batz
you'd have to die 5 times in 5 straight sorties to get demoted back to cadet. Thats if we use the above point system. If you are going fly like that then why bother? There will be far more action in AHC.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And this line of reasoning makes this a good idea? Why should AHII:TOD have an additional factor worked into it to discourage players? Some of us just ain't hot sticks. That doesn't mean we won't enjoy and appreciate a non-MA setting. Telling a player that they're probably more suited for AHC instead doesn't sound like a formula for success. There will already be players that won't like it just because it won't have the non-stop action of furballs in the MA.
And yes .... I can easily picture dying 5 times straight ... even after "earning my wings" in training. I am the epitomy of the non-MA minded player that's a natural bullet magnet. I don't care if I don't gain rank or points ... but I don't wanna have to go back to training because I'm having my usual streak of bad luck (sometimes I manage to run across better sticks than I on a regular basis - go figure).
What's an acceptable player attrition rate? Even if only 10 percent get demoted back to cadet and have to start the training process all over again (while their squadies enjoy squadnight in TOD) .... how many of them do you think will put up with that? What will you say? Good riddance?
(Shakes head and mutters)
There has to be an element of game fun maintained for all players. Immersion is fine but don't go overboard and try to make it "force" players to not take chances. How fun is that? :rolleyes:
It's amazing to me that people want to whine about how poorly they play, and the game should be structured so that they can still be succesful. That is exactly why HTC will leave the existing game as AHC. So people with only a few minutes to play, who haven't improved their skills, who don't want to deal with a structured mission invironment, and don't care about their scores can still play and do what they want.
It also allows players who DO care about completing their mission, yet doing so in a manner that allows them to get home when the job is done.
Hopefully, AH ToD will be a game/sim for players who want to play in an enviroment where their actions, as well as their countrymates can have a real effect on what happens next. If HTC is going to put all kinds of buffers into the game to prevent people from being "discouraged" with their poor performance, then I hope they don't even bother putting in the effort.
With any luck, ToD will be more realistic, in the sense that if you fail too often, your superiors will remove you until such time you can improve. Why should every game cater to the newbie or the casual player? Why can't the simmer's have a simulation with out the gamer's whining that it is too hard?
Please play AHC and join a squad. Fly in the current ToDs and improve your skills for missions. There are plenty of places to practice and get better. Please don't ask that AH ToD should not have penalties for poor performance. Let us have a simulation please. Thank you.
-
Sounds freaking great to me, can't wait!
-
You can't seem to grasp the simple fact that telling players that want to play and enjoy a game (or variant of it) that since they obviously aren't good at it they should take up something else (or play the "Jr. variant") is being presumptuous.
I'm not whining about my skill or lack of it. I'm tellin' ya that creating a reward system need not include a punishment system that makes a player who otherwise can enjoy the game in spite of his "ranking" miserable. I enjoy gettin' shot down as much as I do shooting down others (well ... almost ;)). But I sure as hell don't wanna be forced to bow out of the rest of the nights festivities with my friends (or have one of them forced to) because "Midnight" thinks punishing the lesser skilled player enhances his woody factor.
True realism would mean a real life headstone on the very first death .... or being cashiered out with no chance of return if you prove to be a liability. Why not? After all, we want this sim to be as realistic as possible, right? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Midnight
It's amazing to me that people want to whine about how poorly they play, and the game should be structured so that they can still be succesful. That is exactly why HTC will leave the existing game as AHC.
If HTC is going to put all kinds of buffers into the game to prevent people from being "discouraged" with their poor performance, then I hope they don't even bother putting in the effort.
With any luck, ToD will be more realistic, in the sense that if you fail too often, your superiors will remove you until such time you can improve. ( You've GOT to be kidding! - A.G.) Why should every game cater to the newbie or the casual player? Why can't the simmer's have a simulation with out the gamer's whining that it is too hard? (Comes off presumptuous and arrogant. - A.G.)
Please play AHC and join a squad. Fly in the current ToDs and improve your skills for missions. There are plenty of places to practice and get better. Please don't ask that AH ToD should not have penalties for poor performance. Let us have a simulation please. Thank you. (Comes off presumptuous and arrogant. - A.G.)
-
"Skillz" Have nothing to do with "flying to live". Anyone can "fly to live" that means that using your brain so that you dont put yourself in a position where you need superior "killz" to survive.
Apparently you cant grasp that. Any death effects every one equally. If you cant hack it, or cant fly in a manner that doesnt expose yourself to being killed consistantly then AH2:C is what you want.
Theres another player base that wants something more. We expect those who fly with us to live. We expect those who fly with us to fly in a manner that reduces the risk to the unit.
If you care not to fly that way then why worry about what goes on in AH2:ToD?
The object is to survive 1st and fore most, then complete the mission successfully.
Gameplay is not comparable to the main or even current scenarios. Death means something. Dont die. This may not attract the typical gamer.......
"I just want a few kills"
Squads like Midnight's and mine will want some thing that isa more then the main. At the same time we care little about base capture, resets etc..... We would like to fly in a "situation" where it matters not only in what you kill but if you survive.
You assume only those with superior "skillz" will benefit. Thats bs. A squad that may not be particularly skilled as individual pilots can do well if they work well together.
You are looking at it as "how can I have an impact". Well alone you cant. Regardless of skill.
HT has said that AH2:ToD would be like an RPG. Theres a tourney in IL2 called Dead is Dead (DiD). Where if you die you loose your current name. That avatar is dead. You start over from the bottom with a new name if you die.
If you care nothing about rank or "living" then AH2:ToD may not be for you. But even if you die and start from cadet why should that matter? Especially, if you dont care if you "stay at the bottom".
HT hasnt said that "cadet" missions will be the same always. He hasnt said what that will mean except that after completing them successfully they will get you a "rank".
So if you dont care about "living" then it shouldnt matter if it says "cadet" or "general" by your name.
We can assume that higher ranked players get better equipment and missions but until HT says something we dont know.
Its not so much about "skillz" as it is about flying smart and doing your duty. Your duty is not to die and do your best to complete your mission. Flying smart means knowing how to balance the 2.
-
From the way it sounds, it's going to suck to be a bomber pilot in AH:TOD.
-
Not really, bomber missions will be supplemented with ai, and hopefully a bomber "mission" will be accompanied by an escort "mission".
So the attacker will see lotsa bombers and some escorts. They need to attack stop the enemy mission and rtb.
Theres equal risk all the way around. Atleast imho.......
-
Originally posted by Batz
"Skillz" Have nothing to do with "flying to live".
(Shakes head in wonder)
So you're trying to convince me that AHII:TOD will take no skill? Or are you trying to convince me that AHII:TOD ... is the "thinking man's game of fear and loathing"?
Yaya .... can't grasp how making players go through "training" again if they die too much benefits the game. Can't grasp how other players can impose thier "live at any cost" values on others and think they're doing the community a favor (valor may be cheap in cyberspace but that makes being too scared to risk your virtual butt even weaker). Can't grasp how you and Midnight think telling other players to stick with (or go to) the MA is going to help AHII:TOD.
It's one thing to encourage teamwork, mission oriented flying and trying to survive. It's quite another to discourage players from even trying by taking away their regular flight privs and making them have to go back through the training because they died one too many times. Once a player recieves the training, that should be enough .... for all of their avatars.
A reward system doesn't require a punishment system to go along with it just because someone isn't inclined to run from a fight (or leave a buddy in the lurch) to protect their points (or prevent their avatar's fifth death while still a butterbar). If you two really think this is going to be the ultimate goal of AHII:TOD, then good luck. Hope you enjoy it for what it's worth. (Though I suspect it wouldn't be popular enough to survive.)
I'm all for the challenge of surviving a mission. But I'm also for the challenge of the mission that's hard to survive.
I hope there's plenty of milkrun missions for you guys to slowly stock up your advancement points. ;)
Originally posted by Batz
Anyone can "fly to live" that means that using your brain so that you dont put yourself in a position where you need superior "killz" to survive.
Apparently you cant grasp that. Any death effects every one equally. If you cant hack it, or cant fly in a manner that doesnt expose yourself to being killed consistantly then AH2:C is what you want.
Theres another player base that wants something more. We expect those who fly with us to live. We expect those who fly with us to fly in a manner that reduces the risk to the unit.
If you care not to fly that way then why worry about what goes on in AH2:ToD?
The object is to survive 1st and fore most, then complete the mission successfully.
Gameplay is not comparable to the main or even current scenarios. Death means something. Dont die. This may not attract the typical gamer.......
"I just want a few kills"
Squads like Midnight's and mine will want some thing that isa more then the main. At the same time we care little about base capture, resets etc..... We would like to fly in a "situation" where it matters not only in what you kill but if you survive.
You assume only those with superior "skillz" will benefit. Thats bs. A squad that may not be particularly skilled as individual pilots can do well if they work well together.
You are looking at it as "how can I have an impact". Well alone you cant. Regardless of skill.
HT has said that AH2:ToD would be like an RPG. Theres a tourney in IL2 called Dead is Dead (DiD). Where if you die you loose your current name. That avatar is dead. You start over from the bottom with a new name if you die.
If you care nothing about rank or "living" then AH2:ToD may not be for you. But even if you die and start from cadet why should that matter? Especially, if you dont care if you "stay at the bottom".
HT hasnt said that "cadet" missions will be the same always. He hasnt said what that will mean except that after completing them successfully they will get you a "rank".
"Quote" from the AHII:TOD FAQ:
5. If your points go to 0 you are demoted back to a cadet and have to go back (through) training. [/i]
So if you dont care about "living" then it shouldnt matter if it says "cadet" or "general" by your name.
We can assume that higher ranked players get better equipment and missions but until HT says something we dont know.
Its not so much about "skillz" as it is about flying smart and doing your duty. Your duty is not to die and do your best to complete your mission. Flying smart means knowing how to balance the 2.
-
I agree with Arlo. There is no reason to force players out by sending them back down to the minors so to speak.
If you die too often then you simply shouldn't advance in rank. That alone is enough of a penalty. With that setting we aren't asking for auto success, after all failing to advance in rank isn't success, its failure.
I have no doubt that I could easily survive and advance in rank if I flew P-51Ds. That'd be so easy its not even funny.
For bombers it depends if the enemy can easily identify the player bombers from the AI bombers and how many AI bombers there are. Given how hard it is to stay in formation right now and the lack of fire from player bombers I'd guess it'll be very easy to single out the player controled bombers, just look for the bomber that is out of formation, drifting or rolling around. Kill that and you've deprived a player of a "life".
What I will probably fly (assuming its available) is the Mosquito FB.VI. Due to the low altitude profile of Mosquito Fighter-Bomber missions I suspect that it will be very difficult to not be sent back to training on a very regular basis and nigh impossible to advance in rank. The Fw190D-9 and Bf109G-10 are simply too fast for the Mossie to use its historical escape method.
-
If there is no "punishment" for people who die to many times then there will be no will to live either (for most players). Sure you may get slightly better things if you live but this alone is not enough to make people want to stay alive and not going in in suicide attacks. training camp probarly won't take too long.
Arlo, to me it seams as if you have never flown a special event. I've flown lots of them, I have flown with new people (hell some of them have been on their 2 week trail) and I've seen them survive, maybe not get many or any kills but they have survived because they have flown smart, they have stayed together with the more experienced players and been covered like it and they have understood the meaning of teamwork.
If you don't have the system that puts them back in training after they die 5 times before getting a higher rank they will surely not care about living.
-
Wilbuz has it right.
Its not about score, or punishment, or skillz, or any of that.
HT is trying to make a new thing where people HAVE to care about not dieing.
Death will HURT you.
Flying to stay alive & complete the mission will pay off.
Think about what that means.
A if your outnumbered its better to RTB than suicide yourself in a furball.
B No more suicide jabo attacks!
You'd get exactly 5 before you'r pulled from the lineup.
This isn't about elliteism, or skillz,
or anything else. Its about LIVING and returning to base first, mission accomplished 2nd.
That being said, hes not changing what we have now. Want to go suicide 18 times in a row into a furball or field fine, do it in the MAIN!
But those of us who have dreamed of something better for 5 or 6 years finally get a chance at it.
-
You've the same presumptuous attitude that Midnight has, Wilbus. I've participated in ( and in some cases, helped design) online events off and on for the last five years. I don't like melee style arenas on the whole and will only fly in them when the CT is broken or underpopulated.
This "there needs to be a punishment or players won't care about keeping their avatar alive" rationale doesn't float. Events have never required players to stop participating in them because they didn't fair as well as others. Players should never have their normal arena participation revoked because of anything other than TOS violations.
There is already motivation to keep deaths from reaching a certain level- positive motivation. Adding negative motivation to that is overkill (and detrimental to encouraging new players to invest time and money in it). Even the experienced event player isn't going to appreciate having his regular flight privs limited just because he didn't measure up to the "chicken chart".
Again ... sending a player back to "bootcamp" after they already paid those dues just because they fail to measure up to an arbitrary "survival criteria" is not going to enhance the game.
GhostH ... there's plenty of reason for a player to care about their avatar's survival without taking it to the level of revoking their regular flight privs. You ARE sounding elitist and foolish. And you're not the only one to dream of a more immersive enviroment to participate in. I've posted on numerous occasions (here and elsewhere) about my vision of the future of mmp combat sims that entailed rank, recognition, R&D, strat, dynamics of war and politics .... and survival.
FORCING players to fly your way or quit the game by revoking their regular flight privs isn't going to help. ENCOURAGING players through a sensible reward system may.
-
FORCING players to fly your way or quit the game by revoking their regular flight privs isn't going to help. ENCOURAGING players through a sensible reward system may.
They are not in any way forced to play "our" way. The normal arena will still be there if they do not find the challenge of staying alive fun, many people will still fly in the normal "Main" Arena.
There won't be just the elitist flying in there, every skill from extreem newbie to an old vet will be found in there, but if they can't handle being killed (thus getting a small punishment if killed 5 times in a row) they might find the MA funnier.
It's about living, not getting ## amount of kills or suicide a field or a CV. If you live, you're awarded. If you die, you die. To me it seams pretty generous to even have 5 lives.
So bascily, I do not at all agree with you Arlo.
-
So to rise in rank we need 1000 points at 10 for a sucessful mission? isnt that like 100 missions with no loses?:confused: sounds a little low for points for doing something right..........
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
They are not in any way forced to play "our" way. The normal arena will still be there if they do not find the challenge of staying alive fun, many people will still fly in the normal "Main" Arena.
Nooo ... that's EXACTLY what you're advocating. "Play my way ... which entails taking as few risks as possible ... or go play in the normal main arena."
Originally posted by Wilbus
There won't be just the elitist flying in there, every skill from extreem newbie to an old vet will be found in there, but if they can't handle being killed (thus getting a small punishment if killed 5 times in a row) they might find the MA (more to their liking).
And I'm tellin' ya .... bad idea. Forcing players to go back through training after an arbitrary number of deaths because you percieve that as an indicator that they prefer MA furballs and need to have an attitude adjustment is elitist and foolish.
Originally posted by Wilbus
It's about living, not getting ## amount of kills or suicide a field or a CV. If you live, you're awarded. If you die, you die. To me it seams pretty generous to even have 5 lives.
Making suicide jabo runs and running headlong into enemy swarms, going berzerk and dying in a blaze of glory appears to be the only way you can see players not living "up" to your "chicken chart" criteria.
I hate to inform you (not really) ... that there's also players that sacrifice their virtual lives to help team mates in trouble. And what are you gonna do if HT decides to nix some of the gamey icon and dar info and your "danger avoidance" skills that you've spent your entire AH career developing is now drastically handicapped? Sure ... you'll be harder to find and ID ... but AH isn't just an endless game of hide and seek. Sooner or later you'll have to engage the enemy (ya reckon?) and you may have to deal with suddenly being outnumbered, surrounded .... maybe lower and slower. Are you really confident that you'll never run into a streak of bad luck that ends up sending you back to bootcamp? How will you handle all the jeers and leers of those who will call you an MA dweeb? ;)
Well, I hope, for your sake, you can maintain the delusion that any player who dies too many times in a row doesn't care "to fit in" to your particular point of view of what a "good event player" is. Then again ... maybe they don't. :D
Originally posted by Wilbus
So bascily, I do not at all agree with you Arlo.
Obviously. We can at least agree on that.
-
To me you seam incapeble of maintaining a "professional" discussion without making personal attacks of some kind. Although your behavior is childish I will once again try and say what I want to make you understand.
This new TOD gives the players who have always wanted this kind of arena a chance to actually fly the way we want. Up till now, WE have been forced to play the way YOU (they whatever) want by ONLY having the option of the MA and sometimes CT when enough players online. There are few events and even fewer that most people can make it to.
So if we have been forced to fly this way, why shouldn't other people be forced to fly the TOD survival way? Of course, they won't be forced as they will still have the MA. The ones of us (quite many) who have longed for this type of arena have played it your way for a long time now.
"danger avoidance" skills that you've spent your entire AH career developing is now drastically handicapped?
Quite obviously you do not know me, nor do you know my flying so if I were you I'd chill down a bit and research some facts about me and my flying before you make such childish personal attacks again.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
To me you seam incapeble of maintaining a "professional" discussion without making personal attacks of some kind. Although your behavior is childish I will once again try and say what I want to make you understand.
Make me understand? I understand fine, Wilbus. You want players to be recycled through training if they die too much. You think this will either be doing them a favor or doing you one.
I don't agree ... it's a very bad idea. It doesn't enhance the game. The only thing it will do is "punish" players you think need punishing because they take too many risks in the game. It's designed to create an enviroment where only players who are like minded (as you) will fly and you have less chance of someone ridiculing you.
Originally posted by Wilbus
This new TOD gives the players who have always wanted this kind of arena a chance to actually fly the way we want. Up till now, WE have been forced to play the way YOU (they whatever) want by ONLY having the option of the MA and sometimes CT when enough players online. There are few events and even fewer that most people can make it to.
Nice try. It doesn't cut both ways, Wilbus. Nobody can force you to take risks because they themselves do. You would like to see an enviroment where players are punished for taking risks. Sad, really.
Originally posted by Wilbus
So if we have been forced to fly this way, why shouldn't other people be forced to fly the TOD survival way? Of course, they won't be forced as they will still have the MA. The ones of us (quite many) who have longed for this type of arena have played it your way for a long time now.
"Of course they won't be forced since they will still have the MA"?
What part of "event players that aren't scared to take chances" are you not understanding, Wilbus? An increased sense of immersiveness with mission oriented goals and balanced forces incorporating AI elements doesn't only appeal to players that are actually afraid to die online too often. ;)
Originally posted by Wilbus
Quite obviously you do not know me, nor do you know my flying so if I were you I'd chill down a bit and research some facts about me and my flying before you make such childish personal attacks again.
Quite obviously you don't know me either. But you do need a thicker skin if you think this was nothing but a childish personal attack on you. The idea of recycling players through training because they managed to die once too often and trip a server setting that says they didn't live up to a "chicken chart" statistic is dumb. If that opinion hurts your feelings ... well, either learn to live with it or don't is my advice. :D
-
HT hasnt defined "training". It could be a series of recon flights etc.. Or you will only have access to certain planes etc......
Its not like you gotta peel potatoes and polish all the "ranked" players boots.
Even given the points above you'd have to die in 5 straight sorties. Staying alive doesnt skill, you think it does but it doesnt.
Theres nothing to "win" in AH2:ToD, no war to win no base to capture etc....Theres no reason to committ suicide. If you die every sortie then its not about "skillz" its about stupidity.
And if you dont like AH2:ToD then there AH2:C for you.
Karnak
You been complaining about how "tough" it is to fly a mossie since it came to ah. If its impossible to survive in and no fun I think I'd leave it in the Hanger. There are plenty of slower, weaker armed planes that do well in the main. Last time I flew a mossie ag and I landed 14 kills. I had 6 he had 8.
There were plenty of slow planes that had roles through out the War.
"Well my plane is too slo so we need a "rank" system that suits my plane preference."
Well the p51b is much faster then a g6 and most other axis planes that would be a historical match for it.
Making AH2:ToD a "Main Arena" with missions doesnt sound like a good idea to me. In AH2:ToD you fly to live and complete your mission. In that atmosphere "dogfighting" is a waste of time. Just like it was during the real war. Hit and run, engage from advantage, run when you loose it. The penalty of death has to be sufficient enough to put some "fear" into you so that you focus on surviving.
-
As long as the success of the mission, be that target(s) destroyed or whatever, counts as least as much as returning alive. You guys seem to be accentuating the staying alive part, which on its own would make for a very boring, timid arena. Just returning alive by itself should not be awarded if no damage was done.
bowser
-
you only get rewarded points for a successfull mission. But mission points will be far less the the point penalty for death.
So there will be no "We just need 1 building to complete the mission so I will ride my bombs in and collect some points".
You will need to decide whether to risk death to complete the mission or whether to break off to survive.
This allows for things like "mission kills". Where 1 side doesnt need to shoot everyone down but force a mission to turn back.
To gain rank you need to survive and complete the missions, but survival is more important then just "blowing that building up".
-
Originally posted by Batz
If you die every sortie then its not about "skillz" its about stupidity.
And if you dont like AH2:ToD then there AH2:C for you.
Bull. In a competative enviroment where SA, ACM and luck itself are all factors, anyone can (and should) experience streaks of losses as well as streaks of success from time to time. Unless, of course, they haven't the inclination to accept the hard missions or to take risks that involve a greater chance of them virtually dying.
I tend to experience more of the former and less of the latter at this stage. I don't feel so despirate to improve my ranking in the game that I refuse to engage the enemy on anything less that significantly superior odds or advantages every time. Nor do I feel inclined to run from every single engagement where the odds shift (though I have, at times).
Telling me (or anyone) over and over that this is the way AHII:TOD is supposed to be and anyone that doesn't like it needs to stick with the main arena smacks of presumption and arrogance. Seems we both can repeat this cycle until you either come up with something more conclusive or I decide you're not worth paying attention to anymore. :D
Originally posted by Batz
Making AH2:ToD a "Main Arena" with missions doesnt sound like a good idea to me. In AH2:ToD you fly to live and complete your mission. In that atmosphere "dogfighting" is a waste of time. Just like it was during the real war. Hit and run, engage from advantage, run when you loose it. The penalty of death has to be sufficient enough to put some "fear" into you so that you focus on surviving.
You an olympic class assumption jumper, I see. The one and only objection I've voiced is one against forcing players to undergo training again if they die one too many times as an O-1 (the time when they probably will die more often than not unless they come into the game as "masters of avoiding risk"). You have no more idea of what "training" entails than I do ... yet, even if it doesn't entail having to fly in a controlled enviroment and practicing basic flying and gunnery with a trainer, it will obviously involve revoking some of the privileges the player recieved when he successfully completed training the first time.
The amount of opposition to this one reasonable objection I'm seeing from players who apparently can't abide those who take risks they shy away from has already reached the point of absurdity. ;)
-
You dont know what "training" means, none of us do. So any whine you have about it is meaningless.
I don't feel so despirate to improve my ranking in the game that I refuse to engage the enemy on anything less that significantly superior odds or advantages every time. Nor do I feel inclined to run from every single engagement where the odds shift (though I have, at times).
Then why are you worried about what goes on in AH2:ToD? You can do all that in the main now. You can evenr create your own missions.
Telling me (or anyone) over and over that this is the way AHII:TOD is supposed to be and anyone that doesn't like it needs to stick with the main arena smacks of presumption and arrogance.
Arrogance? No more like common sense. You have a choice. I cant figure out why you would care what happens in AH2:ToD. Everything you seem to want is already there in the main. If its plane match ups you want then the Combat Theater is there. If its "organization" the the mission planner is there. As well as events.
Its all there for you. Why create another arena thats the same as everything else? You arent being "cheated". You can either play or not.
No one is telling you anything except if you dont like it you have other options.
Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.
This realy is a must for the game because it is what provides targets so that one persone dosn't have to die for every kill.
The success of the attack mission can then be how well you defended the bombers, and not how many planes you shot down. I.E. Just chacing off the defender is a success.
As a defender your mission will be successful based on how well you stoped the attack. Think of if it in terms of 20% of the bomber force destroyed, the defender mission was a success.
Notice you didn't have to kill any real player on either offense or defense to succede.
With out this one concept in the game there is no way to put a hi penalty on dieing, and hence a desire to live. By simply adjusting the points per mission / points lost for death we can control this incentive to live. The back to training is needed for a 2nd LT death, btw a 1st LT 0 points would just return you to a 2nd LT, because with out it there would not be a real penalty for a 2nd LT death.
This is just a basic outline,im sure details will change on how you recieve mission points, like a bonus for killing a buff or fighter or high ranking player.
Also keep in mind this realy is a new game, and will be completly different than the MA, i.e. base capture,strat like the main,war win & reset,vulching, will not be there.
HiTech
Theres a balance between those Dead Man,what your talking about is more akin to MA play, death in the mission has to have a large penalty to make back up. Want to have the feeling that you are forced to engage,but will want to live.
HiTech
posted by mwhun:
I still seem to be missing a key concept about this design. What is going to prevent the same folks that love to “pork and auger” from doing this in a detrimental way in the mission theater? Other than busting them down and keeping them at 2nd Lt. for their entire virtual lives –what other penalties will they face. I.E. What does having a higher rank get me that a 2nd Lt. would not have access too?
Hope that makes sense…
MWHUN: The hours of becoming a cadet and going threw training again, hence why you must go back to training. Btw training = not in a mission, and no one to kill.
HiTech
As you can see its not folks like midnight, wilbus, ghost and I that are telling ht how to run his game. These are things he brought up and we happen to agree with them. Whats "arrogant" is you telling us how we should play. You have all sorts of options. AH2:ToD will be the only option we have.
-
Originally posted by Batz
You dont know what "training" means, none of us do. So any whine you have about it is meaningless.
Sounds like supporting it is just as meaningless, then. May as well nix it since it's meaningless.
Originally posted by Batz
Then why are you worried about what goes on in AH2:ToD? You can do all that in the main now. You can evenr create your own missions.
You're not getting the not so subtle fact that I've been an advocate of a more immersive combat enviroment with AI keeping things hopping 24/7 probably as long (if not longer) than you, are you? My being against recycling players through training has absolutely nothing to do with a desire to see things stay the same way.
Originally posted by Batz
Arrogance? No more like common sense. You have a choice. I cant figure out why you would care what happens in AH2:ToD. Everything you seem to want is already there in the main. If its plane match ups you want then the Combat Theater is there. If its "organization" the the mission planner is there. As well as events.
Wrong. Arrogance is accurate. Telling me to hush and not make a negative critique of one specific part of something I, for the most part, look forward to ... is.
Originally posted by Batz
Its all there for you. Why create another arena thats the same as everything else? You arent being "cheated". You can either play or not.
The only thing I don't like about the AHII:TOD proposal is the part where players get recycled through training. Why is this the essential element for TOD in your eyes? It's silly ... it's excessive.
Originally posted by Batz
No one is telling you anything except if you dont like it you have other options.
One option that you don't seem to realize I have is the ability to voice an objection to forcing players to have to undergo training again if their points go to 0. Got any objection to that? :D
Originally posted by Batz
As you can see its not folks like midnight, wilbus, ghost and I that are telling ht how to run his game. These are things he brought up and we happen to agree with them. Whats "arrogant" is you telling us how we should play. You have all sorts of options. AH2:ToD will be the only option we have.
I haven't once told you how to play. You can play AHII:TOD the same way you played AHC for all I care. What I'm protesting is your support of a system that punishes players for not playing the way you do to the extent of making them have to go through the training process all over again. Ridiculous overkill. There's plenty of motivation to try to survive without making the player rehash training.
Do you really think forcing players to do that will make AHII:TOD a success? It's not just about you or "many others like you" that it's all about. It's about making AHII:TOD appeal to enough players to be a success. Making them "start over" to the extent of having to undergo training again will hurt AHII:TOD. It would undercut a potential playerbase. A playerbase you would want others to believe is detrimental to TOD.
Maybe it's easier to have the server "weed out" players who you feel don't measure up. Much easier than encouraging them to make a greater effort to maintain and roleplay their virtual pilots.
I see your attitude regarding such measures as more of a threat to the future of AHII:TOD than new players who die alot would be.
-
The question is how historical do we want this arena. We'll have historical planes, missions, and terrain. Do we want people to fly historically too? With no death penalty, we routinely get fights with one or both sides gets completely slaughtered (this happened in RL, but not every time). With a death penalty there is more jockeying for position and running away. Not everyone agrees on which situation is lame or boring, but I dont think the arena will survive if one group is completely driven off. Hopefully HTC can come up with a medium that wil limit Arlo's suicidal tendancies enough to keep Wilbus from leaving :)
Just had a thought. Maybe have variable death penalty depending on mission. Have some typical missions with a high death penalty so you do your best to complete the mission but don't get yourselves wiped out. Others could be high risk "at any cost" missions where death penalty is minimal.
Karnak, the mossie is fast enough to be a pain in the bellybutton if flown smartly. For example you might have to plan a route to avoid radar coverage and fighters instead of going striaght in. If there's hi cons over the primary target go hit a secondary. As Batz said, you don't need "skillz" but rather brains (exact opposite of the MA).
The death penalty goes both ways too. Those G10s and D9s will be less likely to chase you down to the deck and halfway across the channel if their lives have meaning (Would be cool to have an allied scramble mission pop up if they do). Add short icons and no inflight radar and mossie survivability goes way up.
-
Who says taking risks involves suicidal tendencies?
And not advancing is penalty enough, ain't it? No? How about just getting busted to the point of being a butterbar with no points but not having to go through the bloody training process all over again? No? Not enough sting? Masochism, anyone? :rolleyes:
Heck ... I'm not trying to convince HT to change TOD to the extent of running off Wilbus ... or Midnight ... or Batz ..... or the supposed legion of other like minded players who feel confident their numbers alone will support TOD. I just don't think certain measures have to be taken to extremes. Unfortunately there are some that seem to find such all too appealing for some odd reason. ;)
Originally posted by Regurge
With no death penalty, we routinely get fights with one or both sides gets completely slaughtered (this happened in RL, but not every time). With a death penalty there is more jockeying for position and running away. Not everyone agrees on which situation is lame or boring, but I dont think the arena will survive if one group is completely driven off. Hopefully HTC can come up with a medium that wil limit Arlo's suicidal tendancies enough to keep Wilbus from leaving :)
-
The only thing I don't like about the AHII:TOD proposal is the part where players get recycled through training. Why is this the essential element for TOD in your eyes? It's silly ... it's excessive.
The answer is here:
posted by mwhun:
quote:
I still seem to be missing a key concept about this design. What is going to prevent the same folks that love to “pork and auger” from doing this in a detrimental way in the mission theater? Other than busting them down and keeping them at 2nd Lt. for their entire virtual lives –what other penalties will they face. I.E. What does having a higher rank get me that a 2nd Lt. would not have access too?
Hope that makes sense…
MWHUN: The hours of becoming a cadet and going threw training again, hence why you must go back to training. Btw training = not in a mission, and no one to kill.
HiTech
And you dont immediatly end up back in training. You only go back to training is you loose all your points as a 2nd LT.
if you are a 1st LT and loose all your points you go back to 2nd LT etc........
As HT said here:
Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.
This realy is a must for the game because it is what provides targets so that one persone dosn't have to die for every kill.
The success of the attack mission can then be how well you defended the bombers, and not how many planes you shot down. I.E. Just chacing off the defender is a success.
As a defender your mission will be successful based on how well you stoped the attack. Think of if it in terms of 20% of the bomber force destroyed, the defender mission was a success.
Notice you didn't have to kill any real player on either offense or defense to succede.
With out this one concept in the game there is no way to put a hi penalty on dieing, and hence a desire to live. By simply adjusting the points per mission / points lost for death we can control this incentive to live. The back to training is needed for a 2nd LT death, btw a 1st LT 0 points would just return you to a 2nd LT, because with out it there would not be a real penalty for a 2nd LT death.
This is just a basic outline,im sure details will change on how you recieve mission points, like a bonus for killing a buff or fighter or high ranking player.
Also keep in mind this realy is a new game, and will be completly different than the MA, i.e. base capture,strat like the main,war win & reset,vulching, will not be there.
HiTech
But nothing is set in stone. I am not some n00b either. So I dont care how long you have wanted a "furball arena with missions" you will just have to keep "wanting". :p
You are the one telling us how to fly. You have options, from the main to the ct to events. Theres no alternative for those of us who want more. Simply supporting what HT has outlined is not "arrogance". I dont like the fact fact that the main is a 3 sided war. Anyone who dissagrees with that is "arrogant"? You know what folks would say if I whined about that.......?
"Go fly in rthe CT"
or
"Go fly another game"
None of that is arrogance. Its spot on. You are obviously hung up on this 1 point. If its not for you instead of going to the main or ct or another game I guess you can just whine about it. Is that what you want to hear? Is that "arrogant"?
You have choices, AH2:ToD is the only choice for some of us.
I dunno what to tell ya, some dont agree with your vision, if thats "arrogant", so what?
Go fly in the main :p
-
You're rehashing the obvious, sport.
I may as well, too.
Forcing players to go back through training ... which entails no missions or opponents ... just because they died once too often as an O-1 ... is a mistake.
Have a nice day. See you in AHII:TOD. :D
Originally posted by Batz
Broken record playing the "go play the MA cause HT's gonna cater to me" rag.
-
Glad I could help............
-
Batz,
Tour 36:
Karnak has 37 kills and has been killed 14 times in the Mosquito Mk VI.
Care to guess what I would get in the P-51D or Fw190D-9 if I wanted to?
I don't have any trouble getting a positive K/D ratio in the Mossie if I use it as a fighter. The free form MA allows that. The structured ToD will assign , theoretically, historical types of missions.
It is all and well for P-51 drivers to be blabbing on to like it or leave it, but they will be flying an aircraft whose destruction is practically never the object of the opposing Axis mission. Having a fast aircraft that isn't the enemy's target makes living easy. Having a slow aircraft (bombers) that is the enemy's designated target makes it much lesss likely. Having a reasonably fast aircraft (Mosquito, P-47, P-38) that has a ground attack mission and is the enemy's mission target makes it harder to survive.
If ToD is setup this way the vast majority of ranked players will be P-51 drivers due to the ease of surviving their mission profiles. Constantly sending bomber and fighter-bomber pilots back to training while promoting escort drivers for their relatively safe missions seems a bit lopsided.
None of us know what HiTech has planned. He himself may be quite some ways from finalizing this level of detail. Getting wound up about it or defensive about it like it is a done deal is rather premature right now. We'll see in eight months or so what HTC's solutions are.
-
Wotan wasn't being sarcastic in the least when he replied:
Glad I could help............
Heaven help us if you end up an AHII:TOD "trainer". Maybe it'll all be automated. :D
Lesson 1: Take offs and landings.
Lesson 2: Autoclimb to 40k.
Lesson 3: Landing, refueling and taking off again.
Lesson 4: Diving from 40k.
Lesson 5: How to avoid being outnumbered.
Lesson 6: How to avoid being lower than your enemy.
Lesson 7: Flying in tight, large fighter formation.
Lesson 8: How to scream for help when in a tight spot.
Lesson 9: How to select targets that have the smallest threat.
Lesson 10: Staying close to friendly territory to avoid capture.
Lesson 11: How to bail out.
Lesson 12: How to man field guns and ship guns.
Lesson 13: Advanced FG and SG gunnery practice.
Lesson 14: Armored vehicles and their flight characterisitcs.
Lesson 15: Points and rank and how to throw it around.
Graduation test: Take off, climb to 40k in tight formation following mission waypoints, locate a smaller force lower than you at waypoint 4 and make an attack, whether successful or not, climb back to 40k and assess weapon and fuel load, if under 70% continue to waypoint 5 where there will be an even smaller, slower and less accurate force, repeat attack run, whether successful or not, climb back to 40k and assess ammo and fuel load, if less than 40% in either follow course to waypoint 6 (base) and land and debrief to determine if you have met your mission parameters. If you scored a kill, you graduate.
Good luck, we look forward to you coming back as a cadet someday. ;)
On a more serious note .... I wonder what HT really envisions training to be like for TOD?
-
I agree with Arlo and Karnak.
Dying can't be too painful, or else it'll wind up as another barely-used arena, and a huge waste of HTC's resources. That'd be a shame.
I also subit that if there is going to be a "death penalty", then there should also be a "cowardice penality"--if you run too much, you get demoted.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Who says taking risks involves suicidal tendencies?
Well, you're the one saying that taking any risks automatically leads to dying alot. I think you can take risks and still live most of the time. Its even possible to have fun fights where hardly anyone get shot down.
And not advancing is penalty enough, ain't it? No? How about just getting busted to the point of being a butterbar with no points but not having to go through the bloody training process all over again? No? Not enough sting? Masochism, anyone? :rolleyes:
Not everyone will care about points and rank and dying, and it will be evident in the way they fly. Might as well follow the bombs in on a jabo run instead of a boring rtb. Why stay and escort buffs when its more fun to chase that con down through his ack.
I agree it can't be an extreme penalty or noone will fly. Everyone has their own idea of what is extreme tho. I just want enough penalty to make people at least try to live most of the time.
Karnak, HT said he will adjust the success points/death penalty ratio to control incentive. I'm sure high risk missions (whether due to plane or profile) will get lots more points for success. I'd bet a well flown mossie could get points faster than a P51, just like the perk point situation.
Now I'm thinking there should be some missions with no death penalty and worth no points. I'll call them 'fun' as opposed to 'serious' death penalty missions. The AI can run opposing missions such that fun missions encouter only other fun missions and likewise for serious. That way everyone is happy and in the same arena.
-
Originally posted by Regurge
Well, you're the one saying that taking any risks automatically leads to dying alot. I think you can take risks and still live most of the time. Its even possible to have fun fights where hardly anyone get shot down.
No ..... I'm the one sayin' that players who routinely take more risks are more likely to die more often. There is a slight difference there. ;) And some pilots are either skilled enough or lucky enough to get away with it ... but that doesn't make a five death streak impossible for them, either. Nor does it mean they don't care whether they live or die in the game. But some just enjoy bucking the odds.
Some players don't find hi-alt cruising and cherry-picking real sport (meaning too meek or boring - although I suppose it can be said that the meek will inherit TOD ;)). And that doesn't mean they despise missions or landing their kills. Sure you can take risks and live. Sure you can take risks and die. And there are times you're just plain unlucky no matter what ya do - risky or cautious. Or maybe you just keep running up against someone who has ya outclassed no matter what ya do. It happens. Can't pretend it don't.
I don't dispute the fact that players can play more aggresively and live through it. But they have less chance of it than players who don't.
Realistically speaking, pilots didn't always get to choose their operating alt, patrol sectors or even planes and weapon/fuel loadout. Sometimes pilots were tasked to do the impossible. Those who succeeded in spite of the odds were hailed as heros. But often so were those who didn't.
If this was part of TOD mission parameters ( to have an occasional mission thrown at you and your unit that is just plain suicide) ... I somehow picture a different tune getting sung by the advocates for retraining.
Originally posted by Regurge
Not everyone will care about points and rank and dying, and it will be evident in the way they fly. Might as well follow the bombs in on a jabo run instead of a boring rtb. Why stay and escort buffs when its more fun to chase that con down through his ack.
Sometimes it may not be evident at all. I could care less about achieving high rank in any version of AH ... but I'm always mission oriented. I get more out of rtbing than dying. But I also get more out of trying to fulfill a part of a mission that means more than padding my score and getting rank. I often volunteer for hard assignments just because, quite frankly, I can use the practice. Even in the middle of heading to one target or sector to handle my own thing, I often get requests to scort or take out aa or even draw enemy away from something. I cheerfully dump ord or alt or go into a situation I'm not entirely comfortable with to help out.
Originally posted by Regurge
I agree it can't be an extreme penalty or noone will fly. Everyone has their own idea of what is extreme tho. I just want enough penalty to make people at least try to live most of the time.
Which is all I've been saying from the get-go. Strip my rank, give me the worst maintained plane in the squadron, make sure I never get a medal ... just because I manage to be the squadron statistic on a regular basis (no matter how hard I try not to be, given my penchant for volunteering for the hard stuff). Give the cautious, "smart and safe" player all the rank, medals and perks. Just don't throw in having the players who won't turn down any mission no matter how hard it is threatened with "time outs" because they find that part of TOD more attractive. :D
-
Karnak I am sure you fly well, but it still doesnt change the fact that you have complained about how hard it is to fly a mossie.
I fly a 109g6, hardly a speed demon but I do so because I like the plane and its fun. I assume thats why you fly the mossie. However, you do take a "me and my poor mossie" tone occassionally. This might cause some to ask "Then why fly it".
I do think that survival in the AH2:ToD will be "easier" then in the main. Especially if you fly "smart". With the "fear of death" universal you most likely will do well.
I agree its a bit premature to get uptight about what the future holds. But whatever it is we will all get a real choice as to what arena and what style we want to fly.
Also I think AH2:ToD will help push the planest along as the current wholes get more attention.
-
I wonder what HT really envisions training to be like for TOD?
Maybe you should ask him before you get all uptight. As for how I fly you have no clue. So whos being
presumptuous
Sometimes it may not be evident at all. I could care less about achieving high rank in any version of AH ... but I'm always mission oriented. I get more out of rtbing than dying. But I also get more out of trying to fulfill a part of a mission that means more than padding my score and getting rank. I often volunteer for hard assignments just because, quite frankly, I can use the practice. Even in the middle of heading to one target or sector to handle my own thing, I often get requests to scort or take out aa or even draw enemy away from something. I cheerfully dump ord or alt or go into a situation I'm not entirely comfortable with to help out.
Your whole quote above is exactly what you can get in the main. The missions in AH2:ToD are meaningless. There is nothing to "win".
But I also get more out of trying to fulfill a part of a mission that means more than padding my score and getting rank.
Well the only reason to "stay alive" and complete the "mission" in AH2:ToD is to advance. Thats the "trigger" like "base capture" is in the main. It gives you something to fight for, something to fight over. To differentiate AH2:ToD and AH2:C the "fear of death" will be made apart of gameplay.
There will be no "taking one for the team" or riding your bombs in to get that pesky fp thats holding up your field capture.
Also I stated I think that flying "smart" will be more important then individual "skillz" but you also gotta know your limitations. If you "suck", well then you "suck". We shouldnt be forced to hold a guys hand so he feels good about himself. The main arena would be a better place to learn acm "skillz".
-
Well ... just make sure your "schwarm" stays higher than any enemy you can see, Wotan and you stay prepared to bug out at all times. ;)
btw ... the "point" of AHII:TOD is supposed to be a greater sense of immersion ... not to focus on just points and advancement and being too scared to take risks. I've heard this from HT himself in the Bigweek ng. :D
-
I quoted what ht has said on this board.......
I dont care anything about "bigweek". "Immersion" is relative and means different things to different folks. "Immersion" to me means fear of death. To others its a furball with missions.
Do you know how to fly a 109? Its not a bz plane. Have you flown a g6? There isnt much running you can do. The plane doesnt hit 400mph in level flight at any alt.
As for running just checking your scores for plane type over the past few tours you fly some of fastest in AH. F4u-1, yak9u, typh etc. Now I dont care what people fly or how they have fun. More power to you. But you keep casting dispersions on things you havent a clue about.
HT has given a reason as to why someone would need to return to training in his response to mwhuns question.
posted by mwhun:
I still seem to be missing a key concept about this design. What is going to prevent the same folks that love to “pork and auger” from doing this in a detrimental way in the mission theater? Other than busting them down and keeping them at 2nd Lt. for their entire virtual lives –what other penalties will they face. I.E. What does having a higher rank get me that a 2nd Lt. would not have access too?
Hope that makes sense…
MWHUN: The hours of becoming a cadet and going threw training again, hence why you must go back to training. Btw training = not in a mission, and no one to kill.
HiTech
Theres nothing to stop a folks who are "content to spend their time at the bottom" from bring main type suicide missions into AH2:ToD. There need to be a way to discourage folks who
love to “pork and auger” from doing this in a detrimental way in the mission theater?
I agree with him and think the "return to training" is enough incentive to instill the "fear of death" factor. As matter a fact mwhun labeled this a "key concept" of the design.
This is the answer to your "why".
-
Batz,
I agree that fear of death must be there, but so must a real desire to give your all for your country.
The British and the Germans weren't exactly popsicle-footing around eachother for fear of getting hurt in the summer of 1940. Why? Because they were fighting for something bigger than themselves, be it good or bad.
In a computer game it is easy to create a simulated fear of death by putting in harsh death penalties. However, I have yet to see a computer game with the solution to creating the will fight even though the potential penalty is so steep.
If it works like this:
Successful Mission: +10 points
Unsuccessful Mission: +0 points
Death/Capture: -100 points
People will opt to run at the slightest sign that the mission is actually dangerous from their position. Why take a 100 point loss when you can take a 0 point gain/loss and hope for a better situation in the next mission? Why fight when there is danger?
If you're in a P-51D, screw the bombers and head for home.
If you're in a Bf109, let the cities / factories take it and head away from the bomber stream.
If you're in a Mossie, dump bombs and turn for home on full WEP at the first sighting of higher dots, somebody else will get the Gestapo HQ I'm sure.
If the scoring is done as has been described thus far all of those behaviors will be the standard operating procedures in the ToD.
What HTC needs to do (or a player make a great suggestion) is come up with something that will motivate the players to actually care about the success or failure of their cause. Care enough to engage and risk simulated death.
Any ideas?
-
first those numbers were used as an example.
DMF brought up the very samething you did in another post, one of my replies was
oh ok gotcha yeah that most definately would happen. I can almost name names
How would you penalize death?
Obviously the best way would make the penalty for mission failure such that it encourages you to fight. But unless that penalty is equal to a death then you will have those guys playing the percentages.
Can you imagine you are in a b17 with 51 escorts and run into a higher and larger number of enemy. From your tail gun position you see the 51s flying in oppossite direction.......lol
Dunno know what ht has planned.........
HT touches on it in this thread as well
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76429
This is different then "no penalty". which is what arlo wants.
-
Fear is obviously your motivator. Don't be afraid, Wotan. I'm not advocating HT penalize you for "flying smart". Hell ... quite honestly ... I can't understand why you're so afraid that TOD will be populated with nothing but pork and auger dweebs when you seem to be aware that the overall theme and setup will discourage "risk" style base captures and arena resets at all costs. It doesn't need the additional factor of giving players "time outs" for playing in a way that pisses you off. Damn, Wotan .. even if some silly sods did take to doing it in TOD for some odd reason (which I doubt would happen), it won't actually accomplish anything other than making your shiny german colonel's outfit and chest fulla medals seem all that more special since there's a few more peasants to look down on. ;)
Take a valium and repeat after me ....
Punishing players for dying too much by making them have to go back through training is overkill. It's not going to help TOD. It's going to hurt it. :D
-
Ahhh ... when you assume you make an bellybutton of you .... not me. I said that busting someone back to butterbar is enough penalty. Supposedly butterbars aren't gonna be able to do as much as higher ranking players. You'd rather have HT treat anyone who honestly has a streak of bad luck as a dedicated disruptor. I don't think that's his real intent and he will adjust things accordingly. I just hope you get over it when it happens. :D
Oh ... one more thing .... a lil something for you to consider ....
If surviving is going to be as easy as you think it will (for anyone and everyone that gives the slightest effort to such) then the penalty you so adamantly support isn't going to amount to squat. All a pork and auger dweeb will have to do is make sure he stocks up a few points ... then he can go on a few runs doing whatever he wants, however he wants .... as long as he doesn't bottom out. Store up a few more with some milkruns and do it again.
Uh-oh .... stop hyperventilating, Wotan. here's a paper bag for ya. :eek:
Originally posted by Batz
This is different then "no penalty". which is what arlo wants.
-
Yes, I know those numbers were only an example. I pointed that same thing out to a fanboi on AGW. I used them simply because HiTech had already provided them as a "how this might work" example.
I read through that thread and didn't see HiTech address that. I saw DMF make a suggestion, but HiTech seemed to have shot it down. Maybe he already has a workable idea. We'll see.
The problem with an equally large penalty for failing a mission is that it becomes a "zero sum game". In order for the Allied pilots to get their success points, all of the Axis players must get failure points. If this goes on for too long (Think NFC vs. AFC through the '80s and '90s) you end up with all the Axis players having to go through training while the Allied players are all Colonels. For ToD to work it must not be a zero sum game. HiTech addressed that in the thread you linked to:
Originally posted by HiTech:
Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.
This realy is a must for the game because it is what provides targets so that one persone dosn't have to die for every kill.
~s~
With out this one concept in the game there is no way to put a hi penalty on dieing, and hence a desire to live. By simply adjusting the points per mission / points lost for death we can control this incentive to live. The back to training is needed for a 2nd LT death, btw a 1st LT 0 points would just return you to a 2nd LT, because with out it there would not be a real penalty for a 2nd LT death.
I look forward to the ToD arena in any case.
(FYI Batz, I am very pleased with the AH Mosquito, other than the fact that it consumes fuel at twice the correct rate. I am not pleased to be using it in an environment where it is facing things that it rarely, or never did. Things like the Fw190D-9 (only 700 built) or the La-7 (Allied), P-51D (Allied) and Typhoon (Allied). I enjoy flying it even so, but would love to give it a long workout in a 1943 environment divided into an Allies / Axis setup. I hope that the ToD arena allows this)
-
if you just ride the bottom then there is no penalty for dying while at the bottom is there?
HT is designing gameplay for AH2:ToD not me. He stated his "reasons".
Again you have never flown with me so you dont have a clue.
Punishing players for dying too much by making them have to go back through training is overkill. It's not going to help TOD. It's going to hurt it.
Hurt it, for you. It wont bother me a bit.
The main will be there for you.
Edit....
I agree Karnak. mid war on any front is more fun to me then late war. Maybe the server missions will take plane numbers into account so that d9s g10s la7s p51ds are rare. I dont like the idea of only better ranking people having access to the better planes. If folks think that they will get stuck fighting experts in better planes they wont be inclined to fly there often. So late war planes like the d9 would be in 1 out of 5 missions (example) but be 1st come 1 st serve. This way everyone has the chance to fly one but so they arent "everywhere".
-
It's not all about "you", Wotan. Something you obviously have problems understanding. I want TOD to succeed. You just want it to conform to your "reality".
So will TOD. I'll be the guy who's motivation isn't "fear". ;)
Originally posted by Batz
Hurt it, for you. It wont bother me a bit.
The main will be there for you.
-
Have you gone insane? you direct a point at me, then claim it aint about me........:rolleyes:
I am not designing anything, I am not demanding ht do anything. You are. I just posted my support for what ht has said so far.
You are the one with problem, you are the one "afraid" to go back to training. Not me.
I am not telling you to fly my way, you are telling me. You can fly how you want in the main, you can set your "who cares if I die missions" up in the main. You have everything you want already.
Now you want to piss and moan that you may not ever get out of training. Well I dont care if you do.
You get the same "punishment" as everyone else. If you die a lot then you get demoted. Thats why AH2:ToD has been referred to as an rpg. Its not about "cool" missions. Its about creating a different style of gameplay thats more in touch with "reality" then the main. If its not for you have a choice. To advance you need to complete the mission. But the mission is not the "end all".
-
No, dufe ... you're the one with the "fear factor" buzz. Players gotta be afraid to die too much ... and the only way to do that is to threaten them with a "time out". Me? I'd like to see the TOD do well. It won't when players start getting recycled through training for dying too much. I already said demotions and point loss are fine. Others have suggested rhip in other ways such as equipment reliability and mission flexability and have recieved some favorable replies. That's what's called positive motivation. Something you apparently haven't experienced much of.
You can hop up and down all you want that you want others to shut up and not suggest a better way to do things when they see an obvious flaw being proposed. But that's your problem, not mine, Woe-tan. ;)
Here's a motivation that's proved to work well in helping games succeed ... it's called "fun". :D
Originally posted by Batz
Have you gone insane? you direct a point at me, then claim it aint about me........:rolleyes:
I am not designing anything, I am not demanding ht do anything. You are. I just posted my support for what ht has said so far.
You are the one with problem, you are the one "afraid" to go back to training. Not me.
I am not telling you to fly my way, you are telling me. You can fly how you want in the main, you can set your "who cares if I die missions" up in the main. You have everything you want already.
Now you want to piss and moan that you may not ever get out of training. Well I dont care if you do.
You get the same "punishment" as everyone else. If you die a lot then you get demoted. Thats why AH2:ToD has been referred to as an rpg. Its not about "cool" missions. Its about creating a different style of gameplay thats more in touch with "reality" then the main. If its not for you have a choice. To advance you need to complete the mission. But the mission is not the "end all".
-
I imagine HTC will work to find a balance that encourages people to both succeed at a mission and survive. If you escort bombers and they get decimated but you survive by running away I would hope the result is comparable to dying from a points advancement standpoint. HT has indicated that is the way the scoring will be modeled, so I figure we just have to wait and see how it specifically comes out during beta.
Punishing players for dying too much by making them have to go back through training is overkill. It's not going to help TOD. It's going to hurt it.
I get the impression, Arlo, that you don't want to go through training more than once :). I understand you'll probably be a serious player and this would be an inconvenience for you. But, what about the intentional griefier? The guy who will go into every mission with the intention of being the bad boy -- someone who gets his kicks by being disruptive. Or even the guy who says, I'm going to play this my way and the hell with you team guys, I pay my $15..."
Obviously, Arlo, that won't be you but don't kid yourself that these individuals will be absent. Just busting them to low rank doesn't matter to them. All they need is a plane and a slot to fill to win at "their" game. Advancing, etc. has nothing to do with "their" game, and the proactive penalties of non-advancement are non-issues. And, as long as they don't technically break the official rules of the arena, then there is nothing to stop them from interfering with you enjoyment and that of your teammates. “Hey, I pay my $15 and I'm going to..."
Unlike a scenario, there is no event manager to drop them. You likely will not be able to exclude them from your mission. TOD isn't a 1-life event (we could always go that route - one life per person per 24-hour similar to the “punishment” for death in scenarios).
So, the training thing is like killshooter. Not optimal for most players, but a necessity to protect gameplay from griefiers. I understand your concerns, and don't want to go through repeated training myself -- but -- what is your alternative? What would be your workable solution for the griefier/"don't give a damm about rank" individuals?
Charon
-
Arlo
A game does not have to be forgiving to the unskilled, or poorly trained or people with little time, or whatever.
Ever Go Skiiing or Ice skating? When people fist go, some are naturals, others can hardly stand up. Some people quit because they can't learn, or don't like it. Other people aren't good, but they love it and decide to learn, regardless of how discouraging it might be.
Some people stilll try to learn how to ski on the bunny trail, even when their friends are at the summit skiing the black diamond trails.
Ever played golf? Some people TOTALLY suck at it, yet they still play. Why? Because they want to learn to play better and do better the next time, regardless of the "Discouragement" they felt the last time they played.
Ever played tennis? Some people TOTALLY suck at it, yet they still play. Why? Because they want to learn to play better and do better the next time, regardless of the "Discouragement" they felt the last time they played.
Ever played softball? Some people TOTALLY suck at it, yet they still play. Why? Because they want to learn to play better and do better the next time, regardless of the "Discouragement" they felt the last time they played.
Sure, AHII, TOD will be a video game / simulation, but WHY should it be so EASY that every one can play and not be discouraged and get their feelings hurt?
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
AHC is the place to LEARN and improve your skill set without having to worry about what happens. AH ToD will be the place to prove that you learned what works and that you are capable of performing. If you don't like it, then don't play ToD, just don't ask that the game should be designed with no penalties for being shot down or screwing up. The idea is, maybe once pilots achieve a certain rank, they will be able to be in more 'critical' missions, and they will be able to count on the other pilots who have the same rank, rather than having to worry if some 'newbie' is going to blow the whole mission, or be some (love muffin) spy with a false account intentionally screwing things up for everyone else.
-
Arlo I think its gonna be great watching you whine through repeated training. For that reason alone I am for it.
Just reading your replies here about something thats not even made yet gives me hope for the future. I cant wait.
Everything you want is in the main now.
Here's a motivation that's proved to work well in helping games succeed ... it's called "fun".
I think it sounds fun as originally described by HT. You are just upset because folks arent agreeing with your idea of "fun". You can have your style of fun now in the main.
You can hop up and down all you want that you want others to shut up and not suggest a better way to do things when they see an obvious flaw being proposed. But that's your problem, not mine, Woe-tan.
Hop up and down? All I am doing is disagreeing with you. When did I say "shut up". I just pointed out everything you seem to want is already there in the main. "Obvious flaw"? No what I see is HT addressing a "key concept" by including a "death penalty" on the bottom feeders. This is needed to deal with the very thing mwhun brought up and what Charon has described for you. If thats not for you then theres the main.
and the only way to do that is to threaten them with a "time out". Me? I'd like to see the TOD do well. It won't when players start getting recycled through training for dying too much.
No one is threatened. Anyone who flies there has to live with the rules. It doesnt matter if I die every sortie or you do. The result is the same. You bring up "what if I suck, then those that are better then me advance and I go back to training", well so what dont suck. "Skillz" can be over come by flying with a squad and as a unit. There are trainers that can help you. And if it is still too "hard" then theres the main.
-
I agree with Wotan and Midnight.
The consequences of being undertrained or low skilled, people met with their lives in the real thing. The fact that whatever happens you'll still live in this little virtual arena, is already a win-win scenario for many.
Whatever you wish to get out of AH2, the ultimate point is a realistic and immersive environment. People have asked for such things in AH MA, and it was denied to the basis that the MA is not WWII. Well, in AH2 ToD, it is clear that the HTC staff has in mind to recreate the historic clash in every way currently possible withing technological limits and surroundings.
Fear of death is the largest factor that determines the actions of people in combat.. with the sense of duty following close behind. It is the balance of those two factors that are absolutely important in recreating militaristic environments and battles. Without some sort of incentive for the desire to live, and also an adequate purpose behind the duty, it will be either another MA with only a historic twist, or a alt-monkeying 'extension' contest where you will see nobody fighting each other.
Everybody will have to go through trainings and basics before they get a chance to prove themselves. If they are not adequately prepared for many challenges ahead, they will be sent back to practice more. There is nothing wrong, or not logical about this. Heck, even the MA works this way - you aren't skilled enough then you be the first to get shot down. The only differences is the AH2 ToD enforces this on a systematical scale, and the MA is without any sort of structure, organization that limits or effects player decisions. No doubt because the ToD has a purpose in recreating organized clashes, and the MA is a free-to-do-whatever-one-desires.
Midnight hits it spot-on. The flight sim genre is already a game genre where the amount of skill and practice heavily influences the opportunity of people having fun. Competitions are always hard. Some people will suck, some people may never have the opportunity of enjoying a great sports game like golf or baseball or basketball.. but nobody whines about how it is. AH2 ToD does not have the duty to make sure everybody is treated equally, and gets an opportunity to enjoy themselves.
It is a simulated contest, and if one does not have the skill to do it right, then so be it. They always have the MA or various other environments which they can enjoy. It may sound like an elitist bullshi* but that's how competition works in life.
If the MA is a 'free-court' with some multiple goal posts where everybody can enjoy themselves in shooting, or mini-games, the AH2 ToD is an organized event where two contestants will meet with all the rules of the game intact. If someone cannot handle that level of competition, he'll have to train harder, or give it up.
That's how things always work.
-
Nope, Woe-tan. I pitched a 24/7 mission oriented battlefield supported by AI back in `98. It's right up my alley. ;)
What's not up my alley is taking things too far. You harp that the part of the proposal that entails players being forced to have to go back through training because they died an arbitrary number of times in a row is pure genius. But you've also claimed that survival will be easy enough for anyone that gave it any effort whatsoever. You can't have it both ways. If it's that easy, grievers will just store up points from time to time. If it's actually going to be hard, you're going to be punishing players just for dying. Is it a moot point or an excessive measure?
I wonder if you get the basic concept of player vs. player combat sims/games? There's a spectrum that runs the gambit in regards to "success" and "failure" (by your standards - which is survival). At one end are the players who measure success purely on their K/D. At the other there's the player who measure's success based on what he manages to accomplish for his side without regard for personal achievement. You don't appreciate the player who contributes through personal sacrifice. Nor do you appear to realize that the players who die repeatedly yet don't mind taking it on the chin and cheerfully participate and contribute to the game are more of an asset to it than the ones who are only concerned with their personal stats and nothing else.
Truly I pity you. :D
HT will see he made a mistake listening to the squeeky wheels too much and deal with this potential problem. I have faith. Actually, I hope HT or someone else in the company is monitoring this little exchange and sees the suggestion I'm going to make right now:
IF you've decided to incorprorate the retread punitive measure into the game, at least make it an optional setting ( not unlike arena settings) and leave it off until it becomes obvious that grievers running rampant. I doubt it'll have to be turned on. :D
Originally posted by Batz
Arlo I think its gonna be great watching you whine through repeated training. For that reason alone I am for it.
Just reading your replies here about something thats not even made yet gives me hope for the future. I cant wait.
Everything you want is in the main now.
I think it sounds fun as originally described by HT. You are just upset because folks arent agreeing with your idea of "fun". You can have your style of fun now in the main.
Hop up and down? All I am doing is disagreeing with you. When did I say "shut up". I just pointed out everything you seem to want is already there in the main. "Obvious flaw"? No what I see is HT addressing a "key concept" by including a "death penalty" on the bottom feeders. This is needed to deal with the very thing mwhun brought up and what Charon has described for you. If thats not for you then theres the main.
No one is threatened. Anyone who flies there has to live with the rules. It doesnt matter if I die every sortie or you do. The result is the same. You bring up "what if I suck, then those that are better then me advance and I go back to training", well so what dont suck. "Skillz" can be over come by flying with a squad and as a unit. There are trainers that can help you. And if it is still too "hard" then theres the main.
-
At the other there's the player who measure's success based on what he manages to accomplish for his side without regard for personal achievement. You don't appreciate the player who contributes through personal sacrifice.
I fly this game for a2a combat. If you want to blow yourself up getting that last pesky hanger so you can "capture" that base then good for you. You can do that in the main. HT has said there will be no base capture, no war winning so what do you think will go on in AH2:ToD? People trying to survive and complete their mission. Thats it bud. Everything else you want is in the main. We dont need multiple arenas with the same gameplay. We dont need a "main" with missions. We already have one.
Again I care how long you have "hoped" for a main arena with massions. Its already there for you. Go make you a mission get a bunch of your buddies together and knock yourselfves out.
You don't appreciate the player who contributes through personal sacrifice. Nor do you appear to realize that the players who die repeatedly yet don't mind taking it on the chin and cheerfully participate and contribute to the game are more of an asset to it than the ones who are only concerned with their personal stats and nothing else.
Anyone who keeps committing virtual suicide is of no use to me. But if thats how you choose to play go for it, the main is there for you. There is no "sacrifice" if death means nothing.
Also again you have not flown with me or my squad so you no idea what we do. I am not the one demanding anything, you are. HT doesnt listen to me. I like to think thats hes "listened" to all the folks who have an interest in the type of arena AH2:ToD seems likely to be. Dont blame me because folks dont share your ideas.
Everything you claim to want is there in the main.
Kweassa is right. If its not for you then the main ia still there.
Everybody will have to go through trainings and basics before they get a chance to prove themselves. If they are not adequately prepared for many challenges ahead, they will be sent back to practice more. There is nothing wrong, or not logical about this. Heck, even the MA works this way - you aren't skilled enough then you be the first to get shot down. The only differences is the AH2 ToD enforces this on a systematical scale, and the MA is without any sort of structure, organization that limits or effects player decisions. No doubt because the ToD has a purpose in recreating organized clashes, and the MA is a free-to-do-whatever-one-desires.
Midnight hits it spot-on. The flight sim genre is already a game genre where the amount of skill and practice heavily influences the opportunity of people having fun. Competitions are always hard. Some people will suck, some people may never have the opportunity of enjoying a great sports game like golf or baseball or basketball.. but nobody whines about how it is. AH2 ToD does not have the duty to make sure everybody is treated equally, and gets an opportunity to enjoy themselves.
It is a simulated contest, and if one does not have the skill to do it right, then so be it. They always have the MA or various other environments which they can enjoy. It may sound like an elitist bullshi* but that's how competition works in life.
If the MA is a 'free-court' with some multiple goal posts where everybody can enjoy themselves in shooting, or mini-games, the AH2 ToD is an organized event where two contestants will meet with all the rules of the game intact. If someone cannot handle that level of competition, he'll have to train harder, or give it up.
That's how things always work.
fyi
I said surviving will be easy, not completing the missions. To advance you need to complete the mission. I have no way of knowing how tough the missions will be or what the requirements will be to complete one. But anyone can pick their engagements and decide for themselves how balance the "risks".
HT has stated:
Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.
This realy is a must for the game because it is what provides targets so that one persone dosn't have to die for every kill.
The success of the attack mission can then be how well you defended the bombers, and not how many planes you shot down. I.E. Just chacing off the defender is a success.
As a defender your mission will be successful based on how well you stoped the attack. Think of if it in terms of 20% of the bomber force destroyed, the defender mission was a success.
Notice you didn't have to kill any real player on either offense or defense to succede.
With out this one concept in the game there is no way to put a hi penalty on dieing, and hence a desire to live. By simply adjusting the points per mission / points lost for death we can control this incentive to live. The back to training is needed for a 2nd LT death, btw a 1st LT 0 points would just return you to a 2nd LT, because with out it there would not be a real penalty for a 2nd LT death.
This is just a basic outline,im sure details will change on how you recieve mission points, like a bonus for killing a buff or fighter or high ranking player.
Also keep in mind this realy is a new game, and will be completly different than the MA, i.e. base capture,strat like the main,war win & reset,vulching, will not be there.
HiTech
I dont know why you are argueing with me, I am not the only that doesnt agree with you.
-
Does this suggestion threaten you in any way?
"Make it an optional setting ( not unlike arena settings) and leave it off until it becomes obvious that grievers are running rampant. I doubt it'll have to be turned on."
Just thought I'd ask your opinion on this one lil concession, Wotan.
:D
-
Like most arguments on the boards, things tend to polarize to the extremes when the middle is where the real answers almost always lie. There is such a thing as degree. I.E. if you had to retrain after every death, I agree that that would be excessive make the game very difficult for a new player to get into. That is not the goal. But just because something can be excessive doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist in any degree. Would 10 straight deaths be excessive? What about 100, 1000, 1 million? At some point you have to say no, and the acknowledgment of that is counter to saying that such a system shouldn't exist. In the end, we have to try a find the happiest median that we can, because this is a team game and your actions will benefit or detract from the success of your teammates. At some point, you're going to separate those who just aren't as skilled from those who are playing the game for something else. That's not to say there won't ever be any collateral damage, so to speak, but nothing is ever 100%.
-
But here's the "rub" (so to speak), Mr. Balmos.
Not everyone who dies regularly is "playing for something else". There are those who naturally assume they do because they don't suffer "excessive" streaks where they fail to rtb (whether it be through avoiding risk, luck or their actually being the very bestest sim pile-it in the world). That doesn't make it so by any stretch.
To say that TOD requires forcing players to go back through training due to reaching an arbitrary number of deaths or grievers will populate the game and make everyone else miserable is pure assumption. One that has yet to actually prove itself out.
The same players that voice the loudest support of such a system also freely admit that TOD will not have the same game elements that encouraged pork-n-auger or endless fight til you crash or die furballs ... yet they seem to fear that TOD will somehow miraculously become that without such an extreme measure to keep such in check. I see two mantras chanted: "The MA is for you" and "HT said it and I support it". *ShruG*
So what's really the point in incorporating such? None, from what I can see. After all ... a dedicated griever doesn't care how he disrupts the game ... be it via disruptive tactics, buffer harrassment or hacking. We can try to "second guess" ahead of time all we want ... but since TOD is going to operate not only with a different set of goals but apparently with a different set of game mechanics ... such is futile at best.
Choose any arbitrary number you want to use and set up the retread mill .... but I still say it needs to be an optional setting that can be turned off (and started in the off position). I truly think if it ever comes down to using it, that will be a mistake that will hurt the game in the long run. I wouldn't voice worry over it at all if I didn't feel that.
Thanks for your input, Pyro.
-
optional? whos gonna volunteer to retrain.........being sent retraining is a "penalty" for too many deaths. Whether its 5 10 15 20 or whatever there needs to be a penalty for death even at the bottom. Just like mwhun asked.
You are obviously worried about spending alot of time retraining. If it bothers ya theres always the main. I dont support it because ht said, I support it because its a wonderful idea.
-
Wotan drivels
... being sent retraining is a "penalty" for too many deaths.
[/b]
Wotan, ya dufe. As much as you despirately want to be the TOD trainer and mold every player in your image ... my suggestion bears merit. If all you want to do is continue to punish new players past the point of reason (you apparently don't give a flying flip about grievers now - go figure) then maybe you need to see a shrink about your "power fixation". ;)
-
my broken record just follows yours....
You asked
Just thought I'd ask your opinion on this one lil concession, Wotan
and I replied....
-
And I'm right damned glad you did, ya dufe. The more I can keep you at it, the less time you'll have to plan taking over the world with your sidekick Pinky. ;)
-
To say that TOD requires forcing players to go back through training due to reaching an arbitrary number of deaths or grievers will populate the game and make everyone else miserable is pure assumption. One that has yet to actually prove itself out.
I don't know Arlo, I'm not a "strat" guy but you sure hear a lot of wailing about people who are not following mission orders on both channel 1 (and now vox) and the bbs. And there is the otherwise dweeby behavior and gaming the game actions that take away from historical immersion. If you want to have it as an option, fine, but I have to disagree on how long it will be before it is turned on. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. Examples (daily? universal?):
-- I upped a goon like they asked, but then they were off vulching instead of protecting me and I got shot down.
-- the field is down! Why did you pork the fuel?
-- Kamikaze heavy buffs
-- They joined the mission, but then went off and..."
-- the two guys pumping rounds into the flaming wreck
-- the conga line wiped out by killshooter
-- or, LOL, what about the "spies?"
Most of these behaviors don't promote the mission objectives, and many may get the pilot a kill but usually an easy death in the process.
Or for pure griefiers, just look at the training arena or some of the H2H discussions. With stuff like the text buffer griefer, you can get someone banned. But what about the guy who just goes down and leaves his escort to jabo a field and die quickly in ack? How do you punish that behavior? Talk about gray areas.
I would hope that accomplishing the mission would be the no. 1 priority. However, survival should be a close no. 2. Self-sacrifice was common in WW2, but usually not intentional in a MA kinda way: "I'll give my life fighting this furball against 10 to 1, so that we can hopefully achieve that war-winning 1-1 kill ratio. In fact, self-sacrifice of that nature was usually rare enough to be rewarded with a CMH or other relatively high decoration.
The guy who chased the FW190 from 25,000 feet to the deck wasn't always regarded as a hero for his dedication, since another 190 or two didn't have to deal with him on the way to the bombers. Particularly if his valuable training and aircraft were lost with little return. The 8th AF only turned back from one maximum effort mission because of opposition (very early on), but numerous fighter sweeps and patrols by pilots in all countries saw discretion as the better part of valor when the odds sucked.
Since beta is at least two weeks away :), why worry too much about it now? I assume thought will go into the point structure to balance aggression and survival issues, and limit excessive training sessions for those who try. If not, then I imagine the arena will fail. I can assume HTC knows this too. Again, though, if you have something better please let us know. I don’t much like the training idea except as a regrettable necessity.
Charon
-
Is Wotan Batz? Thought the "style" was familiar. Keeping my ignore list up to date with all of these handle changes is getting to be a pain. Carry on.
bowser
-
Arlo wtg on editing your post completely 14 min after I replied....
Bowser are looking for attention? you can use that ignore button in silence cant ya?
-
Neh ... it was more like 5. Afterward I edited I noticed your "brilliant" reply. My editing didn't make it look any worse. :D Later I decided to add some of your "brilliance" to my post by manually adding your quote. Never-the-less ... glad it pisses you off. ;)
-
Last edited by Arlo on 02-10-2003 at 07:35 PM
my reply 07:21 PM
thats 14 min
the edit came 8 min after your other post 07:27 PM
Your edited post doesnt contain any word that was their originally.
Lie if ya want, Whatever it takes to get ya through......
-
I don't mind a sensible discussion and search for alternatives in the least. Thanks, C.
Of course ... my first alternative is to not implement retraining as a means of punitive action at all. I still don't think it's going to be a neccesity.
But ... if indeed there surfaced a cadre of dedicated grievers who chose to test (and break) the boundries of the game's system, there's bound to be a better way than using a method that would no doubt cause collateral damage to the most vulnerable and easiest lost part of the playerbase.
I'll think on it some more (and probably consult a few others) and maybe continue on with you later on this.
Again, thanks, C. :D
Originally posted by Charon
Since beta is at least two weeks away :), why worry too much about it now? I assume thought will go into the point structure to balance aggression and survival issues, and limit excessive training sessions for those who try. If not, then I imagine the arena will fail. I can assume HTC knows this too. Again, though, if you have something better please let us know. I don’t much like the training idea except as a regrettable necessity.
Charon
-
2 edits ... about 10 mins apart. Live with it or don't, pissy diaper boy. ;)
Originally posted by Batz
Last edited by Arlo on 02-10-2003 at 07:35 PM
my reply 07:21 PM
thats 14 min
the edit came 8 min after your other post 07:27 PM
Your edited post doesnt contain any word that was their originally.
Lie if ya want, Whatever it takes to get ya through......
-
Jeez Arlo, retraining for 100 straight deaths is still too much? Anyone who can take off and land will survive 1 out 100 missions through pure luck. That is unless they are hell bent on dying every single time. And that's the impression I'm getting from you, that you're not having fun unless you're getting killed over and over again. That's fine, but the MA or CT is the place for that. Actually, I have no problem with that kind of flying in TOD, so long as they are flying like-minded opponents.
-
Did you really think Pyro was offering to up it to 100 or 1000 or 1 mil? LOL Well damn! I missed my chance to change the arbitrary numbah, didn't I?! :rolleyes: (hint: nooooo ... retraining after 100 deaths is just plain stupid. One is a mistake ... one is stupid. Again ... one is a mistake .... one is stupid. Pyro wasn't really offering to up it to 100, Jethro) :D
You're as good on impressions as Wotan. You'll probably take that as a compliment ... and that's fine. You're welcome. ;)
Originally posted by Regurge
Jeez Arlo, retraining for 100 straight deaths is still too much? Anyone who can take off and land will survive 1 out 100 missions through pure luck. That is unless they are hell bent on dying every single time. And that's the impression I'm getting from you, that you're not having fun unless you're getting killed over and over again. That's fine, but the MA or CT is the place for that. Actually, I have no problem with that kind of flying in TOD, so long as they are flying like-minded opponents.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Did you really think Pyro was offering to up it to 100 or 1000 or 1 mil?
If the only way to get people to fly in the arena is to let them have 100 striaght deaths then, yes, I think thats the way it would be. After all, this is HTC's living and empty arenas=lost income.
Fortuantely that won't be needed. Retraining after 100 deaths is stupid and after 1 is excessive. Sweet Jebus I think we're all in agreement on that! All this time I though you wanted no retraining ever, and now you say retraing is ok after x deaths, where x is between 1 and 100. Now you can argue if it should be 5 or 10 or 50 or whatever, but Pyro's whole point was that they will find something that most people can deal with.
-
No ... you still don't get me. I think forcing players to go back through training is not the answer. As a matter of fact ... I think it's another potential problem (actually I think it's certain to be a problem). I think most who are so worried about a problem with griefers are blowing it all out of proportion. Of course, Wotan has revealed it's not the griefer threat that gets him all excited about the prospect of punishing new players by giving them time outs for dying too much to suit "his likes" anyhow.
And .. no ... I like to rtb as well as the next guy. :)
-
Arlo, please answer honestly
1. Do you use known game cheats in other games besides AH? (I.E. God Mode, unlimited ammo, etc.)
2. If you fail a mission in an off-line game (the type with an unfolding story-line that alters based on previous missions), do you select 'retry mission' or 'continue' if you fail the mission, knowing that continuing might cause you to loose the game later?
3. If you roll a gutter-ball when bowling, do you not count that ball?
4. If you miss a shot in golf, do you take a mulligan?
5. If you make a bad move in chess, do you try to take it back?
6. If you failed a test at school, did you study harder for the next time, or just cheat or drop out?
7. If you strike out on a date, do you just quit dating?
Please do the simmulation community a favor and stop trying to ask for game consessions for AHII. If you are really so concerned that you will fail so many times that you are demoted back to cadet all the time, maybe you have other things to worry about. Life is full of disapointments and failures, and some of us would like to have that in a game too. Be considerate and learn to deal with hardships when you can't perform as needed. Not everything should be handed to you just because you want it.
-
... does this mean If we shoot a pilot in the silk 5 times in a row, they go back to training?
Will we have unlimited ammo?
-
Gotta remember that this arena needs to be fun enough for the "normal" player so as to make it a profitable exercise for HTC. Catering to the "elite few" and casting the rest to the wolves won't accomplish the goal of profitability.
J_A_B
-
What "game concession", Jethro? (shakes head) It's a shame that all I can do is explain it to ya .. not understand it for ya. Ain't it, Jethro? :D
Midnight aka Jethro despirately tries to put "Arlo on the spot" by going bizarrely off topic and not-surpisingly off the mark and saying ...
Arlo, please answer honestly
1. Do you use known game cheats in other games besides AH? (I.E. God Mode, unlimited ammo, etc.)
2. If you fail a mission in an off-line game (the type with an unfolding story-line that alters based on previous missions), do you select 'retry mission' or 'continue' if you fail the mission, knowing that continuing might cause you to loose the game later?
3. If you roll a gutter-ball when bowling, do you not count that ball?
4. If you miss a shot in golf, do you take a mulligan?
5. If you make a bad move in chess, do you try to take it back?
6. If you failed a test at school, did you study harder for the next time, or just cheat or drop out?
7. If you strike out on a date, do you just quit dating?
"Cause I think you do, so there, gyuck!" (shakes head ... lol)
Please do the simmulation community a favor and stop trying to ask for game consessions for AHII. If you are really so concerned that you will fail so many times that you are demoted back to cadet all the time, maybe you have other things to worry about. Life is full of disapointments and failures, and some of us would like to have that in a game too. Be considerate and learn to deal with hardships when you can't perform as needed. Not everything should be handed to you just because you want it. [/B]Hehe .... yeah .... Wotan thinks it's all about him ... you think it's all about me .... niether of ya could form a rational thought between yas. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What "game concession", Jethro? (shakes head) It's a shame that all I can do is explain it to ya .. not understand it for ya. Ain't it, Jethro? :D
The game consession you are looking for is not having to go back to training if you fail your missions too many times. You are looking for a failure concession and you know it.
I am not off topic in any way by asking those questions of you either. They all relate to the topic.
From what HTC is saying, ToD is going to be a team game. Your team mates should be able to expect a certain level of performance of you so they know they can rely on you. If all you are worried about is getting shot down too many times, then you are not bringing anything to the team except liability.
-
I expect that ToD will be as easymode as the current game, with the addition of the RPG aspect. It would be a huge waste of time and energy to produce the "ultimate realism sim" that some seem to want this to be. The hardcore flightsim crowd already knows about AH (and the CT), ToD could open a new market for the RPG crowd, who will NOT be expert at flightsims.
-
Originally posted by popeye
I expect that ToD will be as easymode as the current game, with the addition of the RPG aspect. It would be a huge waste of time and energy to produce the "ultimate realism sim" that some seem to want this to be. The hardcore flightsim crowd already knows about AH (and the CT), ToD could open a new market for the RPG crowd, who will NOT be expert at flightsims.
We're not asking for more ultra-realistic aircraft models here. We are asking for gameplay realism where death and failure have penalties.
The RPG crowd already plays where death has consequences and that is what I would like to see in ToD. Some people, on the other hand, want to be able to do whatever, whenever, no matter how many times they fail.
Once again, the RPG crowd enjoys those games where they have to work up the level of their character by being successful, smart and lucky, but also by knowing that if they fail, it could have a drastic effect on their character.
If the only thing ToD is going to be is auto-created missions with AI, where it doesn't matter if you win or loose, then what would be the point of even playing? If the answer is, "so you can have fun by going around and shooting stuff down," then please consider the current MA as that.
-
Gotta remember that this arena needs to be fun enough for the "normal" player so as to make it a profitable exercise for HTC. Catering to the "elite few" and casting the rest to the wolves won't accomplish the goal of profitability.
J_A_B
Except the standard of the "norm" in MA should be different from the standard of the "norm" in AH ToD.
That's why there's training required for people to advance.
Nobody expects everybody in the new AH ToD to become a Hartmann or a Johnson or a Marseilles... but still, they should at least meet some sort of minimum requirements fit for a pilot that would participate in organized missions.
All this discussion is not about catering for the elite, rather, it's about catering for the non-elite, so that they may become better fit to enjoy the potentials of the ToD.
Arlo views that only as a way of punishment.. however, I think of it as a systematic concession for the underskilled. Everybody will probably die regularly even in the new ToD... and yet, if you die, fail, screw-up so much as to actually be demoted and go down the ladder, it probably means you suck. When people suck, they need more practice and training.
How more logical can it get?
-
Popeye, I think ToD will be a lot more newbie friendly than the MA due to the fact that it's not just about kills and they're not left on their own to figure what to do. So you're correct in that this isn't just something that's aimed at the hardcore, it isn't. Nor are we expecting it to be populated by all our current players.
Arlo, you're making the assumption that this is just to prevent griefing. It isn't. There'll be more effective mechanisms for that. In the case of the guy who goes up and gets shot down every time, that's not a good thing. It's not a good thing for him, even (or especially) if he's accepting of it, and it's not a good thing for everybody else. We want people to be aggressive, but not suicidal.
-
Pyro,
Could you give any answers to the actual start of this thread.? The death situation has been beaten to, well, death by those who have been posting. What about the other concerns I wrote about? Like joining missions, AI generated missions, having to wait for "squaddies" or if you can just select a "solo" mission and fly?
Mav
-
In the five years that I've been a member of various online MMP ACS communities (yes, by comparison to some I'm a relative newcomer) one thing became apparent from the offset: some players actually fear failure. This should come as no surprise because it's not an uncommon character flaw in people, whether it's in relation to life or leisure.
I'll go so far as to say it's a flaw that exists in all of us, to one degree or another. The difference laying in how we react to it - whether we resist the urge to give into it or not. Of course, giving into it means rationalization ... and almost certainly - referring to it by a less damning term. In this case "fear of death".
Using fear as a motivation for anything cannot lead to anything productive ... at least not on a conscious level. One could say that the adrenaline reation from fear allows for amazing accomplishments but that isn't motivation ... it's a physical reaction.
Ever since the first player boasted of his success (based on tactics motivated by fear) and was shocked and amazed to see how little it impressed the players who's motivation in the game isn't fear of failure but desire for fun, there's been a heated debate over what the game is supposed to be centered around and the motivations of the players. While it is certainly true that WWII combat fighter pilots experienced both fear of death and fear of failure, it is highly doubtful that any significant (or minute) portion of them used either as their prime motivation.
Seeing the rationalization by many here for trying to mechanically incorprorate such fear into TOD is amusing on one hand and sad on the other. It will not work. You can't change the nature of player's who refuse to let fear be the motivation of their actions in a game any more than you can change the nature of players who do.
Guess my not being too afraid to take chances somehow equates to my being so afraid to take chances that I'll do anything, be it cheat or what ... according to some. lol ;)
-
Mav, the missions aren't player generated and you just can't hop in a plane and take off solo. It is not an open arena. Everything you do is part of a unit and part of a mission. So yes, there will be a briefing room where you get the run-down. Rank will be used to organize how the missions will run with higher ranks leading missions. We're also looking at using an evaluation system that rank would play a role in. Finally, there will be some perks to come with rank such as better aircraft and ground crew.
Arlo, you pretty much lost me as this is getting into a semantical argument. Fear is a strong word that doesn't fit when used in this context. It sounds like you want a consequenceless game system, but we already have that and we're not trying to duplicate it with ToD. Some people will like both ToD and Classic, some will only like one or the other. But that's the point of having two completely different venues, we get to appeal to more people in one form or another. No game is going to appeal to everybody. The Sims may sell a gajillion copies, but I won't ever play it for fun because it doesn't appeal to me. ToD will not appeal to a lot of people because of the rigid structure, even though that is the very reason why it will appeal to others. If we were getting rid of Classic and replacing it with ToD, then I would agree with you on many of your points.
As to your real world analysis, I disagree with much of what you say and I'd bet Abraham Maslow would as well. But that is entirely outside of this discussion on game mechanics.
-
I'd bet Abraham Maslow would as well.
Maslow always has a way of rearing his ugly head :) His leaving spicy galic buffalo wings and fine, ice-cold ales off the list tarnishes his acedemic reputaion beyond repair, IMO.
Charon
-
Aces High II: Sims.
Sounds good.
-
Self-actualization aside this does sound good......
Rank will be used to organize how the missions will run with higher ranks leading missions. We're also looking at using an evaluation system that rank would play a role in. Finally, there will be some perks to come with rank such as better aircraft and ground crew.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
It sounds like you want a consequenceless game system, but we already have that and we're not trying to duplicate it with ToD. Some people will like both ToD and Classic, some will only like one or the other. But that's the point of having two completely different venues, we get to appeal to more people in one form or another. No game is going to appeal to everybody. The Sims may sell a gajillion copies, but I won't ever play it for fun because it doesn't appeal to me. ToD will not appeal to a lot of people because of the rigid structure, even though that is the very reason why it will appeal to others. If we were getting rid of Classic and replacing it with ToD, then I would agree with you on many of your points.
It shouldn't sound that way at all. I've stated time and again that the consequences go too far. The criteria for gaining rank (and the perks and privs associated) as well as a system that demotes players (stripping said gained privs and perks) need not go so far as sending players back through the training they supposedly passed to begin with. We've come to the conclusion that this particular punitive measure isn't really designed to discourage griefers. Then it must surely be just a penalty for players who lose too many engagements (deaths). We're not even talking about failure to attempt or compete missions.
I'm all for having a system that rewards success. I'm even all for a system that costs the players when they fail - to a point. My opinion is that retraining takes it too far.
As far as players having the choice of Classic or TOD .... even the Classic players have a vested interest in seeing TOD succeed. Unless, of course, HTC can afford for TOD to fail without it affecting the success and operation of AHII:Classic.
But hey, I've said my piece and gotten my response(s). You're the president of one of the most successful WWII multiplayer online combat simulation games on the internet. If the one thing I felt uncomfortable with in the proposal (and made mention of) doesn't phase you, then it's not my call. Message delivered, message recieved, reply returned and recieved. Thanks. :)
Originally posted by Pyro
As to your real world analysis, I disagree with much of what you say and I'd bet Abraham Maslow would as well. But that is entirely outside of this discussion on game mechanics.
I bet Tommy Blackburn wouldn't disagree:
"While working on the things that set Fighting-17 apart from other - run of the mill - squadrons, I was also quite concerned lest my fledglings miss a good grounding in the heritage of courage and devotion to duty that stood as the foundation for the U.S. Navy's fighting arms. It was my solemn duty and privilege to teach the uninitiated that, from the ancient days of sail, seafaring men have known that their lives and fortunes depend upon the bonds formed among shipmates. The teachings were embodied in oft-repeated aphorisms like "Never let your shipmate down," and "Never flee in the face of the enemy."
Our young pilots learned from the small cadre of proffesionals about all the brave men who had gone before them and why and when and where they had said, "Don't give up the ship, fight her til she sinks," and Give me a fast ship, for I intend to go in harm's way." I wanted them to be especially mindful of the heros and heroics of naval aviation, of Lcdr. John Waldron and his Torpedo-8, a squadron of slow and vulnerable, obsolete torpedo planes that, unsupported and in broad daylight, had bored through Japanese anti-aircraft fire and Zero fighters to attack the Japanese carriers at Midway. Waldron and all but one of his pilots died in that attack, but they established with their blood and their lives a nonpareil precedent of devotion and duty. I did not expect my youngsters to die as the Torpedo-8 pilots and aircrewmen had died, but I did expect them to go down facing the enemy, if indeed they must go down. More important than merely dying with their boots on and thus providing us with an example of courage and devotion to duty, Torpedo-8 had sucked down the Japanese fighter cover and had thus allowed our dive-bombers to score numerous hits that started the decline of the Imperial Navy's hitherto unbeatable carrier arm. That was the real contribution, the real lesson of Torpedo-8, the one I did expect my squadron to emulate -- making our positive contribution to the final victory."
-"The Jolly Rogers"
As you may know, VF-17, with Blackburn at the helm, went on to down 154 Japanese planes in 76 days. They did so through both aggressive spirit and superior tactics - neither taking precidence over the other. And, considering the same sense of devotion to duty (not to mention self-sacrifice) that the enemy displayed in the Pacific ... it was a good thing. :D
btw ... I'm done. Won't mind actually being wrong on this one ... even though I have the suspician that I'm not. :(
-
Arlo
Your point is well taken, but there is a major differance between the men of Torpedo-8 and any sim pilot.
What they did was for the honor of their country and a sense of duty that can only be fostered in times of extreme need. They paid the ultimate price for what they did, and allowed the US Navy to win that battle.
However, in a sim, being the sacrafical lamb is just too easy and you don't suffer for it. If there were no penalties for it, I can assure you people would be using it to "game the game" just as they do in the MA.
Unfortunately, artifical penalties have to be introduced to shape game play into what it is intended to be. With no penalties, you get what the MA is now.
-
My Tom Blackburn account was merely a real life counter-example to Pyro's Abe Maslow in reply to his opinion that my views on what did and didn't provide the prime motivation for real life WWII pilots was also incorrect.
I'm done presenting my case ... it's rested and awaiting the verdict down the line.
Originally posted by Midnight
Arlo
Your point is well taken, but there is a major differance between the men of Torpedo-8 and any sim pilot.
-
"ToD will not appeal to a lot of people because of the rigid structure" (Pyro)
Unless you are a sim anarchist. What slightly concerns me...
"If you die in the mission what happens to yor character or "career". Do you start over or do you get to do the mission over again? I can see how the "sim" folks woulfd be excited about this but what about the player that is going to spend less than 10 hours a week playing?" (Maverick)
...is what if you don't care? I mean, I guess some form of mechanism will be needed to prevent those who's major pleasure would be to see a rigid structure / mission / whatever and try and **** it up.
Achttag
<>
-
Er... I mean - I vote we need some form of mechanism for this if no other reason, and I'm quite happy to go along with whatever HTC decides it should be. A games only a game if it has rules, no matter if some might seem arbitrary at times.
Achttag
<>
-
Seems to me in RL death was a pretty hefty punishment, so for "immersion factor" why shouldn't it in the TOD? I also thought that the TOD was being set up for the sim pilot who was looking for something more like RL? It wont be like you have to fly here or there...you have a choice...fly with consequences(?) or fly with out them....the choice is yours, it is that simple. When the new TOD is opened you will know the game play rules, if it is something that suits you great!!! If not, you you still have the other arena, the events, etc
-
Originally posted by Achttag
"ToD will not appeal to a lot of people because of the rigid structure" (Pyro)
Unless you are a sim anarchist. What slightly concerns me...
"If you die in the mission what happens to yor character or "career". Do you start over or do you get to do the mission over again? I can see how the "sim" folks woulfd be excited about this but what about the player that is going to spend less than 10 hours a week playing?" (Maverick)
...is what if you don't care? I mean, I guess some form of mechanism will be needed to prevent those who's major pleasure would be to see a rigid structure / mission / whatever and try and **** it up.
Achttag
<>
Actag,
I am not a "sim anarchist" (whatever the hell that is). I am a player that has little time to play. Becuase of my schedule I dropped my account until next April as I graduate then and will be back home for more than just a few hours on a weekend.
I do have concerns for this type of arena as I do not want to have to wait for the game play to start. Sitting in a ready room is not my idea of fun. I don't mind being part of a team but having to sit and wait for the team to get together isn't going to work for me. My time is too limited.
The idea of programmed malfunctions is particularly abhorant to me. I have had enough malfunctions in the game due to CTD's and player number lag. Having the guns jam or the engine quit in the plane as a sop to those who think this adds "realism" will simply drop my participation from this arena, period. Glitches are not what I will be playing for.
I asked the questions I did at the start of this very hijacked thread as I didn't see the info provided in the sticky Pyro put out. Those issues are of concern to me given the built in rank and mission tenets that were published.
I am here to play a game not try to recreate WW2. As someone who has been in the situation of popup and shoot back targets I am after a fun time not an excercise in frustration. Recreating a real life and death on a game is, as far as I am concerned, silly. Making a game fun and intriquing is a great idea.
-
I think what this is about is ratcheting things to a new level. If all you want to do is play"quake with wings" I see nothing wrong with that. That is what the MA is geared to. But this is a military simulation. In CT right now I am trying out this concept of NOT being careless, stupid, or unaware.
I kept whining(to myself, and I don't make dumb excuses, I just take it then cry..) when I did somethig stupid..But with this new attitude It has become WAY intense...becuase if I'm killed, I will sit out the rest of the week til the next tour. So far, I have been very lucky, and haven't made any foolish mistakes.
As this tour goes on, I find myself caring more and more about finnishing the tour in one piece. It really adds to the exitement and the challenge...Arlo, you are NOT the low man on the totem pole, not by a LONG shot. It really dosn't matter if all you want to do is shoot up the place then auger in and get a new paper plane. Everybody in here thinks they are the Red Baron;) And that is just fine too. The gang at HTC are just trying to give you what you want. I for one, will welcome this new cenario. There is nothing wrong with concequences, they are a part of life. I look at it this way...There will be no more "newbees" asking basic questions in the middle of a dog fight"how do I take off? can I shoot the green guys?" your wing man will be trained to stay with you, not wander off chasing shadows, et al. I see some are already starting to question whether they are going to be good enough to do this new sim..
I say give yourself a chance...DukeMskt, Musketeer Escadrille
-
It's not about me, Duke. Never has been. :)
I made an observation about taking things to extremes that I think will hurt TOD. Said my piece. We'll see.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I do have concerns for this type of arena as I do not want to have to wait for the game play to start. Sitting in a ready room is not my idea of fun. I don't mind being part of a team but having to sit and wait for the team to get together isn't going to work for me. My time is too limited.
Then don't play ToD. What makes you think anyone wants you on their team if you don't plan on "sitting in the ready room" and learning about the mission, what neeeds to be done, and who is going to be responsible for what?
I won't want you on my team. You're the exact kind of player that never knows what is going on, what the target is, or what ammo and fuel load is going to be needed. You're the type of player that nags all the other players by repeatedly typing the same questions over and over again in the text buffer..
"What field do we take off from?"
"What plane?"
"How much Fuel?"
"What type of bombs?"
"What radio channel we on?"
"Who's my wingman?"
"What's the target?"
Then you half listen to the responses, load up the wrong stuff, take off and don't pay attention to the mission leader, fail to stay with the group and end up squeaking because no one covered you when you broke off to attack some alternate target becasue you thought it was a better idea.
AH Classic is for you. Please be content with it and don't waste your valuable time ruining every one else's in ToD. Thanks
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Then don't play ToD. What makes you think anyone wants you on their team if you don't plan on "sitting in the ready room" and learning about the mission, what neeeds to be done, and who is going to be responsible for what?
I won't want you on my team. You're the exact kind of player that never knows what is going on, what the target is, or what ammo and fuel load is going to be needed. You're the type of player that nags all the other players by repeatedly typing the same questions over and over again in the text buffer..
"What field do we take off from?"
"What plane?"
"How much Fuel?"
"What type of bombs?"
"What radio channel we on?"
"Who's my wingman?"
"What's the target?"
Then you half listen to the responses, load up the wrong stuff, take off and don't pay attention to the mission leader, fail to stay with the group and end up squeaking because no one covered you when you broke off to attack some alternate target becasue you thought it was a better idea.
AH Classic is for you. Please be content with it and don't waste your valuable time ruining every one else's in ToD. Thanks
Well thank you all the way to hell and back midnight. I didn't know you were the resident god of AH here. Please forgive me for having the temerity to broach questions about a game that has been announced without details on gameplay!!! Particularly in rergards as to how often or when missions would be announced or where.
As to the mission idea and waiting, who gave you the authority to decide who is a "welcome" player or not. I have flown several missions in the CT and the problems you listed were not attributable to me. Nice of you to affix blame and put me in that catagory though.
As far as being on your team, you don't have to worry. I play for fun, not to build an ego as you most obviously have. You have more than enough ego displayed in your post to fill a squad all by yourself.
-
Eh, Mav. Get used to it. It's an all too common to see some in this forum get all uptight and pissy because you ask a question or make an observation that threatens their conception of AHII:TOD nirvana (as if your mere presense may turn their wet dream into a nightmare). All the players who chant "I don't want you in my Tour of Duty - go play Classic" ... before TOD even opens ... are so completely self-centered that they'll never see it coming.
It's one of the most bizarre examples of actively trying to discourage players from participating in and supporting an upcoming version of the game (they supposedly support themselves) that I've ever seen. Don't fret the blow-hards who are trying to make TOD their own private sandbox (or make it sound like it will be). Or, for that matter, this forum. Post on, dude. If someone gets their panties in a knot over what ya post ... don't worry about it unless it's someone on the HTC payroll. ;)
-
Some people want structure in a game, some don't. It's really very simple. and I don't think it's about any one person. It's failure or success depends on the numbers of people who play it. Period. No rocket science here. The ONLY person taking a chance is, in the final analyisis is HiTech. He and the crew at HT creations
are trying to come up with something new and exciting for you all.
Who knows? In any event I will be there just to see whats what.
as for a private little sandbox, that is already covered in the game. Is the H2H arena. And its free. DukeMskt, Musketeer Escadrille.
-
H2H being a private sandbox for free, huh? Ain't that logic for yas? ;)
No .... I'm refering to the "HT specifically custom designed TOD for me and people like me who don't like action and have eight or more hours a day to spend mostly not facing opponents so stop asking questions or making suggestions and go away since we don't need you and your kind and HT will be more than happy to support our little elite group with the proceeds from AHII:Classic" club. :D
-
Still think they should have called it,
Uber Arena
-
"Little" and "Elite" don't wash on line, old son. If enough people don't come to play, it will simply dissapear.I have no intention of droning on and on for hours sitting on a silk rock...Been there, done that. I dont have a chair that comfortable, or time like that to spare. I am certainly not one of the "elite" nor am I particularly little. I will still be interested in seeing what it does do...Who knows? might be a hoot..DukeMskt, Musketeer Escadrille.
-
Maverick,
I understood that they were going to have missions launch every hour or half hour (they weren't sure yet) so that players like you who are short on time to play wouldn't have to sit around in a tower waiting for the mission to launch. Instead you could do your "real life" activities, notice that it was 7:55 and log on to fly a mission at 8:00.
Contrary to Midnight's post, HTC wants ToD to be as accessible as possible. I would expect that the mission settings will be auto loaded into your controls and you'll have way points and target designations all accessible from the clipboard so that Midnight's feared barage of questions will be minimized.
-
Precisely the point ... old son. :D
Originally posted by DukeMskt
"Little" and "Elite" don't wash on line, old son. If enough people don't come to play, it will simply dissapear.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
It's amazing to me that people want to whine about how poorly they play, and the game should be structured so that they can still be succesful. That is exactly why HTC will leave the existing game as AHC. So people with only a few minutes to play, who haven't improved their skills, who don't want to deal with a structured mission invironment, and don't care about their scores can still play and do what they want.
It also allows players who DO care about completing their mission, yet doing so in a manner that allows them to get home when the job is done.
Hopefully, AH ToD will be a game/sim for players who want to play in an enviroment where their actions, as well as their countrymates can have a real effect on what happens next. If HTC is going to put all kinds of buffers into the game to prevent people from being "discouraged" with their poor performance, then I hope they don't even bother putting in the effort.
With any luck, ToD will be more realistic, in the sense that if you fail too often, your superiors will remove you until such time you can improve. Why should every game cater to the newbie or the casual player? Why can't the simmer's have a simulation with out the gamer's whining that it is too hard?
Please play AHC and join a squad. Fly in the current ToDs and improve your skills for missions. There are plenty of places to practice and get better. Please don't ask that AH ToD should not have penalties for poor performance. Let us have a simulation please. Thank you.
The thing about this "SIMULATION" is it is a game. Dropping back to cadet and missing out on squad night is not what a game is about. How about this for simulation Midnight, if you die you can never play again, EVER. Now that would be a sim.:eek:
-
I don't go quite that far, but I agree. I play in CT, and if I get killed, no matter how, I lay off till the next CT opens. I spend my free time in the training room or with other activites. I got killed last night running over some junk trying to capture a VH...My wingie's comment was" it was a cheap shot, you didn't deserve to die.." Cheap shmeep. Dead is dead. Like golf, the only other game I know of that you can call a penalty on yourself, It will make me more careful in the future. As for all the nonsense about the new AHII, you can play all you want, it's a game, if you die all the time, you NEED to go back to training. I have never been into political correctness and I have very little tolerence for people who whine constantly about nothing. So far, alot of what's here seems to be negative. I am at a loss to figure out why. If this AHll
Doesn't please some of you now, I shudder to think what will happen when there is something to concrete to worry about. why not just wait and see? What can it hurt? I just may be too much for some fragile egos to deal with. In fact I am sure the first time some killer player stomps a mud hole in my bellybutton and walks it dry, I will be crushed. Especially when I find out it was a 10 year old..LOL!! But that's just the way it goes, you know? I am sure every mission won't be to Schwinefurt or Berlin. I bet there will be plenty of action on the french coast as well....or perhaps at Midway or Pearl Harbor. I hope everyone does well at this. I really do. But some won't and they will hate it. That's life. If HT creations tried to please everyone, they would wind up pleasing no one. Same as in every day life. DukeMskt, Musketeer Escadrille
-
I have been a pistol shooter for years, and we have had the same discussion about realism vs. gameplay for years. The answer was separating the realists from the gamesmen, and that is what HTC is trying to do with this.
If you are a gameplayer, play in the main arena. If you are a simulator, then play in the new ToD. It's that simple. Let the guys that are designing the system do their work. If something is wrong with it when it comes out, they are flexible enough to correct it.
That's my opinion, anyway.
-
If you`re dead, you`re dead.
Just don`t have the "respawned" :P cadets have to do training over and over again.
You can easily master whatever training there is, and on the 27th go it will be just boredom.
Looking forward to beeing a cadet over and over again,
-
No one should be busted down to cadet denying them "flight status". 2nd Lt. should be the lowest rank because of simple mathematics. The premise of this ONLINE sim is that we will be pitted against each other in an aerial contest over objectives. To be successful you most likely will have to shoot down another player, gaining 10 points and potentially robbing the other guy for 100 points, depending on whether realistic bail-outs will be modeled. It may be required for a lot of players to seldom or never exceeded 2nd Lt. status to allow a small number of "eksperten" to advance in rank.
-
I'm reading thru the various threads so I apologize if I'm asking a question that has been answered. Looking at the axis side of the equation for 1944-45 it would seem bomber interception would be 90% of the mission load (in the west). Given the current state of buff gunnery and the addition of a realistic effort...life expectancy would be about 1 mission:)...just about what a cadet in late 44 had :)
I'd think you'd need to tone down the leathality of the AI gunnery a bit in order to create a realistic chance of survival.
-
At the end of the day the only decision factor will be whether AHIITOD sells in the format envisaged. If too many people get turned off by having to go back to training, it will be changed. If it is a success from the outset, it will stay as it is and may be developed further.
HTC isn't a charity, natural attrition requires it to develop formats that appeal to more people. It can't survive unless it does.
The only thing that has been illustrated here is that currently there is a clear division of opinion on whether the product will be appealing in this format - however, none of us have seen it, so I guess we can discuss the merits of both systems, but in the end, we will have to wait and see what the masses think.
Fox
:) ;) :)