Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Bullethead on May 21, 2003, 08:09:31 PM
-
Sorry for coming into this discussion late. I'm sure somebody's already discussed this, but I can't find it in the 13 pages this topic's got since January. So, some questions and concerns....
In the 14 Mar 03 SimHQ interview (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_059a.html), HT said squads as we know them today and have known them forever in the past won't exist in the ToD arena. I also saw mention of player avatars having rank and forming a chain of command based on this rank, and writing evaluations of their troops after missions, which would affect the ability of the troops to pick up rank themselves. Is that about the gist of it?
If so, I have some serious reservations about that whole concept. I've been in my squad for all of its 9-yr existence. Our internal chain of command is very important to us--it's basically the glue that's held us together this long. I'm sure the same is true for all squads. But now, it seems that AH2 is dead set on destroying the whole community of squads that's been part of flightsim life since the early days of AW. No squads per se at all in ToD, and command positions distributed on the basis of ToD rank, so that squaddies get scattered out working for total strangers. What's the point of having a squad any more? I mean, doing that once or twice a year in a scenario is one thing, but when that's the everyday thing, the whole squad concept becomes meaningless.
Please tell me that ain't so. Please tell me there's some guarantee that squaddies can continue flying together under their own squad chain of command. Please tell me that the other squads, which over the years have either become steadfast allies or Hated Enemas, will remain as recognizable entities carrying on their fueds in the ToD arena.
Also, please tell me we're all not condemned to endlessly suffering under the command of those have no life outside of AH. You know the type: those who get rank in the current MA simply by putting in countless hours. This is bad enough in the MA when all that happens is some clueless, lifeless, talent-challenged-but-points-heavy schmuck snatches away command of a TG without so much as a by-your-leave. But if such people are always going to be your FL, GL, or whatever, simply because they fly a lot more than you do, that's seriously going to suck.
Please tell me there's a way for folks who, due to real life, only have time to fly once or twice a week, to play meaningful roles in the ToD arena. I mean, a lot of our best pilots and leaders are in that situation. By the time they learned how to do that well, they'd gotten old and had families and jobs and such things.
And what's this about leaders writing evals on their troops? Where are the checks and balances in that? How do you prevent personal animosities, petty jealousies, the misunderstandings inherent in internet communications, and just plain personality clashes from turning that into a complete mess? Especially if your boss is only your boss because he flew more in the last few weeks than you did, but you've been flying 6 or 8 years longer than he has in total? How do you prevent abuses of power from totally destroying the fun for the troops who get shafted on the evals, and thus never get rank themselves?
We all know the flightsim community has always been a long, loud clash of egos. That's part of the fun, because heretofore it's always been harmless. It had no effect on how you played the game, except for the pursuit of personal vendettas in combat. Rant and flame each other on the boards, but you didn't have to work for the guy and his opinions had no effect on the structure of the game. But translate this normal fligthsim community "love" into a situation where the guy with more rank can basically hold the other guy down, and I predict you'll have guys canceling their accounts in droves.
For many years, I've wanted more historical basis for the arena. I was really looking forward to AW doing something like the ToD Arena, just before that died. But I always envisioned this in terms of doing it with my same old squaddies, so we could enjoy it together. We'd be the same squad as always, using our internal chain of command and all, just doing it in a different environment.
To me, and my squaddies, it's our esprit de corps that's important, more than the game we happen to be playing. If it comes down to a choice of having either the historical arena or the whole squad experience (my squad, and the community of friendly and nme squads), I'll keep the squad system without hesitation. Which is too bad, because I'd really like to do this ToD thing otherwise.
-
good post i have same doubts
good fighter not mean good commander
-
Aye but the point is you can lose rank as well as gain it......Generals will rise and fall. Besides, they'll be plenty of missions so just don't join the one's lead by a commander you think is a numpty.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
In TOD current concept of squads is hard to fit in. But in classic squads will stay the way they are now as far as I understand.
About command, if leader has no respect, mission he leads will not be joined, or joined by casuals, thus missions will not be successful, and leader will drop fast in the leader chain. Easy like this. How many people makes mission in MA? How many of those missions are joined by more than 10 people? How many of same 10 people joins next mission of same person?
From all thousands of AH players it may be 10 popular mission makers. Same will be with generals, when they will hit higher than their level of competense, they will fall down fast.
-
This is mostly ot but its good info for those new to the forum.
First HT didnt say there would be no squads in AH2:ToD
He said
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD
There was another threead that already debated in this thread :
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83194
We dont know what HT meant by that quote. It could very well mean no squads. But I dont think HT meant that because I am sure he knows what squads mean to some of the players. It may just mean a new format. We shouldnt speculate snd wait for a better explanation. I for 1 dont want to fly in a lonewolf arena and know sevral others who dont want to either.
Now to rank and gameplay
Read this thead.
There are about 15 threads like this one as well but the 1 below covers it all
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77962
Also folks need to understand that in AH2 there will be 2 types of gameplay.
AH2:Classic will be the same as the current main but with the new eye candy.
AH2:Tour of Duty will be a new concept based on missions and survival. HT described as adding a roll playing aspect to ah.
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.
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.
Read the other the linked thread.
The idea is to survive and complet your mission. You will need to balance the risks. If you fly scared and timid you may never advance. If you fly reckless and suicidal you will loose what rank you have. As penalty for death while being at the bottom you will be sent back to training. HT described as an example that when you complete training you get 500 points and the rank of 2nd LT. If you die you loose 100 points. If you complete the mission you get 10 points. You would need to die 5 times in a row to go back to training. These numbers are just examples but give us an idea about what HT us thinking inregards to the "death penalty".
There are folks who dont like this. I think its great. HT needs to come up with numbers that are balnced. Folks who fly here will be flying for rank. So anyone with any intelligence will be able to way the risks. The example numbers ht gave wont work. Some folks may decide that they will only enage if they have a clear advantage. If you loose 100 for a death and only get 10 if succesfull folk will be very timid. I would like to see apeanlty for mission failure as well. Maybe - one half what you would get for success. But there needs to be aclear penalty for death. Not as high as -100 but something that has an impact.
The go back to training needs to be there to encourage ther bottom feeders to go out and accomplish something. The concept is to advance your career.
For folks who like the instant action of the current main it will be there for them. AH2: ToD is a bold step. I like the idea but dont know if the role play concept will draw in enough numbers to mke it fun.
Missions will be host generated on a set time table. This wont be an open arena. This combined with the rigid rank structure may not appeal to average AH main player. There are a quite afew who like the idea and hopefully this will draw in others from out side ah.
The players writing evals on their troops comes from this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77159
Folks were worried about
1. getting folks in the mission oragnized. Theres need for a mission leader.
Q: As the game stands now, you have gone to some lengths to maintain fairness with increased perk points for flying missions and planes that are less glamorous, increased perk points for shooting down superior planes, rigging points based upon numbers per side, etc. These aren’t things that existed in real life. In AHII, how do you ensure -- if at all -- that you don’t end up with a small core of very good pilots who get all the plum planes, benefits, and the like? Likewise, what plans to you have for maintaining some equality in the arenas so that we don’t have a 200 vs 50 type of battle that sometimes happens?
It’s not our goal to make every battle even. Some won’t be even by design and others won’t be even by circumstance. There’s going to be inherent inequalities due to numbers, equipment, and differences in mission profiles. Obviously, it wouldn’t work too well to just score missions and dole out rewards based on a simple criteria such as which side shot down more planes. To get around that issue, there will be handicapping in the scoring of missions to reflect how well a side carried out its mission under the circumstances. A Pyrrhic victory is no victory.
Q: How do you ensure that players follow the rules? For example, what would to stop a player from signing up for a mission, flying along, doing his own thing, doing it well, and then getting credit for a mission success that he may not have had anything to do with?
We plan to use a type of officer evaluation report where commanders would rate the performance of their flight leaders who in turn would rate the performance of the pilots in their flight. [/i]
But like the squad thing theres no real ansawer to how it will work.
Dont forget the current gameplay of the main arena will be there. AH2 is in a sense offering 2 games.
1 just like there is now
1 that is based on mission and role playing.
Pyro said Curval submitted anew FAQ to him sometime ago and I am sure we are all looking forward to it. but AH2 is still some months away.
Its too early for the "sky is falling". The main will always be ther.
-
They pretty much have to limit the MA squads participation in the TOD. If a 40 person squad showed up and insisted on flying together their squad night would always be a bust. I have seen it happen in the CT.
-
Swoop said:
Aye but the point is you can lose rank as well as gain it......Generals will rise and fall. Besides, they'll be plenty of missions so just don't join the one's lead by a commander you think is a numpty.
That's not the point. Me and my squaddies want to fly in missions, or at least squadrons and flights within missions, that are commanded by our own leaders. We want to fly with our squaddies. We do not want to be scattered all over Hell as individuals always working for a bunch of other folks. We're a squad that's been flying together for many years across several different games. We REALLY want to do the ToD thing. But we will NOT sacrifice the squad for the ToD.
IMHO, it makes absolutely zero sense to junk the whole squad thing in the ToD. For the ToD to have any hope of success, there must be a level of player cooperation and teamwork that is totally unprecedented in day-to-day arena life, the kind seen only in the last frames of long scenarios. This degree of daily teamwork can, IMHO, only be provided by using existing squads as building blocks. You will never be able to round up a bunch of random pilots, scatter them randomly in a mission, and hope to see anything other than your typical MA furball. Even if the leaders you happen to get are reasonably competent. Even if everybody checks their ego at the door. Even if everybody shows up wanting to be cooperative. Simple lack of flying together for any length of time, not to mention language barriers, will ruin it.
Without squads, every mission will be by manned by a scratch team, the odds and sods, the cooks and bakers. Basically, exactly what you have in your typical non-squad MA airfield attack today. So let's look at your typical non-squad MA airfield attack....
- You have a bunch of random pilots with a common goal
- You have a short list of mission objectives that must be accomplished to succeed in capturing the field
- Every swinging joystick involved is intimately familiar with all these mission objectives
- Success in the mission can only be accomplished by teamwork
- Success with this mission, and all like it, is the only way to "win the war" and reap the max personal rewards offered by the arena
- You have a few decent sticks amongst the general dweeb herd
- You have a few leaders, strangers to most of the pilots involved, trying to organize things
How is that any different from what's been said about how the ToD arena will function? And you know what most non-squad MA airfield attacks end up being: total chaos in process, and usually unsuccessful in the end if there's any significant opposition (which itself is equally chaotic).
-
Originally posted by Pongo
They pretty much have to limit the MA squads participation in the TOD. If a 40 person squad showed up and insisted on flying together their squad night would always be a bust. I have seen it happen in the CT.
That's only because hardly anybody flies in the CT. If the CT had the numbers the MA has, +/- 40 guys would have an effect but wouldn't be totally dominating.
Now, if the ToD totally tanks in comparison with the "classic" arena, as the CT in all its incarnations from AW to WB to AH basically has, then I can see a problem. But the goal is to keep that from happening to the ToD arena. I mean, HTC is spending a lot of money setting this up. If it fails, it could cause problems for the whole game. So what we all want is the ToD arena to end up with the bulk of the AH population.
This is where I see the big problem. The bulk of the AH population has grown up with the squad format. Squad membership means an awful lot to a great many pilots. To some, the squad is more important than the game, for all the dangers, real life problems, and booze they've shared together over the years. If they have to give that up to fly in the ToD, I'm pretty sure most of them will stay in the "classic" arena. With much regret, of course, because many of these hard-core squad guys would love nothing more than to do scenario-type stuff every friggin' day with their squaddies. I mean, squads exist to provide organization and teamwork.
So where does that leave the ToD arena? I'm thinking, nowhere. If the choice is between squad buddies and the ToD arena, the squad buddies will win in most cases. So on non-squad nights, most guys will go to the "classic" arena first to hook up with any squaddies then flying. And they'll probably stay there in case other squaddies show up later. So only rarely will you see any of these guys in the ToD unless they plan to go there in advance. Thus, the ToD will have just a few loners and sociopaths IMHO, because all the guys who crave organization and teamwork are already in squads.
Which would make your argument valid. The ToD would be as barren as the CT, so having big squads show up would cause a problem. Which would be a problem for all of us in the long run....
-
"So what we all want is the ToD arena to end up with the bulk of the AH population. "
I dont think that is the case. But never the less I think the reason I gave you is the reason that they will not just support squads in the same way in AH II TOD.
The algorithm gets very complex is you cant control the size.
But asside from that. One of your guys could be the leader. He may have to accept non squadies on a sorti though.
-
AH2:ToD is basically a different arena. Any work going into one benefits the other. With the exception of maybe the ai code, mission generation and ranking theres no added cost.
If AH toD tanks you just close the arena. AH2 is not AH2 ToD alone.
You keep jumping to the conclusion that there will be no squads. The interview says squad format. That could mean many things. First the arena will be based on individual scores. So format could mean no squad scores. You get 2 avatars. 1allied 1 axis. So format could mean you can belong to 2 seperate squads. One for each avatar.
If you dont like it then then AH2:Classic will be there for you. All the issues you brought up have been discussed in other threads.
AH tod wont be dependent on large numbers as its not an open arena. AI will suplement bombers. All you you need is enough fighter pilots on each side in each mission to make it fun. So it wont matter if 500 people are ingame or 50. Its the mission that matters and they will be generated at 30 min intervals (last numbers offered) by the host.
Even a small group of 3 or 4 interceptors can have a blast diving through 6 or 8 escorts and engaging a bomber formation of 50 plus ai.
It seems to me you have missed the point entirely.
AH2:Classic will be there for ya.
-
No Batz its not missunderstanding
2 awatars sure , but im not sure about membership in 2 squads.
I think its more like 2 diferent countrien without belong to any specific squadron.
When host announce mission u just fill slot like on current mission on MA. Then assign u to squadron which is flying this mission.
So, basicly membership of country not any specific squadron.
According to future command chain, pilot with best score /kill-death and streak/ will be commander for planes flying mission.
I understand this like that, and i think its not missunderstanding.
And from here start problem. Good killer is good commander? Did he care about pilots who was assigned to play with him?
Thats mean how good he can lead people and be part of team.
Most of "killers" are loone wolfes, how to prewent situation when commander like that live his own ppls or give them order to attack and wait only for good ocasion to increse streak.
sucrifice, teamplay i think we worry about that.
Secound thing is "trust".
Theoretic situation, what if host call mission who will be lead by highest "rank" this time on arena. Good commander who ppls trust. Just before mission come men who is scored higher , but not trusted leader. Did host give him command? If yes, ppls who wait 30 minutes for mission should live and wait another 30 minutes?
And example from RL, higest scored pilot was not allways commander of group/mission. Promotion of pilots depends not only from his score , but many other details and opinions.
how to deal with this? If host will be promote all pilots. If scrip do this im courious what data will he use. Kills are not everything.
ramzey
-
Ramzey read the thread :)
I never said that we will be in 2 seperate squads.
Q: Will squads have to fly on the same side during the conflict, or can one squaddie fly for the Germans while his buddy flies for the Americans?
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.
Now heres the important part for those jumping to the extreme conclusion that there will be no squads:
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.
BH assumes this means no squads.
All pyro is saying is that:
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.
Now BH takes the most extreme interpretation and thinks there will be no squads at all.
We know HT has said that each person will have 2 avatars. 1 Axis 1 allied.
The squad format for AH2:ToD could mean that you can belong to a squad with each avatar. I am not saying it will.
The squad format for AH2:ToD could mean something as simply as no combined squad scores. Seeing how AH2:ToD will be a role playing mission based arena where individual scores matter more.
The squad format for AH2:ToD could mean any number of things.
I never said the squad fomat will 100% mean membership in 2 squads. But its just as plausible as BHs assumption that there will be no squads.
As to who makes a good leader is covered by the pilot evals as quoted here:
Q: As the game stands now, you have gone to some lengths to maintain fairness with increased perk points for flying missions and planes that are less glamorous, increased perk points for shooting down superior planes, rigging points based upon numbers per side, etc. These aren’t things that existed in real life. In AHII, how do you ensure -- if at all -- that you don’t end up with a small core of very good pilots who get all the plum planes, benefits, and the like? Likewise, what plans to you have for maintaining some equality in the arenas so that we don’t have a 200 vs 50 type of battle that sometimes happens?
It’s not our goal to make every battle even. Some won’t be even by design and others won’t be even by circumstance. There’s going to be inherent inequalities due to numbers, equipment, and differences in mission profiles. Obviously, it wouldn’t work too well to just score missions and dole out rewards based on a simple criteria such as which side shot down more planes. To get around that issue, there will be handicapping in the scoring of missions to reflect how well a side carried out its mission under the circumstances. A Pyrrhic victory is no victory.
Q: How do you ensure that players follow the rules? For example, what would to stop a player from signing up for a mission, flying along, doing his own thing, doing it well, and then getting credit for a mission success that he may not have had anything to do with?
We plan to use a type of officer evaluation report where commanders would rate the performance of their flight leaders who in turn would rate the performance of the pilots in their flight.
I am not worried at all about bad leadership. If the guy leading mission is no good then I wont follow his directions. I will know who he is and not fly missions when hes lead. If lotsa people think he is no good then no one will fly with him. This will mean he will have a hard time holding his rank.
I am more worried about some disruptive tard that flies around tk'n his own guys or giving away positions or any other number of stupid behavior.
Thats why I started this thread.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...&threadid=77159
-
dead link
i better shut up with my understanding of english lanuguage:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Batz
You keep jumping to the conclusion that there will be no squads. The interview says squad format. That could mean many things. First the arena will be based on individual scores. So format could mean no squad scores. You get 2 avatars. 1allied 1 axis. So format could mean you can belong to 2 seperate squads. One for each avatar.
ramzey
-
:)
So format could mean you can belong to 2 seperate squads. One for each avatar.
link fixed
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77159
-
ty for patience Sir
but this not decrese my doubts/questions, even increse
personal i like to see ToD close to RL
looking from leading person point /i mean in air/ i wish to have obey troops. And there is no place for democracy in pre- engagment manuvers. Like no time for voting in fight.
In RL if leader perform bad, he can stand on fellow cour/honor court/oficer court or be report to command.
But i not see place for living mission/desertion by bad feelings
Rank system is not best i think. Lost pilots allways or allmost allways will vote against men who lead unsucessful for them mission. Even if duty was fulfill. And if minor planes was lost.
Another one, how many players like to lead others? Mostly players avoid responsibility for leading others.
Will be option to chose "i wish to be promoted and lead others"
or "avoid flight leader role"?
Other doubts/question
What with ppls who not speak english? or speak poor /like me;)/. They have your own leader and communicate in native lanuguage. Till they work together everything work well.
I know allways somone can say "learn english" but this not resolve problem.
doubts, questions, doubts..............
regards
ramzey
-
From what i understand AH2 will work in this way:
1.While you are of low rank you will have little choice of your plane type, its loadout or your mission.
2. As you gain rank you get to choose your loadouts or get better choices of aircraft perhaps begin to gain rank
3.Once of a suitable rank you can start to plan missions maybe or fly some of the top aircraft.
4.Plan successfull missions and your score goes up quickly.Rewarding all who participate especially the planner with score and possibly rewards of rank.
5.Will players HAVE to accept a rise in rank? Im hoping not so if you opt just to dogfight or do dogsbody work ;) you keep a low rank by choice and if you like to plan etc then you accept every promotion.
This to me looks like a perfect way for a CO of a squad to start running a squad like the REAL thing.How can you not like the idea of that??? :)
think about it.The Rank of your squad CO neednt be the highest in the squad,Your XO and flight leaders dont have to have the highest kills to be the accepted lead in your squad now nor will they have to in AH2. Sure they will have to be average in skill to gain at least SOME rank but is this so bad??
I think this will not be a problem for the majority of squadleaders to gain a bit of rank and maintain it. I think it will actually encourage squad groups even more! Remember in WW2 when a particular pilot does well he is rewarded and his experience is seized upon for use as flight leads etc. the same will happen in AH2. You will know by their rank who is suitable for various positions in your squad.
I personally am looking forward to the rank side with a lot of interest. I am an average player as i tend to die a lot due to my lack of care about surviving over my desire for another kill and as AH is now im rewarded fairly well for flying like this.I love to make missions but have always been disapointed that theres not some sort of extra reward for the players who join them and try hard to fly like the real squadrons did.
If AH2 makes me start to fly like its a one life snapshot or scenario then ALL the better! I will have to try hard to fly well in order to be able to make missions? GREAT stuff!!
I say HTC give us a real challenge to gain rank and be able to command. The harder it is id say the longer it will hold peoples attention and desire to get higher.I think its just what AH needs to sustain long term interest.The quick fix will always bethere in the MA so its perfect.
-
Q:Briefly describe the rank progression as you envision it. Will this be simply a ‘perk point’ based rank increase or will certain people be chosen to run certain aspects of the arena, akin to the CM setup that we have for the TOD and Snapshot events?
Rank progession will be similar a typical RPG with experience points and levels except that we will have ranks and career points or whatever we decide to call them. It’s totally different from our perk point system in that it is mainly achieved through mission success rather than just how many kills you get.
ToD runs as an automated process so there’s nothing like a CM required. We’re considering allowing players to design campaigns and missions. The big drawback to that is that they wouldn’t be able to participate in them.
Q:How are mission orders generated? At what level, or rank, will gamers be able to create missions or will this be limited to a few selected individuals? How will the staff be used to control the numbers of missions and who makes them?
Players don’t create missions. The missions come down from HQ a.k.a. the host. In planning an attack, the best mission plan would be one with no enemy contact. However, that would make for a pretty dull mission and we don’t want that. So the missions are orchestrated to give an almost certain probability of enemy contact while preserving the ability to be surprised and have to react.
Player generated missions wont be there like in the ah main. Theres talk of allowing players to generate campaigns or mission but they wouldnt be leading them.
In regards to Poor Flight leaders
Q: How do you ensure unit cohesion without having players taking orders from another player? Or is that exactly what you have in mind?
Players will have to take both host and player generated instruction. There is no freelancing in ToD. If a player wants to take part in organized missions but also wants to be free to do whatever they feel, well that’s a paradox we can’t provide for.
Some players are concerned about having to take instructions from other players, but it’s not a major concern for us. It’s just about getting organized so that everybody understands their responsibilities in a mission and you don’t end up with everybody trying to do the same task while other vital components of the mission are ignored. Even so, as Murphy’s Laws of Combat states, "No plan survives enemy contact intact."
In the real military there are poor leaders and there’s not much you can do about it as a subordinate (fragging aside). But that’s not really the case in ToD and it will become a self-regulating process. Nobody is going to want to follow poor leaders and nobody is going to want to lead poor followers.
No one will follow a tard :)
-
What I am absolutly, 200% sure, is that the initial model for AHII TOD will be changed and tuned and changed and tuned again all the way during the AHII beta and in every single patch which will follow after it is final :) So, we will have many things to be uhnappy about then, do not need to start folling into depression now :)
-
who folling into depresion? we just courious:)
-
Batz said:
AH2:ToD is basically a different arena. Any work going into one benefits the other. With the exception of maybe the ai code, mission generation and ranking theres no added cost.........If you dont like it then then AH2:Classic will be there for you.
Forget the damn "classic" arena. That's MOTSOS MA landgrab chaos. New graphics and some engine improvments won't alter how the game is played. And if that sort of gameplay was what I was interested in, I wouldn't be spending any time reading this topic because there's nothing to worry about there. MOTSOS will continue as before, per HT himself.
No, what me, you, and everybody else here is interested in is the friggin' ToD arena because it's the only thing that offers some new and potentially cool changes in the gameplay experience. Look how many scenario regulars are posting in this topic. Do you think they're the least bit interested in the fact that MA-style play will continue when there's something more scenario-like on the table?
If AH toD tanks you just close the arena. AH2 is not AH2 ToD alone.
You seem to think that setting up the ToD arena is a trivial thing, like creating the CT or DA. IOW, no big investment in it, no big loss if it goes nowhere. But from what HT said at last year's Con, that's definitely not the case. Creating the ToD thing apparently is a major undertaking requiring a large investment in time, talent, and labor (IOW, money). If this investment fails to pay off, it might have the potential to cause financial problems for HTC. I have no idea how big a risk HTC is taking on the ToD, but it's certainly a gamble to some extent, the failure of which would probably be noticeable even if not catastrophic. That being the case, it's in all our interests, as customer who want to see AH and HTC prosper, that the ToD succeed in a big way.
You keep jumping to the conclusion that there will be no squads. The interview says squad format. That could mean many things.
Nope. It means exactly 1 thing. Read HT's answer in the context of the question he was asked:
SIMHQ: Will squads have to fly on the same side during the conflict, or can one squaddie fly for the Germans while his buddy flies for the Americans?
HT: The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.
The interviewer clearly assumed that squads would continue to exist, and was asking for details of how they'd work. And HT cut him off by saying squads wouldn't exist, thus making the actual question moot. That's why he didn't answer that question.
So, as it stands now, there will not be squads in the ToD. At all. Period. No ambiguity at all there.
All the issues you brought up have been discussed in other threads.
Nope. If they had been, there'd have been a huge amount of hate and discontent spilling out of this topic and into the general consciousness of the AH community. But the fact that no squads will exist in the ToD seems to have gone unnoticed. After all, this topic's 13 pages since 28 Jan 03 are at least 99.999% "HT please fix this aspect of the flight/damage model" or "HT please put my favorite plane in there". Nobody seems to have given much thought at all to the implications of the changes in actual gameplay.
AH tod wont be dependent on large numbers as its not an open arena. AI will suplement bombers. All you you need is enough fighter pilots on each side in each mission to make it fun. ... Even a small group of 3 or 4 interceptors can have a blast diving through 6 or 8 escorts and engaging a bomber formation of 50 plus ai.
:rolleyes: Oh boy, that sounds about as much fun as playing something offline-only or with very limited MP!!! I like that SSSOOOOOO much more than having to deal with lotsa other people. I can't wait!!! And Hell, I don't have to. I can go out tomorrow and buy IL2 for $15 in the bargain bin and start smacking the AI herds around immediately. Why pay $15/month to fight the AI when a single payment does the trick? :rolleyes:
It seems to me you have missed the point entirely.
Hehehe, you couldn't hit a point if you were standing in 50 acres of prime points and armed with a belt-fed, point-seeking harpoon launcher ;).
The point is, to make the ToD work, you need lots of people, and they need to be organized. This organization is impossible to achieve with a bunch of strangers thrown together at random. The only way around that is to bring in squads. But HT has said squads won't exist in the ToD. Thus, I see a serious problem.
-
hazed said:
This to me looks like a perfect way for a CO of a squad to start running a squad like the REAL thing.How can you not like the idea of that??? :)
I certainly agree that there is the definite possibility of much coolness in the ToD concept. Which is why I'm here reading this, after all.
However, the fact remains that there will not be squads. Thus there can be no "running" anything over the long term. A mission becomes available, you grab a slot, and you fly with whoever else grabbed slots. When the mission is over, you go your separate ways. In the next mission, there is no guarantee, and probably very little likelihood, that you'll get the same mix of people again. Hell, you might not even speak the same language as your leader. Thus, there's no continuity, no squad for you to "run", and pretty much a guarantee of disorganization.
This means that if an MA squad showed up, it's not likely they'll all be able to fly together, and even less likely that they'll have enough of their own leadership in command positions to matter much to them. The rank system of the ToD will trump whatever rank structure the squad has. The result will be reducing squads to a scattering of individuals.
I say HTC give us a real challenge to gain rank and be able to command. The harder it is id say the longer it will hold peoples attention and desire to get higher.I think its just what AH needs to sustain long term interest.The quick fix will always bethere in the MA so its perfect.
And I say, no matter how you slice it, there will always be a strong correlation between time spent online and rank, regardless of actual skill or leadership ability. And in every RPG where you give players increased abilities at higher levels, you provide players with a huge incentive to power-level so they can gain these abilities ASAP to get the most use out of them. So those with the time available will quickly come to dominate the ToD rank structure, as sure as the sun rises. Everybody with anything resembling a real life will be left in the dust. That doesn't sound like a good way to pick leaders.
Also remember that no matter how cool the ToD thing is on paper, it will ultimately be placed in the hands of all the egos, morons, dweebs, kill-thieves, and lamers who make up the psychotically disfunctional AH family we all know and love. Do you want your average random AHer, who is by definition a member of at least 1 of the above classes, leading you in combat, much less writing your performance review afterwards?
Think about this: You're being led by a power-leveler, who now has the ability to stay in power by shafting his troops after every mission, so as to prevent them from getting rank quickly. Or maybe the guy's just a petty bully. Before in AH1, he used to enjoy ruining people's hops, maybe their whole night. But now, by shafting them on rank, he can ruin their entire "campaign" and "war" of several weeks' duration, by holding them down so they have to keep working for him and all others like him if they keep flying in the ToD.
I see the lack of squads and predict low numbers and chaos. I see the rank system and predict the tyranny of the power-leveling jerks. What I'd like to see is some assurance that these concerns aren't valid.
-
You make so many assumptions and exaggerations that its not even worth discussing with you. If dont like anything about the current ah gameplay and wont like anything about the new arena why are ya here?
I guess since you predict that the improvements to be made to ah will be a failure HT oughta close up shop or hire you on as a consultant. I wonder how they have managed this long without you.
As for the egos and morons take a look at your post and tell us what you think folks will conclude from reading them.
HT didnt give that interview Pyro did and the words were
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD.
Do you have an audio tape of the interview? If so share the part where the interviewer was cut off.
You can assume that they will be no squad format at all if you like. If thats a game killer then just dont fly there.
-
Batz said
You make so many assumptions and exaggerations that its not even worth discussing with you.
Thank the Dark Gods! I was afraid you were going to keep up your blather forever :D Now crawl back under your rock and only worry about stuff like roll rates and guns and Italian planes :).
If dont like anything about the current ah gameplay and wont like anything about the new arena why are ya here?
The obvious answer, assuming for the sake of argument that your patently false accusations above are accurate, would be that I enjoy trolling for guys like you. If you want to believe that's true, feel free. That would make your fantasy world self-fulfilling, which is an amazing power to have. Those of us whose fantasy worlds involve supermodels would be quite envious :D.
I guess since you predict that the improvements to be made to ah will be a failure HT oughta close up shop or hire you on as a consultant. I wonder how they have managed this long without you.
They don't have to hire me or anybody else. It's far cheaper for them to set up this BBS where they can get all our input for peanuts :cool:
But to get back on track, we all have read the available info from HTC, which ain't much, so there's lots of room to speculate and and much to ask questions about. You have chosen to see nothing but the positives. Fine, go ahead and do that. I agree that there are pleny positives in there. I, OTOH, have also seen the potential for some serious problems and abuses.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but being paid to look for potential problems has been my main mission in all my real life jobs. In any case, pointing out potential problems ahead of time isn't criticism, it's trying to help make the ultimate product better by solving such problems before they arise. But sadly, that whole concept seems beyond your comprehension, or you would not have reacted as you have.
But anyway, I saw some potential problems so I asked questions to try to get more information on these issues. Are the problems I see simply illusions caused by incomplete info? Has HTC already anticipated these problems and built in some safeguards? Or are things even worse than I imagine?
At this point, unfortunately, you butted into this thread, trying to shout me down with your strident claims that everything would be fine, and that if I didn't like it I could leave. I fear this noise emanating from your direction and my own attempts to stifle it have, to some extent, succeeded in drawing attention away from my original questions. This is why I greet your frustration with this discussion with great joy. Maybe now you'll shut up so the rest of us can try to get to the bottom of this.
As for the egos and morons take a look at your post and tell us what you think folks will conclude from reading them.
Being an ego, I am of course assured that all readers see my greatness made manifest in every character I type :D. How dare you even question that? :D
-
The only thing you do is whine and demand that things cater to your idea of fun. Just like Guadalcanl. On top of that you are a quitter. So why dont you save your self the time and money and quit now.
The obvious answer, assuming for the sake of argument that your patently false accusations above are accurate, would be that I enjoy trolling for guys like you. If you want to believe that's true, feel free. That would make your fantasy world self-fulfilling, which is an amazing power to have. Those of us whose fantasy worlds involve supermodels would be quite envious
Heres what you said about current ah gameplay.
Forget the damn "classic" arena. That's MOTSOS MA landgrab chaos. New graphics and some engine improvments won't alter how the game is played. And if that sort of gameplay was what I was interested in, I wouldn't be spending any time reading this topic because there's nothing to worry about there. MOTSOS will continue as before, per HT himself.
Then go reread what you wrote about the new arena. Its pretty obvious you what you meant. You whined in Niemen. The side forums were open and I read your posts there. You seemed to think you knew more then the allied Co at the time. Just like you think you know more then HTC now.
When your chance came in guadalcanal you whined and cried about how hard it was for you and then quit.
That maybe a pattern, whine then quit. You have done the whining lets see what comes next.
-
Batz continued is inane spew as follows:
That maybe a pattern, whine then quit. You have done the whining lets see what comes next.
The pattern here is that you when you are unable to think of any reasonable or intelligent thing to say on an issue raised by somebody else (which in my experience is your usual state), you resort to personal attacks. Rather than discuss the issue before you, especially when it challenges some dear-held prejudice of yours, you lash out in feigned outrage, accusing the other person of "wild exaggerations", "extremism", etc., and ultimately end up calling the other person an idiot or whatever. And as "evidence", you cite your own previous tirades, as if their very stridency established them as the facts. But they do nothing except prove this habit of yours, and clog up this topic with unrelated matters.
This topic is named "Aces High II: Tour of Duty". But so far, nothing much as been said about the ToD part of AH2. It's now apparent why this is the case. Those who have brought up these issues before have been intimidated by your ranting and verbal abuse. I, however, will not be put off by such a non-entity as yourself. So you might as well give it up. Either start making constructive contributions to this discussion or shut up. If you continue with your usual tactics, I'll just ignore you in the future.
Now, hopefully we're done with all that crap. Back to business. Since you obviously feel so strongly about this subject, maybe you can offer some insights on the following issues:
1. If the "MA squad format" won't exist in the ToD arena, what will take its place? How do you get any continuity of the team and its hierarchy from one mission to the next? If anybody can grab a slot in any mission, how do you get anything more organized than your typical ad hoc MA airfield attack?
2. If the only way to get rank is by doing missions, how do you prevent power-leveling by those who have no life outside AH? If there's power-leveling, how do you prevent the power-levelers from becoming a permanent oligarchy? How do you pervent other folks, who only have time to fly once or twice a week, from being permanently consigned to grunt-dom?
3. If leaders get to write critiques of their troops, and that has a direct impact on the ability of the troops to pick up rank, how do you prevent the abuse of power? What checks and balances would you suggest to keep some jerk leader from shafting troops with bad reviews when they actually did a good job?
-
Pointing out your ridiculous assumptions and exaggerations is not a "personal attack". You went for "personal attacks" before I said anything like that at all. My previous reply was just that, a reply to your attempt at insults.
If you are intimidated well then, butch up. All my post were constructive. They were just in contrast to your whining. If you dont like to read my post then theres an ignore button you can use. I really dont care either way. But it would be typical of you to "give up" when things dont go your way.
1. If the "MA squad format" won't exist in the ToD arena, what will take its place? How do you get any continuity of the team and its hierarchy from one mission to the next? If anybody can grab a slot in any mission, how do you get anything more organized than your typical ad hoc MA airfield attack?
I answered this one early on but here it is again.
We dont know what HT meant by that quote. It could very well mean no squads. But I dont think HT meant that because I am sure he knows what squads mean to some of the players. It may just mean a new format. We shouldnt speculate and wait for a better explanation. I for 1 dont want to fly in a lonewolf arena and know several others who dont want to either.
In my previous replies I offered several speculations that are just as probable as no squads at all. I myself have no real interest in the arena if there is no squad participation at all. In previous threads in this forum I even brought up the idea of squad missions. But until the question gets a definitive answer I am not gonna bang my head against the wall in outrage. If the arena doesnt offer the things I like then I wont fly there.
2. If the only way to get rank is by doing missions, how do you prevent power-leveling by those who have no life outside AH? If there's power-leveling, how do you prevent the power-levelers from becoming a permanent oligarchy? How do you pervent other folks, who only have time to fly once or twice a week, from being permanently consigned to grunt-dom?
Q: Briefly describe the rank progression as you envision it. Will this be simply a ‘perk point’ based rank increase or will certain people be chosen to run certain aspects of the arena, akin to the CM setup that we have for the TOD and Snapshot events?
Rank progession will be similar a typical RPG with experience points and levels except that we will have ranks and career points or whatever we decide to call them. It’s totally different from our perk point system in that it is mainly achieved through mission success rather than just how many kills you get.
ToD runs as an automated process so there’s nothing like a CM required. We’re considering allowing players to design campaigns and missions. The big drawback to that is that they wouldn’t be able to participate in them.
Just being in alot of missions wont necessarily mean you will advance. First you have to complete the mission successfully. Next you have to rtb safely. Just joining alot missions with out achieving anything except touring the country side wont allow you to advance. But like any game your score and "skillz" will be higher the more you play. Theres no doudt that those who fly the most will in all probability earn rank faster. Thats just how it is. This doesnt mean you have to kiss the arse of some no life dweeb. If hes is an a dick then dont listen to him or dont fly with him.
From the current FAQ
What is Tour of Duty?
Tour of Duty is a cross between a historical WWII simulation and military RPG. What is so different about it is that it’s not simply an Axis vs Allies free-for-all using WWII equipment in a geographic WWII setting. ToD puts you in the role of a WWII combat pilot (of course the emphasis is on air-combat, but ground combat will also be included at times) with all the responsibilities and restrictions that comes with it. You are not just an operator of military equipment, you are a soldier or airman in the military. That means that everything you do is part of a unit and part of a mission. There is no free-lancing, you can’t just select a plane and head off to exchange lead with the closest enemy.
Everything in ToD is based on missions. It’s not necessarily about how many kills you get. It’s about the successful completion of the mission. Success will come to those who use teamwork. With success will come promotion and the additional privileges and responsibilities that that entails.
Think of the classic movie 12 O’Clock High and what it would be like to be in that setting. That’s what we want to capture with ToD. It’s not just the combat, it’s the entire experience. Filing into a mission briefing at 4 a.m., not knowing where you will be going until the curtain falls from the map and the mission briefing is given. Feeling the anxiety that comes with risking something, the camaraderie that comes from shared tribulations and interdependence, the pure adrenaline rush when enemy contact is made, the utter relief and letdown you feel when your wheels touch the runway, the exuberance upon seeing the results of a successful mission in the post-mission debrief, the pride of getting a second bar pinned on your collar, those are all experiences we want to capture with ToD.
This is from HTs original post in the thread asking for a name for the new arena. The numbers he used are just an example.
As we started working on the mission theater, we realized we were making a completely new game from that which is Aces High today.
This lead us to starting work on AcesHigh II. Which will be 2 games in one.
1st.
AcesHigh Classic, which will be the Main areana as we know today, only with updated Graphic Eng,and other sim items, but the game play will be similar to what it is today.
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.
So we would like some suggestions on the name. This is just a short outline of the the things we have in mind for the mission based play.
So does anyone have a cool name for it? We view this as a combination of flight/combat sim and military role playing. We'll be putting out some news about all this shortly, but we're stuck on a name.
HiTech
From the Simhq interview:
Q: How do you ensure unit cohesion without having players taking orders from another player? Or is that exactly what you have in mind?
Players will have to take both host and player generated instruction. There is no freelancing in ToD. If a player wants to take part in organized missions but also wants to be free to do whatever they feel, well that’s a paradox we can’t provide for.
Some players are concerned about having to take instructions from other players, but it’s not a major concern for us. It’s just about getting organized so that everybody understands their responsibilities in a mission and you don’t end up with everybody trying to do the same task while other vital components of the mission are ignored. Even so, as Murphy’s Laws of Combat states, "No plan survives enemy contact intact."
In the real military there are poor leaders and there’s not much you can do about it as a subordinate (fragging aside). But that’s not really the case in ToD and it will become a self-regulating process. Nobody is going to want to follow poor leaders and nobody is going to want to lead poor followers.
Self-regulating means that if the little arrogant Napolean types start ordering you around or are just incompetent leaders then folks wont follow their direction. You could just rtb and leave him on his own or you could disregard his direction completely and make your own descisions.
With out help and cooperation the odds that this little general will be able to maintain his rank will be slim. So if we believe what HT is trying accomplish then the missions will take cooperation from the top to the bottom.
You will be briefed before hand and have a good idea of what the mission will entail. The mission "leader" is only needed to help organize the flight. Even with out a "leader" each person in the flight will know what to do. The mission wont necessarily be dependent of "good leadership". But it certainly could help.
-
3. If leaders get to write critiques of their troops, and that has a direct impact on the ability of the troops to pick up rank, how do you prevent the abuse of power? What checks and balances would you suggest to keep some jerk leader from shafting troops with bad reviews when they actually did a good job?
From the interview:
Q: How do you ensure that players follow the rules? For example, what would to stop a player from signing up for a mission, flying along, doing his own thing, doing it well, and then getting credit for a mission success that he may not have had anything to do with?
We plan to use a type of officer evaluation report where commanders would rate the performance of their flight leaders who in turn would rate the performance of the pilots in their flight.
With just that single ambiguous answer I cant give anything but a speculative reply. But I think what he is saying is that there will be an overall mission leader and he will either pick flight / element leaders or they will be assigned by the player's ranking.
The way it sounds is the mission leader will write an eval of his flight / element leaders and in turn these flight / element leaders will write evals on the pilots in their flight / element. It doesnt sound like just 1 guy, the mission leader, will eval everyone. Its unclear as to whether the mission participants will be able to write an eval on the mission and element leaders. Its also unclear as to what impact these evals will have on rank or if they will have any impact at all. These could just be used to generate some sort of "leadership potential" score. With good evals you earn the right to lead others. With poor evals you may have a high rank but not able to lead. Ofcourse I am speculating just like you are. Until Pyro posts the updated fact we have no idea what he means by evals.
Theres some things that "concern" me but I just think its way to early to write it off as a failure. Until we get more info and actually fly in the arena to see how these things play out theres no sense in getting your panties all in a bunch. You will either like it and play or it wont appeal to you at all. There will still be ah:classic but if this has no appeal to you as well then I guess its time to start looking for a new game.
YMMV
-
Originally posted by Bullethead
But now, it seems that AH2 is dead set on destroying the whole community of squads that's been part of flightsim life since the early days of AW.
you've got to be kidding. really, i'm sure hitech is launching tod to "destroy the . . . squads."
-
I will jump in here and try to avoid the pissing match...
I do think its worth questioning... Will there be a place for Squads in TOD?
"The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD"
Squads are important, perhaps it will be a different structure, perhaps not. Id like to see some clarification on that. regardless, Squad members will want to play with there squadies. If you throw that out, I dont see it as a positive.
I think that Squad Support will be important to its Sucess.
If Squads will not be a part of TOD then It will not get most likely get much support and could fail.
Lobbying HTC to make certain there are provisions for Squad Activies is not only in the interest of the players, but for the evolution of the game itsself.
Batz... I dont quite see why you are coming across as in opposition to this. I dont think you can honestly tell me that Asking that Squads are taken care is a bad thing.
Seems like you and BH are born to argue. Dont let that drag things down.
As for the Rank thing... I dont like the potential for abuse. I hope HTC will be considering this and place safe gards against it. Again, I dont see anything wrong with asking for answers to how it is invisioned to work and lobbying for things to be done in such a way that will be good for the game.
Im hoping for alot of good things from TOD.. HTC has seldom disappointed me. :)
-
Squads have been core of the community since the beginnings of the on-line play. Most squads are always looking for new people. They offer training, activities like weekly squad nights, and participate in other events as a team. Some of the best information about the game can be found on squad web pages.
I have been in the same squad for about 8 years, that started in AW now AH. There are several in the squad that are active players that have been in the squad longer than I. What keeps peoples intrest in a game that long? The longest I have ever played one game, besides AW and AH is about 4 months. Most other games, maybe 2 weeks as an average.
Not allowing squad participation in this arena will make it short lived in my opinion. I am sure some will prefer it, but not the masses. This is a step in the wrong direction.
I also have faith in HTC to make it work. We know little about what is coming, and we will need to wait to see. We will still have a MA, and the improvements in AH2 will make even more neat things possible.
Gunner
-
Hey, Wotan ... did you decide to reactivate one of your accounts? All this dissin' others over quittin' and all.
On ranks:
AHII has sounded like the great experiment to combine a WWII sim with an RPG from the get go. I'm as entrigued as the next guy. But even the online muds have "clans" per say. Which is why I recommend that AHII allow the current squad format to exist with the following provisions:
If it's merely a matter of title and organization, then allow squads to be formed up and ranks and titles distributed within a specific format. Keep ranks O5-. If "game rank" is actually a reflection of game points and determines what "perks" are available to an individual player, keep that as a seperate statistic. As far a missions are concerned, allow squadron c.o.s (or everyone in a squadron of a specific rank) greater latitude in designing and leading missions that involve only squadron members. This, of course, requires an option to create missions that are only open to squadron members.
The rank structure in AHII:TOD has been hinted to go as high as O6. Once a player reaches that level they can create missions that involve multiple squadrons.
So there you go. Squads can still have the fun of participating in missions as a squad ... but for squad individuals to recieve "perks", they need advancement (brownie) points from their success in the game.
Offering up a version of AHII as an RPG (ala "Everquest") does indeed sound interesting in spite of the differences in the natures of the two enviroments. But it's never been a winning formula to excessively restrict players in any manner.
-
Arlo my accounts been paid even though I dont fly. I have made posts asking about squad missions. I want squads to a part of ToD as much as anyone. Not only do I want to fly with my buds but I want to fight guys other squads who are organized and fly well together. As for dissing others well thats not accurrate. "Others" is plural any "dissing" I did was to 1 guy who had already made his own attempts at "dissing" me.
Grim where have I said I am opposed to squads?
Here is what I wrote in this thread
We dont know what HT meant by that quote. It could very well mean no squads. But I dont think HT meant that because I am sure he knows what squads mean to some of the players. It may just mean a new format. We shouldnt speculate and wait for a better explanation. I for 1 dont want to fly in a lonewolf arena and know several others who dont want to either.
Thats just in this thread. I can link other threads where this has been discussed so you you can see that everything I have wrote about squads has been consistant.
I wont fly AH2:ToD if I cant do so with my squadmates. But thats a far cry from BHs assumption that this quote
The Squad format of the main arena won’t be a part of ToD
would mean
But now, it seems that AH2 is dead set on destroying the whole community of squads that's been part of flightsim life since the early days of AW.
Exaggerated assumptions based on an ambiguous statement. My replies in this thread have had mostly nothing to do with BH. In my first reply I gathered together quotes and statements from numerous other threads so that if some new guy stumbled in they wouldnt be put off by BH's doom and gloom.
Everything we know about AH2:Tod so far leaves so much out that concluding:
Think about this: You're being led by a power-leveler, who now has the ability to stay in power by shafting his troops after every mission, so as to prevent them from getting rank quickly. Or maybe the guy's just a petty bully. Before in AH1, he used to enjoy ruining people's hops, maybe their whole night. But now, by shafting them on rank, he can ruin their entire "campaign" and "war" of several weeks' duration, by holding them down so they have to keep working for him and all others like him if they keep flying in the ToD.
I see the lack of squads and predict low numbers and chaos. I see the rank system and predict the tyranny of the power-leveling jerks. What I'd like to see is some assurance that these concerns aren't valid.
Im hoping for alot of good things from TOD.. HTC has seldom disappointed me.
You and I agree on that. And if its not something the I find fun then I wont fly it.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
From what i understand AH2 will work in this way:
1.While you are of low rank you will have little choice of your plane type, its loadout or your mission.
2. As you gain rank you get to choose your loadouts or get better choices of aircraft perhaps begin to gain rank
Hmmm so retired guys who fly all day will get Panthers/G10s while you are in a C47 or Truck because you only fly a couple times a week?
This sounds, errr, problematic to me.
Sakai
-
Batz,
I understand your position on this, But when reading it my impression, because of taking a differing point with BH, came across as basic opposition. I do realise you are Not in opposition. Its just the impression I got at first.
In a round about way, your in agreement with points BH has brought up. At least the overall concept that Squads should be included.
Im taking this thread as more a Lobby for Squad Inclusion in TOD, Than an Informative post about AH2.
When lobbying, its often nessacary to make your case to the extreme side of things to bring your point to light. I see BH using that.
Bottom line... BH, Yourself, Myself we are all interested in what will help the success of TOD.
-
Ok Gotcha bud S!
when the first pac theater is run just take it easy on me :)
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Hmmm so retired guys who fly all day will get Panthers/G10s while you are in a C47 or Truck because you only fly a couple times a week?
This sounds, errr, problematic to me.
Sakai
I think all will have equal planeset choise, just pilots with higher ranks will have slightly better planes. For example, if you both will fly 109g10, commanders 109g10 will be faster. It is assumed that command officers has better team of mechanics, and also get new plane, while new pilots fly the one which already were in action, and have some patches etc.
I think this is modeled to give pilots some motivation for staying alive and getting ranks, not due to historic accuracy reasons.
I see people getting quite emotional about TOD, but seems we better just to wait a little bit. We just do not have information enough yet, what we have now is quite old already and probably were already changed during the development.
-
Seems like there is an awful lot of "extreme specualtion" going on here as well. ;)
Batz, if HT or Pyro actually said what they meant about this topic then why would there be such speculation?
There have been some legitimate concerns brought up here, in particular by a few of my squadmates. This was done out of concern, not for completely selfish motives either.
I submit that until HT or a representative of HTC comes out and states exactly what the ToD will entail, we don't know for certain, and therefore the concerns of the players are important.
I for one have seen a similar concept in another sim which, did not work. The rank and file simply went back to their same old ways in the main arena. The same could happen here, although I would hope not. I believe if done wel, it would lend another interesting facet to the game.
I see the would be generals in the MA now, and would not under any circumstances fly with them; my preference would be to fly with those whom I know. If there are slots for squads, then they would probably be limited but, at least there would be some. As of right now, no such thing has been said by HT.
I'd like to hear something more definitive myself.
-
Don read my posts,
until HT or a representative of HTC comes out and states exactly what the ToD will entail, we don't know for certain
You will see thats exactly what I said. But it doesnt do anybody any good taking things to the extreme either.
it seems that AH2 is dead set on destroying the whole community of squads
The above quote seems pretty extreme to me. All it will do is create hysteria. Pyro has made a statement on the developement of AH2. He has indicated that a new FAQ will be ready eventually. We can all wait for it or take turnms making dire predictions about how bad it will be.
I see the lack of squads and predict low numbers and chaos.
;)
-
Originally posted by Batz
All it will do is create hysteria.
;)
::Grimm Tosses his hands in the Air and Runs in Circles Screaming::
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;)
Muhahahahahaaaa
-
I for one fly for the fun of it....the fun being I get to fly with people I have devloped a freindship with thru joining a sqaud. I have been with the same squad for about 3 years now and the one before for about the same....some of the older squadmates have join the one I am in now mainly cuz the old squad does not fly AH. I usually log if I dont see at lest one of them up or I dont hang around long. So the new AHII format dosent fit this mentallity as I belive lots of others are more or less the same way:) In a nut shell use this analogy....Wholud you rather play basketball on a team that you are fimaliar with and get along with and know their habits or consently change teams to play with different people,stlyes and personalitys:)
-
I wonder what will happen if the ranking general is a 14 year-old Japanese boy... who doesn't speak English and can't communicate to the English-speaking majority via vox or text?
Since they won't be able to participate within the cocoon of their own group, I think very, very few Japanese will participate in AH2 anyway, so it is highly unlikely to occur.
But, this leads to another point. AH is a superb game, created and managed by a small staff. But, global thinking hasn't made it to the table yet. :D
IMHO, if the interface and site had a few other languages, new players (and their subscription money) would see a dramatic increase.