Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ISHMAEL on September 14, 1999, 11:05:00 AM
-
Frustrated by the lack of realism in player behavior witnessed in Massive Multiplayer (MMP) flight simulation online arenas (as
opposed to the more often expressed concern over realism in flight modeling), a group of like-minded players began to do a little
collective brain-storming on the Delphi Flight Sim forum (http://www.delphi.com/flight). We set out to first identify the "problems"
with online flight-simming, then develop a means of addressing those problems.
As I said, our exclusive focus was realism (or lack thereof) in player behavior. We were NOT interested in hardware or software
issues, or any other element related to the creation of realistic and believable online worlds. Primarily, our discussion began with
the lack of willingness on the part of most players to "disengage" from no-win combats (where real world fighter pilots would
desperately run for their lives, most virtual pilots will continue to fight to the death). From there, we proceeded to identify a
number of other "problems." A brief list follows.
1. No, little, or insufficient reward for preservation of the player pilot's "life," promoting "to-the-death" fighter tactics
2. No modeling of the novice-to-veteran-to-elite skill growth of long-lived pilots
3. Over-emphasis upon aircraft modeling as opposed to "pilot modeling" (all the Hardware but no Software). Players fly aircraft
but do not "become" pilots - resulting in a lack of immersion.
4. No >personal< rewards for success
Having identified the problems, I began to brain storm some solutions. The result of my work can be found at this url: http://www.netvector.com/redbaron/ (http://www.netvector.com/redbaron/) - The Red Baron Historical War. The Historical War (HW) was an experiment to find out if
I could design a >better< MMP system for Flight Simulations - a system that would:
1. Encourage pilots to "fear" death (and thus promote evasion and retreat)
2. Model the increased value of long-lived veteran or elite pilots over that of inexperienced new recruits
3. Increase the immersion players feel when participating in the MMP environment (making players feel that they really are pilots
participating in an air war).
4. Reward each player >personally< for his own successes
The rule set that emerged probably owes more to ULTIMA ONLINE or EVERQUEST than it does to any flight simulation
here-to-fore brought to the market. Here is a brief synopsis of the concepts devised.
1. Players create an Online Alter Ego (OAE) pilot
2. The OAE pilot dies when the player is shot down or crashes
3. The longer the player survives (the more time the player spends in the online war world without being shot down) the higher his
OAE pilot's "experience rating" climbs.
4. A player with an experienced OAE pilot scores more points (for his/herself and team) for the same action than a player with a
less experienced OAE pilot.
5. Players with experienced OAE pilots are awarded additional "skills and powers" unavailable to players with less experienced
OAE pilots.
6. A player with a high scoring OAE pilot is rewarded with a higher rank relative to player's with low scoring OAE
7. Command responsibility conveys the ability to plan missions for other players and confer medals to other player OAE pilots.
8. Medals reward the player's OAE with increased "skills and powers," increased experience ratings, and increased scoring
potential.
This system was play tested over 10 weeks and 20 game "sessions" of 2.5 hours each, totaling 50 hours of play test time. The test
involved thirty participants and by all accounts, was a perfect success (I acted as referee and record keeper). The participants
were unanimous in their praise for the system, agreeing that it was the "best" MMP experience they had ever had online.
Our testing now continues with a further expansion of these concepts.
Based upon our experience with the Historical War, I believe that the first Sim Company that incorporates the Online Alter Ego concept into the MMP server architecture will CONQUER the flight sim market!
ISHMAEL
-
My problem with the OAE is two-fold:
1) I've encountered pilots who don't care
about living and will head-on, crash
into, or otherwise make you die by
"gaming the game". This makes you lose
any build up you have for the character
just because the other guy got pissed or
is drunk and just wants to be a nuisance.
2) The build up discourages country defense.
I would bail on a field in trouble
because I might get vulched and lose my
character. If the last field is the
only one left I may just log until reset
for the same reasons.
Pilot realism may have its virtues, but unless you can guarantee every other pilot flying around has the same dedication (and isn't just jacking around) I think I'll stick with the fun of fight-to-the-death.
-sudz-
-
Pilot realism may have its virtues, but unless you can guarantee every other pilot flying around has the same dedication (and isn't just jacking around) I think I'll stick with the fun of fight-to-the-death.
----------
Your point is well taken. This is one of the problems we endeavoured to address with the system's built-in rewards and penalties (under the test run through).
The OAE system was devised as a MEANS of encouraging the participants to seek long lives. The current systems (really a complete lack of any system) actually REWARD foolhardiness and encourage players to take unnecissary risks (even to the point of "kamikazee" attacks).
Player devotion to longevity increases relative to the desirability of the rewards offered as a consquence of survival - and the undesirability of the consequences of death. Obviously, if the rewards of long life are appealing to the player, he will endeavour to achieve them through the available means (survival).
It is neccissary then to think long and hard as to how long life might be rewarded within the confines of the game (and how short life - or intentionally self-destructive behaviour may be discouraged).
Some options include:
REWARDS OF LONGEVITY
1. Players with long-lived pilot OAEs may enjoy a financial DISCOUNT on their participation fees!
2. The longer a pilot survives, the higher his scoring potential (multipliers are applied to his/her game points).
3. Only the highest scoring OAEs have access to the high-performance aircraft (high scores being attainable only by pilots with large score multipliers). Certain "experimental" aircraft or "short supply" aircraft may be available only to high-ranked OAEs (rank being dependant on relative scores)
5. "Situational Awareness" (SA) view-keys may be increased in power in proportion to the OAEs current life-span (ie. Experienced OAEs can track enemy aircraft with "slew views" at longer ranges). This implies that newly-created OAEs will have much less SA power at their disposal (making it harder for them to attack and destroy experienced opponents).
6. 5% boost to engine horsepower, turn rate, climbing ability, roll, or firepower at the player's descretion (representing customization of aircraft)
7. Command positions are dependent upon high scores (which require large score multipliers) and a living alter ego (death ends the command).
NEGATIVES OF DEATH/SHORT LIFE
1. Must create new, bottom-ranked, zero-experience pilot OAE.
2. Access granted only to most ineffective aircraft types.
3. No command ability
4. Poor SA abilities (short ranges for all "slew mode" tracking keys)
5. Newly created alter egos have a 5% penaltiy applied to their aircraft's speed, turn rate, climbing ability, roll, or firepower (player's descretion). This effect disappears after the player has flown X number of hours online.
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR PENALTIES
As kamikazee tactics remain a potential sore-spot, any player with an OAE that dies due to an air-to-air collision before X number of survived hours could be penalized when creating his or her next OAE. Penalties might include a 10% across the board cut in all aspects of aircraft performance for the player's next OAE. Again though, this effect would disappear after X number of hours survived in game.
-------------------
These are just some of the ways in which longevity can be encouraged to the point where anti-social hoolaganism becomes a self-destructive tactic. The system itself, through rewards and penalties, gently nudges players toward historically accurate combat behaviors. It also realistically simulates the high value of experienced pilots.
Most importantly, it dramatically increases the level of immersion for all participants.
ISHMAEL
-
well said ish!
his war concept is truly much better play.quite frankly it causes greater belivabilty.we as simmers do have some responsiblty.input real,you get more real.fly to live.belive you are really that cyber-guy in the plane.remember in real live theres no re-start key......try it....or have more of the same.
-
I think he hit on something, the key word being $cash$ - the second closest thing to death (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Hows this:
(Flat Rate Charge)-(Longest Streak X 1/3)= Payment Due.
Or something along those lines.
-
I'm with Ishmael on this one - great concept!
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
Lt. Jg. Windle
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) 'The Jolly Rogers' 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
This concept is nothing realy new and a form of it was tried by AW many years back. What it realy comes down to is how arena play functions unlike real war. In real life pilots do not have a choice of weather to engage or run, they are given a mission and commanded to go do it with major consiquences if they dont try and complete the mission.
In arena play that's not missioned based (and we are keeping it that way) you can decided to run or fight at any time without any bad things happening if you run. So the net effect is when you make living of such great importance people always choose to run when they have a fair chance of dieing.
Theres also major problems when it comes to disco's and such , is a disco a death or not?
If it's not a death what whould you do if you were about to die and end a 4 week streak?
If it is a death how do you think you would react when you had a disco after a 4 week streak.
What happens in the end is you spend hours chacing people and never have a fight.
HiTech
-
In arena play that's not missioned based (and we are keeping it that way) you can decided to run or fight at any time without any bad things happening if you run. So the net effect is when you make living of such great
importance people always choose to run when they have a fair chance of dieing.
---------
How do you know this?
You have here stated what is only an HYPOTHESIS concerning player behaviour. I DARE you to test it.
I did.
The results of my test:
It took WEEKS before pilots even began to learn how to be cautious. Self preservation required a constant battle against the urge for game "action."
What you forget is that players don't log on to a COMBAT arena in order to fly around and look at the scenery. They participate for the thrill of combat! Action... for the simmer... is it's own reward.
Therefore, our goal was to redress the imbalance and provide an incentive for survival - so as to promote combat disengagement or even avoidance.
We were NOT trying to throw the pendulum the other way (note that players did not receive electric shocks when mortally wounded). The rewards of survival were calculated and adjusted (based on testing) to balance out against the player's desire to fight.
With regard to pilots running from a situation where they have a "fair chance" (read "reasonable") of dying, that's called REALISM!!! Even so, our beta test (and testing continues) revealed that pilots were still more than willing to take "reasonable" risks (and many foolhardy ones) - especially when their side was in mortal danger of loosing a major asset. If player's prove (in the tests I assume you will run to prove your hypothesis) unwilling to take risks to assist their side in "winning" the war, i humbly submit that some game based reward needs to be present to give players a personal stake in the advancement of their team's long term goals.
As for the problem of "discos" which you raise, I submit that there ARE solutions to this quandry.
In our beta test, we assumed that a "disco" (disconnect) modeled random engine failures (Mechanical problems, or "Mechs" for short, were a real world problem and often required pilots to scrub their missions in flight and return to base).
Under our OAE system, "Engine Failures" occuring during combat (within range of enemy guns) resulted in death. "Engine Failures" at any other time did not result in death (the pilot was assumed to have been able to fly his crippled aircraft home).
Alternative solutions also exist. Some of these include:
1. Disconnects over enemy territory (while not in combat) result in loss of any experience gained from that gaming session.
2. Disconnects over enemy territory (while not in combat) result in a small, random chance of "capture."
3. All other disconnects in flight (but not in combat) result in the loss of all points gained during the flight.
4. Any pilots "killed" by a pilot who disconnects in flight, during the same mission, are miraculously resurected - and all points for the kills are lost.
5. If the pilot has a parachute, a disconnect in combat is treated exactly like a parachute attempt.
Of course, these are just some of the ways that connection difficulties can be addressed (and pilots prevented inducing diconnections in order to escape death). There are perhaps better solutions. I invite the members of this forum to suggest some.
Most people put only the amount of thought into a problem necissary to conclude that it is insurmountable. Our group simply went the one step further and looked for solutions. We found many of them.
It's amazing what you can think of, if you actually put your brain to active use.
In your message, you stated that "we are keeping it [Aces High] that way." Am I to assume then, based on this comment, that you are one of the developers of Aces High? If so...please confirm.
I will immediatly stop wasting my time trying to make you money.
ISHMAEL
p.s. We are continuing to test this concept. Any readers of this forum (or members of the Aces High development team) who would like to take part - and see FIRST HAND what I am ranting about - are invited to enquire at this URL: http://forums.delphi.com/airwar/ (http://forums.delphi.com/airwar/)
Simply post a message informing the participants who you are and why you are interested in signing up.
-
Whew,
When's your game coming out Ishmael? And what language did you write these wonderful new ideas in? Java-rant?
-
"My game" was simply a test of the OAE concept, and a methodology by which it could be implemented into a persitant online universe. I am NOT a game developer - but someone with half a brain could see the wisdom of these ideas and make a million buckaroos off of 'em!
To test the concept, I used the Red Baron 3D game by Sierra Dynamix, as the server software is free and alows up to 64 players to be active at one time.
You can find the rules and system outline at this url: http://www.netvector.com/redbaron/ (http://www.netvector.com/redbaron/)
As for the charge (made by "Hitech") that this idea is not "new," I suppose Copernicus wasn't the first to propose the helocentric universe either - but it was his model of how it worked that changed the world. This idea of the OAE will do the same for MMP gaming.
Why?
Because it bridges the gap between man and machine.
Most sim companies simply son't get it! They have NO idea WHY people play their games - they just keep churning out variations on what people bought last year - with no idea as to why last year's sim was successful.
Well I will let you in on the secret...
People don't play sims for blinking lights or whirly-whirly sounds. They play sims to live an experience they could not otherwise have. "Realism" in graphics, sounds - and even flight model - is only desired as a means of suspending disbelief - so the "gamer" can partake in the illusion that >he< is really >there<.
But the sim companies think that cool graphics, realistic sounds, and "authentic" flight models (blah, blah, blah) are an end in and of themselves. They miss what the sim player is really after:
IMMERSION.
And it is the Online Alter Ego (OAE) that is the KEY to immersion. Without it - the player has no means of actually entering the online game universe. He interacts with it. He pushes buttons and things blow up in it. But he is himself completely alienated from it. The sim world does not invite him in. It remians a cold, post-human universe inhabited only by virtual machines partacing in endless unfeeling combat.
But the OAE, like a mental avitar, alows the user to trancend the confines of his computer screen. The OAE is AFFECTED by the universe he inhabits. He grows and matures with each experience within the gaming world.
The fate of the alter ego is intrinsically entwined with that of the game universe he inhabits. The player, in turn, identifies his own fate with that of his alter ego. In this way, the player himself is able to LIVE an alternate life!!!
This is the holy grail of sim players everywhere - if the game companies would but know it!!! But...they'll ignore me. And churn out the same stuff we've been playing for 10 years....oh yeah...but the graphics will be better and flight model improved.
yay
ISHMAEL
-
completly agree with ish.the thing that ruins ALL on-line sims are the players flying in a completly unrealist manner.if AH is just more low level massive furballing then you have done nothing to move foward in multi-play sims.the need to cause the players to fly in a realist fashion is of great importance.ish's concept causes this kind of action.in fact i belive a VERY strong death penilty needs to be programed into all on-line sims.we fight about flight modles ,balistics,weather effects,paint,every thing,then fly the planes like a bunch of grade schoolers.I dont know about others,but the combat i was in was more about staying alive than anything else.the glory of the mission,get real guys,there is no glory in combat.no winners,no losers. there is alive and dead.
-
On paper this system might look good but like Hitech point out, it didn t stand the test of the realities of online gaming (AW). The test that was done by Ishmael can in no way represent the reaction of a full blown community with a high "dweeb-percentage".
I would imagine that a lot of guys would use the system to do exactly what Hitech said: Piss others off. I remember AW which didn t have a killshooter and there were a lot of prettythangholes that would shoot countrymen returning to base after a successful mission.
Re-read Hitech's post and ask yourself what you would do/how you would feel in the situations described. I totally agree that we don't need another big low alt furball diguised as an onlin sim though, and I'm anxious to see if/how HTC will prevent it from happening.
Sascha JG 77 "Herz As!"
[This message has been edited by Sascha JG 77 (edited 09-17-1999).]
-
On paper this system might look good but like Hitech point out, it didn t stand the test
of the realities of online gaming (AW).
-----
I don't know how AW attempted to implement this feature. I submit that if it failed, it was due to poorly-thought out implementation.
Remember, the "dweeb factor" exists now PRECICELY BECAUSE there is no means by which to discourage such behaviour. The system we created (and continue to test) was designed to eliminate the "dweeb factor" - by introducing built in checks and balances upon player behaviour.
What is the most important role of an online simulation organizer/organization?
I submit that their MOST IMPORTANT role - more important than designing a game with cool graphics and realistic flight models - is to facilitate interesting game play!!!
The organizer's most important role is to facilitate realistic game play, by creating a rule set to govern actions taking place on the field - and providing referees to insure that the rules are followed.
In an online simulation, the referees are automated and apply evenly the rule set incorporated into the server software. The effectivness of the rule system for a WW2 simulation can be judged in accordance with how immersive the resulting experience is for players.
I insist that if players are NOT acting in ways that corrispond to real-world behaviour THE FAULT LIES IN THE RULE SYSTEM - not the players.
Sim companies need to wake up to their role as facilitators of battle simulations and put some actual effort into modeling player behaviour - rather than just modeling aircraft performance.
ISHMAEL
-
I can tell you why it fails Ish.
The lowest common denomenator.
The virtual pilot that doesn't care about experience points.
He will still HO and fly Poor Tactics, and game the game.
And will still take out the pilot that is trying to up his OAE score.
People will be working to take out the Pilots with the Higher OAE.
People will be upset cause So-N-So has the hottest ride, and best ammo, and has a 10% performance modifier, so he will whine, and the other whiners will get together and hunt So-N-So down.
Now this sim may have a higher class of Player, all Chilvarous Knights of the Air that will salute an injured Pilot who is out of Ammo and let him RTB cause of a Good Fight.
But there will always be BnZrs. (No offense to the BnZ flyer, but you are going for the kill, not the fight.)
In RL I would try to kill my enemy. I would'nt be a Knight of the AIr.
In RL I would run if outnumbered, and do whatever it takes to survive.
In the Virtual SKies I try to fly the aircraft in accordance to what I have read has historically accurate tactics and manuvers, and watched AckStars, Stick Stirrers, 12/6 Cheaters.
There are bunches of them out there, and it only takes one or two to "RUIN" your whole thing.
Now yes this can be defeated, but not by Knights of the Air, it has to be done by merciless bastards that Dish OUt more to the lowest common denomenator types. ANd there will be no reward for the Merciless Bastards because they will have to use the same tactics as the LCDs, which will result in the Death of their OAE Pilot more often than they desire.
As to countries Instead of Knights, Rooks, Bishops.
Knight, LCDs, and MBs.
------------------
"I could feel the 20MM Cannon impacting behind me so I made myself small behind the pilot armor" Charlie Bond AVG
-
This *really* was a refreshing thread.
Why not use on arena and at least try the concept? With ISHMAEL as the project leader of cource.
Bod
-
Perhaps, multiple servers would be a benefit here..
The first, could be the "Instant Action" type for the not so seriously minded, "just wanna kill sumpin'" set of players.
A second, could be used as a "Serious semi-realistic" Flier. Perhaps with actuall pre-determined missions. seems a bit to much like a role playing game perhaps, but it would be a neat idea.
Regardless though, you'll always have to deal with the "Dweeb factor" regardless of whatever checks and balances would be incorporated. sadly, they are a fact of life.
("Darwin, where are ya when we need ya???")
Any time you have any roleplaying type game, there will always be those that wish to do nuthing more than take out the "high level" players. I gave up on Diablo because of that stuff. Ruined a good game.
I for one, see no way they could be stopped, with any kind of planned minus's to their playability, and plus's added to others would just breed even more reason for them to come in and screw up a good game. Think the best we could do would just ignore them as much as possible, and suffer through them when we have to.
------------------
GreyBeard
Flt Ldr
Skeleton Crew
-
Like I need to jump off a cliff to know the landings going to hurt.
Ish the thing about trying only to repeat real life stuff is in actuality its very borring. Real fighter pilots averaged at least 6 sorties for 1 engagement and 12 sorties for for 1 kill.
If you use just simply a realaizm type aproch this is what you should have. That dosnt sound fun to me.
So there for you pick the pieces of realizm you wish to simulate and throw away those that you dont. We do this and so does everyone else.
Now in your very description of the game you comment on how you would like to fly. There are other's like you who there goal is to fly like a real WWII pilot but there are also a lot of people who simply wish to learn and have fun at ACM they enjoy learning the different plane types and there strengths and weekness. To accomplish the ACM skill set taked a lot of engaments, and like training the more you die the faster you learn.
In game design realalism is only a piece of the puzzle and not the be all to end all game criteria. You have to make accomidation's for most people and not just one personality type.
HiTech
-
HT and Ish both have some good comments.
I think HT is right with regard to a general arena situation. An RP model will lead to behavior that creates a great deal of stress and dissension among the player base. Moreover, new players will be frustrated having their characters killed off so often when they first join the game.
On the other hand, an RP mode could be great in scenarios (particularly if the system allowed players to carry characters from scenario to scenario). Game play in a scenario is distinctly different than that in a general arena. People are more cautious and there is less opportunity for vulching and other situations likely to lead to an "unfair" death. This is consistent with Ish's idea. It would also be cool to watch character's grow in stature and reputation across events. They could even hang up pictures of great departd pilots at that little bar just down the road from the base.
Rolo
-
So-called "Simulation" companies have been giving us the same "realism = boredom" line for years - and each time they give into user requests and push the realism envelope, the companies have been proven wrong.
One of the very MANY things sim manufacturers do not realize (concerning the nature of their own products) is that excitment is NOT a factor of action - it is a factor of situation.
Quake has plenty of action but many people find it very dull. VERY dull.
Now if you're trying to make "Air Quake" here, then you're well on your way to success allready (by the sound of it). But I suspect a great great number of sim players find Quake - in the air and on the ground - boring. boring. boring.
Excitment is a quality of realtionship between participant and environment. To create "excitment," the nature of that relationship must be precarious - and the participant must have a personal stake in maintaining a specific equalibrium.
Must you encounter the enemy every flight or fire guns every flight in order to feel excitment? Not at all!!! From personal experience, I can tell you that everytime I start my engine (in our beta-test wars) my heart beats a little faster!!!
The entire flight, we scan desperately to sight the enemy, always checking six to see if we might get bounced. It's intense just knowing the other guy is out there - somewhere!!! It's SO intense that everytime we touch down, our flights always spend about 10 minutes on the field just catching breath and breathing sighs of relief!
Until you have experienced online combat like this, you'll never know what real excitment is!!! (at least so far as online gaming is concerned)
This is heart-pounding, sweat-under-the-arms stuff! And when you DO get into a fight - holy crap - you nearly die from the stress alone.
One more thing....
Aces High, by the sound of it, will NOT be forward thinking enough to develop this concept. Unfortunately for you, someday very soon, some other company will. That company will completely take over the online sim marketplace and leave you behind.
After that, the debate will be over. The "Online Alter Ego" will become the defacto standard and no game company will again consider building an "Air Quake" sim.
...but I'm sure that you (or your successor) will continue telling us that realism = boredom. Some things never change.
ISHMAEL
-
Ish it's realy very simple (PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS) go raise a couple of million and go write the game you wish. If it works well i'll be the first to say I was wrong.
But I have 10 years of playing and writing online sim's. Ive seen lots of concept's tried, some failed some worked.
With the attitude you portraied in your last post it sounds like you think all game writers dont have a clue and you have the magic answer. Well if you belive that so strongly get off your duff and go do it yourself!
Iv'e probably pushed the flight sim realism as much or more than any other flight sim developer I can think of. And am truly underserving of the tone in your last post.
You dont want to look at fact's like the historical arena in WB's if the general players wanted more along these lines the historical arena would have a lot more players in it then the main, care to comment on why this is? Or is it the players who enjoy the main just dont get it and we should ignor them?
As for alway using Quake as an example I for one would have loved to develope Quake. It's player type is not the people who like flight sims but none the less just because they enjoy it and you don't dosnt make it any less of a popular and great game.
And btw I have experenced excitement like you are talking,there called senerios. I also know that senerios dont work on a full time bases, but then you dont wish to have your mind cluttered with facts. Like the simple way you structued your test is incorect. Runing the test once a week totaly invalidated all your data. In normal game play people don't come in at a set time for a 2 hour session. There moods very every night they come in. Some nights they wish to just have fun furballing. Other night's they want to see how long they can go on a kill without death streak. Some times they will take a troop transport just because the team needs it. Try getting that done with someone on a long streak under your plan. Other nights people just want to log on and have fun with there buddies. They arn't concerened about their life long carrer they just want fun with friends. Online gaming is lot more than just simply playing the realism game like a box could be. You have to allow for ideal times for people to chat and have fun ,all white knucle type flying would have a big deturent on players talking with each other. Can you imagin dieing to a typeing death in your setup? You wouldn't take the risk. I could go on and on about game play issues, they are somthing I've thought about daily for that past 5 years but i've been rambling a tad here so time to end it.
HiTech
-
I agree with ISHMAEL that it would be good to provide a better penalty for death to encourage better tactics.
I do not think that giving better SA and better performance to those with longer survivability is the way to do it. This will make the learning curve even longer than it is and really drive the newbie's away. Imagine trying to learn to fight against experienced guys flying FW190D-9's or P51D's and all you can get are F4f's or Me109E's. You would kill your player base.
However, I like Rolo's suggestion about a similar feature for scenarios, that would be cool!
And you are right ISHMAEL about not needing the fight to have the excitement. I remember in Fortress Europe escorting B-17's. 1 sortie, 2 hours of flight. The tension while waiting for the LW to strike was incredible. Then when they hit, all you got was a couple of quick snap shots in as they dove off (and you couldn't leave the bombers!). Then the joy and elation and release of tension when "feet dry!" was called as you crossed back over England! It was an incredible feeling of immersion and for the first time, I truly could imagine what it must of felt like doing it for real.
I think my real hope for more realistic experiences lie with the possibility of a better strategic world which gives more realistic goals and rewards. This will then lead to even better experiences in scenarios, as well as a better MA.
-
I will preface this reply by saying i have not read the whole thread, some of those replies were a bit lengthy. This is just my opinion no disrespect meant to those who disagree with it.
On a general basis i do not like this idea in it's current form. My first complaint is due to the fact it makes the gap wider between good and bad player. If i was a completely new player coming into a sim like this I would have objections to the advantages players with long streaks had had ...
they would pay less due to the fact they were better(or luckier) than i am this is simply not fair some people are better at computer games than others so should they get a reduced price? On top of this there would be an advantage of better planes, better performing planes which would steepen the learning curve.
Also the increased realism in one area means decreased realism in others. In the same squadren a C.O. would fly the same plane as a Pilot Officer and the C.O's plane would not have better performance, it was suggested that a player with a long "live streak" would get a performance boost which represented modifications but I'm sure even a skilled engineer couldn't squeeze out 5% extra in all areas of perfomance let alone someone who had just not died in the plane for a while.
My final concern is the element of circumstance to every death so a player who is jumped on from above by a better pilot in a better plane with better performance than it should have and is subcequently shot down is penalised for not flying realistically, i.e. the system perceives him as someone who has thrown his life away. At the same time someone in his uberplane of choice who has just shot down some early war flying bathtub with magically beefed up cannons and is returning to base to land his heroic sortie might well ignore his countryman fighting a 2v1 below him and for this he is rewarded by the system.
I believe a player should be rewarded for surviving but enforcing a rigid system such as this will lead to injustices as it has no context and will also bring about an every man for himself scenario where people fly for themselves and not their country which isn't realistic and isn't fun, would you risk you're financial reward, your superior plane, with superior performance to jump in a slow bomber to try and help capture a heavily defended field? Besides would you actually moan at someone you just shot down for not trying to escape more realistically?
-
I'm totally with HiTech on this one. You can do whatever you want in the main arena. Every once in awhile I would jump into a P39 for the heck of it. I at times didn't care if I died.
I also joined a squadron and we were careful about keeping together and alive. The scoring system was the main reason I tried to return alive. I loved the stats on the old Warbirds scoring page. I always tried to place high in the Kills per Death category.
I very much enjoyed the scenerios but I wouldn't want to be forced to fly in that mode 100% of the time. It's great to just jump on and fly a few sorties without worrying to much about getting the perfect altitude and E advantage before engaging. I once had a 49 kill steak going and it wasn't fun toward the end. The first thing I did the next month was to jump into a P39 and have some fun. I did like the historical arena best but hardly anyone flew there.
Join a squadron if you want structure. You will try to score high to get your squadron's respect.
It is also pretty easy to stay away from big furballs and novice players. Stay somewhat high, only the more serious players tend to go high.
I also agree that you need a much larger and impartial sampling before making such bold and decisive statement about how it should be and what's best for everyone.
Herc
-
Cripes,
Ish, you use RB and a few buds to make general assumptions about sim developers? You have the gall to lecture those that wrote the code? Where do these guys come from? Like I said, let us know when your game is coming out. Until then, stick to constructive ideas and critique. Better yet, learn to write code. That way some arrogant dweeb will chew your butt without having a clue.
-
Ish it's realy very simple (PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS) go raise a couple of million and go write the game you wish. If it works well i'll be the first to say I was wrong.
-----------
I feel like I'm being oppressed by the owners of the means of production! ;-)
Obviously, I lack the means of raising that kind of dough. Otherwise, I wouldn't be broadcasting this concept in a forum where you are free to develop it and make use of it. I post it here because its a damn good idea and someone ought to have the smarts and resources to do something with it - even if it isn't me (well...I DO have the smarts at least) ;-)
What I can say in my favour is that I DID at least put together a beta-test of the concept before bringing it to your attention. Yes...the data is not conclusive. Yes...the test was insufficient. But it took me ten weeks to run the test and about 20 hours of work each week in record keeping alone (I had no software to keep track of the alter egos). Each session I flew around in observer mode to monitor player behaviour.
If I had the resources, I would LOVE to test the concept further. I simply do not have those resources.
I AM however more than willing to share with you any and all data I have from the first test AND provide you with access to our current test game. I can also provide you with the email addresses of all participants (so that you can get their feedback first hand).
So why are we doing this??? Why did I invest this kind of time into my limited study of the OAE concept?
Because I truly believe it has the potential to revolutionize online gaming.
Have I >proven< the concept? No. But the idea deserves further testing. That it certainly does.
Now...one of your points is well taken: would all players wish to play this way all of the time?
My honest answer: no.
But I DO believe that the vast majority of players willing to shell out $30 a month would want to play this way most of the time - and some would play this way ALL of the time (it is TERRIBLY addictive).
"Air Quake" has to remain an option. Sometimes, one is just in the mood for a quick dogfight (if only for a chance to relax and practice). And newbies do need an arena in which to grow accustomed to flying the various aircraft types.
But if a game company is seriously interested in building an online, persistant sim world, and they forget to put pilots in it, I insist that their work is only half done. OAEs will prove an essential element in the online flight sims of the future.
You heard it here first. :-)
-
ISH, your keeping the guys from doing code.
------------------
P/O Buzzbe
416 RCAF "The Lynx"
http://416rcaf.org
Dedicated to Lloyd Chadburn
-
Hey Ish,
I'd like to say thank you for starting one of the most vigorous and interesting threads I've read in a while. And that i dig Rolo's compromise - that would be cool.
But I'd like to relay my experience in Flying Circus to illustrate why your concepts should be relegated to a special arena, or scenario, rather than normal game play.
FC had the thing whereby if you killed 5 in a row without dying then you got a cool ace symbol beside your name - 10 & 15 also got you cool symbols. I had a 4 streak going and got killed by a head-on. Nothing I could do - he rolled up into me before I could evade.
I tried several times only to be knocked down after 3 or 4 kills. I finally got a bud to fly from the enemy's field and let me shoot him down 5 times and I got an ace. I wasn't happy about the way I got it so I persisted and eventually got an ace legitimately. But it points out what people will think of to get that good standing. It's gaming the game time.
Note also that some people will hack things to get a better standing in the game - Diablo comes to mind. And if you give a financial incentive, by God, you'd have hackers in AH by the droves. And one other point I would make is that sometimes I fly great, othertimes (after a beer or six), I fly like I don't even have a joystick. I'd pay for weeks trying to get my standing back up after one of those.
I'll support Rolo's compromise, but I don't want that kind of pressure in my day-to-day _gaming_.
-sudz-
-
I would like to add one more comment to my long-winded explanations of the OAE and how it >might< operate.
Sometimes, the best way to attract attention to an idea that merits it is to be PROVOCATIVE. If I have been forceful, enthusiastic, or controversial in my statements, it is only because I believe in the value ($$$) of this concept. It deserves the attention of those creating the AH software.
I do not mean to insult or demean the makers of AH, who may with good reason disagree with my assesments.
This is in no way to back away from any of the judgments and opinions I have expressed. I would however like to smooth out the feathers on some of the wings I may have ruffled.
------------------
-
ISH
It sounds as if you are not familiar with the various organised scenarios which are run in WarBirds (and I assume Air Warrior - but dont know)
These vary in "seriousness" but some are run under reasonably strict rules of engagement (For example the Squad select series)in a manner very similar to how you describe your tests.
These scenarios are very immersive, place very high value on pilot life, and usually turn out life-like in that the engagements are sudden and brief. The terrain scale ensures some action on most flights by having the forces closer together than they would have been in RL.
The scale of these has reached over 1,000 registered pilots (Pointblank) flying in a highly coordinated series of "frames" with very little "gaming" and very high immersion levels.
I have no combat experience, but do have many RL hours of very demanding/often tense/incident-filled flying, and some of these WarBirds scenario sequences are as intense and adrenelin-creating as any in-flight emergency I have ever experienced - they are very "real".
So you assertion that more reality is possible it true - it is already happening at times.
However HT is correct in pointing out that these events can only work SOMETIMES - and that most times the WarBirds HA (historic arena) is nearly empty, and the MA (main - or "unrealistic' arena) is full. And the scenarios start to lose people after a few consecutive frames - the mass of people (=$$$) want furballing thrills.
Personally I would like to have FULL engine starting/navigation procedures, real scale terrains and all the other minutiae of real flying - but I would be in the arena with only about 10 others at any one time - if I was lucky!
So I reserve my on-line time for scenarios and organised events, which have more of the characteristics you describe in your Red Baron arena.
I agree with you in the sense that provision of arenas and CM tools etc. to encourage realistic behaviour events is VERY important.
But I'm sure HT agrees with that, and that CM tools are on the production plan for Aces High. A terrain editor has already been talked about for this very reason.
And remember, there may be more than 1 intellectual out there (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
cheers
------------------
burbank
WWII history and Multi-player Simulator books
http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm (http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm)
[This message has been edited by burbank (edited 09-18-1999).]
-
Note also that some people will hack things to get a better standing in the game - Diablo comes to mind. And if you give a financial incentive, by God, you'd have hackers in AH by the droves.
----------
Hacking is indeed a major concern.
The great thing about pay-per-use servers is that user information is on file. This can keep hacks to a minimum (indeed, I would argue that policing hacks is one of the services you are paying for).
None of the incentive ideas I offered up was intended to be an actual plan for implementation of the OAE concept. These were merely provided as examples of how the OAE system can be implemented and realistic pilot behaviour encouraged. There are many ways to accomplish this goal.
One of the biggest objections to the OAE system stems from a misuderstanding of how it works. HiTech posted that pilots with long winning streaks would be hesitant to attack certain targets because they'd rather not risk their pilot's lives.
What he does not take into account is that long-lived pilots SCORE MORE POINTS FOR THE SAME ACTIONS THAN SHORT-LIVED PILOTS.
Hence, if you send a novice to "take out a tanker," your team scores LESS points than if an ELITE pilot took out that same tanker.
Is this unrealistic?
We think not. The reason is: we assume that the Elite pilot does additional damage not modeled in the game universe. We also assume that a novice pilot (without respect to the skills of the player) will do minimal damage to the target.
It's also a risk/reward trade off. The Elite pilot is worth more to his team than the novice pilot. Sending the novice is low risk (losing a novice is not a big deal) and thus reaps little reward. Sending an Elite pilot is high risk (his loss hurts his team badly) and so more points are given for a success.
Remember also that the pilot OAEs cannot advance in rank (and gain access to the less numerous aircraft) without scoring points. Therefore, if they are ambitious, players with highly experienced pilots will go after high-point-value targets in order to secure rapid advancement.
Again, points can also be tied to team goals. High-ranking pilots can designate prime targets/objectives and pilots involved in accomplishing such goals reap additional bonus points. This too does need require a "mission structure."
In our current test, I have three kills (after five sessions) and have been placed in charge of my squadron. I recently totaled my fokker D7 in a mid-air collision (but managed to land safely in friendly territory). If I were a bottom-ranked pilot, I'd be stuck with the Albatross Dva next mission - because or D7s are in short supply. However, because I am the CO, I can comandeer one of the other D7s and order one of my men to fly the Albatross (it's one of the privledges of rank) ;-)
The thing is...if I die in combat, I start all over again at the bottom (so there's ussually a high turnover in commanding officers).
The OAE system does not need to be as complex and detailed as this even in order to have a big effect on gameplay. Even a simple system consisting only of exponential point rewards would completely change the face of simming.
------------------
-
I have no combat experience, but do have many RL hours of very demanding/often tense/incident-filled flying, and some of these WarBirds scenario sequences are as intense and adrenelin-creating as any in-flight emergency I have ever experienced - they are very "real".
-----------
Before we developed the OAE concept in the "Historical War," most of us had participated in large scale inter-squad wars with objectives and missions, sometimes even simulating historical events. Yes, the excitment can run high in these large-scale organized games - but the effect that the OAE has on combat compared to even these events is beyond comparison.
I don't want to overstate my case, but things look completely different when you, PERSONALLY, have a pilot CAREER. When you know your pilot's name and remember his many narrow escapes and those fortunate kills, it ceases to be a game - it becomes a DRAMA!
This difference is never more clear than when you make a kill in an OAE environment. You can't HELP but feel twinges of sadness for the other guy when you watch his aircraft plummeting toward the earth. Everyone in an OAE environemnt has a personal stake in the outcome and you know that that other player was fighting for his pilot's life! It's actually kind of creepy knowing you are the one who just ruined his day.
It has certanly been a great lesson in the true nature of warfare.
------------------
-
Your idea has merit, but I would like to point out a few problems with it.
1- The subject sample that you used in this test are people who also have an interest in seeing this kind of thing. It is not necessarily representative of the larger group of people.
2- The test takes place at a pre-arranged time where everybody meets. That's very different than trying to run a 24-7 arena. This makes it more like a special event which is much more feasible.
3- The difference between the online flight sims and the RPGs is huge. The RPGs aren't based on players killing each other. Staying alive in an RPG is a lot easier and characters come back from death. Some players may spend years mastering their ACM and have a lot to show for it. It doesn't take years of experience to learn how to handle an RPG's interface or the tactics involved. What it boils down to is that your success in the RPG is not dependent on another person's failure.
After a player has played online flight-sims for awhile, they reach a point where they've basically mastered the skills and have become bored. They wonder why the game has lost so much of the excitement that it once had. They search for new ways to reacquire that same level of excitement that they felt when they first started. That's natural and a good thing. But what often happens is that players start wanting to dictate how the game should be played by everyone else to satify their personal preferences. They also forget that the skills it may have taken them years to learn came from grinding it out in a lot of furballs. Somebody new coming into the game hasn't been through that.
I believe the main arena should be a place where you can have fun and practice your skills. I also believe that there is a place for more serious flying but it's not in the main arena.
Personally, I've always thought the ultimate in white-knuckled flying would be a one-life scenario. Not one life per frame, but just one life and then you're through.
A lot of what we end up doing has to be based on how many people we have. It is detrimental to open up an arena that will only become a ghost-town. Give it some time to grow, we've got a long road ahead.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
since you guys at AH do read this board: please dont snap at me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) why not write a strong Death penilty??it seems most players will fly in a MA type arena more beacuse of a relaxed flight model than other reasons.the players have NO REASON to try to fly in a more life like manner.i understand all your work MUST result in a positive bottom line.your task isnt a easy one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)but the rewards of streching ones comfort zone can be handsome. .....now to go WAY off the subject!.....what is the thinking on attracting corprate sponsership of game servers?? seems to me the cash infusion of say a COKA-COLA could make for a real game (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I personally loved the scenerio lites that Warbirds used to have (maybe they still do). It didn't take much planning for the participants and had the effect Ish is looking for except the character development. Are these planned for AH in the future?
I'm totally against on-line character role-playing. You can get respect by your actions and skill, your rank and time-online should have nothing to do with it. I had no respect for the high ranking pilots on Flying Circus. A fair percentage got there through gaming the game as described previously. It's not fair, because some were excellent players but the ones that did not deserve it ruined the whole concept. Just look at the high number of aces and above. The ones that cheated were the ones that talked the biggest also. It was pretty annoying.
I knew who the best were when I was playing WBs. GunJam comes to mind, what a great shot, I used to get frustrated, and shot down, trying to get at him. There were others but it's been awhile since I have given up WBs.
What on-line sims have you played Ish? Have you played WBs or Air Warrior? WBs had a very good community with squadrons and the like.
Herc
-
Ish, just a quick question....
With something like 8000 accounts in WB ( Iceman slipped (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) why is it that only 30 show up for Scenario's ?
Why is it that of 10 LW squadrons - you can't get mroe then 20 people to fly in scenario ?
Why is it that of 10 buff squads - you can't find more then 5 volunteer buffers in ETO SL ?
Answer is simple - not everyone shares your point of view. I like the idea personaly but frankly i don't think it will work. Look at HA in WB .... it's dying slow but sure death.
Even the hardcore group doesn't want to be bored to death with 30 minutes or waiting for take off, taking commands form others, so on so on... it won't work.
Sorry,.
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
how about the idea i put forthe in another post about fake money and makein it a bounty system (ref. idea for rank/points)
this is the body of it
"this evening i was thinkin what if you some how could file a flight plane before hand and if you acheived the mission goals you would get a great deal more points, squads could rank up but you would have to do what you went to do. Put the big points on things that are hard/painin the arse. It would help you balance game play by the fact the you could control what kind of missions were flown from a particular base ( have a bounty posted in the officers club, sorta a nod to the flyin tigers and the bounty system they used.
make the whole thing be in what ever currency the chinese government payed them in instead of the generic points but not dollars cause people wil gripe (people are willing to suspend reality much more with money, he he you all have seen people play monopoly handin those 500s over is a squeak )
well here is the kicker you all wanted a way to score right. (get this this is the neat part)
TAKE IT OUT OF THEIR PAY !!!!!
make um pay for the crashed plnes themselves; I.E. you crash up a plane and live they (your country)make you pay for it.
you country gives you so many planes per rotation (assuming you have rotations) or a startin cash payment for startin a contract in the AH tigers system and have the planes cost different amounts and give higher pay for kills in harder to fly planes.
to me it seems to give you alot of control on the strat side and the boys alot of fun on the other (can u imagin owein the rooks 400,000 chinese gold palukas for the 28 p 40s you raked up and the stakes would rise as the more expensive planes come out( in the rolling set if you have one ) you kill a 262 and you get the cost of the sweat babe in a reward ( i bet them squeakes were expensive) see the logic ?
well there is one small paart of a strat model"
dosent change anyhing in the main arena outwardly (and people could not even participate or have the option to use the old point system .)
and think of all the input it would give you one the strat side ( put a big bounty on a base and instant rallying force of good players ( in crappy cheap planes to maximize profits he he thus givin um a handycap)
think if the word goes out the the rooks are losin the war ( down to one base )but the bounty on the knights main field just went to instant retirement account for the guy who knocks it out. and the defenders on the gold team pay double if killed , guys will change sides for the big bucks ( and stop the unbalence in the game )
dont get mad at me and dont think i even pretend to know your job and dont imagine i can "do it better" i just think it is a cool idea and would give you the govonor you will on a strat model that is totaly new and untried.
-
Answer is simple - not everyone shares your point of view. I like the idea personaly but frankly i don't think it will work. Look at HA in WB .... it's dying slow but sure death.
-----------
I never paid to fly in Warbirds or Airwarrior. I tried their services for free and found them to be intensly boring.
These "Historical Arenas" that are constantly brought up as examples of why the OAE won't work have NOTHING to do with the OAE at all. The OAE does not require complex historcally based rules of engagement. It is merely a means of...
1. Encouraging pilots to remain alive rather than take unnecissary risks
2. Simulating the value of experience in air combat without requiring skilled pilots to "fly stupid" when they play the part of "novice recruits"
3. Simulating the importance in warfare of minimizing casualties, especially among highly trained pilots.
4. Most Importantly: Increasing the level of immersion by alowing players to live an alternate, adventurous life (or a series of brief ones).
This system can be used in complex scenarios or it may be used in open combat theatres.
I suspect that the reason "Historical Arenas" did not work is due to poor implementation and lack of development/support. However, I have no experience with the specific Historical Arenas you mention. Nevertheless, I stress that Historical Arenas have nothing to do with OAEs.
The reason I have never payed to play AW or WB is because the "games" there are little more than Quake with wings. Its non-stop, empty, meaningless action that's a total yawn.
I have long been a fan of offline, Single Player campaign games, as (until now) they were the only means by which I could have the thrill of living that "alternate life." The challenge of trying to "survive the war" and the adventure of pilot growth and advancement have never been available online.
I will never pay to be a part of any online sim theatre that fails to model pilots. Such a "sim" negates any hope of feeling a sense of true adventure online.
Are there others like me? Are there others that purchase offline sims but never bother playing online? Yes. There are thousands and thousands. Has anyone ever asked those players why they DON'T play online?
I continue to believe that the MOMMENT the "adventure" element is made part of an online sim world, that sim will become THE place to play online - and will for the first time attract both "hardcore" players and many of the offline players. Because it has never been done before, players don't know what to ask for (Untill you've tasted icecream, you're content with fruitcake for desert).
My original intent with the beta-test was to infuse MMP with the "adventure" aspect available only in offline campaign sims such as: Red Baron, Aces of the Pacific, Aces over Europe, Red Baron II/3D, and European Air War.
All of these games have what is often called a "dynamic campaign" where the player plays the part of a single pilot. His job is to carry out his various missions while attempting to survive. This conflict between game goals and survival (married with alter-ego indentification) forms the basis of the adventure.
Without a conflict between game goals and personal survival there is NO ADVENTURE!
As for whether this constitutes "role playing" - I respond that it's actually a reversal of the traditional role playing model.
In games like UO or EQ, the player creates a "character" that has distint attributes and then plays the part of that character.
The OAE has NO attributes ather than those of the player. All OAEs are created alike. The player does not assume the role of the OAE. Instead, the OAE represents the player himself inside the online game universe. Whatever the OAE achieves, it achieves purely by the skills of the player it represents.
Some have expressed concern over the fact that players are attempting to kill off each other's OAEs and that this renders the game too harsh. I counter that war simulations have always been a competitive player vrs player sport. The OAE merely alows the victor to gain some spoils! Is that really such a bad idea?
ISHMAEL
-
A very interesting idea...however it is severly flawed in many aspects. I have no doubt that if you tried something along these lines 24/7 it would fail miserably. Maybe I just lack your vision and all...but I just don't see how it would fly. I would submit that your prearranged concept test with only 30 pilots is hardly a true test of your concept. Some reasoning for my opinion.
1. It set's up an elite class of pilots. People who will "farm" on lower skilled pilots in inferior planes. They might not get as much points or whatever for them..but they have low risk of losing their hot ride. I'll take three easy kills for the same amount of points as one high risk kill.
2. Higher ranks controlling my actions? You eluded to it with you being a CO in your system...not sure if you really wish to have it in the full concept. Now you have someone telling me how to fly when i log in? "You newbie pilot grab a McDonald Douglas bloated beast and attack that Mcdonald Douglas gazelle. Try to drag him low so I can kill him and get the points. Once you get back from the login screen and OEJ creation screen let me know so I can live bait you again."
3. Disco issues: Think it was covered pretty well. I wanted to add that people will "intentional disco" when there is no real streak to lose, or "serious" consequences. We see it in these low consequence games you find boring. Someone in the gazelle that got a little low and some other gazelle pounces from 10k...yeah he will be pulling the plug in a heart beat if it will save him his "life"
4. The pounce effect: Assume that only the top 10% of the OAE's get the FW 190D and the P-51's to fly. Can you imagine the attention these planes would get? One 51 shows up and it's position will be brodcast over the country radio channel. Then the "CO's" would send in a ton of newbies to get slaughtered..but you never know they might kill him. (If you don't think individuals are hunted try placing the trainer marks on your warbirds callsign.) Once he blows his E fighting all the newbies then the opposing team comes in high with there uber planes and get's the quick kill. So then all the uber planes would group for protection. Perfectly logical. Now the newbies have to contend with a pack of uber planes, with skilled pilots. Or the newbie pilot will recognize that he will probably not beat a good pilot in a superior plane that has a bonus attached to the statistics of the plane making it even tougher so he will flat to the deck and head home. Then he get's the pleasure of climbing to alt again before reengaging. Now this is competitive and ruthless and to a degree realistic for a WAR. But not fun if you just don't fly that well. I would say I could never ever make the top 10% of pilots in warbirds with my skills. So now I never get to fly a Mustang or a FW? Fun for the skilled veteran pilots..not fun for newer people.
4. It is based on the premise that people would care about team objectives and the team's score. You take 30 people, 15v15 i assume and put them in a arena for 2 hours or so. How many missions in that two hours? Three flights of 5 each side flying 2 missions in the 2 hours? So a total of 12 missions or so with 12 goals or so in one session? then stop and figure out where you are and plan? Real easy to get the big picture. Take a few hundred..24/7 running 50 or 60 missions a hour (total) without a break ever? The guy who plays once a week would lose grip of the war as it was. After about three weeks of one night streaks he may get to fly a decent plane if he is not killed by a equally skilled pilot who he meets in a equal Energy and positional contest who thrashes him because he can't make up for some 10% performance gap. I want to lose to PILOTS...not some enhanced power gamer.
On another note: Quake and Warbirds you find boring. So I guess the MILLIONS who bought Quake and Quake2 and play it as a religion are just boring junkies? I can't wait till Quake 3 comes out..it is gonna bore me to death..YEAH!!! And Warbirds has been the online game of the year with thousands of players with active acounts. People are so bored with it they have been playing for 4 years or so. Plus three years of AW before that? Damn...I know I like to spend my time completely bored playing both these games. People find fun in their own ways. I think your way would be fun for some...but miserable for most. So most would not play.
And time to get off that freaking high horse of yours. You may not wish to come across as arrogant and stuck up. You may not wish to give the impression that you are taking your time to talk to little people with little minds. But it sure as hell comes off that way.
O
------------------
Andrew "katana22" Dunseith
VF-101 The Grim Reapers
[This message has been edited by K2 (edited 09-18-1999).]
-
>>>The reason I have never payed to play AW or WB is because the "games" there are little more than Quake with wings. Its non-stop, empty, meaningless action that's a total yawn.<<<
ishmael, I suggest you go and participate in a well organised scenario event before you comment further. The quote above clearly disqualifies you from making comment on the reality or otherwise of at least some portions of WarBirds activity.
There is such an event starting on Sunday evening next. It is squad-based but I'm sure that my squad - JG54 - would find room for a visitor. It will be running for 3 or 4 weeks/2 hours per week - you would have plenty of time to get downloaded and get up to speed to participate.
These events are very rewarding as you would have the oppurtunity to see.
However, for many reasons listed above, I dont think they are going to set the 24/7 sim market on fire!
------------------
burbank
WWII history and Multi-player Simulator books
http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm (http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm)
[This message has been edited by burbank (edited 09-18-1999).]
-
Having an alter ego does sound like a more fun, immersive experience I will agree on that one..But by the same token..look at the stats that warbirds keeps. You can look up your performance in several catagories and see how you are doing against all the other pilots in the arena. This along gives a sense of worth to my pilot..living or dead.
As a hard core simmer myself, it is unfortunate how the sim community reacts to things. For example..log onto air warrior3 on any given night..you will see roughly 80% of the pilots in the realaxed arena..and maybe 20% in the "real arena".
When making a sim..you surely have to look at these numbers.
Whats does all this mean??..simple..if you want people to pay for a sim..it must produce a high fun factor..for both hard core and casual flyers.If its too difficult..you will drive off the 80% that want more fun..less "realism" while pleasing the 20% that like things "realistic".
The idea I WOULD like to see implemented would be something simple..make a pilot and just keep stats on his entire career.
Missions flown, Kills, Times shot down, Times bailed, Times ditched, gunnery and bombing stats..things like that.
To me, this would give the rpg experience. Especially if it kept a "tour" and a "lifetime" total.
I even like the idea of certian points..or certian rank needed for different planes.
But I dislike any bonuses given to the mechanical aspects of the plane..if your good..you can produce these yourself due to your own flying ability..not 5% more horsepower..or 5% better roll rate or whatever. The pilot made the difference in the war..let the pilot make the difference here. Yes..I know that many wwII aces modified their planes but that should be beyond the scope of this game and would produce a nintendo wannabe type game.
"woohoo 2 more kills and i get the engine boost!" naa..make the pilots make the difference.
Warbirds has the right idea keeping stats..air warrior3 leans twords the power games..keeping points solely based on shooting down other planes. Naturally the more hours you fly, the bigger your score is going to be. The killboard is full of jobless souls and college students with lots of time on their hands. I wish they would base rank on kill/death ratio with some accuracy bonuses thrown in. This way..death will hurt you and just might make you think about fighting to the death..if your rank is based on this ratio..you will want to live and keep it high as possible.
Personally I get a big rush when im in a furball and get the engine smokin..or a fuel leak and am able to limp back to base.
Those that dont want to mess with it don't have too, they can just fly the older planes and shoot to their hearts content..those that want to get serious have that ability.
As far as scenerios go..Ive participated in a few..and usually they take way too much time to get in the air..start at 8pm..and your lucky if your airborne by 9 or 9:30.
Briefings, no-shows, idiotic banter..you name it..takes forever. I will say however the most fun ive ever had has been flying a b25 back missing one engine and nursing it home after a scenerio mission.
Scenerios take dedication and time, you wont see many casual flyers in em..and thus the scenerios usually dont have too many players in em.
Air warrior has the price down so that anyone can fly there..and as such there are many more aholes and teen age punks that fly there.
Warbirds on the other hand has many more "mature" players mainly I believe due to the pricing model.
I fly in both worlds..prefer air warrior3s full realism arena because mainly the mature players fly there..and I cant afford the pricetag of warbirds for more than 5 hours per month..not to mention theres no spin model in wb..
AH seems to be the most advanced, thoroughly thought out sim to date, if even half the things ive read about it are true. As such, I believe it will draw a more mature audience.
As far at taking the sim world by storm..we will have to wait and see on that one.
Looking mucho forward to flyin in your world
Granger
Grunts Fighter commander
Hired Guns squadron
AW3FR Squad, C Land
-
FD Ski:
Shouldnt that number be about 25% lower?
Remember Skip mentioning those 2,000+ FREE accounts that were recently closed.
Wormie
-
Come on guys. Digging hard enough you can find "prooves" that even the concept of online flight simming is a dead end, hell - even the concept of the internet. Yet, reality show us that it is possible, and it is even possible to make money on it.
Ishmael has done some rather extensive research that show, at least in part, that OAE is an idea worth considering.
All your "prooves" that his ideas is poor means abselutely nothing because you don't have anything at all to back up your statement. You cant use reasoning from unrelated experiences to show that a completely different idea is a bad one, because there is no logic in such reasoning.
Now, Hitechs remark about getting 1 mill and designing that game, is however a very valid one because HTC got their own things they want to persue. Common sence tell me that so do the rest of the online sim creators. However, common sence also tell me that after some months or years some of the sim creators will rember this idea and say: why not try it.
Ish: Have you sent your idea to iEn or Playnet, or MS or some other? If not, then for gods sake do it. No one can persue your idea better than yourself, but you might get lucky and meet some interested people.
Bod
-
Ish: Have you sent your idea to iEn or Playnet, or MS or some other? If not, then for gods sake do it. No one can persue your idea better than yourself, but you might get lucky and meet some interested people.
-----------
The only other game company I have pursued this with is Dynamix (makers of Red Baron 3D). I suspected that Dynamix would be most ameniable to this concept as 90% of their offline sims require the creation of a pilot alter ego - for the purposes of campaign play.
(BTW - the Red Baron 3D campaign game, despite its shortcomings, remains the most dynamic, intricate and well designed campaign on the sim market today. With the addition of many of the player patches, this game has had a STUNNING shelf life!)
Dynamix expressed some interest in the concept and requested an indepth explanation of how it worked and how it was applied in the Historical War (however, they did not ask me to sign an NDA with regard to the idea).
As you know, Dynamix is developing a WW2 fighter sim with free server software rumoured to support up to 64 players (however, the number of aircraft available will doubtless be smaller than the number available in Aces High). I cautioned them not to try incorporating the OAE into Desert Fighter's server software as I suspected the time available would not permit a reasonable implementation.
My interest is in getting this idea out into the marketplace. I believe that it will change online simming for the better (and for everyone, not just for the hardcore types).
Can you give me any advice on who I might contact and how I might go about it, if I wished to send the idea to any of the software makers you mentioned?
ISHMAEL
-
Can you give me any advice on who I might contact and how I might go about it, if I wished to send the idea to any of the software makers you mentioned?
Sorry, i am not in the online gaming business, but i am sure some other people here have some names.
Othervise it all depends on how much effort you want to put into it.
Bod
-
ISH,take heart! The point you are trying to make is a very valid one.you are going to have to wait awhile to see it happen though.you invited me to take part in your test because of my posts on DELPHI regarding player behavior in RB2.I ,for one ,am here to say you are RIGHT! please bear in mind these things (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)n-line air combat is very young.the player base is very unorganized.the thrill of pulling the trigger is overwhelming.as the players mature,the sims mature and the delivery systems mature,so will game play.the things i read,that every one dislikes,seem to relate to player behavior.it will take some time before players grow weary and want for more.the game writers have been doing a steller job of producing good software.the players,not so good.yes todays on-line sim experance is sorely lacking.if only they would fly more realistly.if only they would stop furballing at 100ft .if only there were some reason to try to stay alive.....but thats how it is.......and wont be for some time to come.think my good man,i built my first machine in 1980 for no reason but to test sim software,and still wait.at 53 i may never see on-line air combat evolve past its current trigger -twiching state,but still i hope.dont stop cursading!some day we will all look back at this era and laugh.
-
i may never see on-line air combat evolve past its current trigger -twiching state,but still i hope.dont stop cursading!some day we will all look back at this era and laugh.
---------
There is nothing wrong with the players. It's the SYSTEM that's screwed. Change the system and player behaviour will change.
THAT was the point of my test. I took players who were used to the inter-squad shoot-em-up wars and threw a new system at them - one that rewarded survival more than kills.
My hypothesis was that their behaviour would soon adapt as the grew to understand the reward system. It took a few weeks of learning but slowly things altered in the air. Players ran away from combat or avoided it all together (when the odds were against them). This was a new thing in MMP.
Game designers have provided us with a BROKEN air combat system that incorrectly models the air tactical environment precicely because it leaves out THE MOST VALUABLE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IN AN AIRCRAFT:
THE PILOT.
Put the pilots in the planes and everything changes. I can't put it any more plainly than that.
ISHMAEL
-
ish, you used what you call broken software to create a new experance.we as gamers cannot hold the coders responsible for our use of their work.there are excellent sims in todays market.but they are being under exploited.this is a player problem.you can drive backwards in NASCAR2,but why would you?? many of us have been running sims for many years. others are new to this genre.the excitement is greater than the goal.perhaps that will change.as this beta moves foward continue to encourage players to fly in a more realistic manner.some will, and see the rewards.mabey,just mabey ,there might even be aircraft higher than 1000ft in this try.mabey not.but if players cant or wont try to create a more belivable sim world with AH,there will be other sims.try to set an example.monkey see,monkey do....
-
moved to a new post
[This message has been edited by silly plonk (edited 09-20-1999).]
-
A Reply to K2 regarding the OAE:
---------
It set's up an elite class of pilots.
---------
Yes it does. HOWEVER...if an "Elite" pilot dies in combat, he starts again at the bottom, just like everyone else. In a never-ending war scenario, this results in a constant turn-over in command. No "clique" of high scorers can form on a permanant basis.
---------
Higher ranks controlling my actions?
---------
No. My system has always presumed player freedom. What happens is that higher ranks gain access to certain scoring parameters. They can prioritize targets or activities and thus increase the amount of points players would score for achieving those objectives. Players are free to ignore HQ priorities, but following those directives will result in more points and quicker rank advancement.
---------
People will "intentional disco"
---------
Yes. In combat (within range of enemy guns), this can be treated in a number of ways. One way I mentioned is to treat a combat disco exactly like a parachute attempt (which results in a kill award to the closest enemy). A non-combat disco may result in lost experience and/or points gained during that flight. This discourages intentional ditching. Other measures may be implemented as well.
-----------
The pounce effect:
------------
There are complex issues of play-balance that would need to be addressed through beta-testing to achieve the right combination of rewards to facilitate the best player experience. The reservation of aircraft types is but one reward concept. However, just as "power-ups" in console games are only available after you beat a certain "level," so too the better aircraft are offered as a reward for long-living high-scoring pilots. Getting to fly a better aircraft gives the player a sense of accomplishment. How limited the supply of such aircraft should be is a question of play-balance that would need to be resolved through play testing.
As for sending waves of low-experience pilots after a veteran, the OAE system (as I have designed it) would reward the experienced OAE with up to four times the point value for kills scored by the low-valued pilots. One would have to be careful sending lambs to the slaughter. It might not be such a good cost-benefit option.
-----------
It is based on the premise that people would care about team objectives and the team's score.
-----------
It actually isn't. Personalizing the point structure was one of the primary goals of the OAE system as I first developed it.
Prior to the Historical War, inter-squadron online warfare in Red Baron 3D scored all points to a team. No pilot scored his own points. I felt that this led players to feel alienated from their online experiences. Therefore, to connect the player to his alter ego, I connected all points to the individual. YOU score 10 points, they are YOUR 10 points.
The team score is simply the sum of all player scores.
I presume that players only care about themselves. I realize that many are far more altruistic than that but those platyers are not the problem. The "problem" players are often those that are in the game only for their egos.
The OAE system was then designed so that the best way to win points, decorations, ranks, powers, and prestige was to help out your team (and help out your teammates) and keep yourself alive at the same time. This way, all players are encouraged to conform to historical realities, by virtue of the large rewards available to those who do so.
However...players remain free entities and no one forces them to fly any way other than the way they choose.
--------
So I guess the MILLIONS who bought Quake and Quake2 and play it as a religion are just boring junkies?
--------
Pac Man was once the highest grossing video game in the world. Play that one lately?
Just because something is currently the best option available does not mean we put an end to innovation. All of the arguments thus far presented against the OAE concept thus far ultimately include some form of the "it ain't broke so don't fix it" nonsence. Even you ultimately reveal the true origins of your protest by resorting to such comments.
This is why I actually have no faith that ANY of the arguments I have put forward here will have any affect on your opinion of the OAE. You will remain unconvinced until someone actually builds it and you experience it.
I was unhappy with the online games thus far presented to us by the game manufacturers. I thought I could make something FAR better and FAR more exciting, and I set out to prove it.
I have succeeded in proving to my own satisfaction that I was right.
ISHMAEL
I believe that the ideal game has a virtually infinite horizon - always offering one more reward to the player to push him further and continue to provide that sense of accomplishment and challenge.
-
I like this idea. It opens the possibility of using a big stogie as a power-up.
tone
-
I agree with HiTech and Pyro on this issue, however I also believe that a flat rate per month itself will do a lot to change player behavior in any arena. Because you won't have to pay extra $$$ to fly extra smart (please dont cite any AW flat rate failures etc, AW was never WB and isn't about to compete with AH).
Oh yea, and giving an expert bonus's on AC performance is a good way to alienate new players in about 2 sorties. Being an expert is a bonus itself and you dont really need any AC performance enhancements.
And I will never respect an alter ego as much as I respect callsigns like eman, quiz, worr, flet, ogre, kodiak, hitech, pyro, vila, the list goes on and on. I like to think someone respects wrench too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). You build your rep over years of play and starting a new one every time I die would get old fast.
Pyro, I would love to see a 2-4 week scenerio that only gave each pilot 1 life, period, now that is white knuckle...please do this.
Also I hope that any scenerio's in AH would be scored and reported on properly and in a timely fashion, I can't tell you how many times I tried for an ACE in a WB scenerio, only to find that the one time I did it, the scenerio was never reported on and the scores never posted,,,BIG TIME LETDOWN.
Wrench -=Night Stalkers=-
-
I though i'd punt this thread as the orginal idea involved rewarding players with better planes, abilities etc. but mainly because both hitech and pyro posted on it and it will probably give some insight into there philosophy.
-
A number of people, including myself, have posted numerous threads dealing with this exact same topic. In my posts I always compared the flight sim market to "quakeism", whereas it should be more like "everquestism".
-
Thanks! I didn't even know this thread existed. Interesting stuff.
-- Todd/DMF
-
I do see the need for rewarding better skill sets without destroying the game for others. I think that awarding ranks to players based on score (and showing them in the game buffer) would provide those who care with some incentive to fly the way many believe they should. On the other hand those with a devil may care attitude can continue unabated. As I've gotten a little better it has become easier to avoid the dreaded HO and FUs cannon fodder. Why the better pilots complain about this is a mistory to me...
Anyway I look forward to meeting General Torque in the air.....
doc
-
I read about 2/3rd's of the way thru and have to add my 2 cents...I have 5+ yrs in flight sims...and your "model" wouldn't hold my attention for 30 seconds Ishmael. I'm not interested in artificial skill enhancement or points...I play for score everyday in the real world...and in my own way I play for score here also...I match my skill, or lack of, against other sim pilot's. Now we dont always play the same game...but that's ok. Often I've found that many (not all by any means) of the experten can play my game better than I can...other times i'm amazed by the raw ability some novices have for air combat...not what many folks here confuse as combat...if it's not low slow and 1 on 1..it doesnt count in my book...but thats just me.
realism exists just where it belongs...in the REAL world...this is a sim. In an Ideal world i can come in fly for 20 min...have fun (win or lose)...and go back to the real world. If I have more time...one day soon...i can join others in a historic scenario where my individual efforts will impact the recreation of history. AW warnights where a great middle ground...limited plane set, limited time and 3 lives per person, truthfully it doesn't get better than that for me. 90 minutes or so of pure adrenalin...once you've flown interferance for your buddy as he nurses his cripple back in thru an enemy jabo sortie on your last remaining field...with both of you on strike 3...nothing comes close.
-
Ish, you know who I am. I flew in your "test" of the OAE or whatever you want to call it.. But I flew as "Kurt Wulfe" in your Great War. Yes it was intense, fun and amazingly incredibly cool to "live" the life of a pilot... OTOH, it was cool as an experience. It was extremely trying on the nerves and not for the casual combat pilot in AH, WB, AW, RB3D, FC, BoB or anything else that's out there. I consider myself a "casual" AH player. I log in, fly around, kill a few planes, and try my hardest to RTB. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But I get great amusement out of it. I'm still a "newbie" to combat sims by some of these guy's standards, I started with Confirmed Kill v.91 and have been flying since(1994). I consider myself to have learned a great deal since I first started and I'd say that I can fly **competently**. The only thing I WOULD like to see would be for HTC to write code to keep track of kill streaks and to keep track of your high kill streak. That would make for some interesting things to look at. Obviously they'd have to write code that also showed which plane they used the most for that streak and say someone who flies a F4U-1C against lower alt slower planes all the time will most likely have a high kill streak than say a Spit pilot or a zero pilot flying against the P51s, F4Us, 190s and 109s(of course it's always dependent on pilot skill.. someone could kick bellybutton in a Spit and dominate over every plane in the arena easily while someone could suck dirt and get wrecked on in a 109G10 against every other plane in the arena). This is not meant as a "oh this uber plane that uber plane" comment, just to say that streaks are dependent on pilots really and the planes they fly. That way, for those who DO care about living in the arena have a way of tracking it, while those who don't, don't have to worry about it.
In this long winded post that is really pointless, it honestly comes down to this. Having a pilot's name who you get to fly as and decide how long he lives and how many kills he gets before he dies or gets captured is extremely amazingly fun.. and very cool experience. BUT, it's fun to do that once or twice a week on planned events, and for a limited time. I would not want to fly your Great War for more than how long it was at the time, I had my kicks and my kills and I died in it. I was extremely cautious engaging and this lead to long long long boring flights until you engaged or were engaged. When this happen it was about 20seconds to 15 minutes of pure adrenaline rushes. Something you can also acquire in the main arena without risking losing a valuable pilot that you spent your time building up(and paying for in AH's case). Also the amount of crap HTC would have to redo for this to work would be simply horrific and I think everyone who likes scenarios where your pilot's life does matter would agree with me on this one, HTC's time would be better spent building new aircraft, new terrains and setting up cool scenarios or historical events. I enjoy the MA and these scenarios and I enjoyed your Great War. But they are all different and I enjoy them all for different reasons. MA because I get to learn new stuff all the time and have amazing fights without worrying about my pilot losing his life(note: I still fly cautiously and don't engage in suicidal fights and I never take the HO shot unless I goof and pull up to a plane at the apex of his vertical climb). I like scenarios because it's cool as hell to fly allied vs axis setups. And I liked your great war because I got to have a "campaign" like in single player games where my pilot's life mattered and I was rewarded medals and such for success. But take away my main arena and I'm gonna be one pissed off customer because I like AH the way it is. Maybe a few tweaks, but they are coming down the road and I'll just wait for HTC to complete them so I don't get a half-assed product(ala Red Baron 3D or European Air War-- this is not a slam.. they were/are fun to fly.. but nevertheless half assed).
-SW
-
I'm a big advocate of the HA, but HiTech is right (obviously) about the majority of main arena players, they have no desire for that type of flying.
If anything I would like to see the tools provided for multiple weekly scheduled scenarios which for me personally have always felt more realistic than the HA due to their mission format and coordinated teamwork.
the problem is we just don't have that yet.
but it will be here one day
perhaps we will even get a historical arena one day too.
-
Just read Pyro's post - so true.
-
ISHMAEL...
Are you still here?
I tried to contact you via private e-mail in your profile, but it bounced.
I would like to chat with you about your concepts unrelated to AH, but rather a competitve situation.
If you read this, please send me an e-mail to the address in my profile. If anyone has a current address on ISHMAEL, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks...
Regards,
Badger
-
HT:
I think you have an opportunity. There are two main reasons there are not more pilots in the HA in WBs.
1. Its not flat rate and folks don't whant to take the longer time and pay more to find a fight.
2. No terrain editor to make some really good set ups for historical matchups.
While not for everyone, I think the HA concept (flying against historical adversaries) is what many hardcore simmers are looking for (that sense of history). In your Sim you have the basic building blocks in place to make a HA work very effectively IMO.
I'm also sure you would have no shortage of folks who would volunteer their time to do the setups and manage the arena lessening any burden on your staff.
So having both arenas (HA and MA) with the game structure and features you have now and plan to have could be a winning strategy for a HA arena.
That is what I have been promoting for and will continue to do so. Eventually someone will take the ball and deliver a Historical Arena that can be made successful on a continual basis.
Ram1
31st Fighter Group
Originally posted by hitech:
You dont want to look at fact's like the historical arena in WB's if the general players wanted more along these lines the historical arena would have a lot more players in it then the main, care to comment on why this is? Or is it the players who enjoy the main just dont get it and we should ignor them?
[This message has been edited by Ram1 (edited 05-19-2000).]
-
Good points Ram...
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
(http://www.rsaf.org/osf/images/osf_inga.gif)
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/ (http://www.rsaf.org/osf/)
-
Badger!
I do not know how to access profiles. I'll see if I can figure it out.
Unfortunately, I've been away from home on a job site in Atlanta for the past month or so. Please email me at: christopher.ash@ps.ge.com
I look forward to hearing from you.
-
What appears to have been neglected so far is that in recent historical scenarios that have taken place, a very basic form of Ish's concept has been followed. In the initial instructions, it has been clearly stated that once you die, you are dead.. simple enough, real enough... for the rest of that scenario. Another example is the TOD that was running for a while (haven't seen anything on the board lately.. dunno). Same rules applied there. But this "realistic" pilot life/campaign was limited to a specific time and activity, so only those interested in participating need do so. Everyone else can "run and gun" in the MA. Personally, I fly quite often for "realism" in the main arena, choosing to extend and escape, rtb, and come back up. Do I need the arena to be designed this way for me to do it?.. Nope. Does everyone else in the arena have to be flying for realism for me to do so? Nope. I think Ish's idea has a great deal of merit, but is not suitable to the main arena of combat, rather to its own special area, to be enjoyed by those who want to do it that way. The open format main arena caters to all types, and allows everyone to fly the style they want to fly. In a confusing, "Air Quake" type of day in the arena, our squadron has put together missions and carried them out, oblivious to how the rest of the arena is playing, and the adrenaline rush of trying to stay alive to complete your mission and help your squad mates seems as real as I am going to experience, without tweaking the whole game to force everyone to play in "campaign mode". I say, shop the idea around, if ya can find someone to develop it, it will have its own niche, but for commercially viable, MMP, it doesn't seem to be a money maker. Limiting people's choices isn't a good way to build a broad customer base.
------------------
Skorpyon
I/JG2 ~Richthofen~
"Feel the Sting......"
-
Damn! There is intelligent life out there! Both HiTech and Ishmael are putting forth their opinions in an extremely eloquent manner. Reading Ishmael's ideas I thought how much they concurred with mine and I was ready to sign up. Then HiTech reminded me of the fact that real life fighter combat is hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. On the bottom line, Ishmael unless we've walked a mile in their moccasins we can't imply that game developers are all morons. HiTech's suggestion though direct (Put your money where your mouth is) is actually the way you should go. Your writing style indicates that you are a person of some education and intelligence. My suggestion would be that you use that eloquence and intelligence in putting together a detailed business plan and try to sell your idea to some investors.
Good Luck
Beeg
Originally posted by hitech:
Ish it's realy very simple (PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS) go raise a couple of million and go write the game you wish. If it works well i'll be the first to say I was wrong.
But I have 10 years of playing and writing online sim's. Ive seen lots of concept's tried, some failed some worked.
With the attitude you portraied in your last post it sounds like you think all game writers dont have a clue and you have the magic answer. Well if you belive that so strongly get off your duff and go do it yourself!
Iv'e probably pushed the flight sim realism as much or more than any other flight sim developer I can think of. And am truly underserving of the tone in your last post.
You dont want to look at fact's like the historical arena in WB's if the general players wanted more along these lines the historical arena would have a lot more players in it then the main, care to comment on why this is? Or is it the players who enjoy the main just dont get it and we should ignor them?
As for alway using Quake as an example I for one would have loved to develope Quake. It's player type is not the people who like flight sims but none the less just because they enjoy it and you don't dosnt make it any less of a popular and great game.
And btw I have experenced excitement like you are talking,there called senerios. I also know that senerios dont work on a full time bases, but then you dont wish to have your mind cluttered with facts. Like the simple way you structued your test is incorect. Runing the test once a week totaly invalidated all your data. In normal game play people don't come in at a set time for a 2 hour session. There moods very every night they come in. Some nights they wish to just have fun furballing. Other night's they want to see how long they can go on a kill without death streak. Some times they will take a troop transport just because the team needs it. Try getting that done with someone on a long streak under your plan. Other nights people just want to log on and have fun with there buddies. They arn't concerened about their life long carrer they just want fun with friends. Online gaming is lot more than just simply playing the realism game like a box could be. You have to allow for ideal times for people to chat and have fun ,all white knucle type flying would have a big deturent on players talking with each other. Can you imagin dieing to a typeing death in your setup? You wouldn't take the risk. I could go on and on about game play issues, they are somthing I've thought about daily for that past 5 years but i've been rambling a tad here so time to end it.
HiTech
-
Pyro;
Good points. Most important the sentence that the idea has some merits even if it has some problems. Relating to my elsewhere posted issue with how I want your sim to run, I would hope that at some time you will come up with a separate arena where those of us who want total immersion can have it without stepping on the toes of those who don't.
The best idea, and one which will probably get you anything you want from the wives of the addicts is the "one death and you're back with your family"
One last point. Call any of your local drug and alcohol rehabs and ask any recovering addict to describe when their drinking or drug use crossed from social to a problem and they'll tell you;
<snip>
They wonder why the game has lost so much of the excitement that it once had. They search for new ways to reacquire that same level of excitement that they felt when they first started.
<snip>
Beeg
-
Some of you guys need a calander. This is an OOOOOLD thread. Mostly dredged up for comparison sake. Addressing Ish's issues now is as much a mute point as their can be.
------------------
Liz of TSM
"Never take counsel of your fears."
T.J.(Stonewall) Jackson
-
Some of you guys need a calander. This is an OOOOOLD thread....Addressing Ish's issues now is as much a mute point as their can be.
---------
Unsurprisingly, I disagree.
The idea has proven to have a life of its own.
For my own satisfaction, I will write one more post to clarify my intent.
The purpose of the OAE is NOT to satisfy the grognads of flight simming. The purpose is to provide goals and rewards to casual players which will produce (incidentaly) more realistic player tactics on a grand scale.
It is my contention that a game is more fun when a tangable reward progression is tied to the gaming system. When players reap game-based rewards for their actions (ie. advancing a level, snatching a "power-up," defeating a "boss," getting a new, cool weapon), they enjoy the experience all the more.
ISHMAEL
-
Wow. Very interesting thread.
I fly to live most of the time and am more satisfied landing a mission wherin I killed nothing but barely escaped then one where I got three kills and then collided in a head on.
It is certainly fun to try to build a streak and I agree with Ishmael on the current lack of any incentive to live.
However, I also agree with HiTech that not everyone wants to fly to live every night.
I also have some issues with the current scoring system so let me tell you what I do:
I have created two virtual pilots in my mind and on paper, a "high risk" pilot and a "conservative" pilot. On the nights when I feel like being realistic I fly my conservative pilot. I fly to 25,000 feet and only engage If the odds favor me. If I become outnumbered I run. If my fuel precludes my going home by continuing, I turn around.
On nights I feel like fighting it out I play my "high risk" pilot and dive into the action.
Now, after each sortie I write a short narrative of the mission. That way, if I've played my high risk pilot for three days I can catch up on where my conservative pilot is before I start on a conservative mission.
The beauty of it is I keep my own scores. If I shoot the wings off a plane and another pilot fires at him and is awarded the kill I don't care. In my narrative I claim the kill. Incidentally, I've only managed to get a streak of 10 with my conservative guy and 8 with my high risk guy.
So I sort of have my own version of the OAE thing happening and I use a scoring system I feel is fair.
My point brings a possible sollution to the OAE debate- have two. Have one guy you want to see live and with whom you are extremely careful and have one guy you use when you feel like flying risky.
One must be careful to also consider the learning curve. Remember back to the days when each of you first flew Warbirds or Air Warrrior (HiTech, you can think back to the days you first WROTE Warbirds (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) You took off...POW! you're dead. You took off... SLAM! Dead again. I flew for 4 or 5 days before I got my first lucky kill. Many people would have given up after day 2 or 3- It is just so damn hard. Now, give the newbies crappy planes to fight against uber-crates and that 4 or 5 days turns into 4 or 5 weeks maybe. I just don't think most people are going to continue playing that game.
The guys that fly these sims are so much better than their real life counterparts because they've logged hundreds more hours and have gotten the oportunity to die again and again and learn from each mistake... If anything, newbies need BETTER planes. Penalize people for lack of experience and there will simply be no one left to play.
rust
[This message has been edited by ezrust (edited 05-30-2000).]
-
An old thread but very interesting.
Ishmael's idea has merit and could someday be implimented somehow. But I would suggest, as others have, that it be in a special arena for those who wish to play this type of game when they wish to play it. Perhaps to ensure all players take this type of play seriously, some sort of screening process be used.
But more to my point, IMHO Ishmael has made a mistake in judgement of massive online air combat sim game play. He tried the free trial on WB and AW. One cannot come to a valid conclusion in this manner. Also, one cannot begin to compare online play between a game like RB or EAW and the likes of AW, WB and AH. There is the missing elements of community and group dynamics. Ishmael questioned why more sim junkies don't play massive online sims. I think the answer (aside from not knowing they exist) is fear... fear of interacting with a large group of strangers in a personal way. (It is like someone sticking a microphone in your face and asking you to say something.)
Remember the first time you entered an arena. You likely did not know what you should do or how to do it. Your first kill may have been a friendly. You may have been shy and avoided interacting with the other players at first. Over a period of time you learned the ropes, met other players and the game took on a new personality. It is only then that you can begin to judge and understand what a game like AW, WB and AH have to offer.
These games tend to provide players with the tools they need to play a game, but the game they choose to play is left up to them. The community and peer pressure are somewhat define what accepted game play should be, but the host can provide different areas catering to tastes. IMHO, this is where the role playing option belongs.
Over the years these massive air combat sims have evolved together, by some of the same people. A great deal of experience has been gained which should not be discounted. This didn't happen in a vaccuum. Folks like HiTech are very aware of group dynamics and how to culture an online community. If someone wishes to role play, they are free to do so in the context of the existing games. In AW I know of a number of players that try to preserve their virtual life as in the real world. But in some cases these personnas are not well accepted by the community. One of the bains to many are those who cruise at high altitudes to pounce on their victims, and then run when they loose their advantage. I somehow doubt if those who dislike this form of reality would enjoy playing in Ishmael's game environment.
Enough of my diatribe, it's an interesting concept that likely will be tried eventually. I'll be most interested in seeing the results.
grizzly
-
Ishmael has obvious passion for the higher end of the spectrum. However, you can pound and pound and pound ... it doesn't change a lot unless what you are pounding on lacks structural integrity (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
All things being equal, the biggest single factor you must accept is that only those who value what you value can make the arena a fair place if that fairness is based upon "behaviour" being much the same for all those that choose to fly there.
Try as you may ... no matter what you use as "incentive" ... the realistic virtual pilot (fears death, tries to survive at all cost, etc. etc.) is always going to be at the mercy of the kamikaze I will never die/click fly re-spawn warrior.
If your opponent cares nought for realism, implied or otherwise, and cares equally little for the rewards you put in place to attract those who would fly that way anyway (for the sheer thrill of it and it being what they seek from the outset) ... they will hold all the cards because no consequence matters (death being the worst case) and yet the opposite is true for the "realism" flyer. One has nothing to lose, and flies accordingly, the other has EVERYTHING to lose but can never hope to engage the re-spawn warrior on terms where he can rely on fear of consequence being remotely similar to his own ... the gameplay is stilted from his POV and can never hope to be as ideallic as what you seek, no matter how desirable it may be to you, I, and others like us.
What you seek, and perhaps one day will get ... is an arena where all present in the virtual world agree on the "death" issue and thus can be relied upon to help create a virtual reality where they fly and act like dying matters, by common agreement, a little like reality in the real world, in some respects.
That ... or one day we can actually FORCE death upon the participants, rather than it being a choice ... THEN you'd really see what you're hoping for, but, I am here to suggest, you won't be seeing that anytime soon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
After all ... death mattered in real life because you had little control over it, except to avoid those situations. In sim life, you ALWAYS have the choice, and most choose to ignore it, and thus death does not exist. If, in this environment, you choose to belive death exists (as in fly accordingly) then what you really have, is YOU, a mere mortal ... trying to wage war on superman.
You're NEVER going to win that battle (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Unless you can REMOVE the superman types, because if they get the choice, they'll choose the cape and red underwear everytime (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Doc.
(http://www.ozemail.com.au/~dooms/Dead-doc.jpg)
-
doc
I believe that the superman factor can be eliminated by having Death be severe.
By severe, I mean, the pilot who dies has to pony up US$100, to be put on a holding account. At the end of the war, the money is divided among the winners.
Now, the incentive to win and complete the mission is that if you dont, you gotta pay US$10 that go into this account (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Roland, 101 "Red" Squadron, Israel (WB)
You're gonna fly high, you're never gonna die
You're gonna make it if you try, they're gonna love you
-Pink Floyd
-
should i dredge up the rest of the ish realated threads?
-
You mean there are more???? ;-)
IHMAEL
-
well 1 (which is even loooongeeer) and a few related ones.
-
Is there anything at all that can simulate Real life? Have you ever felt absolute fear? It's a very strong motivating factor. Anything else is just a nudge in comparision.
I've felt the sweaty palms and a fast heart after a simulated flight, the very excitement of losing in simulated battle. But nothing as close to the total fear I've have felt in real life. Losing my simulated life is nothing new. And I've become jaded to it.
You can add all the medals, high score lists, Ranks, or any other behavior modifying trick in the book, not a single one is as motivating as the real thing.
So unless you can provide that gun mounted on the top of computer that fires at me when I screw up, the perfect answer is still not there.
As for who will rule the future of online flight sims. It won't be the one that kills you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) .
[This message has been edited by helllo (edited 05-30-2000).]