Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: funkedup on November 26, 2001, 07:26:00 PM
-
Surely with the MA this crowded there wouldn't be a problem "finding the fight"?
Maybe for 1.09 HTC can program the ability to disable radar in flight while keeping it enabled in the tower. If not for the MA, at least for special events and the Combat Theatre.
-
DAR = good.
400 people crammed into 1 arena = bad.
As it is now DAR is the only thing that saves me from the rampant gangs.
J_A_B
-
DAR also lets the rampant gangs find easy meat.
And 400 aircraft in a 256 by 256 mile area was not an unreasonable density in WWII. :)
-
It'd be an interesting thing to try.
-
I'd like to see GPS outside of friendly territory turned off as well. Make them buffers learn sum navigation skillz.
-
It's a mess for sure. I hope this influx of players will cause a toning down of radar and maybe 512X512 main arena maps.
-
Funked,
You already know how to do without DAR. Just don't open the clipboard in flight. Doing that will increase your enjoyment of the game and won't hinder anyone elses.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
I agree the RADAR needs toning down. I also believe the sector size is too small. Sector alerts alone practically pinpoint where the enemy is at.
Jarbo
-
512 miles by 512 miles with no dar?
Do you people enjoy the game so much you just like to fly around empty sky?
J_A_B
-
lol
-
LOL King this is what I was telling Mury about. :) :eek:
-
I agree there should be radar in the tower but not in flight.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
512 miles by 512 miles with no dar?
Do you people enjoy the game so much you just like to fly around empty sky?
J_A_B
try reading my post slowly til it sinks in. Now, what did I really say?
-
I like it. (the tower-only DAR idea, that is)
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: SOB ]
-
Funked, this is the sole dealbreaker for me. I don't think that there is a problem finding a fight, even in an arena the size of the WB ETO with tower radar only and ten people in the arena.
It is a crutch, boys, a big one.
-
Definitely in the CT and special events.
-
No dar bar below 500 feet, allow all planes visible at any alt within 25 mile radius at all fields. What could be more simple?
I'm with ya Funked.
-
I agree with Rip....<yikes> :eek:
-
I agree with you, Funked. But is a lost battle and we know it ;). AWACS dot dar is going to stay in the MA no matter what.
I'd like to see the CT modified as you suggested in other thread, and the dar modifications to be carried on there. With so much ppl online as there are lately I'm sure we'd get a decent ammount of guys flying there.
I'd also like to see no dar under 500feet in all arenas.
-
If you go in the middle of sector, you'll see contacts from almost whole sector.
One thing why those sector radars are ridiculous.
adjusting radar to less pinpointing, it would make AH more interesting.. now its just a point towards boredom.
-
Its not lost Ram, HiTech recently posted that he is "thinking about it"...ignore the fact he was thinking about it this time last year.. ;)
Something tells me we need to send him some of his favorite to get his mind thinking harder! ;)
-
To the subject line? YES.
Leave bar indicators on but shut off the IFF enabled pinpoint radar in flight.
Westy
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
I gotta agree with Westy..
It would also be nice to have the proximity indicator not pick up low cons below 500 AGL.
-
My personal preference would be dot-dar in the tower, bar-dar in the cockpit except for those under the radar altitude. However, if we have NOE masking from both the dot-dar and the bar-dar, then I think the system should send out a country-wide message whenever your base/city/factory/depot/etc is damaged. Some kind of time-limit would be a good idea, such as only one message every 2 minutes for each base/facility attacked. This would keep the message buffer manageable.
-
I just got some information that AH will have the ability to disable in-flight radar while keeping it enabled in the tower. So I retract that part of my whine. WTG HTC. :)
If they get the "floor" (minimum altitude) working for the sector bar dar then I will be in heaven. :)
-
I like the Dar in the clipboard, it lets me locate fights, if we take it away EVERYTIME someone comes on it would be like "Where's the fight at" "Where's the action at"....... that would be annoying. Plus i'm sure Germany and Britain had ground radar crews that vectored their planes to the enemies.
Why don't you stop using the radar instead of trying to wreck other peoples fun.
-
Ahhhh stop whinin Soviet :)
You forget that if you can see the dots in the sector you can usually see the cons from your cockpit. So just go where ever you have a large bar-dar and start looking for the cluster of dots in the distance that looks like a small cloud of gnats :D
In case someone missed it I'm definately pro-quasi-real radar :)
-
You guys can go without clipboards, I'm keeping my crutch.
-
The DAR is a good tool against gangbanging bastages I can't imagine what it would be like without it.
You want to play realistically? We got the CT for that, maybe if you people who want more realism go there we wouldn't have some of these threads. Stop trying to force the masses to play your way. We have the CT for extreme realism, MA for fun.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Soviet ]
-
Well, for the Big Week scenario I know they're screwing with the radar so you only get bars or dots in the tower and nothing inflight, so it's not impossible to do. Still, I find it handy to be able to tell what fields I can lift a bomber from and which ones are covered in fleas from the hairball next door.
I do like Sabre's idea of only getting dot dar in the tower and bar dar in flight. That way you'd know generally where to go, and once you're airborne, you'd be able to see where the fight is moving (if at all), but not every individual plane.
As for a 512x512 map....would it really do any good? Sure, you'd extend the border between two countries a little (double it if all works out right), but that wouldn't stop furballs from happening. All I see it doing is making the maps much harder to win, and as it is now, they're not changing much. I could be wrong though; if anyone cares to explain how it would help the game, I'm all ears.
-
Originally posted by Soviet:
The DAR is a good tool against gangbanging bastages I can't imagine what it would be like without it.]
Rofl!
The dar is a good tool *against* gangbangs? :D
Originally posted by Soviet:
You want to play realistically? We got the CT for that, maybe if you people who want more realism go there we wouldn't have some of these threads. Stop trying to force the masses to play your way. We have the CT for extreme realism, MA for fun.
See, that's where a lot of you guys are backwards. We're not trying for a historical angle. (at least I'm not) I'm coming from a gameplay angle. And it's not just some biased wannabe furballer, or strict field capture angle. I do it all. My squad does it all. We try organized captures using the mission planner and are torpedoed lately from the get-go.
Just ask the Dickweed Heavy Bomber group. Last night there was red dar bars out the wazoo on the western side of the map. Long before the baddies were anywhere near our fields. We look on the roster, about 20 Dickweeds online. Know what's going on. So, we just up fighters and meet them over the water. Killed just about all of them before they reached our shores. A big organized squad mission shot to crap cause you guys *kAn't FiNd uh FiiiTe!*. I hope HT is leaning towards toning down the dar we have. Sorry, but a total buffoon could find a fight in the main with the population that's in it now even without any in-plane radar.
-
Hblair and funky are lobbying hard again to lose the dot radar. Can you say "lets beat a dead horse"? I thought you could :) One thing is for sure, it still seems to be a hot issue, the number of posts are building rapidly.
-
Originally posted by MJ:
Well, for the Big Week scenario I know they're screwing with the radar so you only get bars or dots in the tower and nothing inflight, so it's not impossible to do. Still, I find it handy to be able to tell what fields I can lift a bomber from and which ones are covered in fleas from the hairball next door.
I do like Sabre's idea of only getting dot dar in the tower and bar dar in flight. That way you'd know generally where to go, and once you're airborne, you'd be able to see where the fight is moving (if at all), but not every individual plane.
As for a 512x512 map....would it really do any good? Sure, you'd extend the border between two countries a little (double it if all works out right), but that wouldn't stop furballs from happening. All I see it doing is making the maps much harder to win, and as it is now, they're not changing much. I could be wrong though; if anyone cares to explain how it would help the game, I'm all ears.
Furballs are gonna happen. They're fun, I furball too. Problem is the situation we have now is your whole frontline is a furball! There aren't any clean fields to launch a fresh attack on that aren't full of cons. The arena maps (at least mindanao) are full. I would think that toning down of radar and/or a larger map would be the ways to go.
As far as Bigweek. Your countries CO will be tower bound and vectoring the squadrons to the fight. (like in real life)
-
It is easier to get away from gangbanging tards with the dar, you just view the clip board and if you see a wave of NME fighters coming at you run for the nearest ack/friendly.
Also I am strongly opposing any change to the DAR, if we do then buffs can sneak in and take out a whole base which they can already, I hate to say it but i'm a furball nut and so are many of the people in the arena not all. And the DWHBG got their whole mission shot down, hmm let's see escorts did they have any escorts? i rest my case, bombers without escort are dead when they take off, some pilots are even suicidal with buffs, i saw some moron keep coming in 1k in a lanc and porking a fuel, talk about gamey, if it wasn't for DAR it would have made my job a little harder finding him.
Leave it the way it is, as I said you want realism goto the CT that's what it's for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leave the MA the way it is, it's just fine.
-
Originally posted by Soviet:
It is easier to get away from gangbanging tards with the dar, you just view the clip board and if you see a wave of NME fighters coming at you run for the nearest ack/friendly.
There's another piece to this equation, it's called *everybody else*. Doesn't it cross your mind that the average pilot uses the clipboard to congregate in small groups. It's called herd mentality. Look at the big picture for a minute. Take yourself out of your situation and put it in the average pilots situation.
Originally posted by Soviet:
Also I am strongly opposing any change to the DAR, if we do then buffs can sneak in and take out a whole base which they can already, I hate to say it but i'm a furball nut and so are many of the people in the arena not all. .
Were you here when 1.08 was released? After one of the patches, there was absolutely NO enemy radar at all for almost a week. Do you remember that whole arena getting captured? Do you remember having trouble finding a fight? These lame scare tactics carry no weight.
Originally posted by Soviet:
And the DWHBG got their whole mission shot down, hmm let's see escorts did they have any escorts? i rest my case, bombers without escort are dead when they take off,...
Wooooah. Slow down slick. Yeah there were escorts, Many ponies and Doras as I recall. Of course it didn't matter much, because (I'm sure you already know this) escorting bombers in the main arena atmosphere is next to impossible.
Originally posted by Soviet:
Leave it the way it is, as I said you want realism goto the CT that's what it's for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said:
Originally posted by hblair earlier in this thread:
We're not trying for a historical angle. (at least I'm not) I'm coming from a gameplay angle.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
i have to agree with hblair.
When the DAR was gone for that time period i my self didnt see much of a change, or a negative change in the MA.
W/o dar it helps against being ganged up on for sure.
-
I do not think anyone is advocating the complete removal of radar. All I've seen is the proposal to remove IFF equipped, 100% accruate, pinpoint radar in flight. As it is one can see on radar exactly which contact in a group of dots out of range is enemy and which is friendly and vector accordingly. While the MA is not meant as a replication of WWII it designed to enable us to replicate combat ala WWII era equipment. Of which AWACS type radar is not.
For gameplay purposes there has always been the colored bars indicating enemy or friendly contacts. THAT more replicates WWII radar ability than anything else we have right now.
All IMO, of course.
Westy
-
The Spitfire's first kills were due to IFF failure (they were Hurris....)
IFF is a fact of WWII life.
-
Yes. And we have bar indicators that basically represent it's capabilities.
There was the earlyu development of IFF in use during WWII. Starting with the British RDF's IFF. It was very basic and a crude electronic signature that allowed ground personnel to distinguish British fighters from inbound intruders. WWII IFF could not display on an o-scope image the specific friendly or enemy aircraft. WWII radar could only report to the ground station personel at that radar facility that a friendly IFF signiature was detected in the radar return signal period.
It was not until the last 30 years that IFF helped pinpoint the status of any partucar plane on a radar scope. AH radar replicates 1970's and upward technology, not 1940's by any means.
Westy
-
well.... actually in the forties they could tell you within a few thousand feet, the altitude of cons. That would be nice.
lazs
-
I remember the time when there was no dar for a week. I didn't play for a week either. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Recent examples are when the dar could be dropped for extended periods of time the numbers in the arena dropped. It is something similar to the "night" times in the arena. Quite a few players don't like it and don't play during the darkness. An increase in the number of players in the TA is a usuall occurance while they wait for "dawn" to break.
This still comes down to a rather verbal faction in this game who do not like a feature in the game. They want to impose thier peferance on all in the MA by doing away with it. If they don't want this feature they do not have to use it. They can fly without opening their clipboard and not be bothered by the dar.
This option realy belongs in the CT. If you want to fly under particular conditions do it there. The fact that the numbers in CT never equal the numbers in the MA is a telling point. It seems that many do not WANT to have THEIR game play limited by conditions or restrictions. They vote with their presence in the MA rather than the special arenas.
Finally I agree with others who have stated that the MA is not the arena for modifications of this type. If you want to play with a set of conditions that restrict player options take it to the optional arena. Numbers increasing in the MA indicate there is not a wide spread problem.
I'd much rather HTC spend time increasing options and reliability on the game rather than catering to some who wish to restrict them. The disco situation is getting nasty.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Definately. I'd welcome multiple crt displays, in the tower, which showed approximate blips indicating azimuth, range and presence of friednly aircraft. And perhaps an indication of how many inbound planes there are depending on the size of the blip on the crt.
I would also like HTC to remove the HQ radar facility. IMO there should never be a global radar outage.
However I do honestly doubt HTC would ever implement any change to the current radar but as I did when I was in AW I'll always chime in on the side asking for "dot" radar removal.
Westy
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
I remember the time when there was no dar for a week. I didn't play for a week either. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
The main arena numbers were not affected during that time. It was as popular as ever. I recall counting the roster and commenting to my squaddies about how the arena was unaffected. The fact that you logged for a week should probably tell you something about yourself. :D
Originally posted by Maverick:
This still comes down to a rather verbal faction in this game who do not like a feature in the game. They want to impose thier peferance on all in the MA by doing away with it. If they don't want this feature they do not have to use it. They can fly without opening their clipboard and not be bothered by the dar.
Or you could not be bothered by our opinions on radar and not read or reply to this thread. If you don't like it, just don't look at it. Makes about as much sense as your reply.
:)
Originally posted by Maverick:
This option realy belongs in the CT. If you want to fly under particular conditions do it there. The fact that the numbers in CT never equal the numbers in the MA is a telling point. It seems that many do not WANT to have THEIR game play limited by conditions or restrictions. They vote with their presence in the MA rather than the special arenas.
Yeah, that's it. The fact that field capture and the strategy element are non-existent, as well as no scoring at all have no bearing on the condition of the CT's popularity, right? The radar is the only factor.
;)
-
The CT is not an argument in removal of inflight dot dar. If the CT was exactly the same as the MA with the exception of radar, then yes, you have a valid argument with the CT on the issue of no inflight dot dar. However, as the CT lacks strat, scoring, and also enforces a RPS with Axis v Allied (thereby severely limiting plane choice) I don't see how you can use the CT in saying no one wants to remove inflight dot dar because the CT is unpopulated.
Lazs hit something in terms of altitude. It's not there, and it should be.
Next, could WWII radar (yes, the historic one) tell the difference between a flight of B17s and a flight of fighters (meaning could it tell a significant difference in plane sizes?)
Maybe inflight dot dar could stay, but you couldn't tell friend from foe just by looking at the inflight dot dar. The dots could be color coded based not on their country, but based on their general altitude. If my question is answered yes, then some dots would be bigger if they were bigger than a certain plane (say bigger than a Jug).
This, IMO, would enhance gameplay by giving you alt of a dot, and whether it was a possible buff or fighter. It'd increase "pucker factor" because you wouldn't know if that dot that just popped in your visual range was a bandit or a friendly.
In the MA, I don't believe dot dar should be totally removed inflight. It's the equivalent of asking for GCI via radio. It also does help gameplay. I think it can be improved, however. :)
-
hblair,
Nice to make things personal here with your post. Please notice I did not disparage you or the others who want to restrict a feature of the game I like.
As far as posting here about this. I do have a stake in the "controversy" as I happen to like the dar as is, like several others who posted. I find it would be counter productive to allow a, IMO, small faction dictate what I can have or not have in this game. Similar to the faction who continue to call for the perking of any plane that they don't like / want. If players did not post a counter point to your proposal it would make it a one sided discussion. Sorry you don't like opposing views. I guess in your opinion I should just back off and let you have your way, after all my opinion can't possibly have any merit since it doesn't agree with you.
The dar feature in this game is an option. By that I mean, all you have to do to ignore it is not open your clipboard. Don't like it? Don't use it just like combat trim. Please just don't advocate taking something away merely because you don't like it.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
I agree.
Let's keep the current dar, but add altitude information as well.
-
Nothing personal maverick. Sorry if I went overboard.
But it's hard to be serious when you post stuff like this:
The dar feature in this game is an option. By that I mean, all you have to do to ignore it is not open your clipboard. Don't like it? Don't use it just like combat trim. Please just don't advocate taking something away merely because you don't like it.
Do you guys not see what we're saying? We're not talking about what you or I see on our clipboard, but the way the powerful radar we have affects the dynamics of the main arena. It inhibits organized raids to the point that they are rarely successful. I'm talking about balancing it out so the strat guys can have fun AND the furballers can have fun. What part of that do you not understand? You're trying to argue a one dimensional point with out even recognizing that yes, in fact, there is a big picture here to also take into account -balancing it out so all players can do their thing with a reasonable chance of success.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
I agree.
Let's keep the current dar, but add altitude information as well.
Hey yeah, good idea. Also, I want to know what pilot I'm up against. Would make it cool as all get out! I like that idear. They had that tacknology in WWII. My uncle said so!
:)
-
Nifty,
If I remember correctly the radar the Brits used during the early parts of the war could not separate bombers from fighters. They could however tell by the size of the radar return in the area the approximate number of planes in the raid. This coupled with the fact that they knew how the Germans flew and what routes and bases their bombers came from helped them more than the radar returns. I remember reading where several of the radar operators (women btw) became so good at estimating the altitude based on the radar returns they saw that RAF Fighter Command trusted them to vector the fighters into that part of the sky. As a result the radar operators became even better in that area.
Now I would like to see an altitude display on the dot radar in the towers only. While the bar radar representing a vector and estimated altitude information being passed on by the tower radar shown on your clipboard.
One thing I don't like is Rips idea of all planes at all altitudes within 25 miles of a field being visible on radar. I would go for something like a 10 mile radius of the base though but 25 is to big since the sector grids are only 25 across (right?).
-
Am I reading Maverick wrong or is he saying that there should never be any changes to the MA?
-
So hblair... you are saying that the current dar does not allow you to sneak up on someone or to gangbang or to milkrun a field?
lazs
-
Just a note to Mavrick-Combat Trim, Auto takeoff, etc are a personal choice, i.e. they affect only the person who chooses them. AWACS data, on the other hand, has an effect on you, no matter if you look at your clipboard or not, kind of like turning off icons on your FE..
-
"Radar, where is that buff formation?!"
"Radar, where is that buff formation?!"
"Radar, where is that buff formation?!"
"Why the @#$% isn't radar answering?!"
"Will someone please go to a tower & man the radar?!"
"SOMEONE PLEASE VECTOR ME IN!!!!!"
"Radar, you said the buffs were at 10,5,5 heading north!"
"You don't know your @#$ from a hole in the ground!!!"
"Sheesh. Everybody wants to fly! Why won't you man the @#$% radar?!"
Yeah. Would be a lot of fun wouldn't it?
-
I have a simple solution that uses the personal choice principle. How about a setting that can only be changed offline (like the video settings). This is the No Radar button. When you choose this setting, you do not have access to the in-flight radar screen. And your aircraft does not show up on enemy in-flight radar screens. Then I could truly ignore radar as Maverick states.
Let the short-attention-span/visually-impaired crowd play their game, and the rest of us will play ours. Seems like an ideal solution.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Love that idea best of all those proposed Funkedup. Very much so.
That would allow me to hunt (or be hunted, for if I'm not on radar I certainly do not get radar info from the host) with my own instincts versus simply vectoring towards the enemy "dots" as displayed by the "all seeing" arena radar.
And folks who want radar can certainly have it.
Westy
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
I'd like no radar at all inflight but at the very least I'd like to see no dar under say 300-500ft so we can fly NOE for a reason other than 'its fun'
-
<S> Westy.
I disagree with your interpretation of the MA. The MA is about just that, the fight. Why did HT put in the effort of coding the radar such as he did? IMO, it was to facilitate the ease of entering into battle. Yes, I said ease and thats not about WWII air combat, I know, but put restrictions on people and they are going to get bored.
For example. What if someone were to do a sim about law enforcement? Chasing bad guys, shooting it out with drug dealers, car chases down crowded highways, facing a suicidal suspect face to face and all the on the spot decision making. Lots of action!!
Guess what? I can tell ya from experience. If it was made "realistic", 90% of the game would bore you out of your skull.
-
Revvin you mean doing things other than finding the nearest furball can be fun? And that changing the "radar rules" might encourage more diverse behavior of this sort, and lead to more fun for many players? Blasphemy!!! :)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Lazs, not even worth responding too. Not trolled in the slightest. Try harder.
Apache, I've started a thread (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/025127.html)
for your re-education.
:)
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Am I reading Maverick wrong or is he saying that there should never be any changes to the MA?
Yes funked you are reading me wrong. I NEVER said that.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
OK :)
-
hehe hblair. I may be not only be in left field but completely over the fence but the debate among friends is fun tho ain't it :)
-
BTW Everybody read my first post again. I'd like to see revised and more realistic radar in the MA. But I'm not insisting on it. If it's really going to spoil the fun of a lot of people, then don't change the MA. If HTC could set up a viable alternative to the MA (something the CT is not) with more realistic settings I would be all for it.
However I do think that the predictions of doom for an AWACS-free MA are a bit overmodeled. :)
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
I have a simple solution that uses the personal choice principle. How about a setting that can only be changed offline (like the video settings). This is the No Radar button. When you choose this setting, you do not have access to the in-flight radar screen. And your aircraft does not show up on enemy in-flight radar screens. Then I could truly ignore radar as Maverick states.
Let the short-attention-span/visually-impaired crowd play their game, and the rest of us will play ours. Seems like an ideal solution.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
I can agree to this with only one modification. Your plane doesn't show up on a radar active FE, your shots don't do any damage, and your plane doesn't take damage from a radar "active" player.
Betya there is an easier solution. It's called going to the "other" arena and have strat, scores and what not else active there. That way you could gain your perks, play your game and leave the MA alone. I really don't give a whit about scores and see no reason why the "system" for the point hounds can't transfer between the MA and everything else other than the TA. That way the players who DO care about scores don't lose a thing and have no real reason to force their idea of game play on the MA.
Would that work Funked?
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
keel, keel, keel the dot dar..
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Am0n ]
-
Damn I'm not fast enough. I'd edited my post to remove my anaolgy Apache but not fast enough I see :)
I'm for logical realism but not bone deep realism such as strapping me in a metal seat for four hours and making the room 0 deg F. so I have to wear a full flight suit while flying AH.
IMO tower dar is a gameplay compromise but the inflight radar we have now is, in my opinion, way over the wrong line as regard concessions for playability. It's right up there with digital range counters on icons, auto retracting flaps, lack of pilot fatigue from repetative Hi-G's and also the auto trim being enabled during blackouts/redouts and when wounded.
Westy
-
Lol Westy.
Nice counter argument. My brain is too slow to respond now. Long day. I'll get ya tomorrow. :)
Agreed Maverick.
-
Maverick I think I made my last post while you were posting. Read it if you missed it. The answer to your final question is HELL YES. :)
I've proposed this several times.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
DAR also lets the rampant gangs find easy meat.
And 400 aircraft in a 256 by 256 mile area was not an unreasonable density in WWII. :)
Now is that 400 aircraft FLYING? or just 400 aircraft.
-
Funked you're right what you said on the thread in AGW, most people who want inflight dar are just worried about losing their training wheels and once they're off would'nt think twice about all the fuss they made in the first place. Seem's most people here use the excuse it would be harder to find a fight..wtf? you have fingers..how hard is it to type 'where is the fight guys?' for the sake of others laziness the rest of us have to suffer with unrealistic arena setup and thats what it boils down to at the end of the day.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
If HTC could set up a viable alternative to the MA (something the CT is not) with more realistic settings I would be all for it.
FYI-- Pyro was in the CT last night and stated they have plans on doing a major overhaul of the CT, He was looking for suggestions and discussed this for some time. If you would like to see a film of this conversation, give me a PM and I will shgoot the 1 Mb film (zipped) your way. We may have a solution for you non-dar boys in the CT yet. Or would you consider using the CT....?
-
"A comprehensive mission planner lets you organize or join other players to accomplish strategic goals."
That's right on the first page. Notice to the furballers: to accomplish strategic goals [/i]. Huh? That statement says that AH's emphasis is to be on strategy. Air combat in WWII can be related to chess; in a tough situation, you must use strategy and skill. Furballing was a rare occurance in WWII (it's common in AH) and with radar inflight, you can always find the fight. That's why is it that furballing for hours is scorned. Only nightfighters had airborne intercept radar in WWII. Since all planes have airborne radar in AH, where's the difference between a day fighter and a nightfighter? So what use is a mission planner if the enemy can find you immediately, vector to you independently of ground based radar, and cut you to pieces.
"Organized special events for the ultimate in team play, strategy, and historical flavor."
Historical flavor. And not just in special events and the CT; it says for the ultimate in. In other words, for even more. So there should be a good deal of realism to be found in the MA, too. Does historical flavor mean everybody should get airborne JSTARS or AWACS or JTIDS? No. Fighters in WWII were not always able to find the foe. All too often, flights returned empty-handed. Only with close ground-air coordination were day fighters able to go straight to the fight, as shown in the Battle of Britain.
"HiTech Creations was founded with a simple philosophy by Dale "HiTech" Addink in 1999. It's not to create a large corporation, a vast gaming network, or a line of online games. It's just to create one game, but one that is better than any other like it."
Simply put, Aces High is currently very similar to other online simulations.
-
Ammo that's good news, but I'm not surprised. I know that HTC are very busy and I'm grateful they are willing to devote resources to things like the CT and Events.
-
If the CT was a viable alternative to MA then I'd sure fly in it.
I am one who dislikes the GPS inflight radar but don't let it get in the way of my enjoyment. If CT was setup for strat and points and a less gamey radar then I'd be all over it :)
-
Originally posted by Revvin:
Funked you're right what you said on the thread in AGW, most people who want inflight dar are just worried about losing their training wheels and once they're off would'nt think twice about all the fuss they made in the first place. Seem's most people here use the excuse it would be harder to find a fight..wtf? you have fingers..how hard is it to type 'where is the fight guys?' for the sake of others laziness the rest of us have to suffer with unrealistic arena setup and thats what it boils down to at the end of the day.
Unrealistic arena setup? Give me a break. The MA is full of game play concessions. This argument has no weight.
To truly confound. If the CT were setup as funked has suggested, yep, I would be there. Contrary to what may be believed, I'm not implying that the fantasy arena applies to everyone. I prefer fighting people who know how to fly a 109 or 190 instead of spit v spit or f6f v f6f. As the CT is now, I'm not interested.
I believe the MA should be left as is. New people enter the MA all the time and are truly lost. I agree, the radar is unrealistic, however, they "need" the radar concession. Once the CT is setup properly and becomes populated, then absolutely, I am in agreement to the radar suggestions...in the CT, not the MA.
Put yourself in the shoes of HT. He needs players, continuously. Not all players are experienced online flight simmers. Its imperative HTC maintain an "insta-action, training, newbie, quake, gaming arena", ie, the MA. (Let me qualify this last statement. I do not call those who want a quick hour of simple dogfighting as a quaker. I hope my intent is clear. Darn typed word has no voice inflection :)) There is obviously a market for it.
In turn, there is an obvious need for a more stringent, "realistic" arena.
PS. I left my training wheels in WB :D.
-
bah. Apache, you used (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004815) to be level-headed. What happened?
;)
-
Originally posted by Revvin:
Funked you're right what you said on the thread in AGW, most people who want inflight dar are just worried about losing their training wheels and once they're off would'nt think twice about all the fuss they made in the first place. Seem's most people here use the excuse it would be harder to find a fight..wtf? you have fingers..how hard is it to type 'where is the fight guys?' for the sake of others laziness the rest of us have to suffer with unrealistic arena setup and thats what it boils down to at the end of the day.
Nice post. I agree wholeheartedly.
As does Apache:
Amen, tower only.
:)
-
I still don't buy it. I'm not going to type on the radio asking some idiot sitting in the tower with nothing better to do to vector me to enemies.
What we have is that except nobody has to play the role of air traffic controller, and I don't have to type.
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]
-
Originally posted by Revvin:
Funked you're right what you said on the thread in AGW, most people who want inflight dar are just worried about losing their training wheels and once they're off would'nt think twice about all the fuss they made in the first place. Seem's most people here use the excuse it would be harder to find a fight..wtf? you have fingers..how hard is it to type 'where is the fight guys?' for the sake of others laziness the rest of us have to suffer with unrealistic arena setup and thats what it boils down to at the end of the day.
I'll keep my training wheels thank you very much......
-
No dar might be better.
Worth a try.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
I still don't buy it. I'm not going to type on the radio asking some idiot sitting in the tower with nothing better to do to vector me to enemies.
Dude, with some of the worthless squad activities you guys pull, sitting in the tower giving vectors would be a big improvement. :)
-
I can see your point about newbies Apache but I see alot of old hands here mithering about losing radar and that truly is out of laziness. It has nothing to do with having some guy with nothing better to do than vector you to enemies as Fatty said, with so many pilots in the air you don't need a guy in the tower..ask where your countrymen are fighting.
For those who want to keep radar how about a compromise? you guys keep your AWACS training wheels but lose radar under 500ft for those of us that want to put planes like the Mosquito to proper use running NOE.
-
now that would be reasonable
-
Originally posted by hblair:
bah. Apache, you used (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004815) to be level-headed. What happened?
;)
Through natural progression. I've matured a bit :). I looked at it from anothers point of view and saw that, indeed their was a need for the tool for some...in the MA. :D
-
If Pyro was seriously talking about revamping the CT completely then this topic may be moot someday soon. If they implement the features and settings in CT the way many have suggested then we can all have the best of both worlds.
An EasyMODE Main and an UberRealism Haven! <g,d,rlh....>
Westy
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
I can envision the CT being somewhat a 'testing ground' for the main. The test would be once you start seeing the CT get about 1/3 the population of the MAIN in it, then whatever the developer is doing in the CT is probably working, and might be fit for the general population.
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
If Pyro was serioulsy talking about revamping the CT completely then this topic may be moot someday soon. If they implement the fatures and settings in CT they way many have suggested then we can all have the best of both worlds.
An EasyMODE Main and an UberRealism Haven! <g,d,rlh....>
Westy
Completely agree Westy.
Did ya hear that hblair?! :)
-
Hmm... No dar is the real crutch. It is a crutch for the skilless. They can substitute patience (alt and surprise) for skill. They can shoot down lazy bored players much more easily. In a game of air combat.... It is better to have combat methinks. Sure... If you want to bother playing hide and seek with the "accountants of the sky" you will eventually shoot them down... They don't have much combat time after all but... it is pretty boring... win or lose.
Soooo we all agree? Leave the dar as it is but add altitude info for the dots and seperate bars for the stupid GV's?
lazs
-
Try harder Lazs, that stuff just makes us laugh. :D
-
Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
"A comprehensive mission planner lets you organize or join other players to accomplish strategic goals."
That's right on the first page. Notice to the furballers: to accomplish strategic goals [/i]. Huh? That statement says that AH's emphasis is to be on strategy.
Huh? If I were to read the page like you do, the emphasis is also on force-feedback support, voice comms and special events (like scenarios.)
A feature list says what you can do, not what you must do.
Further up the page, it says that the emphasis is on "high-fidelity air combat," but that isn't to be construed to exclude tanks and boats.
Nice try, though.
-
The only problem I have with inflight dot dar is that it substitutes for SA. I think a reasonable compromise would be to update dot dar at 15 (?) second intervals. That way you could use it to find a fight, but not to instantly evaluate threats in a furball.
The delay could <cough> simulate the time it took information to get from the radar operator, through the ground control chain, to the pilot.
-
Obviously Runny only read the first three sentences of my post. Read it, runny, don't spew worthless rhetoric. And try harder to pull my argument at the seams.
-
Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
Obviously Runny only read the first three sentences of my post. Read it, runny, don't spew worthless rhetoric. And try harder to pull my argument at the seams.
Why should I pull at the seams, when you've pitched your rhetorical tent in quicksand?
You say the emphasis is on strategy, I say you're stretching one sentence from the web page a bit too far. Your argument sucks, therefore, and forgive me for commenting more on the turd in that punch bowl than on how great the punch tastes.
Ground control was a common feature of many air forces. If we're not to force someone to sit in the tower and call out vectors to interceptors, there has to be some sort of in-flight display, else people will be *more* blind than in reality.
None for me, thanks.
-
Originally posted by popeye:
The only problem I have with inflight dot dar is that it substitutes for SA. I think a reasonable compromise would be to update dot dar at 15 (?) second intervals. That way you could use it to find a fight, but not to instantly evaluate threats in a furball.
The delay could <cough> simulate the time it took information to get from the radar operator, through the ground control chain, to the pilot.
I like this. Radar is good, but not excessively so.
-
EXCELLENT idea on the 15 second delay.
Now, get rid of the bar dar for planes below 500ft.
And once the night fighters are added, make the night fighters have the dot dar we have now. :) :)
-
Originally posted by Runny:
If we're not to force someone to sit in the tower and call out vectors to interceptors, there has to be some sort of in-flight display, else people will be *more* blind than in reality.
Wrong.
Noone is forced to sit in the tower. It is a voluntarily thing. Read the link. If you have questions, ask them on that bbs.
http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/025127.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/025127.html)
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Keep on tryin HB....but its not gonna happen. If you think the endless questions coming from the new guys now are tiresome just wait until you turn off the dar in the MA. :) I would however agree that below 500 ft no dar bar would be cool, if and only if that does not include ground vehicles. Make planes below 500 feet not show up on dar, but make ground vehicles show up and I am with you.
-
Given the current congestion of the text buffer in the MA, I can only say the concept of getting fighter direction from some player in the tower is the height of absurdity. There are already far too many posting on the text buffer to follow it now. There have been NUMEROUS players who claim to have to squelch the buffer just to keep up with squad coms.
I recall many of the players posting complaints about the "generals" trying to direct players to "hot spots" to save fields or whatever the "general" feels is critical. Now someone actually proposes making this a virtual requirement for game play?!?!?!?!
No thanks. I will fly as I wish and not at the whim of some other player in the tower.
I can just see the team changers now using this as an oportunity to game the game and give misdirection to the enemy.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Originally posted by sling322:
Keep on tryin HB....but its not gonna happen. If you think the endless questions coming from the new guys now are tiresome just wait until you turn off the dar in the MA. :) I would however agree that below 500 ft no dar bar would be cool, if and only if that does not include ground vehicles. Make planes below 500 feet not show up on dar, but make ground vehicles show up and I am with you.
I'm not necassarily saying lose in-plane radar completely. There's far too many lightweights in the main arena to handle that without a march on Grapevine. :)
I was correcting Runny in his assesment.
Warbirds has been without in-plane radar for years, and it has never been an issue. Aces High was without enemy radar (in-flight and even in the tower) for almost a week and it was not an issue, wasn't even mentioned on channel 1 that I recall, certainly didn't affect numbers. It's mostly just furballers that want to keep it an easy furball. For example, mav, you have 9 bomber sorties since March of this year. Come on man. You can't know much about taking fields. Therefore, how much can your arguement here mean? You, as most others who want dar out the wazoo, like lazs, etc. don't even know half of the story. You only know what you see in your fighter. That's just one part of the main arena. People need to take this into account when they read your opinions on strategy.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
hblair give up. most of aces high players are childish babies who only fly the best plane available and need every crutch they can get to survive. its sad :( but since they pay hitechs bills he has to listen to them.
really the ONLY solution is for the intrepid of us to go populate the combat theatre. if we can get pledges from a bunch fo squads to "form the seed" i think CT will grow. it just takes some strength to ignore that 330 number and login to the 20, which is why squads have to lead the way.
-
"hblair give up. most of aces high players are childish babies "
Is that why you do your best to cheat at WW, Zig?
-
maybe Dar dots can go..but dar bar are ok.
I would like to see planes identity icon visual distance brought down. i think its at 6k at moment, like to see that halfed to 3k
-
There's nothing to give up on. Just giving my input on how radar affects the arena. I'll prolly fly the CT when it gets modified, but it's got a long way to go before its an alternative to the main. I don't think the majority of Aces High pilots are babies, or even mav or lazs. :) They are just dillusioned is all.
Seeker, go explain that goofy "109f" thread. And if you're implying that our squad wings together on WW's you're wrong. Just because it appears that way to you on one occasion doen't mean it's so.
-
Originally posted by Nifty:
It'd increase "pucker factor" because you wouldn't know if that dot that just popped in your visual range was a bandit or a friendly.
I used to fly in the CT most of the time for awhile, because there was NO dot dar at that time. It was nice to be able to set up a bogie by hiding in the clouds and executing a perfect bounce. The "pucker factor" was a definite plus, IMHO, always scanning the sky for the one that is looking to bounce you. When the dot dar was reinstated, I moved back to the MA for the planeset - might as well.
My vote? Dot dar in the tower, bar dar only inflight. If you can't "find the fight" with that, you probably shouldn't be flying. ;)
-
Put me in the "No-Dar" camp. There are types of play right now that are impossible because of it.
-
CT does not thrive because there is no field capture. Put that in, i'll LIVE there.
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Wrong.
Noone is forced to sit in the tower. It is a voluntarily thing.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
I read the link, and all I can really see is that you've asked what radar is like in Warbirds, and whether you can find a fight or not without in-flight radar.
I don't dispute that. Of course you can find a fight -- just launch at or near the nearest friendly base that's getting clobbered. You'll get fights-a-plenty!
What I also saw was that WB has in-flight radar within 5 miles. What do you say to that?
I agree that nobody is forced to sit in the tower. Nobody is forced to man the guns on a buff, but the pilot gets to hop around manning the guns anyway. I imagine this is because bombers usually had their defensive armament manned, and it's actually *less* realistic to force the bombers to fly defenseless just because they can't convince people to man the guns. Likewise, our current in-flight radar is not realistic, but flying completely blind was not the way it was done, either. Flights were often in contact with ground controllers who kept them abreast of developments.
The story you told of the Dickweeds getting their mission shredded -- that story actually happened, hundreds and hundreds of times, over Germany in the real war. Bomber streams got picked up on radar and attacked by waiting interceptors. To totally do away with in-flight radar would give rise to a degree and frequency of total surprise that was somewhat rare in the war. Dontcha want realism?
My objection to many of the notions to make radar more "realistic" is that I think they base their objections on falsely pessimistic assumptions about the scarcity and effectiveness of radar, and overly-optimistic notions of the willingness of individual players to sit in the tower and watch radar.
Ideas about making radar a little less effective, or accurate, are a different matter, but turning it off completely is no more realistic than what we have now.
What I wouldn't mind seeing is a sort of "contact list" that gave locations of targets, with speeds (GC folks can do the math,) approximate numbers, and altitudes (this information was available sometimes) where appropriate. You'd select a target, and ground control would give you a vector. You'd get vectors whenever you hit the "gimme a vector" key. This would be cool.
What I really *don't* want to see is complete blindness, which is what some people are advocating. I also am not keen on the notion floated of having no bar-dar below 500 feet. From what we've seen in this thread, the horizon is not as close as some would have you believe, especially with a modest elevation of the antenna.
-
I don't care how good, what side, plane or radar set they used, there was NO AWACs pinpoint radar like that which exists in AH(and WBIII), period. And to say that pinpoint inflight radar simulates ground control is silly. They didn't know where THEY were within a mile or so most of the time, much less every other plane in theatre.
-
Originally posted by Runny:
What I also saw was that WB has in-flight radar within 5 miles. What do you say to that?
I say that that was WBIII they were talking about, a more or less beta version of the new WB's. I also have to say that WB2.7XX does not have in-flight radar. Hasn't for at least 5 years.
Originally posted by Runny:
The story you told of the Dickweeds getting their mission shredded -- that story actually happened, hundreds and hundreds of times, over Germany in the real war. Bomber streams got picked up on radar and attacked by waiting interceptors.
You're telling me that entire bomber missions, along with their escorts were all completely shot out of the sky before they even made landfall on the European continent? Doubtful. Mauled? yes. Completely obliterated before they even made landfall? Bull. You say it happened hundreds of times? Negatory.
Originally posted by Runny:
To totally do away with in-flight radar would give rise to a degree and frequency of total surprise that was somewhat rare in the war. Dontcha want realism?
Please respect me enough to bother to KNOW my position on something before you debate me. Read above. Before you came to this game, (last tour) we went for almost a week without any enemy radar (due to a bug). None of the scarey stuff you mentioned happened. Will there be surprise attacks? sure. Will your country be completely overun by hordes in 1 hour? Well, it didn't happen during the time of the radar bug.
As far as realism, read above. NO! this is not an arguement about realism, Its about GAMEPLAY fer cryin out loud.
Originally posted by Runny:
My objection to many of the notions to make radar more "realistic" is that I think they base their objections on falsely pessimistic assumptions about the scarcity and effectiveness of radar, and overly-optimistic notions of the willingness of individual players to sit in the tower and watch radar.
The whole war wasn't fought in the ETO, and yeah, it was primitive most other places.
As far as the willingnessof people to sit in the tower and vector, you don't sit there, you look at the dar between flights, at least thats what everybody else did in WB's when I played it.
Originally posted by Runny:
I also am not keen on the notion floated of having no bar-dar below 500 feet.
When you've been here a while (been here what a month now??) you will see the need for this from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, isn't the MA about gameplay?
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
My heart flutters at the sight of the intrepid Zigrat, setting us all of us children in our proper place.
HB I have been here over a month and I don't see the need for it, other than someone is angry their 350 foot sneakattack didn't work.
-
I like 350 foot sneak-attacks... ;)
-
Please respect me enough to bother to KNOW my position on something before you debate me.
Fair enough. Would it be churlish of me to draw attention to the fact that you've shown a similar unfamiliarity with my own position? I'm less worried about finding a furball, than I am about finding an intact base, a fact that I believe will show throughout my posting record, yet you ignore that. When I bring up "realism," it's usually to kick the props out from others' arguments, not to postulate my own.
You should be aware, though, that I'm not just debating *you,* as I'm sure you're not just debating me.
You're telling me that entire bomber missions, along with their escorts were all completely shot out of the sky before they even made landfall on the European continent? Doubtful. Mauled? yes. Completely obliterated before they even made landfall? Bull. You say it happened hundreds of times? Negatory.
Completely destroyed before landfall, no (though I'd be interested in hearing how badly incoming LW raids fared during the BoB.) Intercepted more than an hour from their target, certainly, and often. Badly mangled as a result, yes.
If the LW and 8th AF had had the sort of parity of strength and proximity that we see here, boy howdy, it would have been nasty.
The whole war wasn't fought in the ETO, and yeah, it was primitive most other places.
Not as primitive as you might think. Even in hellholes like Guadalcanal, there was decent radar coverage. I've been reading _Fire in the Sky_, and on page 504 is an account of an engagement by Marion Carl. Radar picked up the bogies at 147 miles from Henderson, 12K altitude, and detected the bombers turning back at 100 miles while the Zekes proceeded. According to another section, Henderson Field had radar before it had aircraft. Transportable sets could be carried by a gooney, and installed for 150-mile coverage.
But as you say, this isn't about realism, rather gameplay.
When you've been here a while (been here what a month now??) you will see the need for this from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, isn't the MA about gameplay?
More like three, though I've only been flying heavily for a month, yeah.
That said, I've seen the effect of AW's equivalent of bar dar, which is close enough to the AH bar dar that I can confidently state that it's unlikely I will see any such need.
I am, however, beginning to realize that it would cut both ways. Attackers would also be unable to tell which targets were heavily defended, and which ones were not. So, yeah, it wouldn't be the disaster I feared at first. I still do not think it necessary for gameplay, nor am I particularly anxious to see it go.
And, if I had Furball Island to flee to, I wouldn't care *what* y'all did with the 'dar.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
HB I have been here over a month and I don't see the need for it, other than someone is angry their 350 foot sneakattack didn't work.
I'll help you see my point. During prime time(evenings US) for a week, use the mission planner and your squadron or other countrymen or whatever (10-15 pilots), and attempt 2-3 base captures per night. Do not fly NOE, Do not use heavy fighters on all of them, employ heavy bombers. Do like we do sometimes, and roll from different fields (to keep the dar bar small). When you're done with your week, look at the # of success per attempts. You might get an idea what I'm talking about.
-
It sounds like you have a problem with the newer strategy setup then, unless you're just looking to take over undefended bases.
-
What's the new strat got to do with knocking down a field, capping it, then getting a goon in there? You up fer what I'm taking about or not?
My point (again) is the main arena, now more than ever is populated to the point that it's tough to get a goon into a field, whether it's capped or not, especially with the mission planner.
HT mentioned something several months ago that I thought would be cool -only having friendly radar in-flight (what we had during the "bug"). Something along those lines might be what we need.
Runny, either way you slice it, you keep bringing history while I'm talking about gameplay. I directed my reply to you because you quoted me in your reply, making me think you were talking to me.
No hard feelings towards anyone here. This is just something that I'm sure needs to be reformed. Not trying to step on any toes. We all agree about this now? :)
-
The newer strat being that there is a lot more to knock down to take a base.
Your main complaint still sounds like the fact there are defenders there, HB. Challenge or not I'm not going to see defenders as a problem, they are why I'm in MA.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
Your main complaint still sounds like the fact there are defenders there, HB. Challenge or not I'm not going to see defenders as a problem, they are why I'm in MA.
Somethings been a problem, FDB's only captured 5 fields this TOD with the C47. That's way below what you usually do. Why is that?
-
But then my playtime is well over 5 times below normal. So you could say we're ahead of pace captures/time.
If we should be upset by any reduction in field captures, sorry man, can't say so.
If you want my opinion why they are harder (I will agree they are harder), it may just have something to do with killing the equivalent of about 3 airfields, in addition to the extra hangars which were thrown in a few months back. Not radar.
But you're right, they probably would be easier if nobody could see. I still want radar.
-
Aces high is a game
I dont want to be bothered with real life work type stuff when flying in a game. and looking out the virtual windows is a lot of f#@%ing work. maneuvering to check blind spots, flying with a wingman to aid in checking eachothers 6, and chance encounters with the enemy all sounds like total Bulls@!#
external views should be enabled along with more radar for all enemy dots in all sectors along with each dot having altitude speed and bearing information.
the whole idea of realism isnt real important in a game and since this is a game and not a flight simulator it makes perfect sense that there should be nothing surprising in aces high. after all games arent about surprises or strategy, games are about shooting guns and killing stuff, as much stuff as you can as quickly as possible.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]
-
Killing airfields is easy. Its killing the airfield while cons come diving in from surrounding sectors because they see the one you are in lit up. Sorry, but it makes organized capture impossible. It's ok if you want radar, I don't care! :) But I guarantee you would do no better than 25% fields captured using the proposal above. Field capture and organized bombing are severly weakened now. Believe it.
---------------------------------------
BTW, where's gordo been? haven't seen him in forever.
-
lol citabria. Commander Rialbh would be proud.
-
Gordo is Goredho, he's too lazy to call the office and get his name back (or embarrassed, he's even worse than before). Come on now man, you can't seriously suggest we not know an airfield/city is being bombed to smithereens? :)
Careful Festbria, HB just got done refuting realism saying radar should be disabled for gameplay reasons, now you've gone and ruined all his hard typing in one big pout.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]
-
I believe Citrabria said it best :)
-
Actually fatty, I think this would be a good compromise in the MA...
Bar dar intower and inflight, except below 500ft. Dot radar in tower.
or
Friendly radar inflight (bar and dot), friendly and enemy dot and bar dar in tower.
and maybe some kinda warning syten that appears in text buffer whan a target is getting hit.
I think one of those would be pretty reasonable don't you?
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
I don't want anymore text buffer, also one of the reasons I don't want dot dar limited to tower.
I can see the argument against bar dars well outside of friendly territory, and even to a point bar dars for NOE close to friendly territory.
Once you get within range of a base though I don't care how low you are, the simulated people in those simulated cities and bases would simulate telling someone about it.
As for a normal/high altitude raid? I just don't see the argument that it should be able to come in undetected. Position, heading and all (I really think an alt approximation should be added too, but I'm willing to leave it out as a gameplay concession).
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Runny, either way you slice it, you keep bringing history while I'm talking about gameplay. I directed my reply to you because you quoted me in your reply, making me think you were talking to me.
[/QB]
Fair enough. I bring up history, but usually it's in response to someone's historical assertions. I wasn't talking to you at first (Ding Hao, I think, was the first person I quoted. You responded to that, and I responded to you. If I remember correctly.)
I'm sure my bias is showing here a little bit. Though I don't call strat players bad names, and I even take part in the strategic conflict at times, I care less for their style than I do for fighter-vs-fighter combat. So maybe I'm less sensitive to the greater difficulty in field captures, because I really don't miss it much. The less frequently they happen, the less I have to worry about them.
Again, though, if I had Furball Island to flee to, I'd have no opinion about all of this. Whatever you guys wanted would be fine with me.
No hard feelings, definitely. This aint worth getting *mad* about.
-
hblair lets put this in perspective... you started out by saying that 20 bomber guys organized a "mission" and because of dar and reading the roster you killed their "mission".
What was their mission? It was to pork as many fields and supplies as possible. They wanted to have a huge effect on the gameplay of hundreds of people who couldn't care less about their "mission" the fact that the attention starved sky accountants and bus drivers couldn't do it was a GOOD thing.
lazs
-
"external views should be enabled along with more radar for all enemy dots in all sectors along with each dot having altitude speed and bearing information."
Here here. I'm with you guys now as I've seen the light. I'm emailing HTC to ask they toss out gravity and give everyione a BFG200 gun. OH! And give us FighterAce glass cockpits too!! After all the black out/redout stuff along with spins and that stalling baloney only make it harder to have fun or play a game and it makes it damn hard to "chat" when online. And what the hell good is all that artwork and structural obstructions if it prevents me from seeing the other enemy planes at any time?
oops...forgot my :)
Westy
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
What was their mission? It was to pork as many fields and supplies as possible. They wanted to have a huge effect on the gameplay of hundreds of people who couldn't care less about their "mission" the fact that the attention starved sky accountants and bus drivers couldn't do it was a GOOD thing.
lazs
Yeah, and your point is what? Big organized stuff like that are put together to shut your side down. You ever heard of a reset? It's been programmed into the game since beta. The intention of the programmer is for one side to *spoil* (waaah) the other sides fun and win the war. You think people enjoy getting shot down? Yet you dare to *pork* their plane. The taking of fields and bombing of targets is just another part of spoiling it for the other guy.
Ya know, there's this little thing called the "clipboard". Pull it up and click on another field if your base is "porked".
:)
-
Hblair,
What of the times that have been noted quite often about gang banging??? You now one side (or two) porking the smaller country down to a couple of bases then vulching them ad-infinitum. Kind of hard to "find another base" to up from then.
Really when it comes down to brass tacks. I thnk some of your ideas are good, in the CT or SEA. I base this on the numbers in MA vs the CT or SEA. If the ideas you are espousing are such wonderful aids to game play that the MAJORITY of players go there then you have a valid arguement for forcing it on the MA. Until then, IMO, these experiments belong outside the MA.
I really don't care what term you use to make fun of other players preferances, (crutch, quakers etc) it is still their choice. They are the ones paying HT for the game and deserve to have their game as do you. If you did these things in the CT then both sides could be happy.
I think allowing the perk points and strat to float betwee arenas is fine too. That way you could have your perk planes in the CT as well. Not being nasty, but that would negate any reason to come to the MA so you could have your cake and eat it too. Would that be acceptable??
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
A few questions:
1. Have you been gangbanged within the last week?
2. How many times were you gangbanged?
3. How many planes gangbanged you?
4. How do you think they found you?
5. Do you think the gangbangers used radar to find you?
6. Do you think you might have been able to evade them had dot radar not been available to you or them?
Answer these honestly!
-
Gordo is a popsicle.
-
Geez, Louise! :) Here we go again. Round # 487 of the "dar" fight.
Runny - great book, Fire in the Sky.
I've posted enough here in the past regarding WW2 radar history and realism so no point going there.
Keep the radar the way it is in the MA.
Don't know of any pilot in AH that doesn't keep scanning the skies even with the current radar in place today.
A couple of things I like about the gameplay-
I like finding the action quickly which incidently doesn't equate to furballing.
I like the gameplay concession that gives the advantage to the defender with dot dar. If you're attacking and you want to get rid of the radar then kill it- either via the HQ or kill the dar at the field. I think this rewards those who are coordinated.
Tango, 1st LT
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
DingHao,
In answer to your questions, assuming you meant them for me since you didn't address them.
I haven't been gang banged in many months. I log off if that situation is happening in bishland. The TA is there to fly in if there is now where else. My usual option is to go read a book instead of dealing with gangbanging. I did the same when the dar used to be down for a lengthy time as well.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Originally posted by dtango:
I like the gameplay concession that gives the advantage to the defender with dot dar. If you're attacking and you want to get rid of the radar then kill it- either via the HQ or kill the dar at the field. I think this rewards those who are coordinated.
Oh, I'm sure you like the concession given to the defender since you almost never attack. I can count your bomber and attack sorties on one hand. Hey if all I knew was fighters and furballs, I'd rather the dar stay the same too. Second thought, naaah.
Why don't you guys just post something like:
"I have no idea what it's like to try to take a field, but I really dig radar. We need it!"
Nothing personal tango, its just that almost everybody who loves the radar has no idea what we're talking about here because they never walk in the other (strat guys) fellas shoes.
-
HB :)
Wow, that's a little harsh- "...no idea what they are talking about...etc. etc.".
Don't assume that a low number of "attack" and "bomber" sorties as never being on the attack.
I typically fly the P-51 and usually fighter sweeps into enemy territory or field supression. It's great fun for me for the limited time that I'm on (if you're checking stats go look at the hours i've typically flown per month - under tango, or dtango before handle was changed) to work with a 412th teammate conducting fighter sweeps as we work together as a section or flight to swat enemy airplanes out of the sky in their own territory.
Furthermore, during organized squad nights the 412th usually has missions planned for field captures or deep bombing raids. Keep in mind that the 412th is also a P-51 squad which means we're usually in the fighters on these missions for a variety of purposes. And that's part of the fun for me is that trying to support field captures and conducting deep strike raids requires a goodly amount of coordination. I think the dot dar to the defender makes the strat element fun because it's forces you to be more coordinated.
Peace :)
Tango, 1st Lt
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Tonight I went to visit the CT. I saw that is already has diminished dar and reduced icon ranges.
With all the posts here asking for the same thing I just don't understand why it's empty almost all the time. I suppose the limited plane set is the culpret. After all these requested features are already in one arena there should be many players there all the time. I don't understand why I don't see it being used. What is it that requires both arena's have this? If the CT is already set with no dot dar and reduced icons, play there and you can forget about the MA. All you have to do is ask for increased implementation of strat and capture, if it already isn't there now.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Why don't you guys just post something like:
"I have no idea what it's like to try to take a field, but I really dig radar. We need it!"
Nothing personal tango, its just that almost everybody who loves the radar has no idea what we're talking about here because they never walk in the other (strat guys) fellas shoes.
HB, how long did the Baltic map last? Three days? Four, maybe? And you still say base capture is too hard?
I've taken part in successful, organized missions on Mindanao, fercryinoutloud, that ended in a base capture.
-
hblair... flying LW planes is starting to affect yu.. your getting kinda pissy and a tad er "disingenuous"... LW traits.
I see resets all the time. If they were any easier it would be nothing but one big gangbang at the next field. It's bad enough now.
Organized? Organized really means gangbang when field capture is involved. It allso means exclussion. You want gangbanging and exclussion of players who just want to have a fight. dot dar is helpful to them and doesn't hinder capture the flag near enough as it is.
Sure, I would like a dozen wussy "organized" players to have less effect on the other 300 but it's not toooo bad right now. I sure as hell don't want the LW and fluffers designing gameplay .. No one want's that!
But... I agree with funked... Do it in the CT and special events. You can't make them any worse and who cares about them anyhow? Just leave the MA alone or make the dar have more info like.... GV or ac.
lazs
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]
-
There's a difference between executing an organized field capture mission and half the country over-running a field and someone eventually running a goon in there. I'm not saying mission planner captures are impossible, just much less frequently successful. I'm not making this up guys, we as a squad average about thirty per tour (thats not an attempt at a boast, just letting you know Ive done a few). I've used the mission planner many many times. You have to plan the missions now oftentimes so the planes come in from different sectors to hide yourself on the bar dar. Is that something we want?
-
lazs, you can't push my buttons, so don't even bother trying :).
The reason I don't take you seriously is you can't see the big picture. There's more to the main arena than just furballing. If there wasn't there wouldn't be a mission planner would there? All you know is furballing. One dimensional.
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Tonight I went to visit the CT. I saw that is already has diminished dar and reduced icon ranges.
With all the posts here asking for the same thing I just don't understand why it's empty almost all the time. I suppose the limited plane set is the culpret. After all these requested features are already in one arena there should be many players there all the time. I don't understand why I don't see it being used. What is it that requires both arena's have this? If the CT is already set with no dot dar and reduced icons, play there and you can forget about the MA. All you have to do is ask for increased implementation of strat and capture, if it already isn't there now.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
The dueling arena is all setup and waiting for you furballers. No bombers ruining your fun. Yet it's empty, using your logic that means only one thing, NOBODY likes furballing, therefore you guys are all WRONG.
:D
-
Wow, Hblair...talk about a lazer-guided retort!
-
Hblair,
Your "retort" is ased on an assumption. That is that I am against buffs and base capture. I am not.
The simple truth of the matter is you already have the very thing you are asking for. An arena with no dot dar. It seems that the player base doesn't care for it and your not using it makes it a failure. The only way you could make it work is to FORCE everyone to play the way you want them to. Until you can make the CT work with your dar restrictions you are only trying to impose your wishesd on others.
You have the very thing you have been asking for, use it. Promote it and get those with your same preferances in there to play. If you can't, then perhaps it isn't as popular as you think.
Rather than just jab at and talk down to the rest of the players who use the MA just use the CT and make it a viable option. Hell ask for the expansion of the plane set and captures in the CT and stop trying to impose your opinions on the MA.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
I think Hblair has a definite point.
The DA, as is, is even less used than the CT is.
I think turning off KS would change that.
What do you think needs changing in the CT?
-
Mav, I'm going to type this real slow so you can understand better.
The CT is lacking:
1.FIELD CAPTURE
2.SCORING
3.A VIABLE TERRAIN
These things are the main reasons I do not fly there.
again...
The CT is lacking:
1.FIELD CAPTURE
2.SCORING
3.A VIABLE TERRAIN
These things are the main reasons I do not fly there.
and again (for the reading impaired)...
The CT is lacking:
1.FIELD CAPTURE
2.SCORING
3.A VIABLE TERRAIN
These things are the main reasons I do not fly there.
Do you understand now? Surely you read some of that.
And while we're talking about it, I never have been a big pusher of an HA, but if we cannot get the radar toned down in the main arena, and the Combat Theatre gets fixed, I'll likely migrate there. Notice I said "likely".
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Hblair,
Rather than just jab at and talk down to the rest of the players who use the MA just use the CT and make it a viable option. Hell ask for the expansion of the plane set and captures in the CT and stop trying to impose your opinions on the MA.
I'll give my opinions on the MA as long as I want to, why shouldn't I? You really don't have to read them. I'm presenting my case on why I think the radar is too powerful now. I try to do it in a reasonable way.
If HTC decides to change the radar, and you post reasons why you don't think it's good for the game, will it be ok for us all to tell you to "go to the dueling arena"? You ignore the fact that the CT is missing a lot of stuff, yet you tell us to "go there". Guess we'll just ignore the fact that the dueling arena is missing field capture too, and just tell you to "go play there" and quit posting your thoughts.
-
hblair,
You also ignore the fact that I saw the strat etc wasn't enabled in the CT. You also conveniently ignore that I suggested you ask, or lobby HT to add them to it. I also suggested you get to swap scores there too with the MA. I am all for making the CT simliar to the MA in game objectives. Now where does that suggest I am not sympathetic to your requests??
I am just asking that you not require others to play by the restricted options you promote. Is that such a horrid thought? By having the CT as YOU like it, the MA is still available for those who like that arena as well.
You get what you want and the others, me included, get what we want. WTF is wrong with that?????
Finally why the hell are you making this so damn personal?
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Maverick ]
-
Originally posted by Citabria:
after all games arent about surprises or strategy, games are about shooting guns and killing stuff, as much stuff as you can as quickly as possible.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]
I think Nintendo would be less expensive than paying $14.95/month. All the shoot-em-up games you can handle. You can learn where the bad guys are hiding after awhile, so no surprises. (Yawn)That's why you can rent the games - they get BORING.
-
hblair... capture the flag is one dimensional and kinda dorky (I mean, try to explain the "strat" and it's elements to someone who doesn't know about the game but is a WWII fan).
furballs are everchanging. the further you stray from furballs in the game the further you stray from the games realistic elments.... realistic flight models, realistic gunnery and realistic damage modeles. It's realy quite simple. The icons are a substitute for the better visuals we would have in a real invoronment and the dar is a substitute for someone talking to you on the radio (a job no one wants and would be impossible i would think to do). surprise is pathetic... I mean, i'll take the kill but it is no substitute for a real fight.
lazs
-
Mav, I acknowledge that you enjoy the main arena as it is now. Can you acknowledge that I would like to see the MA radar toned down? You can disagree with that of course, but isn't it ok with you if I want that? We can agree to disagree.
I'm not getting persnal, you just seem to ignore points that are made and just keep posting that we go to the CT and ask for the things there. I may not want to go to the CT. :) BTW, I started a thread in the CT forum a couple days ago about the lack of things there.
Mav, I know you're a good guy, I have nothing against you, we just disagree about some things on an online game. Now lazs on the other hand has obviously missed a few dosages of geritol.
-
Still fighting this fight eh HB? :) Gotta give you credit for never giving up.
Funked....... the ones who don`t want it & never experenced it just don`t get it. What really sux is, most don`t realize the ripple effect in-flight radar causes. It changes EVERYTHING. With in-flight radar you are no longer in a WWII era fighter combat atmosphere. You might as well be playing Falcon 4.0. Nothing wrong with that, just not for everyone.
Oh, and one more thing:
No thanks. I will fly as I wish and not at the whim of some other player in the tower.
That statement blew me away. I am very thankful & appreciative when somebody takes a few seconds out for me while in the tower to direct me to friendly, enemy, safety, and so on. And I am happy to do it for somebody else. Communication & teamwork are positive things for a community and make for a great on-line experence. Wouldn't have it any other way.
-
I think those who have tried it are well aware of the ripple effect that having no in flight radar causes. the lack of decent action and the fruitless flying are just the obvious negative affects.
lazs
-
Heh, HBlair wants this, Maverick wants that, Funked wants something else, etc... etc... etc... <yawns>
Personally, I want a lifetime supply of Shiner and a debauched blond bimbo with a fat fetish. Oh, and make the bimbo a mute, too. Give me that, HTC, and you can do whatever you want to radar in the game.
-
Hey Gordo you popsicle!!! :)