Author Topic: CT MA hybrid, read before you shoot me. (Read 932 times)

Saintaw · « **on:** January 28, 2002, 06:14:51 AM »

I'm sure i'm not the first one to think about this, but...

Quite a few poeple don't come fly in the CT because of the limited planeset. It's a valid point I think
What about trying to have the CT have an "MA Tour", CT settings applied (radar, icons, damage/time, etc...) but with our regular everyday Knit/Rook/Bish setup.

I'm not proposing we throw away the historical setups we have now, just place this as a 1 or 2 week tour (rotate it with Historical setups)

Wouldn't hurt to try, would it ?

oboe · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2002, 06:52:30 AM »

In all fairness to your idea, I have to say the single most important characteristic of the CT for me is the fact that its NOT the MA knight/bish/rook setup.

I'm still surprised at the low numbers in the CT (350+ in the MA, 10-20 in the CT). It'll never be everyone's favorite theater (wouldn't want it to be) but its hard to believe that the CT doesn't appeal to 15-20% of the players at any given time.

You may be right about the limited planeset. I think the real test for the CT will be when they install a Europe late-1944 setup.
That will make available all the British, USAAF, and Luftwaffe planes that AH has, and there aren't many holes in that planeset (a few, but not many).

Eagler · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2002, 08:06:36 AM »

he has a point as it would draw into the room ppl who'd otherwise never enter and thus never experience the room's settings. I don't know what's involved in changing the room around but I think throwing that into the mix for a week wouldn't hurt anything, especially if it was advertised ahead of time on the bbs ...

More than anything, CA needs more ppl and smaller maps or smaller maps and more ppl

Lephturn · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2002, 08:40:44 AM »

Hmmmm... I don't think an MA hybrid would be as good as something a whole lot more specific. If it's too similar to the MA, then there is no reason for folks to go where there is less numbers. They'll stay in the MA I think.

I think the trick is to differentiate the CT, but do so in terms of planeset and historical setup, not in terms of difficulty. The important parts of this equation I think are the limited planesets, Axis V. Allies setup, and eventually small and accurate maps that go with it.

Sabre · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2002, 10:31:49 AM »

We've got plans for a late-era ETO on the drawing boards. 10Bears (Stalingrad terrain architect) was working on a terrain that would be great for it; but we may not want to wait for it to be finished to run it.

Sabre
CT Team

Saintaw · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2002, 11:02:07 AM »

WHew, managed to avoid all projectile so far

Lephturn, what would be the appeal ? Well, basicaly the "realism settings" (errmm...read that like "more realistic"). I was thinking about this when I saw the RR Arena post in the main discussion forum.

I've never played WB, so I can only speculate on player interest, but... thought (and still think) it's worth a try.

Lephturn · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2002, 02:16:00 PM »

Well, I think that HTC has the playability/realism setting balance just about right in the MA. As proof, look at how well they are doing with the MA.

If the CT was simply a more "realistic" (Not really any more realistic , but more difficult) version of the MA, I wouldn't fly there. Why would I? I don't think the "Slightly More Difficult Arena" would be very enticing to those choosing from the menu. If it's too much like the MA, folks will just go where the numbers are and the CT will be deserted.

If I remember right the Axis V. Allies arena was the really popular one in WB. THAT is what folks want in my estimation, and I can tell you that is the alternate arena I want. I don't want artificially difficult settings in there, although slightly more difficult ones seem to appeal to a small group. I want loosly historical Axis V. Allies setups were there are limited plane sets so I can see how my P47 does vs. 190's or vs. Ki67's and Zekes instead of VS. every WWII plane there is including other Allied birds. I think that is the appealing part of an alternate arena for most, drawing on my (wow has it been that long?) 5 years or so experience flying WB and AH and acting as a trainer in both at some point. (I first joined WB at version 1.01, flew for Gold and hooked up with The Flying Pigs.) I find that most folks really want to try out their favourite plane type versus it's historical opponents in various different situations, and that I think is what the CT needs to appeal to. Most people won't play an alternate areana ONLY for difficulty level, that's a red herring, and it's something only a small group enjoys in my estimation. Although slightly more difficult settings can sometimes encourage the type of more historical gameplay many folks are looking for, settings that cause other problems (like making it hard to find a fight) will only hurt the arena, and keep away those that are looking for a decent Axis vs. Allies combat arena.

Honestly, I think we have to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you propose. The CT needs to be almost the same as the MA in terms of difficulty settings, but offer different combat situations, perferrably in a loosly historical context. That's what I want, and I think it's what offers the best hope for a reasonably well populated alternative arena.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2002, 02:34:33 PM »

The thing that I love the most about the CT, is that when I take off in a Hellcat, I know my only opponants will be Zeros, KIs and the occasional 202 (or the other way around). Dive into a furball and you don't have to worry about 400 mph LA-7s and 109s.
When I fly in the main, if I have a choice of targets, I'll almost always choose the historical opponant to whatever I am flying.
To me, that gives it a greater boost of imersion and fun.

eskimo

Saintaw · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2002, 02:27:45 AM »

Eskimo's right had forgotten about that... I shouldn't post mondays...

Toad · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2002, 05:18:11 AM »

Well said, Leph.

Löwe · « **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2002, 07:52:49 AM »

This may sound a bit jerkish, but I dont want CT to be a 3 side fly anything you want arena for even an hour.The people in MA don't want to fly here and thats a fact those of uss who love CT have to accept. To be honest I don't get the whole dedication that folks have for the chess pieces in MA. I mean I see people saying I would never fly ROOK or KNIGHT!! Sheesh whats the difference, they both got the same planes.

MA is more popular........ Nothing we do, say, or promise is going to get a mass migration in here. CT will always draw small groups or individuals who will love it and stay around. The majority of the folks that visit will head back to MA after a bit. I hate it but thats the way it is. It was the same in WBs no matter what people tried, it was always the same. Low numbers in the Historic Arena, and the Masses in the Main. If we concentrate more on keeping the CT quality high, and less on trying to lure people in that just don't give a s*#t about it, we'll probly all be more sane.

If you want an alternate to MA. Open a AXIS and ALLIED arena.
Once Warbirds did that, they got people to fill it up, and it stayed full. It killed the Main however, and the HA "CT" was still how it had always been short on people, but long on fun to those dedicated to it.

K West · « **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2002, 08:15:45 AM »

I'd be happy if the CT was simply historically matched aircraft using a real world terrain. But I prefer an arena that strives towards creating an environment for WW2 era style air combat. And imo the way to do that is by reduced icons and limited awacs radar. Those are the only two settings that can worked with and changed by the CT team in any hope of replicating the combat environment WW2 pilots had to face. Reduced icon ID's (not NO icons) and limited dot-dar forces people to keep thier head swivelling. It promotes all manor of aircombat tactics while the set up in the MA does not.

Perhaps the solution to wait for HTC to develop more tools to help that out. It's one thing to have a hi-fidelity FM and graphics. I imagine it's a whole 'nuther thing to model the environment; early 40's radar, spotters and coast watchers etc etc. What we have now is infallable and 100% accurate. Quite unrealistic to say the least.

For those who would say "but who wants to have to fly for 8 boring hours without seeing an enemy bogy" well, all I can reply is 'don't toss the baby out with the bath water." Everything isn't black or white. Lot's of shades of gray inbetween and it depends on which end of the spectrum you like; realism or easism.

Westy

Pepe · « **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2002, 10:31:22 AM »

I like CT environment the way it is now.

Pepe