Author Topic: Dar needs to provide a little more info... serious posters only (Read 2985 times)

lazs1 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:45:00 AM »

actualy rip... the no dar reduced icon arenas are the true "RR" arenas. I have allways found it easier to kill the "experten" that dwelled in the "historical" arenas. The problem is that it destroys gameplay by making it harder to find a fight. When you do find one, the guy is half assleep or hasn't gotten but 10 kills this month so is rusty as hell. course... if nobody were finding fights then we would all be equally rusty so it would even ut eh? What a fun arena that would be.
lazs

mrfish · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2001, 12:29:00 PM »

is 'sarcastic agreemen't within the posting conditions?

Citabria · « **Reply #17 on:** December 04, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »

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.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:05:00 PM »

Agree with Fester too.

See? more fuel for my current campaign to turn the main into "Relaxed Realism" and bring those who like the other type of play over to the CT (See CT BBS for suggestions)

There are days when I like RR (as suggestions by Fester and Laz have brought forth) and days I like historic. Be nice to have the best of both worlds! But not in the same arena obviously.

lazs1 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:07:00 PM »

rip... you wouldn't know what was "historical' if it bit you on the butt.
lazs

milnko · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:26:00 PM »

Laz,

I usually remain quiet to your posts because I'm of the mind "to each his own".

It's a game granted, but if we as a whole generally prefer flight model fidelity, why would we expect less from gameplay?

There was a very good episode this month on The History Channel about England's invention and implementation of radar and it's wartime application, it shows how very limited radar info was.

It seems a simple request and fair gameplay balance to have zero radar info below 300 feet. It gives a "surprise" advantage to the low level base attacker, but offsets that by the lack of "energy" altitude provides.

For a man who was so adament about a "realistic" 6 view for the F6F in WBs you've seemed to do a 180 concerning gameplay realism in AH.

lazs1 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:41:00 PM »

I actually have no problem with no dar below 300 feet especially if it would then exclude GV's. I will even go with realistic range for radar and say that it shouldn't extend past about 20 sectors or so. I would like some altitude info but can live without it for "gameplay" reasons.
lazs

Kieran · « **Reply #22 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:53:00 PM »

Now for a brief flash of lucidity- why would HTC mess with a formula that seems to be increasing the arena size every day?

I wouldn't mind less dar, but anyone acting like the life or death of HTC is hanging on the decision just isn't paying any attention at all.

aac · « **Reply #23 on:** December 04, 2001, 03:17:00 PM »

Laz if you watch the dot we have now real close you can at least tell if the planes are low or high. I have to depend on the dar in the goon so I have learned to estimate the hight of the planes by the size of the dot. The higher they are the larger the dot gets.

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: all american chickenman ]

Maverick · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2001, 03:23:00 PM »

I think dar in the MA is fine as it is. I can see where others would not want it.

I do not think that gv's should not give a dar bar for one reason. The ground situation didn't operate in a vacum. An offensive by either side was observable either by air or ground troops. To be able to launchg a surprise attack 100% of the time, ala no dar bar, isn't much of a ballancing factor in game play. Since gv's are already hard to spot without icons over 1.5k away they have some concealment. To make it unable to see any activity in an othwise sector gives them too much of an advantage IMO.

I think the CT should be modified to be similar to the MA in regards to scores. strat, capture etc. and then allow reduced icons / no icons and restrictions in dar. Allowing players to take their scores between arena's is fine too that way they don't lose any points going either way.

Adding more info to the dar would be overkill IMO. If you find the enemy are GV's and you don't like dealing with them then you can ignore them and hunt planes. The reverse is equally true.

Voss · « **Reply #25 on:** December 04, 2001, 03:31:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish:
is 'sarcastic agreemen't within the posting conditions?

I like the idea that lazs can post and restrict the kind of responses he desires. 'No descenters allowed.'

Fug no, leave it like it is. I don't have a problem figuring out whether cons are GV's, or aircraft. It's actually too easy now.

Sorry you haven't figured it out yet, lazs.

lazs1 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 04, 2001, 03:41:00 PM »

wow... u mean I can just make up rules for posting and people take em seriously.. (well except for that tough guy voss)?
lazs

Sabre · « **Reply #27 on:** December 04, 2001, 03:48:00 PM »

I think Rip's idea is spot on. Give Lasz the omnicience he desires (by way of all seeing, all knowing, all telling in-flight radar) and change the name from the MA to the REA (Relaxed Environment Arena). Change the name of the CT to the CEA (Combat Environment Arena) but add all the strat and base capture features currently enabled in the MA. Include rotating maps and the ability to win the war to the CEA. We can experiment with historical planesets in there, and even with a rotating planeset based on theater and time-frame.

This would truly be an interesting experiment, don't you think? I wonder what effect it would have on arena attendance (particular the name changes)?

Rotorian · « **Reply #28 on:** December 04, 2001, 05:12:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs1:
That's right... if you disagree then don't post.
lazs

You have got to be freaking kidding, aint ya?

Sachs · « **Reply #29 on:** December 04, 2001, 07:02:00 PM »

And while you are at it please include type of plane, speed, alt of aircraft, and whether the pilot is AFK and sex of known pilot.

Better yet why don' we just ask for the kills instead of having to shoot down opponents just cut through the hard stuff make it much more easier for you.