Author Topic: Feature Request (Read 1297 times)

vorticon · « **Reply #30 on:** January 05, 2004, 10:09:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Hehe ... you apparently aren't familiar with my past dealings with Lazs. Or are you?

ive had my own dealings with him...the thing is he always uses the same arguments...though ive only gotten past em once

Quote

The CT needs some of the tools already being used locked down.

how so???

Arlo · « **Reply #31 on:** January 05, 2004, 10:19:09 PM »

I've seen the "balancing game" there too often. It usually involves all sorts of softening here and hardening there and limiting this and that for all sorts of unusual reasons that involve bias on the "balance master's" part. It really isn't the tool's fault. But it's easier to control the giving of the tool than the fool using it.

IMO

vorticon · « **Reply #32 on:** January 06, 2004, 10:11:51 AM »

Quote

But it's easier to control the giving of the tool than the fool using it.

you know that is exactly the entire anti-gun lobbys point....now back on topic

so your worried about misuse of the tool...but in the same way that it can be misused it can be used to make it a bit more realistic...such as early war setup...but planes still carrying bombloads that were NOT available during that time...and it would be THIS tool to be used to "balance" than to make things unrealistictly harder/softer...

Arlo · « **Reply #33 on:** January 06, 2004, 12:45:41 PM »

Never said otherwise. My argument against it has always been that the people using it won't know what they're doing.

The irony of it all is that my online sim roots involve a great deal of player controlled events where all of us wished we had more options to work with. We were a group that worked hard to push the boundries of the game and offer something new. And I still campaign for trying new ideas including skinning/subbing, etc. Yet my experiences in the CT has revealed that some people really have no business tweaking the game either due to incompetence or bias. I certainly don't want them to have even more settings to muck around with when they don't really know what they're doing with the ones they already have access to.

That being the case ... if there's already a way to acheive the goal claimed to be the benefit of coding yet another setting tweak, why not just use that instead? If the argument is players flying bomber escort missions in scenarios with bombs slung, make them join a mission that doesn't offer that option. If they decide to fly rogue in spite of warnings not to, boot to the head.

Karnak · « **Reply #34 on:** January 06, 2004, 07:52:47 PM »

Arlo,

So you're claiming that HTC modeled fake loadouts when they modeled 500lb bombs and 250lb bombs for hard points on US and UK aircraft that can carry heavier bombs?

After all, the Allies just always too the heaviest loadouts we have in AH, at least as you'd have us believe.

Oh, and before you claim they modeled them because they could carry those loadouts, even if they never did, look at the Tempest's loadouts. It could carry rockets, but it never did in WWII so they didn't model it with them.

vorticon · « **Reply #35 on:** January 06, 2004, 08:16:46 PM »

Quote

The irony of it all is that my online sim roots involve a great deal of player controlled events where all of us wished we had more options to work with. We were a group that worked hard to push the boundries of the game and offer something new. And I still campaign for trying new ideas including skinning/subbing, etc. Yet my experiences in the CT has revealed that some people really have no business tweaking the game either due to incompetence or bias. I certainly don't want them to have even more settings to muck around with when they don't really know what they're doing with the ones they already have access to.

That being the case ... if there's already a way to acheive the goal claimed to be the benefit of coding yet another setting tweak, why not just use that instead? If the argument is players flying bomber escort missions in scenarios with bombs slung, make them join a mission that doesn't offer that option. If they decide to fly rogue in spite of warnings not to, boot to the head

the thing is there is no way to acheive that goal in the CT currently...and if some people dont know what there doing due to bias or incompetence then they SHOULD NOT be allowed to do the tweaks...if it has to be learned who doesnt know what there doing through experience so be it...but that doesnt mean CT and SEA staffers should be limited in settings because of them...

Arlo · « **Reply #36 on:** January 06, 2004, 08:34:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Arlo,

So you're claiming that HTC modeled fake loadouts when they modeled 500lb bombs and 250lb bombs for hard points on US and UK aircraft that can carry heavier bombs?

After all, the Allies just always too the heaviest loadouts we have in AH, at least as you'd have us believe.

Oh, and before you claim they modeled them because they could carry those loadouts, even if they never did, look at the Tempest's loadouts. It could carry rockets, but it never did in WWII so they didn't model it with them.

Whatever you're smoking ... don't bogart.

As far as the main topic is concerned I'm saying the suggestion and promotion of a new arena setting to lockout fighter-bomber load-outs is unnecessary and ridiculous. Reducing options that are part of AH's game design, under the guise of historical accuracy and reducing "gamey" play with side commentary on how unfair an advantage the Allied fighter-bombers enjoy over their Axis counterparts can't help but appear somewhat related to a axis biased agenda. It wouldn't have a "universal" use. The specific example of how it would "benefit" scenarios has been countered with a suggestion that involves features already exisiting in the game ... that ARE universal in nature. Any example of how it would "benefit" the CT are already overshadowed by current incompetency in the use of arena settings already in the game.

And what I'm saying directly about your claim that the Allies suffered logistical problems and couldn't provide whatever loadout needed to accomplish a mission by the time late war fighter-bombers were in wide-spread use is that I find such a claim highly dubious. And your example of how the flexability of ... or even missing ... load-out options in Aces High supports your claim is beyond me. Do you really think the Allies would load nothing but maximum load-outs unless they were hampered by shortages? Do you really think because HTC didn't model rockets for Temps that that supports a setting to lockout what ordinance options they DID model? Please tell me you can rationalize better than that. Better yet, come back with some less than rare or questionable historical references to back up your historical claim. Don't try to prove it by guessing why HT modeled the game the way he did.

I hope that made my position clearer.

Arlo · « **Reply #37 on:** January 06, 2004, 08:40:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
the thing is there is no way to acheive that goal in the CT currently...and if some people dont know what there doing due to bias or incompetence then they SHOULD NOT be allowed to do the tweaks...if it has to be learned who doesnt know what there doing through experience so be it...but that doesnt mean CT and SEA staffers should be limited in settings because of them...

Ahhh .... but it also doesn't mean a setting that really isn't necessary should be added because some players think other players are being gamey for flying with the maximum ordinance their plane is allowed to carry. Maybe if there's a track record of scenarios being ruined by such I could almost understand. But there isn't and even then ... I believe we already have the tools in the game to handle such a problem ... if we'd just use them.

It's a tool with a lop-sided use at best and it isn't really needed.

vorticon · « **Reply #38 on:** January 06, 2004, 09:05:24 PM »

Quote

but it also doesn't mean a setting that really isn't necessary should be added because some players think other players are being gamey for flying with the maximum ordinance their plane is allowed to carry. Maybe if there's a track record of scenarios being ruined by such I could almost understand. But there isn't and even then ... I believe we already have the tools in the game to handle such a problem ... if we'd just use them.

ah ha...but we dont have the tools needed to impliment something similar in the CT...wich i have mentioned several times...while there really isnt a NEED for it...it would have its uses in the same way that the kate does...

but the realism argument for such a tool stands like so

some planes used 250lb bombs until later in the war when they started carrying 500lb bombs...to have 500lb bombs in the CT/SEA in a earlier scenario would be unrealistic...

or as stated by yourself

later in the war the axis had poor supply lines and thus were not capable of taking max bomb loads...and to allow such bombloads in a later scenario when they werent available would be unrealistic and therefore weaken gameplay

Quote

It's a tool with a lop-sided use at best and it isn't really needed.

lop-sided because it has the ability to be "balancing"...

if you still cant see the uses (and yes there could be problems...but no system is perfect...) i dont think you ever will and continued debate would be a waste...

Arlo · « **Reply #39 on:** January 06, 2004, 11:58:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
ah ha...but we dont have the tools needed to impliment something similar in the CT...wich i have mentioned several times...

I've stated why I don't think it's needed in the CT.

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon

some planes used 250lb bombs until later in the war when they started carrying 500lb bombs...to have 500lb bombs in the CT/SEA in a earlier scenario would be unrealistic...

Dunno bout the German birds but every Allied plane that's outfitted to carry the 1k bomb carried them from day 1.

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon

later in the war the axis had poor supply lines and thus were not capable of taking max bomb loads...and to allow such bombloads in a later scenario when they werent available would be unrealistic and therefore weaken gameplay

Really? Is this a fact? If so .. would it affect all axis planes? Three quarters? Half? How does this tool reflect that?

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon

lop-sided because it has the ability to be "balancing"...

You and I know that "balancing" is more often opinion than fact.

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon

if you still cant see the uses (and yes there could be problems...but no system is perfect...) i dont think you ever will and continued debate would be a waste...

You're probably right but it was still fun dis-cussing (hehe - ptp) Maybe there's a different argument that'll convince me in the future. Or if I run across anything that changes my mind, I'll post it.

vorticon · « **Reply #40 on:** January 07, 2004, 11:56:12 AM »

Quote

You're probably right but it was still fun dis-cussing (hehe - ptp) Maybe there's a different argument that'll convince me in the future. Or if I run across anything that changes my mind, I'll post it.

~~agreed~~

Sway · « **Reply #41 on:** January 07, 2004, 12:01:29 PM »

How about a hitlist, highlighting the people you want to stalk and kill.

Swoop · « **Reply #42 on:** January 07, 2004, 06:05:31 PM »

Arlo, how about this:

Next CAP frame we run you can CO a side and tell me exactly what missions you want on the list with what loadouts (within the rules that I give you days in advance) then we'll set them up, you can even heard some people to help in setting up the missions. Then you can wait a bit while I count numbers and shout at people until we've got em all in, this may take a while. Then off we go. During the 25 mins we're waiting for spawn window 2 you can tell me about all the missions you want on the board this time.......and set them up. Then the spawn will be delayed for another 10 minutes while I shout at people to get in a mission.......repeat for 4 spawn windows.

Oh and if someone decided at any point to withdraw from a mission after flight was enabled, change their loadout and spawn with the rest......I would have no way to know unless I spend an hour trawling through the logs after the event looking for violators.

Sorry mate but I like this idea and will be pointing Flossy this way since she's the blessed one who gets to speak to God. Er, I mean HiTech.

68falcon · « **Reply #43 on:** January 07, 2004, 07:06:13 PM »

Arlo,

Have you ever given any consideration to becoming a CM ?
Try it and maybe the experience will benefit you and AH

Arlo · « **Reply #44 on:** January 07, 2004, 07:32:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Swoop

Sorry mate but I like this idea and will be pointing Flossy this way since she's the blessed one who gets to speak to God. Er, I mean HiTech.

I see potential for the feature itself to become a problem. It may be simpler to use but it appears no more practical to me than my suggestion appears to you. Besides, players who purposefully break event rules don't seem as common as they may have been in the past. And the occasional transgressor usually makes their presense known after which their presense usually ceases by one method or another.

The example given of a player flying bomber escort with a full load of ordinance is pretty silly. I'd love for the opposing side to try this.

I don't see the justification for it but I see a potential misuse of it. If I felt differently about either of those perceptions then, of course, I'd be on the bandwagon for it too.

Incidently, I did, however, suggest that fleet cover during the P.I. invasion CAP frames load ordinance and dump it ondeck to give greater operational flexability between windows. With participation at it's current levels it's better to have such flexability without forcing the players to be locked into just one role (unless the frame rules prohibit it for some reason).

I suppose it all boils down to what someone* thinks is practical and necessary.

But if you think it's really worth *HT's effort and want to campaign for it, that's your call. I'm just the dev's advocate in this.

p.s. I know this feature request is obviously not related to the upcoming TOD but .... we all realize that TOD is going to be pretty much a mission oriented/driven variation of Ace's High, right?