It ain't the graphics that are bad, its the way the game is made

[moot]

No. 

Manufacturers make the cars (planes, vehicles, objects).

Then rules are created how the cars can be used- traffic lights, speed limits, road signs, police (the game rules, strategy, penalties, rewards).

If you don't like the way the cars are driven, you don't attack the complain to the manufacturer about the cars, you complain about the rules that govern how they are allowed to be driven.

In this case, AH2, the same person/company creates both.

So like I said, you're asking that players be forced to play a certain way.. ?   Even assuming that this wasn't wrong, how is it feasible?  It's fine to have an immaculate principle, but it needs to have a concrete way to be implemented.  How do you force players to play in that certain way (which hasn't been defined yet), while allowing them to have fun?

The OP is saying that HTC is painting better cars, repaving the roads, whatever; not addressing the broken traffic lights, roads with the wrong speed limits, etc. 

That's why HTC risked almost everything to attempt to make that missing piece of the AH puzzle (CT)?

Of course battfink.  But what toonces did is show that comparing the complaint about AH gameplay to complaining about an auto manufacturer is a false analogy, despite the applause the originator of that idea received.  Moreover, he is dead right that AH is in the position of being both the manufacturer and the giver of traffic laws.

Inaccurate because incomplete context.

[Anaxogoras]

I can see that, sure. Yet the nature of humans dictates that any new rules Hitech makes will be complained about equally or more so than this original complaint.

More importantly, if some new rules to save gameplay were put in place, the original poster would almost certainly end up complaining about the very rules he demanded.

There's no way to know, of course, but it would be human nature.

I don't think the traffic lights are broken, but I do think they could use some adjustment.

Inaccurate because incomplete context.

Care to expand on that?  Your laconic brevity escapes me.

[Hajo]

I see we have many pseudo-psychologists 

[moot]

Anax  It's not the brevity that escapes, it's its meaning [/hairsplit]

Forget the analogy and forget who's arguing which points... What rules is HTC supposed to impose on players that would guarantee a net improvement?

[hitech]

Anax  It's not the brevity that escapes, it's its meaning [/hairsplit]

Forget the analogy and forget who's arguing which points... What rules is HTC supposed to impose on players that would guarantee a net improvement?

Or to put it differently. The analogy is fine, but not 1 person that I know of in this entire thread has said any one thing is broken. No one said any rule should be changed. No one said anything coherent in any way except "Im not happy, and it is HTC fault, FIX IT!"

HiTech

[Masherbrum]

I was shocked when i logged on, and found this thread still open.

I'm not.   Dale is implementing a perfect point.   The 1st post thread should have been in an EMAIL or PM to HTC.   Instead, he was abrasive in his post, to the point of getting Dale himself in the discussions and continuing the arrogance.   Besides that, he never actually come out and says "this is what is wrong, fix this."   He just says: "Fix this HTC!"

While Saantana has some good points, they go out of the window because the OP should have been worded better in a Forum Post.  

[Anaxogoras]

Anax  It's not the brevity that escapes, it's its meaning [/hairsplit]

Forget the analogy and forget who's arguing which points... What rules is HTC supposed to impose on players that would guarantee a net improvement?

Oh, I'm not sure if there are any, but I think the perking ords idea might be worth trying.

I just loved seeing someone spout off a false analogy and get cheered on for it.  Typical bbs echo-chamber stuff.

[saantana]

Or to put it differently. The analogy is fine, but not 1 person that I know of in this entire thread has said any one thing is broken. No one said any rule should be changed. No one said anything coherent in any way except "Im not happy, and it is HTC fault, FIX IT!"

HiTech

Heres a fix to hording. Suddenly, you hit a no fly zone and get insta-death if there are more than x amount of planes in one square, say 1 mile by 1 mile.

[Shuffler]

Heres a fix to hording. Suddenly, you hit a no fly zone and get insta-death if there are more than x amount of planes in one square, say 1 mile by 1 mile.

So no one can fly there if say 10 planes are there. Even if your not in any way connected to the group flying.... hmm fail.

[Anaxogoras]

How about that pitch limiter for dropping bombs from the Lancaster and other heavies?  Or how about not being able to drop bombs from F3 view?  I can think of a number of tweaks to the rules that are both coherent and persuasive.

[moot]

Anax you've got the OP with an undefendably rude rant that offers only vague unrealistic suggestions..  Then a couple of people stick up for the OP, saying that his rant is the same thing as what everyone usually rants about but merely more rude, and/or a valid point since "HTC is responsible for gameplay".  As far as I see, neither points are correct. 
The first is wrong because the usual rants are players correctly (IMO) pointing at other players for playing a certain way (not gonna argue that one, but that's what it is - players are the major drivers of gameplay, not HTC), and so is the second because HTC isn't responsible for what players do.  You can't blame HTC for misusing or abusing the sandbox they've built (not when the mis/abuses aren't even defined, and could be minor - no way to quantify since not defined), and you can't realistically force players into narrow channels of gameplay and expect them to have fun with such restrictions (or no one has successfully suggested a way to do it yet).

And the F6 restriction to "realistic" angles, or bombs flying thru the compartment roof if salvo'd while pushing neg-Gs, etc, aren't what the OP was on about.  But since he was real vague, I guess he could no say that's what he meant.  Either way, the graphics had to be updated.  Ordnance disappearing with the next sortie's start and a number of other things I can't recall right now were, in fact, added to the game.  So it'd stand to reason that there's a good reason to not implement others as simple as these, like the F6 drop restriction, etc.

[saantana]

So no one can fly there if say 10 planes are there. Even if your not in any way connected to the group flying.... hmm fail.

Well, I was kidding you know. Intended fail in other words Kurwa!

[Anaxogoras]

Anax you've got the OP with an undefendably rude rant that offers only vague unrealistic suggestions..  Then a couple of people stick up for the OP, saying that his rant is the same thing as what everyone usually rants about but merely more rude, and/or a valid point since "HTC is responsible for gameplay".

No one stuck up for him or his rudeness, or at the least, I didn't stick up for him.  I even tried to prevent misunderstanding by calling his post "garbage."  What was pointed out is that the people bashing the OP were the same ones who often complain about gameplay.  Ridiculing them is entirely different from sticking up for the OP.

As far as I see, neither points are correct.  
The first is wrong because the usual rants are players correctly (IMO) pointing at other players for playing a certain way (not gonna argue that one, but that's what it is - players are the major drivers of gameplay, not HTC), and so is the second because HTC isn't responsible for what players do.  You can't blame HTC for misusing or abusing the sandbox they've built (not when the mis/abuses aren't even defined, and could be minor - no way to quantify since not defined), and you can't realistically force players into narrow channels of gameplay and expect them to have fun with such restrictions (or no one has successfully suggested a way to do it yet).

I agree with you that the players themselves are partly responsible for the state of gameplay.  I think there are a few small things HTC could change that might nudge things in a better direction without forcing players into narrow channels.

And the F6 restriction to "realistic" angles, or bombs flying thru the compartment roof if salvo'd while pushing neg-Gs, etc, aren't what the OP was on about.  But since he was real vague, I guess he could no say that's what he meant.  Either way, the graphics had to be updated.  Ordnance disappearing with the next sortie's start and a number of other things I can't recall right now were, in fact, added to the game.  So it'd stand to reason that there's a good reason to not implement others as simple as these, like the F6 drop restriction, etc.

I agree with what you say except for the last sentence.  There are many, many possible explanations for why HTC has gotten around to some changes but not others.  We are not forced into the conclusion that, e.g. HT doesn't like the idea of a pitch restriction on Lancasters releasing bombs.

Edit: Unless, of course, he wants to step up right now and express his opposition to it.

[moot]

1- So you're saying that being part of any discussion/dissent over gameplay makes it hypocritical to point out how a rude and baseless rant on gameplay is rude and baseless?

2- Let's hear em... The sooner they're suggested, the sooner they can be implemented if they're feasible and better than what we have.

3- Maybe he doesn't.  TBH I think it's probably a bad idea because nothing stopped a Lanc pilot IRL from doing that (restrict that because it wasnt kosher from operational POV, and you also have to do something about e.g. dives like the one that brought home a WWII spitfire with some ridiculous bending all over the airframe).  The problem is suicide bombers.  Neg-G releases should cause a mess OTOH, IMO. 

[Rich46yo]

Or to put it differently. The analogy is fine, but not 1 person that I know of in this entire thread has said any one thing is broken. No one said any rule should be changed. No one said anything coherent in any way except "Im not happy, and it is HTC fault, FIX IT!"

HiTech

Well we definatly need the Soviet TU-2s. Please fix it.

Sorry, couldnt resist.