WW1 arena = Dr1 arena?

[Lusche]

From what I saw when I was flying regularly in there.

You had 2 or 3 really good pilots, people would gravitate and collect around them.
(As they lived longer that way) Until a point was reached, and the good pilots would jump to a different country.

And the process would repeat itself.

Unless you were totally rocking your game, or flying with not against those supersticks.
It was often very very frustrating trying to survive long enough to land a kill.

I think you are highlighting a very important aspect.
It's not only that some mission diversity can keep players like myself from being bored.

It also can give the majority of "average" and "less than average" players an opportunity to have fun, a feeling of "win" or having accomplished their mission even if they don't stand any chance in dogfighting. In the LW AM, resupplying fields, manning guns, driving tanks, flying buffs & goons, and yes: participating in that capture thing, can give many players a way to have fun that would quickly be gone out of sheer frustration if it was about "pure" furballing only.

[SCTusk]

I am completely unconvinced there is such a crowd.

The Skeleton Crew (in AH) currently consists of 6 members, and as far as I am aware at least 5 of them have only recently signed on to AH specifically to fly WW1. We are traditionally an Allied squad, and are hoping to track down more old members with a total possible 'regroup' of maybe a dozen or so. In addition to this I know of many more non SC from the old Flying Circus mob who intend to try it, again with more to track down who may want to have a looksee.

As for the sim itself, as already stated by others HiTech knows what he's doing and almost certainly has a good plan. The success of the product depends on the market, so perhaps my 2 cents worth will help in some small way.

I can only speak for a small group, but I do know that generally we like good company (tick), an accurate flight model (provisional tick), and lashings of historical flavouring (sadly, no tick).

The provisional tick for the FM is abit unfair, mainly it's excellent; our issue with the Camel vs DR1 has been discussed elsewhere. As for the historical stuff I'm referring mainly to the three country system and the availability of all aircraft to all countries. I realise this is subjective but to us it's like watching a WW1 movie where both sides (or all three sides?) fly DR1's.

I don't know why anyone would be suprised by the discovery that a bunch of people signing on for a WW1 flight sim would want as complete an experience (i.e. virtual WW1 air combat) as possible, bar the cold wind and the fearful wounds. So anything we can get, we'll take - including observation balloons, trucks and trains to shoot at, etc. But in the absence of those it's byo fun, and the guys in the WW1 arena are always a hoot to fly with (or against) 

It might be worth considering sending the new 'recruits' our way - I've seen another thread which mentions the problem of the steep learning curve in WW2, what better place to learn the ropes than WW1? Hop in, start her up and try not to rip the wings off, these guys will look after you. The more the merrier. I'm not sure what the chances are of being allowed to RTB with damage in the WW2 arena, but it happens quite alot in WW1. That type of behaviour is becoming more common, and should help encourage those new to the sim to stick around.

I can see that the majority of players in WW2 may not have much interest in WW1, but I think the two can co-exist simbiotically. I wouldn't dream of just 'popping in' to a WW2 arena (way too much stuff to sort out) but WW1 being so basic (in terms of getting into action) it should work the other way, so I think it has something to offer everyone.




       

 

[Airwolf]

So what would it take for WW1 to become a functioning arena?  I think some sort of small scale war with objectives would go a long way, but at this point I don't know if it is worth it.

Having a greater plane selection would also help....

[CptTrips]

Balloon busting, scouting, photo recon, zep hunting, Convoy busting are just a few of the possibility's.
None of them have to be tied to "win the war" or base taking.

Ghosth,

I respectfully disagree.  If those activities have no effect, no point, no purpose, no meaning, I doubt they will create a viable arena.  I can't imagine myself taking up a recon plane, flying all the way to some point, hitting a key and getting "you have taken a photo" message if it has no purpose, no effect, no reason to do it.

Play baseball as a youngster?  Imagine 2 teams out on the field lined up against each other just playing catch.  Throwing the ball back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.... Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing catch on occation.  Its fun for a while, and good practice.  But eventually, it’s insufficient.  So coach says, that’s ok, you can go run around those bases like you were scoring a homerun.  Well, you can “imagine” you were scoring a homerun, but we're not keeping score and no one is going to bother to try and stop you because it doesn't matter, but it will give you something else to do besides play catch.  Would that be enough to magically make it fun? Would that be satisfying?  Would you feel silly?  Can you imagine a whole season like that?  Would the players keep coming back?

Meanwhile on the adjacent field they are playing football.  Sure they have practices too, but on Fri nights they get to play a game!  A structured contest with rules, a variety of roles and purposes, a reward/punishment point system.  Instead of everyone just passing the ball back and forth, they divide up into a hierarchy roles each with their own tasks and purposes (blockers, rushers, receivers, quarterbacks, etc).  Now you have a system of interacting and conflicting missions as rushers attempt to break the line and blockers attempt to stop them..And quaterback’s try to avoid the rushers that make it through to complete a pass to a receiver who is in turn being covered by the opposing team trying to prevent him from achieving that goal.  Binding all this together is a scoring system that provides the reward/punishment feedback and persists a record of each team’s success or failure to achieve its goals over the course of the contest.  Nothing concentrates the mind quite like a score.  Now you’ve created goal oriented conflict.  Now you’ve created drama and intensity. One team is trying to accomplish an interacting set of goals and the other team is trying thwart those goals and the scoring system records which have been successful and which have failed.

So, by the end of the season, most of the baseball players have stopped showing up.  Why bother?  They’d rather go play football.  Not necessarily because they prefer football in and of itself, but at least there is a real GAME going on over there.  

So eventually baseball fails, and some football fans heckle “See, no one likes baseball!  Baseball failed!”.    Well, it was certainly setup that way in any case.

Regards,
Wab

[MORAY37]

Ghosth,



So eventually baseball fails, and some football fans heckle “See, no one likes baseball!  Baseball failed!”.    Well, it was certainly setup that way in any case.

Very astute comparison and synopsis, actually.

[Boxboy]

I am completely unconvinced there is such a crowd.  You're trying to say they won't play or don't already play AH or other sims due to the lack of WW1?

I don't buy it in any way.  ............................. ..........................
 

It appears that your experience DIDNOT include DoA when Hitech was doing it??? or you have a "selective" memory.  WWI in AW was a step sister with poor graphics even compared to the WWII arena's of the time, DoA was killed by IEN after Dale and company left, and there are TON's of WWI flyers currently playing the products open to them (OFF, Red Baron III, RoF, and a few more I can't think of off the top of my head) who are not playing AH, IL2 or any other WWII offering.

I think you are opposed to WWI for the same reasons you were before and nothing (for you) has changed, even though as far as I can tell nothing has slowed down in the WWII developement area.

[MORAY37]

.

I think you are opposed to WWI for the same reasons you were before and nothing (for you) has changed, even though as far as I can tell nothing has slowed down in the WWII developement area.

 Same reasons as I've stated repeatedly.  Should those reasons become false, I will readily admit.  But, seeing as there are currently 4 people in the WW1 arena, and ~500 in the two LW, I guess one could postulate I might be on to something.

Like I said, if you like it, GREAT.  Now go get more folks to subscribe and to enjoy it with.  Otherwise, it is a complete waste of time and programming that could fix the issues in the product that the VAST MAJORITY of us are here for, and pay for.  Get it yet?

[Yeager]

it is a complete waste of time and programming that could fix the issues in the product that the VAST MAJORITY of us are here for

Im here for the WW2 arenas (MW fan) as well.  What issues are you talking about? 

In what way has the addition of four new planes and a terrain so profoundly impacted the development of the LW arenas?  Do you have a specific issue that you believe has been impacted?

[CptTrips]

Nope.  Same reasons as I've stated repeatedly.  Should those reasons become false, I will readily admit.  But, seeing as there are currently 4 people in the WW1 arena, and ~500 in the two LW, I guess one could postulate I might be on to something.

Like I said, if you like it, GREAT.  Now go get more folks to subscribe and to enjoy it with.  Otherwise, it is a complete waste of time and programming that could fix the issues in the product that the VAST MAJORITY of us are here for, and pay for.  Get it yet?

Moray,

I think "a complete waste of time " is inaccurate and unfair.

I do agree, like baseball compared to football in this country, WWI will never generate the numbers that WWII will.  Point taken.  But there is a WWI enthusiast population out there.  Red Baron II 3D had an active, dedicated player-base a decade after the company that released it stopped supporting it.  ROF has made an impressive impact in the flightsim world even with all its problems and the controversy surrounding its security model.  There are WWI flyers out there that could be harvested with the right arena format.  

Perhaps you forget one of the advantages of the WWI arena is it gives HTC a testbed for technologies that are eventually meant for its WWII MA.  Its gives them a place to work those out before effecting its bread and butter arenas.  That’s a valuable tool.

Many of the things needed to make the WWI arena fun already exist from the WWII code and just need to be adapted.  (e.g. 3 plane Gotha bomber formation would work just like 3 bomber formations in WWII) Other things like some of the stuff I suggested (Shameless plug: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287993.msg3656065.html#msg3656065 ) while needing to be added, might have good application in the WWII world.  

3 tank formation (primary and 2 drones like the bombers) would be just as neat a feature with panzers as with the WWI variety.  

The Strategic Balance Point model might be useful for WWII special events.

Utilizing WWI arena as a proving ground for technologies destined for the WWII arena is a win-win proposition and far from a “complete waste of time”.  But for it to work, the WWI arena needs to provide as rich a gaming experience as the WWII arena to be viable.  

HTC wouldn’t dare remove all strat, bombers, base capture from the WWII MA.  They know there is no way at this point in MMOG development that their WWII players would be satisfied with a simplistic H2H mosh-pit.  Nowadays players demand much more depth and sophistication in their game-play.  There is no reason to assume that WWI enthusiasts are any less discerning.

Regards,
Wab


 

[Ghosth]

"I respectfully disagree.  If those activities have no effect, no point, no purpose, no meaning, I doubt they will create a viable arena.  I can't imagine myself taking up a recon plane, flying all the way to some point, hitting a key and getting "you have taken a photo" message if it has no purpose, no effect, no reason to do it."

Wabbit I didn't say they could have no point no purpose. I just said that those purposes did not have to be tied to winning the war. There is a difference between a sortie having an effect, + or -,for you or your country, and that sortie having an effect on winning the war.

There are many things that could be done, that would encourage people to participate, that would not necessarily have to be tied to winning the war in order to do so. We are not necessarily tied to the way it has been done before. We have the option to build from scratch here. Think outside the box!

Suppose a successful photo recon sweep extended radar range for your country for 15 min?
What if a successful Zep hunting mission reduced the enemys radar range for 15 min?

What if a balloon busting mission could increase the range or accuracy of AA guns for you country?
What if a player was able to successfully complete each type of mission and got an "award" or medal. Similar to the way landing kills gets our name in lights?

There are many different ways to encourage participation. There are many things that can be done. Because some of them were tied to "winning the war" in WWII does not mean they have to be setup the same way for WWI.

There are many things that could be added that would give many people something to do other than pure furball.

That does not necessarily mean we need the same dynamic war winning setup we have in the other arena's.
In fact endlessly rolling fields in order to reset the map in midwar is just about as dead as the current WWI arena.

I suspect it will bring little long lasting activity to the WWI arena.

[CptTrips]

In fact endlessly rolling fields in order to reset the map in midwar is just about as dead as the current WWI arena.

Well if you read my wishlist post you’d see I was never suggesting field capture.

Frankly I like your suggestions, but I don’t understand why they have to be mutually exclusive to what I was suggesting.  Couldn’t these activities have the effect you suggested as well as contributing points to a set of victory conditions?

Allowing a team to “Win the War” creates an identifiable beginning, middle, and end to the game play.  It gives an excuse to distribute victory perks to the winner (to be spent on cool stuff like zeps and tanks) , and it’s a good excuse to switch the map to another of the hundreds of WWI maps USRanger is going to make for us.  

Everyone likes to say they don’t care about “win deh war”, but I’ve seen some incredibly intense battles as one team tries to complete that last capture to reset the map in WWII and the other team throws everything they got at them trying to stop them.  Having an definable, achievable “WIN” criteria is a great mechanism to focus activity.  I’m not sure what you have against it.  It beats a never ending treadmill IMHO.


In any case, I think we at least agree the current setup certainly ain’t cut’n it.


Regards,
Wab

[USRanger]

Allowing a team to “Win the War” creates an identifiable beginning, middle, and end to the game play.  It gives an excuse to distribute victory perks to the winner (to be spent on cool stuff like zeps and tanks) , and it’s a good excuse to switch the map to another of the hundreds of WWI maps USRanger is going to make for us. Wink   

 

[bustr]

In the backfeild of each country have a supply train that starts at a primary hardened giant depot with secondary depot stops that then deliver by truck to the airfeilds. Take down the depots, train or trucks and you interrupt supply delivery to feilds for object rebuilds during that resupply period or however long the depot stays down. Maybe have supply trucks players can drive at any time to speed up feild rebuilding or from between depots.

Because the maps are so small, have artillery batteries of 6 guns that a player controls from a balloon acting as a spotter/gunner like the 8inch shore batteries. When in the balloon the zoom effect from there will be very precise and long distance along with using land mode. Give the player a machine gun. With the ballon destroyed a player has to use land mode the map and a spotter plane. The artillery can be used to shell airfeilds to knock out feild ack, fuel, ord and kill upping planes. When all the feild ack is down you can vulch until the supply convoys resupply the auto ack. Manned machinguns will be necessary on airfeilds.

The manned artillery can be destroyed and it will randomly respawn along a front line with its spotting balloon or several artillery batteries can be available with spotting ballons that will randomly respawn after the battery is destroyed. Manable machingun positions will be necessary. Make it possible for a spotting plane to help one of the batteries engage enemy battry positions. Say there is a combination of spawn points for the batteries where they can long range fire on each other. A secondary rail line could host a destroyable train gun for each country that uses land mode and the map or the help of spotter planes.

Another thought for the artillery would be like taking control of a CV. You can request an artillery battery to pack up and relocate if your rank is high enough. The truck convoy delivering your artillery would be fair game to enemy fighters and bombers. Once killed the convoy would resume its previous position ready to fire.

This would require bombers, zepplins and a few more planes for the stable. The primary depot and the secondary depots will need lots of destroyable auto ack to make them the hardest targets in the arena to destroy. If you want to win the map then you destroy the primary depot of 2 countries along with at least one of their truck supply depots or some combination of requirements. Allow artillery and bombing to shut down all but one enemy airfeild totaly for say 5-8 minutes. Give each country 3-4 airfeilds. Allow players to drive supply trucks from other airfeilds or the truck depots at any time to help bring airfeilds back up sooner.

I'm looking at winning the war as a static destroy some number of hard to kill fixed targets to be a refelction of the static nature of the real WWI. Winning the map would really be winning that offensive or campaign. You would get your football game complexity with this.

[Boxboy]

 Same reasons as I've stated repeatedly.  Should those reasons become false, I will readily admit.  But, seeing as there are currently 4 people in the WW1 arena, and ~500 in the two LW, I guess one could postulate I might be on to something.

Like I said, if you like it, GREAT.  Now go get more folks to subscribe and to enjoy it with.  Otherwise, it is a complete waste of time and programming that could fix the issues in the product that the VAST MAJORITY of us are here for, and pay for.  Get it yet?

Well based on the follow up posts to yours I am afraid your the one who doesn't get it, give WWI everything WWII has in the way of plane choice and strat and score and THEN come tell me how they compare for numbers.  You seem to want to have a contest where one side has its' hands tied behind its' back, then talk about the outcome like it was some sort of fair comparison.

[dedalos]

 Where are all the players that said they wanted this at?  

Further evidence that the customer does not know squat.

They are hanging out with the AvA (insert AvA modification) guys