Any rumors about improving the terrain?

[MarineUS]

(Image removed from quote.)

Perfect. 

[sntslilhlpr6601]

For me, it wasn't the lack of eye candy that made me stop subscribing. It was part of it, sure. But believe me when I say eye candy alone wouldn't do it. I'm an old school gamer by today's standards and I definitely hold gameplay higher than graphics. No, it was the lack of drive from the company. The lack of innovation.

I understand HTC's desire to remain a small company, I really do. I've seen first-hand how growth can corrupt. But I've also seen some growing companies do amazing things. And the bottom line is to be competitive in today's market and to catch the attention of the modern gamer you need to spend money on graphics.

I saw an air of stagnation with this game. And it no longer become worth the money to me. I love the gameplay, and I'll never forget it. But I can't support a company with no vision for the future.

[Wiley]

I saw an air of stagnation with this game. And it no longer become worth the money to me. I love the gameplay, and I'll never forget it. But I can't support a company with no vision for the future.

It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but why does it have to evolve, other than some platitude like 'evolve or die?'

Chess hasn't changed substantially in ~500 years.  Still fun to play.

The thing that keeps me here is the level of detail of the FM, and the open world and large maps.  I'm not a pilot, but I just like the way the aircraft here feel.  I can't speak to accuracy, but I don't know of another flight sim with this level of multiplayer that can have a plane fall out of the sky backwards.  That to me indicates it's unique among them, and logically seems to me to indicate the FM might be better.

Other similar games with smaller maps just feel forced to me, and I don't care for it.

Wiley.

[GScholz]

Just a quick comment on your chess analogy:

Old chess pieces:




New chess pieces:




Notice there's a big difference in... shall we say... "visual quality". I don't think anyone is arguing that the core game functions or FM needs work.

[Wiley]

Heh!  Dead on analogy, bringing it back to the point of the thread.  I guess my post was somewhat of a hijack...

I'd love higher fidelity terrain if it were implemented as long as map size stayed the same, but I just don't understand the people who see it as a 'necessity'.  Now, I might feel different if I tanked.  IMO the terrain is substandard for tanking.

Wiley.

[titanic3]

Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?

Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.

[ink]

Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?

Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.

first time I read this type of wish....its a good one

[Sunka]

Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?

Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.

Boooo  - 100   
This makes way to much seance.Please get your act together and get with the BBS wish list usual ,maybe ask for a sub, or a glider or maybe even that suicide jet rocket maned bomb thing.
 

[ink]

Boooo  - 100   
This makes way to much seance.Please get your act together and get with the BBS wish list usual ,maybe ask for a sub, or a glider or maybe even that suicide jet rocket maned bomb thing.
 

 

you got me

[Plawranc]

I think Titan's Idea is amazing.

we have a small community, hence we need smaller maps.

I think that making a map cycle a series of campaigns on smaller battlefields with greater detail. Would be a magnificent idea.

Hard fights, beautiful scenery and carnage for all. Whats not to like

[The Fugitive]

Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?

Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.

I'm pretty sure you can't edit a map like that. Any major change like that would be the same as just making a new map.

Making maps smaller isn't the answer either. First to get the "detail" people are looking for you would have to make it much smaller, like maybe 4 or 9 sectors. Second, look at the small maps we get now. They are much bigger than that, and the players are funneled into tight fronts creating hordes/furballs with no room to to get around.

I think thats why some of the new maps are so well liked, and also not up as long as many would like. The newer maps are more a long the lines of a medium size with lots of mini fronts. They have opportunities for a lot of fights along the fronts. The furballers have fun at one of the points, and the win the war types breach the front and grab bases at another. Unfortunately no body defends so it is a race to the end of the map. Greebo's map, and those other two colorful ones that were added over the last few years are always fun maps, they just never last long.

As for the detail, I think it's nice enough. I have just recently started running in GVs. There is enough to hide behind and dodge around as it is. If things were made more hilly, with denser woods/forest, you could hunt around for an hour never seeing another tank, only hearing them. With out spotters and such it would be very difficult to find an enemy. I thought we played this game to fight, not hide.

[SmokinLoon]

For me, it wasn't the lack of eye candy that made me stop subscribing. It was part of it, sure. But believe me when I say eye candy alone wouldn't do it. I'm an old school gamer by today's standards and I definitely hold gameplay higher than graphics. No, it was the lack of drive from the company. The lack of innovation.

I understand HTC's desire to remain a small company, I really do. I've seen first-hand how growth can corrupt. But I've also seen some growing companies do amazing things. And the bottom line is to be competitive in today's market and to catch the attention of the modern gamer you need to spend money on graphics.

I saw an air of stagnation with this game. And it no longer become worth the money to me. I love the gameplay, and I'll never forget it. But I can't support a company with no vision for the future.

Stagnation in what?  You expected to have your hand held and someone to show you all the different things a person can do in AH?  I think someone is trying to be overly grandeur in their attempt to say "I like eye candy and insta-action. I'm a l337 gamer!"  In one sentence you speak of "never forgetting the game play", yet in another you mention "gotta have dah graphicz!".  Sounds more like to me that you're playing WoP at the moment saving all your credits for an upgrade to your P36.    

The terrain is not just an easy fix.  Sure, there are lots of things that could be "improved". But the amount of time and money to get that done is far more than most of us hear realize.  I'd like to see more uneven terrain, the ground the tanks roll over is far too smooth, imo.  I'd also like to see ravines, creeks, rivers, buttes, etc, for the gv's to have to contend with.  But, it isn't that easy to just through in to the map.  I think there are lots of little eye candy things HTC could improve on, but when in the air I'm more concerned about the modeling of the aircraft than I am the eye candy on the ground.  Oh.. and I'd fewer trees on all the maps too.   

[titanic3]

I'm pretty sure you can't edit a map like that. Any major change like that would be the same as just making a new map.

Making maps smaller isn't the answer either. First to get the "detail" people are looking for you would have to make it much smaller, like maybe 4 or 9 sectors. Second, look at the small maps we get now. They are much bigger than that, and the players are funneled into tight fronts creating hordes/furballs with no room to to get around.

I think thats why some of the new maps are so well liked, and also not up as long as many would like. The newer maps are more a long the lines of a medium size with lots of mini fronts. They have opportunities for a lot of fights along the fronts. The furballers have fun at one of the points, and the win the war types breach the front and grab bases at another. Unfortunately no body defends so it is a race to the end of the map. Greebo's map, and those other two colorful ones that were added over the last few years are always fun maps, they just never last long.

As for the detail, I think it's nice enough. I have just recently started running in GVs. There is enough to hide behind and dodge around as it is. If things were made more hilly, with denser woods/forest, you could hunt around for an hour never seeing another tank, only hearing them. With out spotters and such it would be very difficult to find an enemy. I thought we played this game to fight, not hide.

Go back to split arenas maybe? Even better, each split arena is a different portion of the same map, if HTC could somehow make it into a dynamic map change, that'd be even better. I have my doubts but hey..it's a wish. 

Not necessarily more detail (quantity), but more detail (quality)  . Still the same amount of trees/bushes to play hide and seek in, just prettier.

Boooo  - 100   
This makes way to much seance.Please get your act together and get with the BBS wish list usual ,maybe ask for a sub, or a glider or maybe even that suicide jet rocket maned bomb thing.
 

 

[BoilerDown]

I agree that for flight sims the terrain doesn't need to do anything other than kill you if you fly into it, but I still think a good map would be better.  Nothing, and I do mean nothing, compares to AH-2 for air combat PvP.  This is THE flight sim I compare all others to on how well they play, and for customizable controls.  Nothing beats the stick set 1 to stick set 2 changing on the fly.  I can't stand other flight sims that won't let me use my hat switches in two modes at the push of a button to get the 45 degree up views.

I play Planetside 2 right now, but I HATE their aircraft with their mouse and keyboard controls, and you cannot look around and steer at the same time.  Yet, we also have ground combat in AH2, but the terrain lets it down severely.

This weird guy has got it exactly right.  I also play Planetside 2, and can't stand the aircraft controls, the aircraft "physics", etc.  Planetside 2 is still my game of choice at the moment because it does the rest pretty dang well, and it actually looks good.  And lets see, they've got a lot of players with computers that can apparently handle the requirements.  Many of you defending the ancient non-graphics have been spoiled and haven't had to upgrade your computers for far too long now.  Time for HiTech to stop coddling you guys and get a larger user base.  Don't worry, if they do it, you spoiled ones can play too, but you might have to drop a hundred on a video card or CPU for the first time in eight years.

[Weirdguy]

Yeah, I keep waiting for a proper multi-player only combat game with infantry, tanks, and planes with actual aircraft flying that requires a joystick to play.  The idea that "fighter pilots" can play using a keyboard and mouse is what is holding it back.

The games that do come out with planes in them are so poorly done it is a crying shame.  Battlefield and Planetside are terrible games for flying.

WW-2 Online was the one attempt to do it right, but we probably all know how that turned out (buggy as all hell).  I keep looking back at AH-2 and wishing they could just inch the design just a bit more.  The controls of the tanks are good, the simulation of the tanks is solid, but the terrain they play on is the problem that they feel like a waste of time.

The inevitable argument has always been, "This is a flight sim.  Keep the tanks useless, or better yet get rid of them."

I still am waiting for a decent combined arms game of air, land, and sea, and AH-2 is the closest to it.