SAVE ACES HIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Schen]

Thats true but they started on mortal combat back on any earlier consol, they have played that type before, this game would be new to them thus time consuming, if its not instantly gratifying they will leave.

Edit. For example Titanfall on the xbox 1 was easy for me to play, it was instantly fun as I was ahead of the curve, but they had ai bots/ supper easy to kill so someone never having played a fps could jump in and feel like they did good ( also ur guaranteed a titan.) Thus its imieddiatly satisfying, name something Ah has that a noob could be instantly having fun, ps titanfall had a tutorial you had to play for ah does not have that

[PJ_Godzilla]

Do we need an entry-level arcade to subsidize the operation so that we hoary denizens can lurk in some kind of inner apple..., er, sanctum?

[Oldman731]

PJ, I remember flying with my Dad when I was younger and seeing another Cessna crossing right to left in front of us. It was over one nautical mile away. To me, it looked so big and near I was afraid we were going to crash into it, and I yelled.

............

Edit: More on having icons vs. none
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254180.msg3135888.html#msg3135888

(Sigh)   There is MUCH more discussion on icons over the years. In contrast to your example, a few weeks ago I was flying near a local VOR. I happened to spot a PA28 perhaps a mile away and maybe 500 feet above me.  He banked towards me and descended a bit in the turn. Ultimately I had to nose down to miss him. I'm sure he never saw me.

Many people with computers of varying capability have been able to successfully fly in the AvA no-enemy-icon arena for years. Most of them believe it is a far better rendition of flying than the full icon environment. Perhaps we are all wrong, but real world tactics that make no sense in the MAs - rolling to keep your enemy in sight even if you're fighting torque, break turning to fly beneath your pursuer come to mind - suddenly do make sense.

That said, I am  not sure that making the game more difficult will help attract new players.

- oldman

[PJ_Godzilla]

No, indeed... We need to think more like a pusher. The two-week trial is a decent idea, but the beginner needs some fast food. We need a dumbed-down WT style starter kit for people, one where most of the setup decisions are canned. The no icon thing is a discussion amongst the graybeards.

That said, old man, my experience, limited though it was, says AvA no-icon was a significantly more interesting and exciting experience. And yes, losing your enemy down there in the weeds was a viable disengagement tactic. Even the camo becomes more significant when you're not carrying a big red billboard around.

[guncrasher]

I have gone to the ava many times over the years since I joined.  I have never been able to spot the airplanes untill they're almost next to me.  I have missed them from 200 or 300 yards because I cant tell the airplane from the shadow.

and I have a really nice set up.  a year or two ago some guy asked for runways on bases to have a better contrast than the background.  to be honest many players before had problem seeing them until perhaps 2k away.

get rid of icons and you will get rid of most of the player base if not all.  


semp

[caldera]

Okay, agreed: the term is insufficiently informative to be actionable. Let's try "overly informative". Does real-world visual acuity give you an error-free readout of the aircraft type and range and closure? Does it do identity: friend/foe? If it did, I wouldn't have read about any friendly fire incidents.

I've played sans icon. AvA had it as convention. What I'd like to know: how much information is "lost" at the same distance, RL to monitor. I ask because, once within about 3k, it was usually pretty easy to identify type and direction. I'm certain there is some loss. Perhaps an A:B comparison is in order comparing, perhaps an analog shot to a screen cap, both from the same perspective and distance.

The other substitution I could make: too large and format-challenged... but that's more style than function - but can become a function issue when many icons are in close proximity.

If you must have icons, a progressive one would be a better choice.  For example, if IFF and type don't become apparent until 3k, then have that info light at 3k, etc. As is, I think the icons are depriving us of the fog of war. They should, ideally, only supplement the visual when the visual is lacking. Admittedly, the matter might require some additional study, but to carte blanche state that the icons are sound as is is as uninformed a pronouncment as calling them stupid (mea culpa). Indeed, I'd be interested to hear the rationale for the current icon setup and why it varies b/w MA and SEA (typically).

Those two, with regard to this matter, are kind of like two guys who claim to be Jesus: one of 'em must be wrong. So, forgive the shorthand now that I've given you the underlying substance.

Your desire to change the icons is based off a false assumption that the MA is a "war".  There is no command or official objectives for any side.  Leaving aside the argument of what a "realistic" icon range should be, the icons help people find the bad guys.  That's what the MA is about, fighting.  Having a war simulation is the job for special events and FSO.  The MA is about spontaneous fighting in whatever manner you choose.  Icons expedite fights.  I don't want to play "hide and seek" to get a fight out of someone.

You can call my view uninformed because it doesn't coincide with yours, but HTC knows more about making a game work than you do.  The icons work just fine, except for the 600' wirble icons.  That's a mistake IMO.

[BnZs]

(Sigh)   There is MUCH more discussion on icons over the years. In contrast to your example, a few weeks ago I was flying near a local VOR. I happened to spot a PA28 perhaps a mile away and maybe 500 feet above me.  He banked towards me and descended a bit in the turn. Ultimately I had to nose down to miss him. I'm sure he never saw me.

My Dad did not see this airplane until several seconds after me, because it was low on the cowling and not where he was looking. The sky is big. Then after he did spot it, he pointed out that we weren't nearly as close to colliding with it as I assumed Similarly, the problem here is not you were hard to see-the problem was his eyes weren't on you. Computers can't simulate this factor. And having your eyes directly focused on a virtual aircraft 6000 feet away and not being able to tell anything except "there be a dot" simulates nothing but legally blind pilots.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Your desire to change the icons is based off a false assumption that the MA is a "war".  There is no command or official objectives for any side.  Leaving aside the argument of what a "realistic" icon range should be, the icons help people find the bad guys.  That's what the MA is about, fighting.  Having a war simulation is the job for special events and FSO.  The MA is about spontaneous fighting in whatever manner you choose.  Icons expedite fights.  I don't want to play "hide and seek" to get a fight out of someone.

You can call my view uninformed because it doesn't coincide with yours, but HTC knows more about making a game work than you do.  The icons work just fine, except for the 600' wirble icons.  That's a mistake IMO.

The point about expediting fights is valid and coincides with some of the earlier discussion; there is both a need/want for quick engagement and for greater realism. The lack of numbers deprives us of variety even as you tell me the only way is the MA way. No. But I'll accept that, at least for the MA and, as you state, leaving aside issues of accuracy, there is merit in the use of icons -and for the reason you state.

That said, now where do I go for realism? Guess I'm SOL and that thing about my 14.95 and playing it how I like only applies so long as how I like is MA. FSO and special events only, I guess...

As for the second point, ht has made a fine game, it's a pity that its "working" a death spiral. As I say, changing nothing carries the risk that nothing changes. All that said, I'm now more than ever convinced that we need some kind of "McAH" that serves up fast and sloppy arcade action. This icon discussion is completely collateral to that and would only matter, especially in the terms by which we evaluate it, to experienced players. Noobs should have easy mode and, IMO, icons are integral to that.

You asked why I called them stupid. I gave you an answer mainly related to their accuracy. We're no longer discussing that, apparently -but that's okay. As a game mechanism in the MA, I will concede some merit to these.

Finally, I called uncritical acceptance of the icons as configured no less uninformed than uncritical rejection of the icons as configured. I didn't call your view unconditionally uninformed. Indeed, you've played this longer than I and clearly have distinct and discriminating opinions regarding the icons ( eg regarding the wirb and the game mech). I am glad to know these since they've helped me to understand the foundation of the case in favor of icons, even if I still differ.

Love the screenies w/ captions, btw.

[caldera]

The point about expediting fights is valid and coincides with some of the earlier discussion; there is both a need/want for quick engagement and for greater realism. The lack of numbers deprives us of variety even as you tell me the only way is the MA way. No. But I'll accept that, at least for the MA and, as you state, leaving aside issues of accuracy, there is merit in the use of icons -and for the reason you state.

That said, now where do I go for realism? Guess I'm SOL and that thing about my 14.95 and playing it how I like only applies so long as how I like is MA. FSO and special events only, I guess...

As for the second point, ht has made a fine game, it's a pity that its "working" a death spiral. As I say, changing nothing carries the risk that nothing changes. All that said, I'm now more than ever convinced that we need some kind of "McAH" that serves up fast and sloppy arcade action. This icon discussion is completely collateral to that and would only matter, especially in the terms by which we evaluate it, to experienced players. Noobs should have easy mode and, IMO, icons are integral to that.

You asked why I called them stupid. I gave you an answer mainly related to their accuracy. We're no longer discussing that, apparently -but that's okay. As a game mechanism in the MA, I will concede some merit to these.

Finally, I called uncritical acceptance of the icons as configured no less uninformed than uncritical rejection of the icons as configured. I didn't call your view unconditionally uninformed. Indeed, you've played this longer than I and clearly have distinct and discriminating opinions regarding the icons ( eg regarding the wirb and the game mech). I am glad to know these since they've helped me to understand the foundation of the case in favor of icons, even if I still differ.

Love the screenies w/ captions, btw.

I don't believe that the lack of numbers is due to the game itself.  A lack of advertising and a stale economy are the culprits.  The numbers were good up until the beginning of this economic malaise.  Since then, most people have less disposable income.  Also, there are a lot of free games that have chiseled away at HTC's already small piece of the pie.

 Now that War Thunder has such huge exposure, the numbers drop has gotten steeper.  Free with nice graphics will beat $15/month with antiquated graphics for most first time flight combat gamers.  That's got to be the reason for the AH overhaul in progress, keeping up with the Joneses.  HTC has likely been resting on their laurels for a few years and now are improving the look.  Hopefully, they are also stepping up the updates for planes that haven't been updated in many years. 

I don't believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the game play in the MA.  Look at "Monopoly", it's been basically the same game all these years.  Change just for change's sake is not always a good thing (see November, '08).  Making the game into a more realistic war simulation isn't what most people want.  They want to be pretend pilots and have pretend battles, not mimic the actual WWII pilot's real life: 99% of the time boredom, 1% of the time sheer terror.  Separating people into multiple arenas every day, with different degrees of realism isn't going to work when you have low numbers to begin with.   

What other game provides what you are seeking, btw?   Pretty sure the "realism" arenas in War Thunder aren't exactly filled to capacity.  Most want instant action, just like in our game.

[FLOOB]

Last time I played WT you had to wait about 10 minutes for the dozen or so players to join so that the "full real" server could launch. Half the time it never launched it timed out. The biggest reason WT has a huge number of players isn't because it's free, it's because you don't need a joystick to play. There is absolutely nothing in WT that I would like to see emulated by Aces High.

[kvuo75]

I like aces high. I want to "save" aces high.

let's make it more like those games I don't like as much as aces high!

 

[Tinkles]

I like aces high. I want to "save" aces high.

let's make it more like those games I don't like as much as aces high!

 

Exactly.


There are a few players who I have encountered who have trouble seeing even with the icons being how they are.  While I understand why some want the icons off for more realism or for possibly of attracting new sticks/more fun.  I think it wouldn't have the results that were intended.  IF you want icons off, then by all means, turn them off on your computer. While the rest of us will still have ours on, which gives us an edge, you can still have your realism. If that is what you are here for, it should trump you dying by those with icons on. 

[PJ_Godzilla]

I like aces high. I want to "save" aces high.

let's make it more like those games I don't like as much as aces high!

 

No, let's make part of Aces High more like those games I don't like as well as Aces High and have those parts subsidize the part I like. This is the time-honored trick of using other people's money to underwrite what you yourself want.

WT uses a similar two-tiered system with their arcade battles and their real world battles. One to get the sheep in the door and begin the critical cash-extraction process, the other to keep 'em there after they get tired of fast food.

[PJ_Godzilla]

As for your points, Caldera, I guess I'm not especially upset with AH game play mechanics either. I'm frustrated at the lack of players and the resulting impact that has on the variety of gameplay available. It used to be that I could go to AvA and get a reasonable no-icons fight.

Indeed, all this crap about changing the MA would likely be moot if there were in-game viable alternative arenas. This stuff is all deckchair rearrangement. What we need is to get the bilge pumps working. And its a vicious circle: no new revenue means less plowback into innovations and wishlist items.

Thinking of the WT comparison: perhaps if the "McAH" were free but offered only severely limited planesets and options latitude, we could entice the free-riders to pay for upgrades. This, of course, is a step down the slippery slope of the WT business model.. And yeah, when I tried it out, I bought some aircraft upgrades. I hated that HE51's roll characteristics.

[Wiley]

WT uses a similar two-tiered system with their arcade battles and their real world battles. One to get the sheep in the door and begin the critical cash-extraction process, the other to keep 'em there after they get tired of fast food.

That I've seen, that doesn't seem to happen over there though.  Any time I've checked out FRB or even simulation mode, my experience was identical to Floob's, and I've seen enough posts saying the same thing, I don't think that experience is atypical.

If this game updated the DM, all the graphics and models, went f2p, and made an arcade arena after a marketing push I have no doubt it would gain popularity.

I am also nearly positive the current arenas would lose population.

Wiley.