What is Vehicle quadrant??

[TDeacon]

Kilroy,

I know those comments weren't directed at me, but I would like to address this issue.  As someone who flies on all sides (rotating roughly every tour and sometimes switching for side balance), I have no bias for or against Bishops or any side.  Just yesterday, you and I flew together (with some other Bish players) and I think you know I contribute to my current side's efforts with as much enthusiasm for that side as I do when on an opposing side.  I hope you would agree that I have no bias toward you or the Bishop side in that regard.  So, I ask you to take a step back from the issue for a second and think about what I am writing here for a moment, before dismissing my opinions as heavily "biased" and therefore "not contributing to the thread".

As an Aces High Trainer, I feel very strongly that a part of my (volunteer) "job" is help people enjoy the game more. This is especially true when it comes to retaining more new players, which is probably the biggest issue facing the game right now.  In that regard, I do have very strong opinions as to what contributes positively to Aces High gameplay and what does not. 

The Aces High Home Page and the Aces High Steam page say it is a game promoting "combat between other players".  Players want to get into a vintage aircraft or vehicle, shoot at things and blow stuff up.  If they get to do that, the game is more fun.  If not, it is less fun.  When I help/train other players, it is so they can more effectively blow up more stuff.  The game is not called "Aces Hide and Seek".  That type of gameplay may be fun for some people, because for them "not fighting is winning", but it is generally not good gameplay and certainly does not appeal to a mass audience.

That said, if you want to spend your Aces High hours hiding, that is your choice.  You once told me you spent "8 hours sitting in one place just to flash a base".  OK, YOU can do that if that is fun for YOU.  But in the bigger picture, you yourself have described above how that affects the gameplay for others -- several people fly around, expecting something to shoot at, looking for something they can't find it (because of the no icon situation), so they land and leave.  Hurray, you won.  But some of those people will log off looking for something better to do.  Some people who log off regularly for not finding action in the game won't return.  And that is the biggest problem facing the game today -- player retention.  And I am not blaming you for that, I am just saying action retains players, uneventful sessions of hide and seek does not.

So, Hitech is simply making changes to his game to promote more combat.  That is a good thing for the game.   Things that promote combat are mostly good for the game and things that restrict/avoid combat are mostly bad.  (If you read my post in the Wishlist section, I do have opinions on other ways the "ground warning dar" could be implemented to be less " gamey", and I'd rather just see a small icon range change instead.  I'd encourage your feedback there, in fact.)

You specifically asked for a "moral reason" why hiding under a tree, virtually invisible, for hours at a time is bad for the game.  I hope you will at least consider this answer -- not in the sense that I am asking you to change how you play, but rather that you will accept the reason for the game-design changes.

<S>
Kingpin

The major flaw in your perspective is your assumption that the only possible "game" is flying planes.  From that it follows that limiting plane options by allowing GV hiding reduces fun, etc.  So far so good. 

But what about people who want to "game" using GVs?  Is it "fun" for them to realize that most times their GV tactical game is short circuited every time a plane joins the fight?  Of course not.  (Remember my deer hunter versus deer analogy; the best defense for the deer is to avoid the deer hunter until he loses interest and leaves the deer to its previous activities).  Such a person could just as easily "land and leave", and I know of at least one who has.  Further quoting you above, "Hurray; you won".  Now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it.  Think about it. 

What some of us are hoping for is movement by Hitech extending the scope of game play for BOTH AC and GVs, so a player can, again, up a platform, find a fight, get kills and land them, with a roughly equivalent chance of success using ANY platform.  If implemented correctly (big qualifier here), this should theoretically attract and keep more players (both in AC and GVs), and generate more income, to the benefit of us all. 

MH

[The Fugitive]

Your deer analogy doesnt work here tho. In the case of the deer and the hunter the deer is hiding to SAVE ITS LIFE!. We on the other hand are playing a game which by the way DEPENDS on players interacting WITH EACH OTHER.

Your game in a GV is to get to where your going and kill buildings or other players. My game, being an opponent is to find you and stop you from doing that. By sitting under a tree for hours and AVOIDING all interaction I believe your going against the principles of the game.

After all if that is your game, save your self some money and play off line. Nobody will ever kill you and you can roll base after base all by yourself.

[Kingpin]

The major flaw in your perspective is your assumption that the only possible "game" is flying planes.

Where exactly do I say that the "only possible game is flying planes"?  Hint: I didn't say any such thing.

The major flaw in your perspective is that you assume this is about promoting aircraft over vehicles.  It isn't.  It is about gameplay.

To give you a correct insight into my point of view, read these two posts.  The first is where I made the Wishlist post suggesting dynamic GV icons back in 2011 so that GVs weren't so easily spotted and targeted at long range from the air.  (This greatly limited the effectiveness of the Lanc-stuka which all but disappeared as viable gameplay.  You're welcome!  It also required more skill in locating and divebombing GVs because you didn't have GV icon standing out at 10,000 feet. Again, you're welcome!)  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,324051.msg4233738.html#msg4233738

Unfortunately, that system worked well in AHII but is flawed in AHIII due to all the trees, which now make GVs practically invisible to aircraft at the touch of a button.  The densely wooded terrain has also turned GV gameplay from what used to be large GV battles over wide swaths of terrain into individual games of hide and seek in the trees.  These are gameplay issues that evolve over time, not some conspiracy against GVers.

With regard to airborne quadrant dar, you should also read my Wishlist post on the subject before you assume what I am thinking.  You will again see my intent is balanced gameplay, not in favor of aircraft or GVs.  In fact, my opinion is that quadrant dar should not be available in flight.  I believe it should be possible to spot GVs based on short icon ranges, which would still require lower alt searching without having an airborne radar system guiding you there.  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390398.0.html

Perhaps now you might re-read my post in this thread without so many assumptions about my perspective.

<S>

[TDeacon]

Your deer analogy doesnt work here tho. In the case of the deer and the hunter the deer is hiding to SAVE ITS LIFE!. We on the other hand are playing a game which by the way DEPENDS on players interacting WITH EACH OTHER.

When a plane is overhead, I hide to save my in-game life, so the analogy is good.  WRT interacting with each other, AC-GV interaction was already adequate before the introduction of GV radar, given competent play style (...).  I certainly had no problem in finding enemy GVs in typical tactical situations, with the single exception of the nuisance GV positioned with the sole purpose of making a base blink for hours.  In that latter case, I just let it blink; not the end of the world. 

Your game in a GV is to get to where your going and kill buildings or other players. My game, being an opponent is to find you and stop you from doing that. By sitting under a tree for hours and AVOIDING all interaction I believe your going against the principles of the game.

Your comment implies ignorance of the full range of GV game play possibilities.  My main hope (and in the old days I could do this) was to take out my GV and fight other GVs, using my skill to achieve advantage, leading in turn to multiple kills, which I often could land.  Avoidance of AC was of course a prerequisite for this.  Killing buildings was mostly a way to generate opposing GVs.  Hiding "under a tree for hours" sounds boring; do you do that? 

After all if that is your game, save your self some money and play off line. Nobody will ever kill you and you can roll base after base all by yourself.

I always play alone, am not part of a squad, and could care less about the "war", let alone about rolling bases.  Straw man arguments. 

MH

[8thJinx]

Unfortunately, that system worked well in AHII but is flawed in AHIII due to all the trees, which now make GVs practically invisible to aircraft at the touch of a button.  The densely wooded terrain has also turned GV gameplay from what used to be large GV battles over wide swaths of terrain into individual games of hide and seek in the trees.  These are gameplay issues that evolve over time, not some conspiracy against GVers.

+ forty bazillion quadrillion mo'billion

However, it's not really anyone's fault.  How we color and brush the terrain simply needs a small bit of tweaking to adapt to the available AH3 tree densities, which fortunately is very very easy to do inside of the terrain editor.  This is a very easy problem to fix.

[TDeacon]

Where exactly do I say that the "only possible game is flying planes"?  Hint: I didn't say any such thing.

All I have to go on is your post, which implied this perspective.  Perhaps you should have composed it more carefully?  In particular you suggested that subscribers would leave if they couldn't more easily find and bomb GVs:  "... several people fly around, expecting something to shoot at, looking for something they can't find it (because of the no icon situation), so they land and leave.  Hurray, you won.  But some of those people will log off looking for something better to do.  Some people who log off regularly for not finding action in the game won't return."  Nothing about the benefits that increased chances of survival against planes would yield in terms of subscribers.  After looking at the posts you reference subsequently, I see you are at least attempting objectivity, even though I don’t think you fully realize the problems single (non-horde-with-air-cover) GVs faced in the latter days of AH2 and now again after the addition of GV radar.  In particular that “that system” did not “work well in AHII”.  The GV game was well on the way to dieing in the last days of AH2, and the new anti-elevation terrain changes in AH3 were just more nails in the coffin.  The only good thing about AH3 GVing was the increased ability to hide in the trees, until AC went away and one could resume GVing.  Even then, a competent searcher (like myself) had little problem with finding GVs, even prior to the recent addition of GV radar. 

MH

[Kingpin]

In particular you suggested that subscribers would leave if they couldn't more easily find and bomb GVs

Again, no.  I never said any such thing.  It is YOUR bias that is causing you to think this.

I said players who look for combat (ANY combat, air or ground: "something to shoot at") and can't find combat, in a game that advertises combat against other players, may be inclined to leave.  My post was talking about good gameplay.  You are trying to make it about "bombing GVs.".  Try reading it again.

[The Fugitive]

When a plane is overhead, I hide to save my in-game life, so the analogy is good.  WRT interacting with each other, AC-GV interaction was already adequate before the introduction of GV radar, given competent play style (...).  I certainly had no problem in finding enemy GVs in typical tactical situations, with the single exception of the nuisance GV positioned with the sole purpose of making a base blink for hours.  In that latter case, I just let it blink; not the end of the world. 

Your comment implies ignorance of the full range of GV game play possibilities.  My main hope (and in the old days I could do this) was to take out my GV and fight other GVs, using my skill to achieve advantage, leading in turn to multiple kills, which I often could land.  Avoidance of AC was of course a prerequisite for this.  Killing buildings was mostly a way to generate opposing GVs.  Hiding "under a tree for hours" sounds boring; do you do that? 

I always play alone, am not part of a squad, and could care less about the "war", let alone about rolling bases.  Straw man arguments. 

MH

Im sorry if I over simplified the GV options in the game, but if you boil it down that is all it is. The same goes for flying fighters or bombers..... find target, hit target. Thats it. Your "picking" apart my explanation shows me your only looking to pick a fight, and not discuss what you and some believe is an issue.

Kingpins post are right on. "we" all should be working to making the game more fun for everyone. This is what will keep other/new players coming back until they are hooked and can never leave   

[TDeacon]

Again, no.  I never said any such thing.  It is YOUR bias that is causing you to think this.

I said players who look for combat (ANY combat, air or ground: "something to shoot at") and can't find combat, in a game that advertises combat against other players, may be inclined to leave.  My post was talking about good gameplay.  You are trying to make it about "bombing GVs.".  Try reading it again.

You also said other things.  I quoted one of them in my previous post; perhaps you missed that?  If not GVs, what exactly did you intend to refer to by saying "looking for something they can't find it (because of the no icon situation), so they land and leave"?  The "no icon situation" in the context of this thread sounds like GVs to me.  Please don't gloss over this if you respond further. 

Remember, when you write something, you are responsible for implications as well as direct statements. 

MH

[TDeacon]

Im sorry if I over simplified the GV options in the game, but if you boil it down that is all it is. The same goes for flying fighters or bombers..... find target, hit target. Thats it. Your "picking" apart my explanation shows me your only looking to pick a fight, and not discuss what you and some believe is an issue.

Kingpins post are right on. "we" all should be working to making the game more fun for everyone. This is what will keep other/new players coming back until they are hooked and can never leave 

"find target, hit target" may well be what AH has become, I grant you.  However, it doesn't have to be that way.  Clearly stealth is a major factor, both in real-world military situations, and also in historical gaming.  You have to admit that. 

BTW, my taking your statement piece by piece, and responding to each, is an attempt at a rational response.  A large block of text tends to be ignored. 

Finally, I am very much interested in making the game more fun for everyone, and if you look at my recent posts in this thread and others, you have to admit that I have said this several times.  The main issue between us seems to be that your AH gaming experiences and mine are divergent, probably because I have done a lot a GVing in the last 5 years.  (My 15-year-old PC didn't allow much else). 

MH

[Kingpin]

"find target, hit target" may well be what AH has become

"Find target, hit target" is at the core of all PVP combat games.  Without "find target, hit target" there is no combat. 

my taking your statement piece by piece, and responding to each, is an attempt at a rational response.

But you haven't responded to each point.  You've taken a single sentence out of context in order to paint my entire post with a single brush stroke.  First, you tried to say that I was promoting air combat over GVing, when I did no such thing.

As I've said numerous times now, the crux of my point is that uneventful games of hide and seek are not good gameplay while player vs. player combat is good gameplay.  Yes, stealth should be a PART of the experience, but it should not be the core gameplay.

The opposing argument to mine is that that hiding is good gameplay. If you feel that the game should be more about hiding than fighting, then please make that argument.

[TDeacon]

"Find target, hit target" is at the core of all PVP combat games.  Without "find target, hit target" there is no combat. 

But you haven't responded to each point.  You've taken a single sentence out of context in order to paint my entire post with a single brush stroke.  First, you tried to say that I was promoting air combat over GVing, when I did no such thing.

As I've said numerous times now, the crux of my point is that uneventful games of hide and seek are not good gameplay while player vs. player combat is good gameplay.  Yes, stealth should be a PART of the experience, but it should not be the core gameplay.

The opposing argument to mine is that that hiding is good gameplay. If you feel that the game should be more about hiding than fighting, then please make that argument.

You're wearing me out Kingpin; I'll respond tomorrow.  FYI, the responses you are now criticizing were not made to you, but to Fugi.  Please re-read the post they were in.  Good night.  MH

[+Kilroy+]

Way to bury our differences and find a solution. If you represent HTC, you probably need to listen more and opin less (Kingpin). You sir, should be the one screaming STOP ARGUING, not me. Why is it so dam important to be right?

Thanks to all this bickering, HiTech has gone and turned the thing off, except in gv's which he didn't really design it for and I for one would like to help him realize his goal when he created it. I don't want a directional indicator of my position, but something that increases interaction would be good.

I still think an omnidirectional indicator is best and I think the range should be very great, but not from airfield to spawn point, a flashing field already provides an intruder alert.

[Kingpin]

You sir, should be the one screaming STOP ARGUING, not me.

I wasn't arguing, as that is pointless.  I expressed an opinion of what I think is good for gameplay and when he misquoted me as saying the game is only about aircraft combat, I correct that.

I don't want a directional indicator of my position, but something that increases interaction would be good.

Then we are in agreement on this.  I'm glad.

p.s. I am just a volunteer trainer and player of the game.  I formulate my opinions the same as anyone else and simply try to offer what I think are realistic solutions to gameplay issues that are best for everyone.  I don't "represent HTC" in that sense and am not privy to their decision-making process, so I would not speculate as to why specific changes are made.  One of the nice things about HTC is they take an active interest in the game and it continues to evolve.  Given time, I'm sure a good system will shake out in a form that everyone can live with.

<S>

[+Kilroy+]

You sir, should be the one screaming STOP ARGUING, not me. Why is it so dam important to be right?

I wasn't arguing, as that is pointless.

No argument there, huh.

 If I were representing someone, I would make dam sure my personal opinions were expressed completely separately from the reputation, experience and perspective of that someone's appointed trainer. Kind of like not kneeling during the National Anthem. It's a free country (here) and I hope you will do as you please.
 In your "post script," you might try to stay on topic. It is about quadrant radar and it's relative merits. If you have anything  meaningful to contribute on that subject, particularly in relation to the current condition and recent developments, I and probably countless others would be eager to see it.

EDIT:

Please remove GV radar from GV's immediately. Allowing GV radar in GV's totally removes the fight/move/fight doctrine of lighter, smaller tanks. All someone has to do it up the biggest, heaviest perk tank and keep the front end pointed toward the opponent. I just watched a Jagdpanzer follow the quadrant axis lines and turn 90 degrees as his path crossed my lateral position, this destroys the hunting aspect of game.
 Example: I am attacking an airfield providing offensive support to vehicles reducing the town. I have taken up a position at the edge of the airfield, between town and VH and I am targeting tanks as they head to town. I am alerted to the presence of a Panzer and notice that it is a Jag, from that distance he starts ranging me, from which I have no defense in my T-34. So I start up and retreat to the tree line and take up a position to intercept him as he approaches town. Of course he turns directly toward my well concealed position and my shot into his lower skirt, the most vulnerable shot I had, did nothing. A Jagdpanzer is a ranging tank, never intended for close in work or hunting, but it is certainly cheaper than a Tiger II when quadrant radar makes up the the Jag's deficiencies. I would also have had the kill shot on a T2 as it went by. With this thing, why bother having trees at all except to slow us down. Something candy for the pilots to see.

 Now you have taken a situation where high ENY forces asymmetric game play and you have exaggerated this imbalance by augmenting the perk tanks. I am never in favor of augmenting perk tanks because I never use them myself. I am already good enough and so are they.

EDITED AGAIN...

 Ok, how about disabling it within 1000'? If currently the range is 6k and it goes off at 1k, that should bring plenty of targets my way...