Author Topic: Combat theatre..a failure?? (Read 1345 times)

Don · « **Reply #90 on:** April 11, 2002, 12:22:22 PM »

>>Maybe a better question for this thread is

Where does AH go from here? or is this the ultimate? <<

I'm glad you asked that question

Answer:
Fix the current structure; Begin with the arena servers. Fix recurring bugs on certain maps. Continue development on scenario offerings; structure and scheduling.
There is no wisdom in pushing a river; it has a tendency to flow by itself.
I see no point in ballooning the population without an efficient server with which to handle the population. Stick to the basics, get it right first before moving on.
Btw, this is not the ultimate, not yet, but it has certainly established a fine foundation so far.
Finally, why worry yerself with such matters? It seems the answers to your questions have already been considered and are attended to by the creators of the game/sim.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #91 on:** April 11, 2002, 02:34:12 PM »

Touche Don

I have learned a good leason in this thread, I believe i was
wrong to suggest change. And I guess there are always
gonna be paying customers who fight against any changes.
Reguardelss of a CT rotation in MA or a even a technological
change of some kind. And youre right, why try to go for more
customers when they have trubble accomadating the ones they
have now. (I personally have very little problems with AH), but
I do hear complaints.
I guess the final outcome really lies in the imagination and
creativitiy of HTC staff. And I cant complain about that.
Everything i always wished AW had, AH has, and more!!

AKDejaVu,
I was always careful to make sure I was just voicing my opinion.
Some felt it ok to represent 400 MA people. I am a MA people
and i can speak for myself. I wouldnt rebel against attempts at
variety. that is my vote. I guess I just cant get the picture.

lazs2 · « **Reply #92 on:** April 11, 2002, 02:43:23 PM »

hmm.... a triffle out of context there eh hblair? I was asked what I would do to set up a BOB in the CT that would be fun and attract players. I used the limitations set up by the CT staff namely, axis vs allied. Certainly it would be a lot more fun to have an early war "area" that wasn't axis vs allied. I have remained true to my opinion throughout. I believe that even you can see that and are being a little dishonest here. Where is the 'wandering all over' that u attribute to me??

lepaul... you have kinda hit on the main flaw of the CT. Too many guys look to it as a panacea. The setup you describe sucks but, to a few.... it is the only one they like. next one will be the same. A few will be in love with it and the rest will avoid it or complain and wait for the setup tailored to them.

I hear talk of people going to the CT because of the "furballers" in the MA and then..... CT folks come in here and try to lure us in with the fact that, of all things...... They are putting fields close toghether and maps smaller!!! The very things that I have been called dweeby furballer over when I suggest them in the MA.

They ask for "realism" but think nothing of fantasy maps and fantasy planesets and substitutions and fantasy tactics and goals.... They have way more than their share of milkrunners and.... gangbanging or attacking from advantage is not unheard of....

To top it off.... they add a perk system!! What in the hell has that got to do with realism and immersion???? Where was there a "perk" system in WWII??? Poor ol Boyington flew some of the most outdated and worn out -1a's in the pacific. With "realistic" features like "perk planes" who needs the CT?? WWII as everquest.

So really.... what is the realism in the CT??? anyone?? it appears to be simply... axis vs allied (unless they need a substitution).

friendly helpful folk??? maybe at first but... that's wearing thin as a lot of these guys aren't getting their way or.... getting the "atta boy's" they crave. As can be seen... they are getting a little thin skinned about it too.
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #93 on:** April 11, 2002, 02:46:26 PM »

and westy.... yes, of course.
lazs

Wlfgng · « **Reply #94 on:** April 11, 2002, 02:52:00 PM »

LazsHole.. lol.

couldn't resist

hblair · « **Reply #95 on:** April 11, 2002, 03:23:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I have remained true to my opinion throughout. I believe that even you can see that and are being a little dishonest here. Where is the 'wandering all over' that u attribute to me??

On the one hand you say the CT style of arena is "blasphemous and lame" yet you practically live in this forum and on occassion give your input on what you think would work in the CT. Yet you feel the CT is "blasphemous and lame"?

Why would you be so obsessed with something you feel is "blasphemous and lame" ?

Yeah, you're consistant. Consistantly wavering.

Toad · « **Reply #96 on:** April 11, 2002, 06:17:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I have learned a good leason in this thread, I believe i was
wrong to suggest change.

If I had written what you wrote in your first post, that isn't the lesson I'd take a way from this thread.

I might take away the idea that anyone can suggest anything they want to suggest on the board. Many such suggestions have been implemented in the game, in fact.

However, such a person should be realistic enough to know that some people will disagree, particularly if the "new suggestion" is to force other people to do things they don't really want to do.

Very few people enjoy being "forced" to do anything, in my experience anyway.

There's nothing wrong with suggesting new ideas and there's nothing wrong with posting in opposition to new ideas. It's just debate, that's all. No big deal.

At least it gives HTC an idea of how some of the players think about some ideas.

Thanks for posting!

lazs2 · « **Reply #97 on:** April 12, 2002, 08:36:41 AM »

roadkill hblair.. tell the truth. My statement about what would work in the CT was in direct response to a Thread in the CT forum that was titled something like "how would lazs set up a BOB" or some such. I was directly asked for my input. Probly five guys asked for it before I wrote a word. I don't give a crap if you fail or not but it seems a waste of a perfectly good arena. It would be nice f it were a viable arena choice for more of us. I flew in the CT for a tank of gas or so and never saw a soul tho. Probly not like that all the time but.... why bother to find out? At best I will have a fight that has less variey than any I find in the MA.

some of the maps aren't set up for "no action" playing but they have close fields and are more like what I have asked for in the MA.... They get ruined by plane choice limitations and side imbalance tho.

The best arena still consists of 3 countries and no allied vs axis drearyness.

BOB is by far yur best shot at attracting people. It is one of the few eras where there is parity and action. Keep the fields close and don't perk anything and run the damn thing for a month and you will pick up numbers.... some of which will stay.
lazs

hblair · « **Reply #98 on:** April 12, 2002, 09:19:46 AM »

So you're for a 3-sided Battle of Brittain with all planes available for all sides? We have a main arena that has all that, but with a more practical terrain. Why don't you fly there?

That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard of, and I've been reading your posts for a long time. What's next? maybe we could do a 6 sided attack on Pearl Harbor next month?

And don't get upset. I'm just little old bald harmless hblair.

LePaul · « **Reply #99 on:** April 12, 2002, 10:17:01 AM »

Eeek

I agree with Lazs in part of his reply to me.

Look, without getting in the middle of a pissing contest between 2 skunks, I'll just say that for anyone jumping into the CT from the Main is really in for a disappointment. At least with the setup I saw.

Its a vicious cycle in that CT. Come in, don't see many players, etc etc...told to come back when new map XXX is out or new planes are out....come back, and told to come back in the future when XXX and XXX are implemented.

I keep coming back and going away

But I do wanna see these new maps you guys have been buzzing about. I'm not much into the Historical Scenario thingies...but I am pretty worn out on the same 4 maps in the Main Arena.

I'd go on about the things the CT could offer that might draw folks out of the Main...but that's fallen on deaf ears in the past....lol

As I said, I'll keep checking it out....

Lazs: Hope you had a fribulator handy when you read I agreed with you

hblair · « **Reply #100 on:** April 12, 2002, 10:52:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul earlier in this thread
I'd go on about the things the CT could offer that might draw folks out of the Main...but that's fallen on deaf ears in the past....lol

Quote

Originally suggested by LePaul on 12/06/01
.......Perhaps someone with Nuttz's talent can make a fantasy map that isnt available in the Main Arena...and offer players things in the CT they can't have in the Main arena.......

......Yea, Historical Arenas do sound fun...sometimes. But from my point of view, I'd abandon the Main Arena in a heart beat if all the planes were available in the CT with more realism tossed in.....

Posted by hblair on 2/21/02.

Deaf ears huh?

Kieran · « **Reply #101 on:** April 12, 2002, 11:58:20 AM »

All I can say is that I log into the CT first, fly for a flight and see what is up. Most of the time I can find a fight in the same timeframe I could have in the MA. But hey, that is the time I fly, not anyone else.

Logged in last night and the number was 37. It was fun for me, and that is all that matters where I sit. I don't worry too much about the terrain, the plane choice, or who is doing what, I simply go to the low side and fly.

Let's not make this harder than it needs to be. Both sides have offered good ideas where I am concerened, and if you separate the personalities from the discussion you can see it. Of course, as long as it's fun to me I will fly no matter what they set up, and for me at the moment the arena is funner than the MA.

Don · « **Reply #102 on:** April 12, 2002, 01:48:48 PM »

>>I have learned a good leason in this thread, I believe i was
wrong to suggest change. And I guess there are always
gonna be paying customers who fight against any changes. <<

Whitehawk:

I don't believe you are/were wrong for suggesting change at all.

However, you did make some pretty controversial statements:)
As I have written in this thread, I'd rather see the staff's time spent getting this game/sim as near to perfect as possible before moving on. For me, that means the way the game works ie. connections, voice comms etc. We have damn near 500 pilits on and a large percentage of em can't stay connected, experience weird and everpresent lag and other things, that don't have to exist. I'm not fighting against changes, not if they are any good and would enhance the game/sim but, why not change those ever present problems that make the thing go first? Then address some of the more qualitative things like arena preferences and types of planes etc.
I'd like to fly and fight and have a dead on shot actually hit it's mark without getting lost in cyberspace. I'd also like to fly in a scenario frame that isn't going to take me 6 or 7 hours to enjoy.

If you increase the customer base and attempt to sell them a piece of crap, then the customers will leave. So, IMO fix the thing first in its time, then move onto other aspects of the game to tweak.

lazs2 · « **Reply #103 on:** April 12, 2002, 02:44:59 PM »

"So you're for a 3-sided Battle of Brittain with all planes available for all sides? We have a main arena that has all that, but with a more practical terrain. Why don't you fly there?

That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard of, and I've been reading your posts for a long time. What's next? maybe we could do a 6 sided attack on Pearl Harbor next month?

And don't get upset. I'm just little old bald harmless hblair.

__________________
hblair
The ASSASSINS"

No wonder you have so much trouble understanding your peers in the CT. You can't even understand what I am saying and I am pretty obvious.

The MA with a 3 country war and no allied VS axis is by far the best idea I have seen in a sim so far. The CT is limited (it would appear) by the dreary axis vs allied ball and chain. Working within that arena killing parameter is difficult. The more other arena killing "features" you add the worse off you will be.

Give me an area within the MA for early war planes only and no axis vs allied and I will pick it over a CT BOB setup anyday (field distances being equal).

"We have a main arena that has all that, but with a more practical terrain. Why don't you fly there? " I have no idea what you mean by that one... Where do we have a place (much less a BOB) in the MA for early war planes to fly unmolested by later and even perk planes? And... I do fly in the MA. What exactly do you mean?

Sheesh.... you guys were handed the BOB planeset on a platter with no other viable place to fly em and you still can't get people to play. Yet.... you take credit for the increase in numbers even tho you know the increase came from the planes themselves and... features that you would normally call "dweeby' like closer fields, furball friendly. When I went to get on the BOB in the CT what did I find? The fields close to the action were closed. I would have had to fly a sector and a half in a slow early war plane on a map with no dot dar and no player density... Sheesh.... u guys could destroy steel ball bearings with a rubber hammer!
lazs

Ripsnort · « **Reply #104 on:** April 12, 2002, 02:49:16 PM »

Make up you mind Lazs! Your worse than my mother in law! Changing your tune every 10 seconds...looks like your on the same path as you were in Warbirds, getting chased out of the community with your tail between your legs. Shoo! Go away! Ya bother me boy!