How To Conquer the Flight Sim Market

[SC-GreyBeard]

Perhaps, multiple servers would be a benefit here..
The first, could be the "Instant Action" type for the not so seriously minded, "just wanna kill sumpin'" set of players.

A second, could be used as a "Serious semi-realistic" Flier. Perhaps with actuall pre-determined missions. seems a bit to much like a role playing game perhaps, but it would be a neat idea.

Regardless though, you'll always have to deal with the "Dweeb factor" regardless of whatever checks and balances would be incorporated. sadly, they are a fact of life.
("Darwin, where are ya when we need ya???")

Any time you have any roleplaying type game, there will always be those that wish to do nuthing more than take out the "high level" players. I gave up on Diablo because of that stuff. Ruined a good game.

I for one, see no way they could be stopped, with any kind of planned minus's to their playability, and plus's added to others would just breed even more reason for them to come in and screw up a good game. Think the best we could do would just ignore them as much as possible, and suffer through them when we have to.



------------------
GreyBeard
Flt Ldr
Skeleton Crew

[hitech]

Like I need to jump off a cliff to know the landings going to hurt.

Ish the thing about trying only to repeat real life stuff is in actuality its very borring. Real fighter pilots averaged at least 6 sorties for 1 engagement and 12 sorties for for 1 kill.
If you use just simply a realaizm type aproch this is what you should have. That dosnt sound fun to me.

So there for you pick the pieces of realizm you wish to simulate and throw away those that you dont. We do this and so does everyone else.

Now in your very description of the game you comment on how you would like to fly. There are other's like you who there goal is to fly like a real WWII pilot but there are also a lot of people who simply wish to learn and have fun at ACM they enjoy learning the different plane types and there strengths and weekness. To accomplish the ACM skill set taked a lot of engaments, and like training the more you die the faster you learn.

In game design realalism is only a piece of the puzzle and not the be all to end all game criteria. You have to make accomidation's for most people and not just one personality type.

HiTech

[Rolo]

HT and Ish both have some good comments.  

I think HT is right with regard to a general arena situation.  An RP model will lead to behavior that creates a great deal of stress and dissension among the player base.  Moreover, new players will be frustrated having their characters killed off so often when they first join the game.

On the other hand, an RP mode could be great in scenarios (particularly if the system allowed players to carry characters from scenario to scenario).  Game play in a scenario is distinctly different than that in a general arena.  People are more cautious and there is less opportunity for vulching and other situations likely to lead to an "unfair" death.  This is consistent with Ish's idea.  It would also be cool to watch character's grow in stature and reputation across events.  They could even hang up pictures of great departd pilots at that little bar just down the road from the base.

Rolo

[ISHMAEL]

So-called "Simulation" companies have been giving us the same "realism = boredom" line for years - and each time they give into user requests and push the realism envelope, the companies have been proven wrong.

One of the very MANY things sim manufacturers do not realize (concerning the nature of their own products) is that excitment is NOT a factor of action - it is a factor of situation.

Quake has plenty of action but many people find it very dull. VERY dull.

Now if you're trying to make "Air Quake" here, then you're well on your way to success allready (by the sound of it). But I suspect a great great number of sim players find Quake - in the air and on the ground - boring. boring. boring.

Excitment is a quality of realtionship between participant and environment. To create "excitment," the nature of that relationship must be precarious - and the participant must have a personal stake in maintaining a specific equalibrium.

Must you encounter the enemy every flight or fire guns every flight in order to feel excitment? Not at all!!! From personal experience, I can tell you that everytime I start my engine (in our beta-test wars) my heart beats a little faster!!!

The entire flight, we scan desperately to sight the enemy, always checking six to see if we might get bounced. It's intense just knowing the other guy is out there - somewhere!!! It's SO intense that everytime we touch down, our flights always spend about 10 minutes on the field just catching breath and breathing sighs of relief!

Until you have experienced online combat like this, you'll never know what real excitment is!!! (at least so far as online gaming is concerned)

This is heart-pounding, sweat-under-the-arms stuff! And when you DO get into a fight - holy crap - you nearly die from the stress alone.

One more thing....

Aces High, by the sound of it, will NOT be forward thinking enough to develop this concept. Unfortunately for you, someday very soon, some other company will. That company will completely take over the online sim marketplace and leave you behind.

After that, the debate will be over. The "Online Alter Ego" will become the defacto standard and no game company will again consider building an "Air Quake" sim.

...but I'm sure that you (or your successor) will continue telling us that realism = boredom. Some things never change.

ISHMAEL

[hitech]

Ish it's realy very simple (PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS) go raise a couple of million and go write the game you wish. If it works well i'll be the first to say I was wrong.

But I have 10 years of playing and writing online sim's. Ive seen lots of concept's tried, some failed some worked.
With the attitude you portraied in your last post it sounds like you think all game writers dont have a clue and you have the magic answer. Well if you belive that so strongly get off your duff and go do it yourself!

Iv'e probably pushed the flight sim realism as much or more than any other flight sim developer I can think of. And am truly underserving of the tone in your last post.

You dont want to look at fact's like the historical arena in WB's if the general players wanted more along these lines the historical arena would have a lot more players in it then the main, care to comment on why this is? Or is it the players who enjoy the main just dont get it and we should ignor them?

As for alway using Quake as an example I for one would have loved to develope Quake. It's player type is not the people who like flight sims but none the less just because they enjoy it and you don't dosnt make it any less of a popular and great game.

And btw I have experenced excitement like you are talking,there called senerios. I also know that senerios dont work on a full time bases, but then you dont wish to have your mind cluttered with facts. Like the simple way you structued your test is incorect. Runing the test once a week totaly invalidated all your data. In normal game play people don't come in at a set time for a 2 hour session. There moods very every night they come in. Some nights they wish to just have fun furballing. Other night's they want to see how long they can go on a kill without death streak. Some times they will take a troop transport just because the team needs it. Try getting that done with someone on a long streak under your plan. Other nights people just want to log on and have fun with there buddies. They arn't concerened about their life long carrer they just want fun with friends. Online gaming is lot more than just simply playing the realism game like a box could be. You have to allow for ideal times for people to chat and have fun ,all white knucle type flying would have a big deturent on players talking with each other. Can you imagin dieing to a typeing death in your setup? You wouldn't take the risk. I could go on and on about game play issues, they are somthing I've thought about daily for that past 5 years but i've been rambling a tad here so time to end it.


HiTech

[Bad Omen]

I agree with ISHMAEL that it would be good to provide a better penalty for death to encourage better tactics.
I do not think that giving better SA and better performance to those with longer survivability is the way to do it. This will make the learning curve even longer than it is and really drive the newbie's away. Imagine trying to learn to fight against experienced guys flying FW190D-9's or P51D's and all you can get are F4f's or Me109E's. You would kill your player base.
However, I like Rolo's suggestion about a similar feature for scenarios, that would be cool!

And you are right ISHMAEL about not needing the fight to have the excitement. I remember in Fortress Europe escorting B-17's. 1 sortie, 2 hours of flight. The tension while waiting for the LW to strike was incredible. Then when they hit, all you got was a couple of quick snap shots in as they dove off (and you couldn't leave the bombers!). Then the joy and elation and release of tension when "feet dry!" was called as you crossed back over England! It was an incredible feeling of immersion and for the first time, I truly could imagine what it must of felt like doing it for real.

I think my real hope for more realistic experiences lie with the possibility of a better strategic world which gives more realistic goals and rewards. This will then lead to even better experiences in scenarios, as well as a better MA.

[jmccaul]

I will preface this reply by saying i have not read the whole thread, some of those replies were a bit lengthy. This is just my opinion no disrespect meant to those who disagree with it.
On a general basis i do not like this idea in it's current form. My first complaint is due to the fact it makes the gap wider between good and bad player. If i was a completely new player coming into a sim like this I would have objections to the advantages players with long streaks had had ...
 they would pay less due to the fact they were better(or luckier) than i am this is simply not fair some people are better at computer games than others so should they get a reduced price? On top of this there would be an advantage of better planes, better performing planes which would steepen the learning curve.
  Also the increased realism in one area means decreased realism in others. In the same squadren a C.O. would fly the same plane as a Pilot Officer and the C.O's plane would not have better performance, it was suggested that a player with a long "live streak" would get a performance boost which represented modifications but I'm sure even a skilled engineer couldn't squeeze out 5% extra in all areas of perfomance let alone someone who had just not died in the plane for a while.  
   My final concern is the element of circumstance to every death so a player who is jumped on from above by a better pilot in a better plane with better performance than it should have and is subcequently shot down is penalised for not flying realistically, i.e. the system perceives him as someone who has thrown his life away. At the same time someone in his uberplane of choice who has just shot down some early war flying bathtub with magically beefed up cannons and is returning to base to land his heroic sortie might well ignore his countryman fighting a 2v1 below him and for this he is rewarded by the system.
 I believe a player should be rewarded for surviving but enforcing a rigid system such as this will lead to injustices as it has no context and will also bring about an every man for himself scenario where people fly for themselves and not their country which isn't realistic and isn't fun, would you risk you're financial reward, your superior plane, with superior performance to jump in a slow bomber to try and help capture a heavily defended field? Besides would you actually moan at someone you just shot down for not trying to escape more realistically?    
       

[Herc]

I'm totally with HiTech on this one.  You can do whatever you want in the main arena.  Every once in awhile I would jump into a P39 for the heck of it.  I at times didn't care if I died.  

I also joined a squadron and we were careful about keeping together and alive.  The scoring system was the main reason I tried to return alive.  I loved the stats on the old Warbirds scoring page.  I always tried to place high in the Kills per Death category.  

I very much enjoyed the scenerios but I wouldn't want to be forced to fly in that mode 100% of the time.  It's great to just jump on and fly a few sorties without worrying to much about getting the perfect altitude and E advantage before engaging.  I once had a 49 kill steak going and it wasn't fun toward the end.  The first thing I did the next month was to jump into a P39 and have some fun.  I did like the historical arena best but hardly anyone flew there.

Join a squadron if you want structure.  You will try to score high to get your squadron's respect.

It is also pretty easy to stay away from big furballs and novice players.  Stay somewhat high, only the more serious players tend to go high.

I also agree that you need a much larger and impartial sampling before making such bold and decisive statement about how it should be and what's best for everyone.

Herc

[Brazos]

Cripes,

Ish, you use RB and a few buds to make general assumptions about sim developers? You have the gall to lecture those that wrote the code? Where do these guys come from? Like I said, let us know when your game is coming out. Until then, stick to constructive ideas and critique. Better yet, learn to write code. That way some arrogant dweeb will chew your butt without having a clue.

[ISHMAEL]

Ish it's realy very simple (PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS) go raise a couple of million and go write the game you wish. If it works well i'll be the first to say I was wrong.
-----------

I feel like I'm being oppressed by the owners of the means of production! ;-)

Obviously, I lack the means of raising that kind of dough. Otherwise, I wouldn't be broadcasting this concept in a forum where you are free to develop it and make use of it. I post it here because its a damn good idea and someone ought to have the smarts and resources to do something with it - even if it isn't me (well...I DO have the smarts at least) ;-)

What I can say in my favour is that I DID at least put together a beta-test of the concept before bringing it to your attention. Yes...the data is not conclusive. Yes...the test was insufficient. But it took me ten weeks to run the test and about 20 hours of work each week in record keeping alone (I had no software to keep track of the alter egos). Each session I flew around in observer mode to monitor player behaviour.

If I had the resources, I would LOVE to test the concept further. I simply do not have those resources.

I AM however more than willing to share with you any and all data I have from the first test AND provide you with access to our current test game. I can also provide you with the email addresses of all participants (so that you can get their feedback first hand).

So why are we doing this??? Why did I invest this kind of time into my limited study of the OAE concept?

Because I truly believe it has the potential to revolutionize online gaming.

Have I >proven< the concept? No. But the idea deserves further testing. That it certainly does.

Now...one of your points is well taken: would all players wish to play this way all of the time?

My honest answer: no.

But I DO believe that the vast majority of players willing to shell out $30 a month would want to play this way most of the time - and some would play this way ALL of the time (it is TERRIBLY addictive).

"Air Quake" has to remain an option. Sometimes, one is just in the mood for a quick dogfight (if only for a chance to relax and practice). And newbies do need an arena in which to grow accustomed to flying the various aircraft types.

But if a game company is seriously interested in building an online, persistant sim world, and they forget to put pilots in it, I insist that their work is only half done. OAEs will prove an essential element in the online flight sims of the future.

You heard it here first. :-)

[P/O Buzzbe]

ISH, your keeping the guys from doing code.

------------------
P/O Buzzbe
416 RCAF "The Lynx"
http://416rcaf.org
Dedicated to Lloyd Chadburn

[-sudz-]

Hey Ish,

I'd like to say thank you for starting one of the most vigorous and interesting threads I've read in a while.  And that i dig Rolo's compromise - that would be cool.

But I'd like to relay my experience in Flying Circus to illustrate why your concepts should be relegated to a special arena, or scenario, rather than normal game play.

FC had the thing whereby if you killed 5 in a row without dying then you got a cool ace symbol beside your name - 10 & 15 also got you cool symbols.  I had a 4 streak going and got killed by a head-on. Nothing I could do - he rolled up into me before I could evade.

I tried several times only to be knocked down after 3 or 4 kills.  I finally got a bud to fly from the enemy's field and let me shoot him down 5 times and I got an ace.  I wasn't happy about the way I got it so I persisted and eventually got an ace legitimately.  But it points out what people will think of to get that good standing. It's gaming the game time.

Note also that some people will hack things to get a better standing in the game - Diablo comes to mind.  And if you give a financial incentive, by God, you'd have hackers in AH by the droves.  And one other point I would make is that sometimes I fly great, othertimes (after a beer or six), I fly like I don't even have a joystick.  I'd pay for weeks trying to get my standing back up after one of those.

I'll support Rolo's compromise, but I don't want that kind of pressure in my day-to-day _gaming_.

-sudz-

[ISHMAEL]

I would like to add one more comment to my long-winded explanations of the OAE and how it >might< operate.

Sometimes, the best way to attract attention to an idea that merits it is to be PROVOCATIVE. If I have been forceful, enthusiastic, or controversial in my statements, it is only because I believe in the value ($$$) of this concept. It deserves the attention of those creating the AH software.

I do not mean to insult or demean the makers of AH, who may with good reason disagree with my assesments.

This is in no way to back away from any of the judgments and opinions I have expressed. I would however like to smooth out the feathers on some of the wings I may have ruffled.




------------------

[burbank]

ISH
It sounds as if you are not familiar with the various organised scenarios which are run in WarBirds (and I assume Air Warrior - but dont know)
These vary in "seriousness" but some are run under reasonably strict rules of engagement (For example the Squad select series)in a manner very similar to how you describe your tests.
These scenarios are very immersive, place very high value on pilot life, and usually turn out life-like in that the engagements are sudden and brief.  The terrain scale ensures some action on most flights by having the forces closer together than they would have been in RL.
The scale of these has reached over 1,000 registered pilots (Pointblank) flying in a highly coordinated series of "frames" with very little "gaming" and very high immersion levels.
I have no combat experience, but do have many RL hours of very demanding/often tense/incident-filled  flying, and some of these WarBirds scenario sequences are as intense and adrenelin-creating as any in-flight emergency I have ever experienced - they are very "real".
So you assertion that more reality is possible it true - it is already happening at times.
However HT is correct in pointing out that these events can only work SOMETIMES - and that most times the WarBirds HA (historic arena) is nearly empty, and the MA (main - or "unrealistic' arena) is full.  And the scenarios start to lose people after a few consecutive frames - the mass of people (=$$$) want furballing thrills.

Personally I would like to have FULL engine starting/navigation procedures, real scale terrains and all the other minutiae of real flying - but I would be in the arena with only about 10 others at any one time - if I was lucky!
So I reserve my on-line time for scenarios and organised events, which have more of the characteristics you describe in your Red Baron arena.
I agree with you in the sense that provision of arenas and CM tools etc. to encourage realistic behaviour events is VERY important.
But I'm sure HT agrees with that, and that CM tools are on the production plan for Aces High. A terrain editor has already been talked about for this very reason.
And remember, there may be more than 1 intellectual out there  
cheers


------------------
burbank
WWII history and Multi-player Simulator books
   http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm  


[This message has been edited by burbank (edited 09-18-1999).]

[ISHMAEL]

Note also that some people will hack things to get a better standing in the game - Diablo comes to mind. And if you give a financial incentive, by God, you'd have hackers in AH by the droves.
----------

Hacking is indeed a major concern.

The great thing about pay-per-use servers is that user information is on file. This can keep hacks to a minimum (indeed, I would argue that policing hacks is one of the services you are paying for).

None of the incentive ideas I offered up was intended to be an actual plan for implementation of the OAE concept. These were merely provided as examples of how the OAE system can be implemented and realistic pilot behaviour encouraged. There are many ways to accomplish this goal.

One of the biggest objections to the OAE system stems from a misuderstanding of how it works. HiTech posted that pilots with long winning streaks would be hesitant to attack certain targets because they'd rather not risk their pilot's lives.

What he does not take into account is that long-lived pilots SCORE MORE POINTS FOR THE SAME ACTIONS THAN SHORT-LIVED PILOTS.

Hence, if you send a novice to "take out a tanker," your team scores LESS points than if an ELITE pilot took out that same tanker.

Is this unrealistic?

We think not. The reason is: we assume that the Elite pilot does additional damage not modeled in the game universe. We also assume that a novice pilot (without respect to the skills of the player) will do minimal damage to the target.

It's also a risk/reward trade off. The Elite pilot is worth more to his team than the novice pilot. Sending the novice is low risk (losing a novice is not a big deal) and thus reaps little reward. Sending an Elite pilot is high risk (his loss hurts his team badly) and so more points are given for a success.

Remember also that the pilot OAEs cannot advance in rank (and gain access to the less numerous aircraft) without scoring points. Therefore, if they are ambitious, players with highly experienced pilots will go after high-point-value targets in order to secure rapid advancement.

Again, points can also be tied to team goals. High-ranking pilots can designate prime targets/objectives and pilots involved in accomplishing such goals reap additional bonus points. This too does need require a "mission structure."

In our current test, I have three kills (after five sessions) and have been placed in charge of my squadron. I recently totaled my fokker D7 in a mid-air collision (but managed to land safely in friendly territory). If I were a bottom-ranked pilot, I'd be stuck with the Albatross Dva next mission - because or D7s are in short supply. However, because I am the CO, I can comandeer one of the other D7s and order one of my men to fly the Albatross (it's one of the privledges of rank) ;-)

The thing is...if I die in combat, I start all over again at the bottom (so there's ussually a high turnover in commanding officers).

The OAE system does not need to be as complex and detailed as this even in order to have a big effect on gameplay. Even a simple system consisting only of exponential point rewards would completely change the face of simming.



------------------