Hey Bill,
Thank you for posting, and welcome to the vBar. <pours a highball>
Here's the deal, rather than Skype, I prefer to post so that my comments...; are available to all; can be clarified if called to question; are subject to future replies and comment.
I share some of the same thoughts as Dawger and Dobs above, and in the iEN forum,
Juice's comments; Main Arena play is stagnant, tiresome, and the root cause of many players' disgust. Not counting the 475th's Dawger, Dobs and Zin, my squad TK and S3 affiliated Composite Lf6 have lost four long-time players, Hutani, Tote, Rat and Briar, the latter two have been here longer than my thirteen years. To a man, they cite the Main Arena play as the reason for their cancellations. And now the problems in the MA have creeped into the S3s which is now cracking with lack of participation, ahistoric squad rolls and mission execution.
I think the Bomber squads share some culpability in MA play. Let me explain and qualify that this is my OBSERVATION over the last few years. A great majority of the bomber players are regularly below historic altitudes and flying their bombers in a profile that is not correct or conducive to enjoyable play for all. Now many will (have) said, they pay too. That is right, they too pay as much as I for the enjoyment of flying WWII aircraft. That said, what 'Fighter' was developed, in real life, to combat and attack a bomber flying under 2kft? Further, what four engine bomber was developed for this low altitude mission profile? B-24s and Lancs were historically flown in low altitude missions, but the percentages of these mission profiles are dwarfed by the at alt missions for which these four engine bombers, AND THEIR ORDNANCE, were designed for. I know all who read this, know these facts. And added to the bad mission profile is issue with the laser sighted OTTO that shreds at EXTREME AoA, distance and g-loading. Because of this, I have not, and will not engage the bombers. My plane of choice is fragile enough without the need to expose it to the wild maneuverability and stable platform Boeing developed for the Fortress, or Consolidated Liberators or Avro Lancasters. So their play has influenced how I play.
I do hope that any Bomber-centric player reading this will understand that I am not saying ALL bomber players fly these types of missions. There are several players that take the time to get to altitude and fly proper mission profiles...and when I see that, I acknowledge their work on CH100.
I think what Darryl has done to grow the Raiders from a fledgling squad to, perhaps, the largest squad in our game should be commended. He does engage the new-player and offer a home to those starting out in this game. However, some of their members influence new players into these seldom-used mission profiles for four-engine planes. I think some development is long overdue for the Bombers that will curtail this type of play. There will be much gnashing of teeth while the bomber pilots re-learn their plane, but that is something EACH fighter squadron player has faced with the introduction of the FM team's outstanding work. I think we should reach out to the bomber community for a volunteer to data-mine and participate in the FM development. And if no one steps up, the current volunteers can go forward with their own research and with full iEN support.
Which segues perfectly into the FM team. I think the dismissal of the current team's work and allowing D&D to leave is the wrong decision. I think we should encourage their work to continue and provide the entire team some incentive to continue what they have given so much time to. And to be totally honest, it seems that EVERY volunteer to come along, since Target, has had the same issues precipitating their departure. I wonder why that is?
I think it's root cause is a non-shared vision for development. I think you can help this by outlying a clear development plan for Warbirds...this Warbirds...the one we share and devote our time to. In your post, you list six main points for WB Development, but only Bullet point #4 addresses development to the game. Nothing else touches on the issues that cause players to leave. WB Mobile may get people in the door, but we will never be able to keep them here with an occasional 'race', DoA event or even the vaunted S3s, which, as mentioned earlier, ARE in decline. If I recall correctly, the WWII arena and Dawgers World arenas were removed so that there would be no dilution of players from the Main. If this was the rational for closing those arenas, why would the Warbirds Mobile arena be separated from the Main as highlighted in point #5.
We also should address the limitations imposed on volunteer development. The only statement more tired than "Two Weeks" is the oft used statement '...that is code and Spindz doesn't have time to do it...' or some iteration to the same. Is there really only ONE person to manage the code and Generals? This very limitation has been around even with Target's reign. In my opinion this is a key point to understand, address and reevaluate. The spaghetti code has hindered many ideas and changes and having only one person with the ability to change or edit the code limits growth to only when he 'gets a chance' to make any change. I would propose finding someone who can learn the code, and invite this person to share knowledge with Spindz and have an arena dedicated to testing these edits for Main arena play. There will always be some dedicated players available to log-in to an arena and kick some settings around. Once testing is complete, there should be some evaluation period where we discuss the data...and I think this discussion should be in the FM forum or some other private, but accessible locale.
And one other point I want to touch on in this post are the graphics. You have, in your volunteer corps, some dedicated players who have learned how to model, skin, and terraform. I recently downloaded AHIII to see where they are compared to us. I still have not yet flown due to technical issues I am working through trying to run that game under Parallells on my Mac. What immediately comes forward is the gorgeous cockpits in that game. I still have not yet 'flown' but I have taxi'ed around and their terrain was good, BUT...I think they only have generic maps. If this indeed is the case, our game has an edge. We have some spectacular maps that are geographically correct. I think the terrains are the one of the gems we can highlight for Warbirds (along with the FMs). But to do this properly, we need a graphics engine update. Someone posted that an update to 2006 standards would help, but if you're serious with keeping Warbirds around '...for a long time...', then some technology update is long overdue. I posted in another forum a GTA-V PS4 video showing an Antanov landing on a carrier. The graphics were stunning! There is NO reason why a PC game today should lag that far behind a console 'driving' game. The consoles are going to win if we do not, can not keep up.
I will end with that for now, as I have been writing and editing this post for three hours.
I want to see our game grow, and to do so, we need to change our stale gameplay and outdated graphics and give developers the tools to create. I do not mean to offend anyone with my long-winded post, but I have to vent.
<pouring another dram for all, and pulling the cork on a dry red for me>
WLDBIL wrote:
Gentlemen:
I cannot find the original writing by dawger suggesting WarBirds players all leave to "teach" me a lesson.
FYI, IENT revenues are growing significantly. We intend to be around for a long time and I believe WarBirds Mobile will be the best instrument to get new players going forward.
Here is my response to dawger.
===========
Dawger,
Thanks for all your help in the past. I appreciate it.
However, this post is not helpful and your encouraging all to leave the game is very destructive to our efforts. I am not sure what made you so angry to put up such a hurtful post?
So you will not be exposed to any more concern, I have closed all your accounts. Please let me know if that is not what you wanted.
On your other comments, I listen to lots of players. We have as many opinions as we have players. I have listened to many of your suggestions and agreed with many of them.
However, there are other players whose opinions are important to and I try to listen to all input but it is up to me to try to balance all opinions, fighter, bombers, tankers, Squadron leaders, Et al.
So any one player or set of players are not likely to get their way 100% of the time. It is up to them if they want to play on the set of rules we establish for Main Arena play.
From your other comment, we evidently do not have a plan for the Main Arena that you agree with for some reason.
We do have a plan for the MA and sorry you see the MA as toxic. Not sure why you see that way but I assume you have your own reasons.
For WarBirds:
1) We are doing the WarBirds Mobile which I believe will bring us lots of new players giving us a try online.
a. I believe that will help promote, market, and grow WarBirds Online for everyone.
b. I believe the revenues will be significant to IENT to enable additional product development.
2) We are going to continue to have great S3 events.
3) We are going to continue to have other events on an irregular basis.
a. Dawn of Aces
b. New Racing Events. (Thanks to Jabo for his arena design.)
4) We will continue to add new terrains and new play options as we grow the mobile revenues.
5) We will open two new arenas for younger folks to play.
a. One will be an instant action with primarily airstarts and small distances to fly so battles happen quickly.
b. We will open an arena only for Mobile players where they can play against other mobile players, all the time trying to upgrade them to WarBirds online.
6) Your specific gripes about MA play are not recommendations I accept.
a. You recommend limiting Squad size. What purpose does it serve to limit anyone’s ability to recruit new players? None that I can see. This appears to only be an assault on a certain squadron you do not like to me.
b. You recommended that we put icons on GVs.
i. Evidently your concern is fighters being shot down by ack traps.
ii. An approach for you to consider, you might coordinate (as you have recommended) with a bomber squadron trying to close a field the fighters should not have many targets to hit on the field and can focus on guarding the bombers.
1. I authorized JMan to see if there was a way to limit the respawning of the GVs immediately for your ack trap concern.
I am sorry you are unhappy with me and WarBirds.
I wish you the very best on your future endeavors.
Thanks for all your past help.
WB
JW “Wild Bill” Stealey
Lt. Colonel USAF Retired
Command Pilot
T-37 IP, C-5A, O2B FAC, A-37 FAC, T-28B Trojan
5000 Military Flying Hours as Aircraft Commander
CEO, iEntertainment Network Inc.
Public Listing: IENT: OTCBB
USAF Academy Graduate
Founder and CEO, MicroProse Software