Manned ack should count as a kill?

[Lazerr]

Hitech's idea of a kill message when a player occupied gun is killed is neat.  I assume it would work like the old days where it said who killed who in what at the time of the kill.

[DmonSlyr]

I'll take that bet.  How about the loser pays the winner a year of AH?  If you agree, I expect to see the data that supports your verified (by HiTech) claims by the end of next week.

I prolly couldn't afford a year, but maybe at least 3 months.

Let's post the #s a few months before the 88 was implemented and then post the #s a few months after the 88 was implemented. In either case, I'm sure the average of the #s were going down. It would probably be too difficult to point it right at 88mms. But I could guarantee that the 88 had no effect on increasing #s, nor would anyone quit because they couldn't use it anymore. In any effect, it does not increase the #s and is mostly a griefing tool for lazy game play.

[FLS]

It's not hyperbole.  It's sloppy, redundant writing.   Like saying "really unique" -- it's either unique or it's not.    This is called pleonasm not hyperbole.

Hyperbole is saying,  "You're the dumbest person on the planet!" -- the point isn't that the person is literally that.

I'm out before I get mod'ed.

If it was pleonasm then "100%" and "accurate" would be interchangeable terms. Compare "really unique" with "uniquely one of a kind". "Really" is an intensifier but I don't see how it is a pleonasm which is more like tautology.


I think we disagree on the definition of exaggerate. 


We can stop now. 

[Randy1]

For me 88s are not about getting shot down. I could care less how many times I die. It's about removing a player who would otherwise be contributing to the game and isn't. If a player is sitting in an 88 trying to snipe people from 10k out, they're not likely to hit anything. They're doing nothing except making noise. Not contributing to any engagement. They might as well not be there.

My opinion on the 88 is it has only one function and that is to push a red cap back so fighters can get off the deck.  If fighters are shot on and or just after take off I can not see how that helps to promote good air to air combat.  I know LilMak like Yucca rarely vulches unless it is to protect a field capture but there are players who play the vulch every chance they get.

Some other thoughts.  Last night I was over a red field by myself.  After deacking the town and climbing out, two reds took off in a spit 14, and a P-47M.  I waited until they climbed out then attacked.  I had all the combat I wanted.  To do that though I had to give up my advantage, and I need every advantage I can get.

I might add as well players coming into a red zone at 15 to 20K hurts air to air combat more that the 88  I dare guess.  Why not come in at 3K.

[waystin2]

I think everyone understands the guns are destructable.. this discussion is about the scoring characteristics of the manned ack.

Anyone saying these guns should be removed is over the edge.

I concur.  They should not be removed.  They do offer some buffer against attack although they can be overcome.  Kill message against a manned gun?  hmmmmmm.....is it really that important?

[Vraciu]

If it was pleonasm then "100%" and "accurate" would be interchangeable terms. Compare "really unique" with "uniquely one of a kind". "Really" is an intensifier but I don't see how it is a pleonasm which is more like tautology.


I think we disagree on the definition of exaggerate. 


We can stop now. 

No, because the terms aren't required to be interchangeable, merely unnecessary. 

ple·o·nasm
ˈplēəˌnazəm/Submit
noun
the use of more words than are necessary to convey meaning (e.g., see with one's eyes ), either as a fault of style or for emphasis.

"100% accurate" is a pleonasm.   "Really unique" is another.  Neither is hyperbole. 

[Lazerr]

I concur.  They should not be removed.  They do offer some buffer against attack although they can be overcome.  Kill message against a manned gun?  hmmmmmm.....is it really that important?

Right now its a free turkey shoot for them with no risk of manning it.  I feel if there was some sort of death involved for them it might encourage groups to roll from the base in a large group.. or even a base back.  Wirbs.. tanks..

See where im going with it?

some folks are going to sit in a manned gun at the first sight of a dar icon.. rather than try and up.. even if i am 25 miles away still.  Well.. lots of them do.  It hasnt even become a vulch yet.

The current system with m3 supps and manned gun scoring just begs for avoidance of fighting. 

Get on the ball with defense or lose the base i tell em!

[Lazerr]

I dont want to take gameplay options away from folks either.. i just am lobbying for making it well rounded.

[waystin2]

Right now its a free turkey shoot for them with no risk of manning it.  I feel if there was some sort of death involved for them it might encourage groups to roll from the base in a large group.. or even a base back.  Wirbs.. tanks..

See where im going with it?

some folks are going to sit in a manned gun at the first sight of a dar icon.. rather than try and up.. even if i am 25 miles away still.  Well.. lots of them do.  It hasnt even become a vulch yet.

The current system with m3 supps and manned gun scoring just begs for avoidance of fighting. 

Get on the ball with defense or lose the base i tell em!

I get what your saying.  My last choice to scrap against other players is a manned gun but I can't see forcing that choice to others.  Gonna be a tough sell.

[LilMak]

A person defending a base in a manned gun isn't avoiding combat, they are engaged in combat if they are firing at attacking enemy planes.  Ask Vilkas if he was avoiding combat by being a flak gunner during the war.

It would be different if they were actually doing that. But they're not. I'm usually engaged in combat and some griefer is taking pot shots at me while I am. When I'm not engaged in combat, I'm simply waiting for someone to engage. I have zero interest in playing chicken with some guy in a fixed gun who's only goal in life is to ruin my fun.

And the MA isn't war. It's a game. If you want war, scenarios and FSO are where you should be.

It's pretty simple. If everyone sat in field guns there would be nothing to defend against. As you play ask yourself, "If everyone did this all the time, would the game be any fun?" If your answer is consistently "No" then you should probably change your ways or there will be no game. I have no issues against the 37s because I can fight away from the base without being harassed. I'm here for air combat against other players. An 88 is not air combat in my opinion and detrimental to play. Leave the ground game on the ground.

[wil3ur]

I would be in favor of massively upping the effectiveness of ground guns and doing away with manned guns (Except for ship 8" or larger).

I have to say, it sucks horribly when you're not vulching and get taken out at 5K+ by an 88...  so normally I'll sacrifice a cartoon life when starting an engagement by diving 88's if I see puffy in the air.  They are my #1 target.  The rest of the manned guns are pretty much worthless unless you're actively vulching a run way.

Deth to 88s.

[hitech]

The solution.

HiTech

[wil3ur]

The solution.
(Image removed from quote.)
HiTech

     

This is an epic solution and I dig it!

[bustr]

The solution.
(Image removed from quote.)
HiTech

If you remove those from airfields and reintroduce as a mobile weapon. Would you consider replacing them with 17lb? Those small airfields I'm building with only a maproom next to the tower, and the river with 3 bridges in front of the GV spawns. They would be useful until the de-acking started. Since you never put a direct fire reticle in the 88, they have been problematic for defending against GVs.

[Lazerr]

The solution.
(Image removed from quote.)
HiTech

Hell of an idea