Feature Request

[Arlo]

Originally posted by ramzey

Arlo idea is not bad, stop hijacking pls

Idea sucks.

Your opinion - my opinion. How the hell is this hijacking?!:lol

[ramzey]

we both know sometimes HTC is too busy ( or like somone call , too lazzy) ;-)
new airplanes, whichone we need "right now" for scenario or event are out of our range.

Noone can force HT to speed up, plugin new aircrafts to game.

When designers of events think about use  substitute of aircraft. One of arguments aginst is too big load or too big firepower. So they cannot use this planes as substitutes worry about "wrong use" by players.

If HT can make this settings for every aircraft and every field, we can use same aircraft with diferent guns/bombs configuration for events. In place of one subtype of plane , bang! We have 2 diferent planes or even more.

Look on109's, 190's, 110's and many others

All this imho easier to plug in to the game then build another subtype of plane. Bigger challange for designers and for CO's

ramzey

[vorticon]

he's challenging it because it gives to much control to the people who are trying to make a scenario work...but unless those people have control over what ordinance is available...the scenario cannot work because people will automaticly take max loadout...and in most cases those people may not want them to be able to as during that period one side or another may not have been able to have access to those material (as arlo himself stated)

[Arlo]

Originally posted by ramzey

All this imho easier to plug in to the game then build another subtype of plane. Bigger challange for designers and for CO's

ramzey

Well, I have no experience coding or recoding game engines, myself. I have no idea how much harder it would be to add a new plane or vehicle to Aces High than it would be to add another feature that would just as likely be misused as not by CMs and staffers who already have their mind made up about how it would benefit them, personally. I suspect that new plane and/or vehicle additions would come ahead of such a feature in most of the community's opinion of what benefits the game most ... but I could be wrong.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by vorticon
he's challenging it because it gives to much control to the people who are trying to make a scenario work...but unless those people have control over what ordinance is available...the scenario cannot work because people will automaticly take max loadout...and in most cases those people may not want them to be able to as during that period one side or another may not have been able to have access to those material (as arlo himself stated)

That's a pretty stupid assumption considering I've suggested scenario CMs require canned missions that prevent such on penalty of ejection. It already exists in the game. I guess it's just too hard a concept for some.

[scJazz]

Arlo, you immediately jumped on the "misuse" bandwagon without first thinking of the obvious use. Then again your reaction to just about anything is contrary, sarcastic, and flippant. You obviously think of this behaviour as right... some sort of defense mechanism.

The feature is useful. Only one lone voice is yammering in the night and no one is listening.

[vorticon]

it would be a bit difficult to check what every player is flying with...

this is easier...and makes sure that morons who dont use the thingy that is already in the mission planner dont ruin everyones fun

[Arlo]

Originally posted by scJazz
Arlo, you immediately jumped on the "misuse" bandwagon without first thinking of the obvious use. Then again your reaction to just about anything is contrary, sarcastic, and flippant. You obviously think of this behaviour as right... some sort of defense mechanism.

The feature is useful. Only one lone voice is yammering in the night and no one is listening.

Eh .. you're just being defensive. Shows from your first reaction on.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by vorticon
it would be a bit difficult to check what every player is flying with...

this is easier...and makes sure that morons who dont use the thingy that is already in the mission planner dont ruin everyones fun

How? Can't a CM check the maproom mission page in both maprooms, do a quick headcount then go to the roster and see if the numbers match? Screenshot and print it out even if he want's to get a name to warn or eject? He could even delegate to mission leaders somewhat.

"People .... get your pilots in missions. If I catch someone flying rogue they're gone."

A feature that highlights the roster names to show who is and who isn't in a mission may be better ... even easier ... to add.

[vorticon]

Eh .. you're just being defensive. Shows from your first reaction on.

that sounds like a mini-d sentence...

[Arlo]

Are you intimate with mini-d sentence structure?

[vorticon]

Originally posted by Arlo
How? Can't a CM check the maproom mission page in both maprooms, do a quick headcount then go to the roster and see if the numbers match? Screenshot and print it out even if he want's to get a name to warn or eject? He could even delegate to mission leaders somewhat.

"People .... get your pilots in missions. If I catch someone flying rogue they're gone."

A feature that highlights the roster names to show who is and who isn't in a mission may be better ... even easier ... to add.

sounds like a viable alternative...but what about in the CT???

[vorticon]

Originally posted by Arlo
Are you intimate with mini-d sentence structure?

your right...putting people on the defensive as fast as possible is more of a lazs thing...

[Arlo]

Originally posted by vorticon
sounds like a viable alternative...but what about in the CT???

The CT needs some of the tools already being used locked down.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by vorticon
your right...putting people on the defensive as fast as possible is more of a lazs thing...

Hehe ... you apparently aren't familiar with my past dealings with Lazs. Or are you?