Author Topic: One more time. Please HT (Read 1929 times)

hitech · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2005, 03:02:57 PM »

Quote

And yes it may not be a single shot but 3 or 5 that were not close enough to triger the proxy fuse. Does that make it better?

You don't have to agree with me, but don't treat me like a 12 year old. I am reporting what I have seen. If this is how you like your game fine. I don;t have to like all aspects of it but I can ask for change.

When you have to exadurate from 3 or 5 ( even that sill might be an exaduration ) to 1 shot kills just to try improve your point You have turned a discusion into a BS whine.

HiTech

dedalos · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2005, 03:07:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lye-El
Dang, one shot kills at 4k on a tiny little fighter moving at hundreds of miles an hour! I HAVE GOT TO GET SOME TRAINING!:eek:

Yep, you should try a plane. Practice the HO and vulching first. Then move on to the mor advanced pork and run. Maybe you can join my new squad

JK

But yo uare right. i totaly misrepresented my case. I mean, if the guy had to hold the triger down for 5 to 10 seconds before he got a kill, well, that is skil. I appologize if I implied it was easy.

dedalos · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2005, 03:20:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
When you have to exadurate from 3 or 5 ( even that sill might be an exaduration ) to 1 shot kills just to try improve your point You have turned a discusion into a BS whine.

HiTech

You see this as a BS whine? Try showing some respect for people that feed you (I already know you like to eat

). Atlist show the same respect they show you, even if you dont agree with them. Not everything is an attack to you or your game. You try to find things in the way I write to prove that this is a BS whine?

I know it can be done cause I did it.
Some times it is 1 shot. Some times it is 3. Some times 5 or 20 or more. You think this behavior is OK because I said 1 shot and not 3 or 5?

A simple yes or no change would have been enough. I honestly thought we were having a converation here but I forgot how the threads that don't agree with your opinion end. ~~and looking forward to your next insults on my integrity, and inteligence.~~

Swoop · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2005, 04:11:28 PM »

HT,

yep, this thread turned into a BS whine.

However, would you consider a change to the gameplay aspect of flak?

Since I have absolutely zero real world experience of heavy shells and their ability to bring down an aircraft I of course freely admit what I suggest may not be realistic in the slightest but I do think the gameplay would be better:

Have the damage applied be more from shrapnel that the explosion. Shells going off all around as they do now but every time a shell goes off a small amount of damage is applied to a random area of the aircraft, tiny damage, .303 type damage. The kinda damage that lets a pilot know hanging about in the ack is a bad idea cos his plane is getting more holes in it every second and eventually things are going to start falling off.

See, ack right now is almost useless. Yeah I know, fair few players complaining about 1 ping deaths but frankly I don't think the ack is worth avoiding. I fly around in it all the time, I'll vulch CVs given half a chance. I don't see the big bugbear people complain about...........until the one day a month I'll be ignoring ack as usual, hear one ping and be in the tower.

That doesn't enhance my gameplay experience any.

I'd prefer ack to always deal some damage and feel it's a nasty thing to be avoided at all costs than get complacent and ignore it as I tend to. I'd also prefer to have to deal with ack damage to the aircraft (eg, the self satistfaction of nursing that bird home with a leaky rad and both ailerons missing) rather than it being the terminal one-ping-out-of-a-hundred-bangs death people sometimes mention.

Wadda ya think?

dedalos · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2005, 04:20:41 PM »

swoop,

the BS whine is about the maned 5" flack. As you said, the rest of the ack/flack is useless and it is there for effect only.

hitech · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2005, 04:57:18 PM »

Swoop have been considering that type of damage. Not sure of the tech aspects yet. I.E. generating lots of fragemnts all at once

HiTech

Swoop · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2005, 06:36:29 PM »

Do you need to generate lots at once?

Leave the bang and visual effect as it is, simulate a single bullet hit somewhere on the aircraft without displaying any further visual effect. Maybe add a flak.wav that sounds like the seriously well done flak in B17-II. Surely if an 8 gun P47 presents no problems sending it's ammo load across the net a few shrapnel hits per second sent by the host isn't a huge issue?

Course I'm no programmer and may have no clue what I'm talking about.

P.S. dedalos, this method would also cure the issue of which you speak. You'd still get shot at, you'd still get shot down......eventually, rather than instantly.

sullie363 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2005, 06:59:40 PM »

Bombers are already hard enough to stop. As long as CVs are open to this kind of attack, they need all the protection they can get.

Leayme · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2005, 08:13:48 PM »

There has been several posts on the Radar fuze of the 5 inch guns and the conditions under which they work and the lethal zone and effect around the shell.

Doing a search will get you the pertinent threads.

The proximity fuses are modelled fairly well, compared to historical accounts and tech data.

Don't fly near a Battle Group, because someone will be sure to try and make you the highlight of his/her film for the day.

We need more AA/AAA not less:rofl

Flit · « **Reply #24 on:** February 22, 2005, 08:16:51 PM »

HT, if you made the 5" ers at the air/vehicel fields mannable, I bet you would not hear any more whines about the cv manned ack

Rasker · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2005, 09:06:50 PM »

I believe those are 88 mm's at the fields, and I favor having them mannable, and default to auto as current when not manned

hubsonfire · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2005, 01:15:43 AM »

Something to throw in here, having been both the gunner and the gunned-down: with lots of the larger fleet groups around, there's a potential for what, 10-14 of the 5" guns hammering away? Unless I'm totally off, 2 dual batteries and 2 singles on the carrier, 2 duals on (both of) the cruisers... That's a helluva lot of lead being thrown around. While I don't personally think its that easy to pick a plane out of a furball, its certainly possible to hammer away for 10 mins and get quite a few.

However, on the other side of this coin, its still relatively easy to come shreaking down with a form of buffs or come in with some heavy fighters and sink the boat (unless the gunners happen to be very lucky or very good). Until such time as that can be prevented, or at least made much more difficult, you can't, IMHO, put enough guns on the boats. I'm thinking the murderous 5" guns are a necessary evil.

Cheers,
hub

dedalos · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2005, 08:40:18 AM »

These sound like great ideas. Swoop, I like yours too. And yes, I have said before, put more guns on the CV. I am not arguing the need for them nor do I want them removed. I just think they are being abused. The 5" BS whine of mine could be kind of taken care of with a combo of swoops idea and making them lethal to friendlies or enabling kill shooter or whatever else we can think of.

Lye-El · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2005, 10:33:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by dedalos
Yep, you should try a plane. Practice the HO and vulching first. Then move on to the mor advanced pork and run. Maybe you can join my new squad JK

I probably should, I would probably get more kills. If I don't shoot on a HO the other guy usually does, so I usually try to get out of the way instead. I generally don't vulch either. Let them get wheels up. If you don't want the fighters there, my feeling is take down the hangers. I guess I'm just a relic from DOS AW. That stuff still doesn't feel right. But maybe I'm not to old to learn, and then maybe, just maybe, I can join your squad.

Lye-El · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2005, 11:00:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Swoop
Do you need to generate lots at once?

Leave the bang and visual effect as it is, simulate a single bullet hit somewhere on the aircraft without displaying any further visual effect.

P.S. dedalos, this method would also cure the issue of which you speak. You'd still get shot at, you'd still get shot down......eventually, rather than instantly.

This is an interesting thought, but what come to my mind is: What about the guys who aren't furballing, and have every intention of killing the carrier. I, unfotunately, don't have the one shot kill skills,

How many times are the Indians under 1k out before somebody actually takes them out of the sky? Or diving down at 500mph Not much time for accmulated (sp) 303 /5 inch rounds to do their intended job. Like the thought though.

I suppose you could make the 5 inch damage progressve as you move closer but what I see happening is that the furball would end up closer to the carrier. If the threat of anniliation, didn't keep them away, getting a few pings isn't going to. And now as the furball grows closer, there is even less time to react to the carrier killers with a less effective 5 inch which is now regulated effectively to the 40mm or less, range wise. How many 40mm hits to destroy an aircraft and at what range?

This isn't a rant for or against, just some of the problems I see arising..