Author Topic: Idea discussed at the con. (Read 10309 times)

Zazen13 · « **Reply #105 on:** July 07, 2006, 07:37:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Birddogg
How about making the level bombers available only at the fields that are further away from the frontline.

Or perk the level bombers and if they crash, they penalised themselves.

Perk system has so much potential, a little more attention to it and it could regulate alot of things.

This brings up something I've always advocated...Make field sizes mean something, make the 4 engine buffs only available from large fields and the 2 engine buffs only from medium or bigger fields and small field only able to support single engine bombers. Re-arrange the field sizes accordingly. As it is now field sizes don't mean a whole lot, this would add some welcome strategic complexity to the game.

Kev367th · « **Reply #106 on:** July 07, 2006, 07:51:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by KTM520guy
How do you tell the difference between one who porks and augers and one who porks and gets owned by ack or a fighter doing base defence? Is there a way to auto detect a players intent?

And thereby hangs the problem.

What if I up a Tiffy with ord and go to pork a field.
I get my eggs off and destroy the barracks, a split second later ack kills me, or I got followed down by a high con.

I die, therefore my run has just amounted to NOTHING.

Sorry, a timer of ANY kind isn't the answer to deliberate pork/auger, but it sure will penalize people who are hit by ack etc after releasing ord.
Just how gamey we gonna get?

Rolex · « **Reply #107 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:12:09 PM »

There is no problem. A death is a death, be it from ack that should have been killed first, or a high con who did what he was supposed to do and anticipated correctly.

You could have dropped higher, gone in higher, had been part of a team effort to accomplish your goal.

Anticipation, planning and thinking should be rewarded, shouldn't they?

And luck (good and bad) is a legitimate part of life, war and games...

nopoop · « **Reply #108 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:18:20 PM »

Good points Rolex, I agree.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #109 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:24:44 PM »

whats wrong with an angle limiter? Its realistic and solves a bunch of problems.

Furious · « **Reply #110 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:31:56 PM »

my opine:

the weapon should work, live or die.

....incentives are good though. Maybe an ordinance timer is a better solution. Once a piece of ordinance is pickled, you can not load that type of ord for 'X' minutes, preventing the pickle/auger/spawn cycle.

Maybe X=10 or more minutes and maybe X is tied to ENY.

MOIL · « **Reply #111 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:36:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
How about making it so level bombers can no longer dive bomb by putting an angle limiter?

ack-ack

AND......they should HAVE to use the bombsite!!

Not the F3 view

Simaril · « **Reply #112 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:41:42 PM »

Rabbit,

angle limiter would be OK except HT has said it's "arbitrary" and thus unacceptable to him. So, unless he goes to the entire process of modelling bomb bay physics, dimensions, bomb inertia and "toss" effects, etc, etc, he doesnt want to set an arbitrary limit.

Also, you have to realize that the limit would be different for each vertical positon in a rack. So, the first bomb would be safe at a much steeper angle than the "top" one. which might need to be dropped from an essentially level bomber.

The work involved in doing drop angles right is way more than is realistically going to happen now. Eventually, detailed bomb bay modelling is coming...but until that task reaches the top of the "to do" list, we have to find a different way of addressing the issue.

The thread about this is still here, with Hitech's response towards the end.

Widewing · « **Reply #113 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:43:09 PM »

I do not like the proffered concept. It certainly seems to a roundabout method that will add confusion.

There are several things that I have advocated for several years.

1) Place a perk value on bombs of greater weight than 500 lb or 250 kilos for all non-bomber aircraft. Let's say, 3 perks each. Perks are not expended if the pilot lands.

2) Recognize that various types of bombs were required for various targets. High explosive (HE)was typical for heavy and medium bombers attacking soft targets. Semi-armor piercing (SAP) were used against hard targets and ships. HE was not very effective against armored ships as the bombs detonated on contact and did not penetrate the vessel. SAP bombs should not be available for heavy bombers. Light and/or dive bombers would have access to SAP bombs. If HE had only 25% of the effective of SAP bombs against ships, it would greatly reduce the suicide, dive bombing buffers. Using SAP against soft targets reduces damage by 50% as the bombs penetrate deeply into the ground before exploding, thus limiting the blast effect.

3) Add some difficulty to bombsight calibration and some sort of randomizer to simulate the effect of wind on bomb patterns and accuracy. Have this tied to a multiplier related to altitude in tens of thousands of feet. Thus, accuracy is related to altitude.

4) Bombers designed for level bombing should only have bombs released by the bombardier, not the pilot. Only the bombardier should be able to open the bomb bay doors while in flight.

5) Harden barracks and ordnance bunkers. Require at least 2,000 lb of combined ordnance to destroy either.

6) Harden both unmanned and manned AA.

Incorporating the above will substantially alter the paradigm in the MA.

My regards,

Widewing

Stang · « **Reply #114 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:49:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
I do not like the proffered concept. It certainly seems to a roundabout method that will add confusion.

There are several things that I have advocated for several years.

1) Place a perk value on bombs of greater weight than 500 lb or 250 kilos for all non-bomber aircraft. Let's say, 3 perks each. Perks are not expended if the pilot lands.

2) Recognize that various types of bombs were required for various targets. High explosive (HE)was typical for heavy and medium bombers attacking soft targets. Semi-armor piercing (SAP) were used against hard targets and ships. HE was not very effective against armored ships as the bombs detonated on contact and did not penetrate the vessel. SAP bombs should not be available for heavy bombers. Light and/or dive bombers would have access to SAP bombs. If HE had only 25% of the effective of SAP bombs against ships, it would greatly reduce the suicide, dive bombing buffers. Using SAP against soft targets reduces damage by 50% as the bombs penetrate deeply into the ground before exploding, thus limiting the blast effect.

3) Add some difficulty to bombsight calibration and some sort of randomizer to simulate the effect of wind on bomb patterns and accuracy. Have this tied to a multiplier related to altitude in tens of thousands of feet. Thus, accuracy is related to altitude.

4) Bombers designed for level bombing should only have bombs released by the bombardier, not the pilot. Only the bombardier should be able to open the bomb bay doors while in flight.

5) Harden barracks and ordnance bunkers. Require at least 2,000 lb of combined ordnance to destroy either.

6) Harden both unmanned and manned AA.

Incorporating the above will substantially alter the paradigm in the MA.

My regards,

Widewing

Couldn't agree more.

cav58d · « **Reply #115 on:** July 07, 2006, 08:53:44 PM »

Am I the only one that thinks that developing this into the game would be a waste of time right now??? Lets be honest...The dive bombing aircraft and the suicide porking isnt that big of a deal...yes it happens, but in my experience (and I spend a lot of time in the MA), it's not something that stops gameplay...You will always have the guy willing to fly from another base to bring troops...I remember "cyclic" flew 4 sectors in a goon, without complaint or question to capture a base...I just dont really see this is something that needs immediate attention in light of other things in the game...Correct me if im wrong, but didnt HTC say no new aircraft or developements until CT is out at the con a couple weeks ago? So why this???? Why would you want to add something thats not very important to your plate, when you should be focusing on CT??? It's like the jeep...Yea its fun and all but was it necessary? Couldnt all of those hours spent modeling a jeep been used for CT? Same with this...If HTC isnt even considering new aircraft until CT is released, then why consider this? I dunno....I dont like it...

If your not going to give CT 100% attention (like most of us thought you were doing for months now), then atleast give us a new map or two...Not something like this....

what do I know?

~~by the way, this isnt a flame or rant htc...~~

NoBaddy · « **Reply #116 on:** July 07, 2006, 09:07:20 PM »

Ok, as the guy who suggested this (geez Dale...you were listening

), I would like to clarify where the idea comes from.

First and for most, it is not intended to punish anyone. Its intent is to reward those that don't use gamey behavior to destroy ground targets and use good SA and planning to accomplish their chosen mission.

My second reason was my growing weariness with guys that climb a 51 or La7 to 15k then dive past a lower enemy fighter to drop a bomb, then circle in the ack shooting a hanger (or some such) until killed by an ack or player. Some one early on in the tread mentioned the gameyness of the idea. All I can say is that gamey behavior must sometimes be modified with a gamey solution. Especially, if this 'gamey' solution can cause the game to be played in a less gamey fashion.

Finally, will some folks be 'punished' even though they tried to do the right thing? Of course. However, that is why Dale posted the here is to try and find ways to mitigate the impact on those that do actually put an effort into their game play.

Murdr · « **Reply #117 on:** July 07, 2006, 09:08:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Btw I in no way buy the more gammy idea.The fact that it would create a more will to live after drop, would make things less gammy.

Also the intent was allways all ground objects including ack.

The 2 min time was an example, 15 secs is to short, 1 min might work.

And so far from the responses and resones im leaning more to doing the implemtation.

HiTech

I think the gameyness perception would hinge on how you presented it visually. Seriously, seeing hangers and other objects pop up and down inside of one minute would tend to look silly (aka gamey). If you were to as suggested, give us a visual cue such as smoke and fire on a standing object while the clock was ticking on the lifespan of the porker it would be a much better presentation IMO.

In that scenerio, we as players have visual confirmation that the object is now destroyed pending the timer outcome. If the 'porker' outlives the timer, the object explodes like normal, and we have visual feedback on that outcome. If the porker dies the smoke/fire dissapears from the standing object, and we have a visual cue to tell us that outcome also. Either way, we are not left in the dark at any time as to what the status of the object is.

Without some kind of visual feedback for us to track what is going on, I think it would be confusing.

Delirium · « **Reply #118 on:** July 07, 2006, 09:09:37 PM »

I like Widewing's idea better...

KTM520guy · « **Reply #119 on:** July 07, 2006, 09:43:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NoBaddy

My second reason was my growing weariness with guys that climb a 51 or La7 to 15k then dive past a lower enemy fighter to drop a bomb, then circle in the ack shooting a hanger (or some such) until killed by an ack or player. Some one early on in the tread mentioned the gameyness of the idea. All I can say is that gamey behavior must sometimes be modified with a gamey solution. Especially, if this 'gamey' solution can cause the game to be played in a less gamey fashion.

So, in this example, a 51 or LA MUST stop what he is doing and fight the opponent in front of him before dropping the ack or whatever? This kinda seems to me like you are telling others that can only play the way you want them too. To an extreme, that would be like HTC saying you can only fly Spit V's on Tuesdays.