Author Topic: Idea discussed at the con. (Read 10518 times)

richard_rd · « **Reply #330 on:** July 16, 2006, 11:11:35 PM »

Hate the idea HiTech!!!

I think a better approach to eliminating the single field porker (if that is what you are trying to accomplish) is to put more accurate and possibly more/bigger ack guns at the fields!!.

Manned quad 50's Acks like the gun package that the M16 use would be nice, especially if it was protected by a hardened bunker that would take at least a 100lb bomb or at leat 5 cannon rounds to take out (acks now that are taken out by a single cannon round are a joke).

Nightshift82 · « **Reply #331 on:** July 16, 2006, 11:39:52 PM »

I don't like the idea.

AKWarp · « **Reply #332 on:** July 17, 2006, 12:55:39 AM »

Rabidrabbit,

How is making troops and ammo harder to kill making things more gamey?

I don't like HT's idea, but I do support making porking more difficult, at least to the point that one or two fighters can't do it.

The biggest drawback we have in terms of "realism" is that we don't really die and we are limited by the number of people on each team. In reality, each and every base had people stationed there. In this game, you have to jump around. If everyone responds to a flashing base, then your manpower at the front drops and you get overwhelmed.

The only way to realistically "man" all the bases would be to limit the fields to a maximum of 8-10 fields per team....total. That would be a bloody mess of a map....one gigantic furball (I'm sure that would make some folks happy). Admittedly, if such a map were in the rotation, it would be fun once in a while.

Making AI ack more accurate at fields that are unmanned would make porking more difficult. Decrease AI ack accuracy proportionately to the number of friendlies in the area (down to the level that it currently is at max capacity).

I think take some AAA guns ala the 5" found on fleets and put them at airfields (and make them mannable) would help too.

Make troops and ammo harder to kill.

I don't know if it is possible, but make the base layouts different, even within the same size category. Add more indestructables, but make them look like "regular" hangars and such. That would make things like, communication, more tactics, etc come into play to really knock a base down. As it is now, two flights of buffs can take an antire base down (with the exception of large fields), in a single pass no less.

SB · « **Reply #333 on:** July 17, 2006, 07:26:35 AM »

After reading through pages of posts and differing opinions my view on this subject is not changed. I like the idea if it can be implemented without effecting the level bomber guys. There are many folks who only see the downside or want to make more sweeping changes that would cause present game play to be changed. This proposal is nice, simple, and only really causes problems to the folks that actually do the pork and auger runs, the very ones that this is being implemented to address. I don't think HTC wants to make field capture any harder than it is, doesn't want to have to make major programing changes to implement more guns, or have to change all the maps/airfields for more guns. They want to spend as little programming time for this so they can concentrate their time for additional game features we are looking for.

lazs2 · « **Reply #334 on:** July 17, 2006, 08:15:03 AM »

I still feel that anything that leaves bases uncaptured while the FH's or the ack is down will continue to support the gamey horde and vulch gameplay.

I would rather that the ack and FH's stay up till everything else is down.

I would also like some maps with the fields 3/4 of a sector apart. On every map where there is such a place... that is where the action is... when a light bulb fragile CV gets close.. the action is there.

If action is a good thing then bases far apart and easily killed ack and hangers is a bad thing. If some sort of board (bored) game is desired then by all means.... make is so there is no chance for fair fights.

lazs

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #335 on:** July 17, 2006, 08:21:36 AM »

Warp,

I don't think I said making those tougher is gamey. Actually I support the more realistic bases that not only look better but are tougher to take down. What I thought was gamey is the die-o-meter clock count down that HT is going with. I prefer a realistic fix over a gamey fix if possible.

Mugzeee · « **Reply #336 on:** July 17, 2006, 10:56:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech

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

HiTech

ROFLMAO...of course you are. Thats a given
carry on.
Honestly...i see this increasing the hoard mentality even more. Why...strenght in numbers=life=max down time. Its just the basic way of thinking.

Ironblade · « **Reply #337 on:** July 17, 2006, 11:39:41 PM »

Salute All
Dont like it very much its a bad idea! ..why dont we just cut to the end and get rid of bombers and Ord all together and make just one big furball !! and for that matter why land just apear in flight.

we will just make the bombers drone's.
leave good enough alone. or make a seperate arena for the landgrabbers?

Fly have fun see yas.

Spatula · « **Reply #338 on:** July 18, 2006, 12:02:47 AM »

FWIW sorry HT i dont like the idea of making something only sort of damaged for any period of time.

I think the real solution to sorting out suiciders is to make a virtual life actually worth something, then people will think a bit harder about wasting them.

Now the problem becomes how to give it some worth...

Another alternative would be to give a person who lands a bomber mission a bigger perk point multiplier and introduce some cool perk bomber rides (Super Fortress for example) and/or weapons (im sure theres something that will fit here).

Just my 2 cents to consider

Robert · « **Reply #339 on:** July 18, 2006, 12:18:42 AM »

Taking a field should take team work. Make the land grabbers use the mission editor. Mission editor should make you specify the target / field
you are after. If you are not part of the mission you cannont destroy
anything at a field. Im sure there is someway you could exploit this
but would make for more realistic formations of planes.

Robert

Dantoo · « **Reply #340 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:54:53 AM »

quote:Originally posted by hitech

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

HiTech

Originally posted by Mugzeee
ROFLMAO...of course you are. Thats a given
carry on.
Honestly...i see this increasing the hoard mentality even more. Why...strenght in numbers=life=max down time. Its just the basic way of thinking.

_______

I have already put forward my view so a second post is overdoing it, I admit.

People with ideas looking for ways to improve enjoyment perhaps deserve some time. Those looking for changes to curtail others in their enjoyment deserve none. I still wonder at the alacrity shown by the authors to introduce this sort of stupidity.

One point that might have been made earlier is in strictly economic terms, changes like this win you not a single new customer - just further risk the ones you have invested in gaining already.

Flayed1 · « **Reply #341 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:01:43 PM »

Well I talked about this post with most of the squad last night (squad night)
and I didn't hear a single "Sounds like a good idea" . In fact nobody liked it.

I'm leaning that way also the more I think about it. I think it might be better to just make ack more leathal and or more of it so trying to do a suicide run on a base well would be suicide.

Really how many guys in a single fighter would really dive in on a large field all alone to try straifing down the ord bunkers and then jump out of the plane even though they hadn't even been hit?

Or a flight of bombers fly's over a base and takes little or no damage? Actually last night I went to take down hangers at a medium field in my B24's with 4 2000 pounders. I missed 1 hanger and that made my run at 15K pointless.
As we all know if you don't take all the hangers down at the same time or real close togeather why bother.

So with nothing to lose I went into as much of a dive as I could and got right down on deck turned around and flew right over the base gunned down the last hanger while only taking a few pings. The only reason I lost my drones is that Cashew poped up in a N1K and shot my drones but I got him at the same time. Flew back and landed my kill.

Note: I normally don't come down after my drop I blame last night a bit on that bottle of wine I was working on, seems I value my virtual life less when drinking.

My point is that I think the Field ACK should have ripped me a new one flying just over the top of the hangers and not even at full speed.

AKWarp · « **Reply #342 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:43:50 PM »

Ok rabidrabbit, then it appears we agree on things....I see now you were talking about HT's proposal (we both dont like it). Sorry for the confusion.

SB, what exactly are the game features "we" are looking for? Who is "we"?

MWL · « **Reply #343 on:** July 18, 2006, 09:09:18 PM »

Greetings,

Okay, okay, one more post.

Objectives, near and far term.

Please:

Near term:
Up the field ack accuracy (I understand this can be down now with minimum issues)
Harden the troop barracks. (surely, this can be easily done in current code)

Far term:
Implement the smoking hangers / bldgs.
Increase number of AI and Manned Ack at flds.

Regards,

guttboy · « **Reply #344 on:** July 18, 2006, 11:53:37 PM »

I struggled through the first few pages....then exhaustion got the best of me....

Leave it the way it is. If folks can manage to get through then let the damage stay.

If the "defense" can up to destroy the incoming attack then that should be sufficient to prevent the destruction of the targets.

I have been gone for a few weeks on personal issues from the MA but just my 2 cents.