Idea discussed at the con.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

In the case of fighters porking, I think two minutes is about right. That should cover it nicely.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by hitech
If you live more than 2 mins, nothing would change from the way it works now.

I like this idea, should help keep the pork and auger folks in check.

[Eagler]

try it, we can always rollback to what it is today ..

[EagleDNY]

Hey HT,
  The idea has some merit, but I can forsee problems.  Suppose 10 guys get together and run a jabo mission to do a vh - jabo 1 gets his off and damages the vh, jabo 2 gets his off, kills the vh and dies to ack, jab 3-10 get theirs off and pulverize the vh area and get away.
  It sounds like the vh would be coming back up almost immediately because they lost Jabo 2... despite being hit by 10 loads of bombs.  9 Jabos fly away in disgust grumbling how 18,000 lbs of bombs can't kill a vh anymore.

  I think porking can be addressed more easily by changing the downtimes and number of bombs needed to kill the various strategic targets at the base, and by preventing the lancs and other level bombers from suicidal dive bombing.

  If we want to prevent a single player from porking a base into the stone age, all we need is:

1. Downtime for Troops (Barracks) destruction reduced to 15 min (like a fighter hanger).  Justification: Troops just crawl out of their holes and go on fighting after a bombing raid.  Good Infantry is always hard to keep down
2. Toughness of Ord / Ammo Targets to be increased to 3,000 lbs bombs each (like a vh), leave downtime at 2 hours.  Justification: Ammo bunkers are HARDENED and UNDERGROUND - a little 20mm or 30mm fire shouldn't torch it up like a Ford Pinto.
3.  Prevent Level Bombers from releasing bombs while diving.  Either make it so the autopilot must be active, or you have to be in bombsight view, or both for any bomber that wasn't used as a dive bomber.  Justification: do I even have to?  This change might even give the bomber boys some reason to break out Ju88s or Stukas for base attacks.  We can debate which bombers were used in diving attacks, but we can at least agree to stop the 4-engine types from doing it.

  I think these changes would be simpler for you to code / implement and would solve a lot of the gameplay problems with suicide lanc CV killers and troop porking la-la drivers.  

EagleDNY
$.02

[SlapShot]

This is a two edged sword ... Pre-Destruction and Post-Destruction.

For example ...

= Pre-Destruction ======================

It takes 3K to take down a hanger and its down for 15 minutes.

I drop 2K on the hangar but auger.

HT follows right behind me and drops 1K on the hanger.

Because I augered my 2K drop is reversed, hence the hanger only has 1K on it. It will take another 2K worth to drop it. HT dies 1 minute later (before the hanger is destroyed) ... now it needs 3K to take it down.

= Post Destruction =====================

It takes 3K to take down a hanger and its down for 15 minutes.

I drop 2K on the hangar and don't auger.

HT drops 1K on the hanger.

Hanger blows up ... countdown starts to rebuild. At this point, if either of us die, then the penalty should be applied to reverse/speed up the rebuild time.

[1 minute later] ... HT is killed.

HT did 1/3 of the total damage to the hanger.

1/3 * 15minutes = (5 minutes).

15 minutes - [1 minute] - (5 minutes) = 9 minutes left to rebuild.

HT's damage is subtracted from rebuild countdown which allows the hanger to come up quicker.

==================================

I don't want to see any smoking hangers during whatever time limit HT would decide on ... and then see the building blow up. If you get the correct amount of ord on an object that causes it to blow ... then blow it up. If those who participated in the destruction die within the time period, after the destruction, then the rebuild time is shortened.

If people die within the time period after dropping ord prior to its destruction ... then their efforts/ordinance are/is nullified.

[Kev367th]

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

Bad idea IMO -

What about (happens to me) -
Dive in, release eggs, kill barracks, then get nailed split second later by field ack. (had quite a few outright pilot kills).

Guess my jabo run was for nothing, because the ack killed me within 1 min.

Sorry, time limit isn't a fix, it's a kludge, and I must disagree it really smacks of being as gamey as the pork auger guys.

[thndregg]

I would have to try it to form an opinion. I learn by doing. I am all for some idea geared toward an incentive to survive an attack mission and return home safely.

[Midnight]

If we are going to make "gameplay" adjustments to prevent this type of pork and auger behavior, why can't we make the adjustments to the game to prevent the cause, rather than using a timer to adjust the effect?

There are many possibilities that, although may be unrealistic, at least doesn't work like the "omega 13" (ala Galaxy Quest) and turning back time.

1. Increase fusing time for bombs dropped out of level bombers - Forces level bombers to drop from higher altitudes

2. Limit drop angle of level bombers - Forces bombs to be dropped at less steep angle and prevents dive-bombing

3. Put an Ordnance time limit on the individual player - After the player uses ordnance, he cannot get any more ordnance for 10 minutes. - This discourages pork, auger, instant re-spawn because the player would have to wait to get more ords. Could re-up without them though.

IMO, this whole thing stems from the basic game principal that says in order to "win" the enemy fields must be shut down by killing all the structures on it. There is no individual death penalties, so it doens't matter to the "win the war" player how the job gets done. Why can't we get a game-play change that would encourge more fighting over strat targets and cities, rather than pork-and-auger tactics?

[KTM520guy]

I don't see this a good idea. The amount of time it takes to re-up a hangar or other strat and the life span of a player in the game have nothing in common.

[Tilt]

Assuming the object is to de motivate and reduce the effectiness of   suicide porkers.

The game play motivations tools are standard rewards such as "attaboys" and perks....


as a general philosphy I would try to use the tools created for "motivation"

COAD problems to one side the "pure" method (IMO)would be to perk ordinance. Its "in character" and easily understood hundreds of other games on the market have folk "buying" stuff............

Big bombs are expensive medium bombs are cheap small bombs (& rockets) are free. (they are all free if you land successfully)

Given the COAD difficulties of perking ordinance and given you can "flag" a death shortly after a bomb release then you could have a perk penalty for "dieing"soon after  releasing a bomb......... (or after any ground object damage such as straffing troops or  AA)

Frankley I wouild like a combination of both of the above...............

The hard truth is that reducing the down time will not actually demotivate folk........... these are the same guys who will HO rather than manouvre.... if the hanger goes "bang" they will be happy and come back the moment it looks to be up again.

The other aspect of the suggestion is that it reduces ( directly) the effective ness of suicide porkers..ie the down time is reduced.......... or presumably the damage is reduced if the bomb run did not actually get a kill.

Well it will rebalance some of the effects of suicide bombers......
and I can see the benefit in this.

It does add another layer of stuff to the interplay between strat and repair rates..makes it even harder to understand.

Generally my take is that it is a "fix". It trys to modify game play by a mechanism that does not mimick a reality consequence......... and I do beleive that by mimicking "reality consequences" AH gets better rather than "moving sideways".

Demotivate the suicide porker by hitting his perk points and make those perks his access method to the tools he requires to pork.

[cav58d]

Like I said earlier, I really think that developing time could be spent in a more worthwhile manner...ie- completing CT...Hitech, I really dont see this issue being so important that it has to be changed immediately...I think we can all live with the porking and dive bombing aircraft for another couple months until CT is finished, and after CT is released, you can devote all your time to correcting this problem the right way...ie-  maximum angle bombs could release and fall in bomber bays....I just think working on this would be adding to much to your plate, and slowing down something more important....just imo

again...thanks for looking for our advice/opinion on this issue...I see this as a big turning point in aces high, and im loving the fact that your faithful costumers get to really throw out their opinions on the pro's and con's...I just hope this isnt a 1 time deal..

[Kweassa]

I understand both the good and bad points of the suggestion.

That being said, I must point out the suggested idea at hand can be nothing more than an incomplete, temporary remedy to the problem at hand, that will ultimately backfire in time.


 There are many problems why people do dweebey and gamey things. One of them is that unlike the real thing, we don't die when we screw up. Ofcourse, we can't do anything about that (unless some company goes the distance and develops a cool joystick that sends out electric shocks whenever you die.. *nyuk nyuk*).

 However, there are many more problems in-game that also give reason to such gamey and reckless behavior and all of those, can be addressed in one way or another.


 For example - some suggestions

a) Bombs don't have mass - you can drop the bombs during any kind of plane behavior and the bombs will always drop successfully. You can release bombs while flying inverted, while barrelrolling, looping, and they will not damage the plane in anyway.

 Introduce collision-detectable mass to the ordnance and people will be forced to take certain precautions and measures while preparing for the drop. This simple change alone, both increases the survivability of the attacker (by correcting his bad habit in attack runs and forcing him to abide by historic precautions), and the predictability of the attack run (making interception attempts easier for the defenders).


b) Bombs are generic - every bomb in the game is a general-purpose bomb that can be used for everything at any altitude.

 Divide the types of bombs, so people will have to correctly choose loadouts for their designated purpose of flight. Let them set some kind of detonation alt or fuse delay tp the bombs - which will determine how effective the detonation was. By introducing such a system to the bombs (albeit game-adapted, simplified version of it), the bomb detonation will have discrepancies in its effectiveness, so a 1k load of ordnance may not reach its full potential in damage if the fuse delay or arming alt or whatever was incorrect, or an incorrect type of bomb was used for the mission.

 This will make the results of bombing more unpredictable - it will require the fighter/bomber/attacker to take steps to deliver the ordnance more accurately, soundly, and logically, for the ordnance dropped to reach its full potential in destructivity.

 
c) Rare/uncommon ordnance options are much too common in-game - 1k bombs are a rare thing to carry. While a single P-47 with its maximum ordnance load can easily take out a VH with a single pass.

 However the task becomes much more difficult when say, you need multiple P-47s armed with only 500lbs bombs to do the job. Immediately the number or bombs required on target goes up. Combine that with the 'quality of the drop' as can be seen in b), the gamers will be forced to become proficient in the drops to a certain degree.

 Slap a perk on the 1k loads, introduce limited availability to the 1k bombs, I don't care how you do it - just make it so that the 'standard' armament preferred in the game, is in most cases limited one or two 500lbs bombs. That alone, can remove a lot of fizz from the suicidal porkers.  


d) Field defenses are weak - bring out the 88mms and let's if the the deck-running buff pilots can still laugh....

 ..

 The point is, many of the problems are realism problems (as in not enough of it). A correct dose of realism can go a long way to influencing people to stop doing stupid things in game.

 Such 'temporary remedies' ultimately will not do the game any good. With every 'gameplay concession' added to the game it just gets weirder and weirder. I mean, think about it - we're talking about bomb damages that suddenly disappear as soon as the pilot who dropped them dies. Ain't that weird?

 Why take such a indirect, poor approach to the problem when a more direct approach can fundamentally cure the game from the perceived problem? If suicidal porkings are a problem, then simply bring in every factor in real life to the game, that would make such rash behaviors unpreferrable (except the death factor, of course), instead of planting weird and corny little 'gameplay concessions' to everything.

[Simaril]

I cant see jack-in-the-box hangars as being a good thing. Far too confusing and unpredictable. Its up-- its down -- no its ups again! Ugh.

At the same time, I have to disagree with Kweassa. Any incentive, effectively and predictably applied, will alter game behavior. Pork and auger happens because there's simply ZERO disincentive, as long as you dont care about score. The guys who are least likely to care about score are precisely the ones who would care most about strats and hangars -- the base capture guys. Making field ack tougher wont affect that, because you cant get around the fact that dying is irrelevant to their style of play.

The only way to change the behavior of capture guys is to make the undesired behavior advarsely affect capture.

So, it seems to me that time penalties are just the best way to do that. Either put in a destruction lag, so target damage istn applied until the lag times reached; or, reduce the target down time if you die within the tiem window HT sets. 50% down time penalty seems fair.

If the "dont die" time is under a minute, either would seem practical. If its over a minute, the damage application lag would just get too weird.

Because you really wouldnt want any intervention to disrupt game flow. The on again/ off again damage, with hangars popping in and out like transdimensional warpers, woudl jsut feel spastic, jerky, bizarre to me.




I find it interesting that the ones who seem against the CONCEPT of anti-suicide run interventions sound like they've gotten used to doing them. I'm sure that whatever is implemented, they'll adjust and still be able to kill what they're after -- the game will go on, whether prokers come in at 500 feet or whether they learn to pull out at 2k. Just new tactics, like what happened when towns got more spread and FHs were split. Wont be a crisis at all.

[jaxxo]

i like that idea that you came to bbs and asked us what we thought can we get more of that? in all seriousness very refreshing I must say....on the topic I think its a gamey fix for a gamey problem...return buffs to original bombing mode, set max angle a buff can drop from and make it bombsite only release..however it would fix guys bailing out after releasing eggs but i dont think that justifys the fix...thanx for asking though

[Simaril]

Originally posted by jaxxo
i like that idea that you came to bbs and asked us what we thought can we get more of that? in all seriousness very refreshing I must say....on the topic I think its a gamey fix for a gamey problem...return buffs to original bombing mode, set max angle a buff can drop from and make it bombsite only release..however it would fix guys bailing out after releasing eggs but i dont think that justifys the fix...thanx for asking though

Jaxxo...HT has already talked about the angle limit idea and reviewed why he doesnt like it here


Also, the drop from bombsite wont work because they can hit F6 then FIRE2 so fast that the bomber wont change pitch at all.


100% agree that HTC's being great about coming to us. As I recall, the last time this happened was with ENY -- and the system we got seems much more tolerable than the first suggestion. I'm betting we'll get a less stressful intervention this time, though.