Unpopular "Forcing" Idea and Vehicle Spawns

[Delirium]

Squadrons or people that fly a certain aicraft would be completely against idea #1.

Frankly, if I had to ditch the p38 after the first 3 deaths, I'd have maybe 2 hours of game play each month followed by 718 hours of waiting for the month to reset.

No thanks...

[EskimoJoe]

I like the spawn idea, so long as it doesn't scatter GV players trying to coordinate attacks.  The random VH spawn when spawning on the base would be a good spawn camp counter measure too.

As would closing the back door, and having hedgerows on possible angles of the exit.

[SD67]

I like the idea of making the vehicle spawns different, they are randomly generated within a specific area, I'd like to see that area expanded.
I reverse out of Vh's probably 33% of the time so closing the back door isn't a good option for me I'm afraid.
Simply put if your VH is being camped up a T34 and deal with it. It's pretty easy albeit a little frustrating If you coordinated the spawn with a squaddie you can spawn one sacrificial tank, then up a T34 and you can be guaranteed of getting the turret around for the shot the second time

[Impakt]

Yeah---idea 1 pretty bad---BUT it wasn't a per month limit---just each "war" ---once map is reset---you get your rides back. The limit could just apply to rides with ENY below 20, or 15, or 10.

[Ghosth]

The average new guy will lose more than 3 planes an HOUR. You want to limit them to that a month?

Tsk tsk tsk.

As Lusche pointed out anything restricting plane availability is going to impact new people hard than the vets.
Guys like Lusche that have been here for years have skills in a wide variety of planes.
Your average new guy who is just mastering ACM has so so skills in 1 or 2 planes at best.

And once you've gone through all your planes, you expect people to not fly for the rest of the month?
By week three the arena's would be ghost towns, with only REALLY good sticks left in the air.


Think things all the way through. This would be a lose lose situation for HTC.
And your really showing us that we shouldn't even bother reading your posts.

[BnZ]

I'm not going to rip on Impakt for his idea. Sure, I totally disagree with it, but I think I see what he is getting at...currently killing other fighter planes in the MA actually has almost no strategic meaning. I think that it should remain that way of course, and leave the "attrition" for events and CT.

[Motherland]

Well, to the first one, I got an addition.


You get 3 rides per plane per month. Lets say you dont die on your favorite plane the Spixteen, SO instead of getting just 3 the next map spawn, you get 6. How ever many you didn't die in, you get that many more added to your 3. 

AND the number of 3 rides per plane should be alot more like 20-25. Makes things easier on everyone. 

I would quit.

[Nisky]

I dont know if this is my imagination but i think i remember a while ago at Vbases spawning out of random hangers. Ive lost so many brain cells i cant remember.

[Impakt]

I guess you aren't reading them---I never said "once a month"---I said that every map reset you get a new list. How often does one side or the other win the war---that is how often you get new planes.  New people can fly ENY 20 planes too---neither in Warbirds or here do I fly the Ubers---they might be better off not starting in an uber. Would it really harm a newb to spend some time in a Spit IX when he is out of LA-7s? Anyway, if you read my reply to Lusche I pretty much said my idea 1 was misguided.

  This leads to a question----a rhetorical one---shouldn't a forum "wishlist" be precisely the place to vet new ideas??? Can any of us, new or old, think through the consequences and implications of an idea 100% without input and modification from others?? If my various proposals are so bad then you would indeed be correct to stop reading them.

[wantok]

Yep, a quota of anything per reset is way off beam.  A timeframe of days is out of the question.

Any effect of deaths at all should be very very light - not affecting play much, just a slight effect.

Say... after being killed/ditching/crashing/being captured, you can't up in that model plane/vehicle for X number of minutes... 10 min or something. You could still up in any other model immediately.  So there's a minor price to being killed, but nothing game-destroying.  The effect would have to be minor enough not to encourage people to deliberately disco rather than die.

[panzerr]

Wait lemme get this straight you only want to give me (3) FM-2s a month? Are you that afraid of it?
As for your spawn campers, egg em, bail and up.

Boy that was difficult.

I agree with Bronk regarding the spawn camping solution.  There is no need to change the game in that respect.  If a spawn is being camped, get a fellow flyboy to egg the campers, or bomb them yourself.

[waystin2]

I agree with Bronk regarding the spawn camping solution.  There is no need to change the game in that respect.  If a spawn is being camped, get a fellow flyboy to egg the campers, or bomb them yourself.

I agree that it is a simple solution, and one that I have and will continue to use.  However, it does not address the issue.  There are folks who can get 200-300 kills sitting on their bum.  No skill required other than ranging. Tank battles should be dynamic, otherwise you are better off playing a tank game on an XBOX.  Spend all night upping and bailing to kill campers just so I can up a GV?  I don't think so.  Further, I prefer (not saying fly my way here) to land my plane after every sortie.  This makes it difficult to get back in time to prevent a camp again.

[panzerr]

I agree that it is a simple solution, and one that I have and will continue to use.  However, it does not address the issue.  There are folks who can get 200-300 kills sitting on their bum.  No skill required other than ranging. Tank battles should be dynamic, otherwise you are better off playing a tank game on an XBOX.  Spend all night upping and bailing to kill campers just so I can up a GV?  I don't think so.  Further, I prefer (not saying fly my way here) to land my plane after every sortie.  This makes it difficult to get back in time to prevent a camp again.

I should have been more clear.  I agree with Bronk as far as egging campers being an adequate solution (as opposed to changing the game).  I don't agree with the bailing and upping part.  I had in mind more of a teamwork solution, where bombers would clear out a camped spawn, allowing the good guys to up.

As far as the XBox goes, I wouldn't know about that.  The only other game I have ever played was Wolfenstein 3D, about 14 years ago.

[Impakt]

Well, of course there is an in game solution---bomb and then USUALLY try and camp their spawn point. Just seems a skill-less, lame, point grubbing, "gaming the game" way to rack up kills that could be avoided by changing the game. I'm not trying to force anyone to play my way---I am simply stating that to me, in my opinion only, such camping is lame and it is facilitated by  (IMO) poor design. With that said I also find "bomb and bail," lame and I think sitting in fixed ak, carrier ak, and wirbels is odd---I'll stick mostly to planes.

[Motherland]

  This leads to a question----a rhetorical one---shouldn't a forum "wishlist" be precisely the place to vet new ideas??? Can any of us, new or old, think through the consequences and implications of an idea 100% without input and modification from others?? If my various proposals are so bad then you would indeed be correct to stop reading them.

This may have been a rhetorical question, but I'm going to answer it anyway.

The major flaw with your thinking is that you posted this thread in a FORUM. That is, a place where things are meant to be discussed. Now, when you discuss things, what normally happens is people have 'input'. Gernerally, the input can either be, 'ja, das ist gut', which is worthless, or constructive criticism. Generally, constructive criticism comes with suggestions of how the critic would see it working well in their mind, and then another poster posts their thoughts on the OP's statement and the critic's statement. Generally, this leads to the OP and Poster #1 defending their ideas and incorporating their ideas together, or contrasting their ideas, forming what is called a 'discussion', or, sometimes an 'arguement'. These are what forums are about; this forum would be very boring if someone posted an idea, and some said 'thats great!' or 'that sucks!', with no real input what so ever. If you wanted your opinion/idea not to be criticised at all, then you shouldn't have posted it here; thats not what the forums are for. You would have been better off keeping it to yourself, where no one can criticise it, or emailed it to HTC so they could have just deleted it instead of reading about you whine about people having input and opinions of your idea.