Author Topic: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •  (Read 3231 times)

Offline stodd

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2009, 05:33:05 PM »
• IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay  •
- Lets not! :aok

I understand the intentions of this idea but not only would it ruin double spawn battles and make braking up camps nearly impossible but it would make people fly even more timid.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 05:35:35 PM by stodd »
Stodd/ CandyMan
I don't get why you even typed that, you know it's stupid.


Offline FireDrgn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1115
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2009, 06:10:44 PM »
I understand the though Delta. You cant change mentality the players tho. they are just going to fight that much harder to play the way they are playing. I dont think you can penalize they guy that dies and have no penalty for they guy that lives  there is no yen and yang so to speak... It would just further lopside what already is going on.

<S>
"When the student is ready the teacher will appear."   I am not a teacher.

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2009, 06:17:44 PM »

I am wondering if some of the objections are from players who
value scores and ranking above game play and are more concerned
that they will not be able to find an easy fight. 



How would forcing people to sit in a tower improve game play? How can you fathon that people would enjoy sitting in the tower for 2 to 5 minutes? You are more interested in winning an argument than you are in improving  game play, it seems. If, you mean by reality, to have a bunch of people flying planes around at 30k in an effort to avoid death, then maybe that's what you would achieve. I fail to see how that improves game play.
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline FALCONWING

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 943
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #48 on: February 11, 2009, 06:41:22 PM »
96delta..i applaud your idea but agree with that it should not be implemented...

There is already in essence a delay..its called going back to the nearest airbase and flying over to the fight...

It would in fact FAVOR hordes, noes and pickers....if LCA is NOE a base and the usual 4-5 bish up to try to stop you...after killing each of us once we would be stuck in the tower...also guys already in flight couldn't bail to help out.  If a squaddies called for supplies you would have to land and then try to help them....

I guess it would hurt the handful who suicide bomb and it would make folks think twice about hoing but if you are a member of an NOE you would more likely TRY to ho as you couldnt make it back intime anyway and he would be stuck in the tower...

Again it is goodd to think up new ideas....but this one would punish those who actually defend and fly into bad odds situations... :salute
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 06:55:52 PM by FALCONWING »
SECRET ANTI-BBS BULLY CLUB

Offline HighTone

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1299
      • Squad Site
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #49 on: February 11, 2009, 06:50:04 PM »
I like the idea. With a few modifications that were mentioned here. Put a delay on taking off from the base that you previously took off from. So if you up and die, it would be a delay at that field only, but you could take off at any other base right away. Only do it for the paying accounts, and use ENY to determine the length. So if your really outnumbered the delay would only be 2 minutes or something like that. Over all I think it should be something that HTC looks at.  :aok

LCA Special Events CO     LCA ~Tainan Kokutai~       
www.lcasquadron.org      Thanks for the Oscar HTC

Offline 96Delta

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 790
      • Loose Cannons Alliance (LCA)  "Realize Your Potential"
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2009, 06:50:30 PM »
Hey, here's another idea I just thought of.

Thanks to your posts I've discovered a flaw with the
idea that I had not envisioned...and its based on what
players in the current unlimited-planeset would do in
response to such a change.

I neglected to account for the relative strengths of the
aircraft in any engagement.

To work, the delay would have to be varied by type of
plane flown and adjusted for the type of plane engaged.
For example, you fly a Spit 16 (or another
uber aircraft) and you die against another Spit 16, your delay
would be shorter than if you die in a P-40B, for example.  

However, if you fly a P-51D and get killed by a P-39D, you're delay
could be much longer as you have been bested by an inferior plane
flown by a superior pilot.

Still, the more I think about it within the game's context the more
I can see that this idea, within the current AHII format,
would not be workable.  The only way that it might be
adoptable, would be if the planes were limited based on
year of introduction or some other way of leveling the
playing field...which isn't likely to happen.

As I consider the insights I have gained from reading
some of these posts, I can readily see that this idea would
just encourage all players to fly the best planes that compensate
a pilot for their limited skills while simultaneously discouraging the
use of "inferior" planes by pilots who thrive on the challenge
of besting their opponents in earliy war aircraft.

Not something I would like to see.

And on that basis, I withdrawal my idea from consideration
and further discussion.

I'd like to thank those of you who took the time to post
your thoughts about this proposal and who labored to
post an argument for or against the idea.  My intention was
to solicit ideas and promote a dialogue about the idea and aside from
a couple of exceptions, you have not let me down.

Thank you for allowing me to discuss this idea with you. <S>  :salute
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 06:54:03 PM by 96Delta »

To be sure you are going to Heaven when you die  CLICK HERE.

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2009, 07:00:32 PM »
It must be nothing short of a miracle that we ever won the
airwar over Europe & the Pacific; what with all the poor incentive and
refusal to take risks...and a "death" penalty that lasted forever!

There is no parallel between that and the MA scenario we have in AH.  I can proably pull 2 or 3 quotes of HiTech relating exactly the same point that I raised.

Karnak:
 DING DING DING, Give the man a cigar, Those are the resones we don't give much a death penalty.

Basicly it comes down to, if the primary goal is living, why fight when you have a choice.

Ive experainced playing settups where death was to much a penality. On the extream is was a one life to live per night arena. In the not so extream it was AW's EOL system.

Players tended to always run if there was a small chance they might die by fighting.


HiTech

HiTech

We do not try to simulate WWII. Simulation of WWII is one of   CT's goal's. Then things like ho's start to be used much more like they were in the war. Once there is a substatial penalty on death. And you can win with out shooting down the other guy. Then the choice of to HO or not becomes a very diffferent equation.

But if you try taylor things in the main to be a recreation of WWII tatics, you start to run into major fun limiting restrictions.


HiTech

You dont want to look at fact's like the historical arena in WB's if the general players wanted more along these lines the historical arena would have a lot more players in it then the main, care to comment on why this is? Or is it the players who enjoy the main just dont get it and we should ignor them?

As for alway using Quake as an example I for one would have loved to develope Quake. It's player type is not the people who like flight sims but none the less just because they enjoy it and you don't dosnt make it any less of a popular and great game.

And btw I have experenced excitement like you are talking,there called senerios. I also know that senerios dont work on a full time bases, but then you dont wish to have your mind cluttered with facts. Like the simple way you structued your test is incorect. Runing the test once a week totaly invalidated all your data. In normal game play people don't come in at a set time for a 2 hour session. There moods very every night they come in. Some nights they wish to just have fun furballing. Other night's they want to see how long they can go on a kill without death streak. Some times they will take a troop transport just because the team needs it. Try getting that done with someone on a long streak under your plan. Other nights people just want to log on and have fun with there buddies. They arn't concerened about their life long carrer they just want fun with friends. Online gaming is lot more than just simply playing the realism game like a box could be. You have to allow for ideal times for people to chat and have fun ,all white knucle type flying would have a big deturent on players talking with each other. Can you imagin dieing to a typeing death in your setup? You wouldn't take the risk. I could go on and on about game play issues, they are somthing I've thought about daily for that past 5 years but i've been rambling a tad here so time to end it.


HiTech

And killjoy I have flown a game where at one time living was the primary goal of the score system, just as you sugest. What you are not seeing is that not just you would adjust your tactics, everyone does, and hence most of the people will not engage unless they have an advantage. This leads to everyone running, because if you do not have the adanatage you would run untill you did, then the other person runs untill he has the advantage.

As to energizing the comunity, what you sugest realy would be the death of the comunity.

Our score system is the way it is, because we have tried many different ones in the past.

HiTech

My assumtion is you belive the game should be a WWII simulator. I do not belive that Aces High should be a WWII simulator,and it shows up in our description of what aces high is on our home page. Aces High primary purpose is an ACM simulator that uses WWII aircraft. At times AH will be used as a WWII simulator but this will be in senario base functions and other events.

DEATH:

Death is only a piece of the scoring mechinism of the game. Based on my statement above that we are not trying to recreate WWII
,death should view from a gameplay only perspective and how does one wish the game play to evolve.

There is one key element that is quite simple but a lot of people seem to forget. For a kill to be scored someone must die.

When you slant the game on the wanting to live side you will automaticly reduce the number of kills the average player gets. This is a simple game mechanism that can not be avoided.

From a game play view Kills are offense Deaths are defense. When you put to much wieght on deaths you end up making a totaly defensive game. Games MUST be balanced between offense and defense or you end up not having a game. Ive seen the consiquences of making death to much of a penaltity and what happens is players spend hours trying to find one fight. Death as it stands now does have consiquences and more will be added in the future. But care must always be taken to balance Kills v Deaths.

HiTech




Airbumba's post about simmer / gamer gave me this idea. Maybe it's been talked about before...

Let's ad a new arena that is the same basic setup as the MA, only with a few changes incorporated from several other player's ideas and prevoius posts.

1. Life limiter - A player gets only X lives per hour.
--snip--

Midnight 1 thing to consider. You basicly have just put a cap on number of kills per hour also, Because for every kill there is a death. You have just basicly set a max of 4 kills an hour in your setup.

bagrat: The biggest problem with your idea is how it changes how every flys.  It would put far to heavy of penaltiy on death. Hence people would wrather live than fight. Now this sounds good until you relize it meens everone is running from fights unless they have a huge advantage.


HiTech

rabbidrabbit: It is all a question of balance.

The extream case I have seen tried by AW was a one life to live Arena. You got 1 life per day. "Sounds like a neet idea right" closer to real life, put the pucker factor into the fight. Well here is what realy happend.

Everyone discovered the same thing, because living out wieged the risk of fighting, no one would engange unless they have a big advantage. Hence the hole time was spent just chasing people and never fighting. No fights everone got board, next thing no one is even trying the arena.

So to make a game fun, you realy have to have the need to engage out wiegh the risk of dieing in the majority of cases.

This is acctualy more realisitic if you view it from a slightly different perspective. In real war the need to accomplish the mission outwieghed the need to live. We do not have anything that realy promotes the need to accomplish a mission, hence we lower the penalty for death, there by making the engagement more important then the death.


HiTech

Heck, I only went through 3/4 of the first page of search returns.  But I think you get the point...Don't be dismissive of my replies...errr, no wait...it was..
Putting too much of a penalty on death only causes even less of an incentive to fight or take risks.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2009, 08:21:13 PM »
I like it because I think there would be less HOing and such. Only think i don't like is people might fly even more timid knowing they can't re-up right away.

It wouldn't decrease "HO" attacks at all but it will promote even more timid game play than we see now.  People will be more likely to run from a fight to avoid being killed and having to wait a certain amount of time before being able to re-up.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Wingnutt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2009, 09:35:10 PM »
the whole "it wuould make people fly even more timid" idea.. is hilarous..

what do we have that you would describe as "timid"??  lets see..

the pickers..

people that run when engauged and begin losing the upper hand..


Ok,

what do we have that is alrealy overly and unrealisticly aggressive due to no penalty for death??

HOing

ramming

suiciding to kill dar

suiciding to kill ord

suiciding to kill troops

suiciding to kill a CV

suiciding into ack to kill someone who is landing

suiciding into ack to kill someone who is taking off



the actions in the game that are too timid have nothing to do with anything except either score, or lack of ability.. some people fly very timid to keep a high K/D  others do nothing but pick and run because they dont know how to do anything else..

putting in a respawn delay would not make this activity any wores, no bearing. 

I would like to see:

A: if you DIE (are killed) or are captured, you cannot up in an aircraft from the same base for 3 min, but you can take off anywhere else.. you can stil roll GVs from that base of course

B: if you ditch you cannot up an aicraft from the same base for 1.5 min.

C: no respawn delay on GVs... just not feasabe.

"then the hordes can roll bases even easier" 


the only opposition you see to bases getting rolled anymore is in the che 200 text buffer anyway... no effect.

besides if you do bother to up from a base that is getting capped.. and die immediatly... take aGV to town to defend it, thats what usualy breaks a NOE base grab anyway.  Or for base defence.., get in a field gun... roll out a wirble you dont absolutly have to be able to re-up your LA7 5 times per miniute to be effective.  if the VH is aready down and everything is deacked, relax, by then your screwed anyway  :)









« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 09:36:45 PM by Wingnutt »

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2009, 09:37:44 PM »


ramming



How is someone taking damage from flying into another AC unrealistic?
See Rule #4

Offline BigR

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #55 on: February 11, 2009, 11:11:52 PM »
Its a good thing some of you guys dont run the game, or you would run it into the ground. A spawn delay is the absolute last thing HTC should ever implement. HiTech will never let it happen, which is a damn good thing.

Offline FiLtH

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6448
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #56 on: February 11, 2009, 11:25:00 PM »
     Maybe this has been addressed as I didnt read every post, but how about instead of no flight for 5-10 mins, how about no flight from the baseyou just upped and died from for 5-10, but you could up at the next base in line.

      Ive always thought this game needs some mild form of attrition, Id say take one of the LW arenas and experiment.

~AoM~

Offline skullman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #57 on: February 11, 2009, 11:52:07 PM »
kinda mixed feelings-yes but 5 min too long maybe run people from game causing loss of revenue-good as it would make fighting using your head more.could ruin the furballs as in horde comes in noe knocks all down and everyone is in tower watching it go down-like the idea of upping a vehicle to defend till time is up as you need to be able to defend.I cant count the times I have been defending and get killed but come back on the ground from another base and able to save it.would have to take alot of thought on parameters and experiment in an arena before implementing
been there destroyed that

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #58 on: February 12, 2009, 05:28:26 AM »
the whole "it wuould make people fly even more timid" idea.. is hilarous..

Why is it hilarious?  You cannot deny the fact that if this stupid system was ever put in place it would encourage people to run instead of fight. 

Let me put it to you this way...if you were to run across someone like me that can easily shoot you down a turn off merge, with this system in place, would you engage or run?  I'm willing to bet that you'd run because you wouldn't want to get shot down and have to wait XX minutes to take off again.  That is why a system like this promotes and encourages timid flying.

In case you didn't read Murdr's reply a couple above yours in which he quoted HiTech would show that even the developer of this game agrees.

Karnak:
 DING DING DING, Give the man a cigar, Those are the resones we don't give much a death penalty.

Basicly it comes down to, if the primary goal is living, why fight when you have a choice.

Ive experainced playing settups where death was to much a penality. On the extream is was a one life to live per night arena. In the not so extream it was AW's EOL system.

Players tended to always run if there was a small chance they might die by fighting.


HiTech

HiTech


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline grizz441

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7000
Re: • IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •
« Reply #59 on: February 12, 2009, 06:02:10 AM »
I see where your coming from Delta but you are assuming people want the game to be historically realistic.  Remember the homepage of htc says the Premier WW2 Combat Experience, not WW2 Simulation and Murdr just posted a boatload of HiTech quotes relating to that. 

Reasons why it would be bad:

1.  Defenders would lose all incentive to defend.  Getting gang banged at a base under attack is even less fun if you get penalized for trying to save the base.

2.  Easier to steamroll bases.  See Reason 1.

3.  More timidness, less dogfights.  It's hard to imagine this even being possible but it would be.

4.  Lots more wasted time.  As if flying to the fight isn't boring enough.

5.  Ta152 would become the most popular, uber plane in the MA as everyone would be flying 30k.

Increase realism, decrease fun.  WW2 wasn't a fun time, so I don't see how realism and fun are correlated.