Rewarding small-unit actions

[B-17]

Dorks Arranging game-enviRonmentsettings.

[Tank-Ace]

I guess if reading the training docs HT provides is dumb? Then I'm Guilty ... Dar-Bar is not radar ... it's line of sight observation. Go and read for yourself. http://trainers.hitechcreations.com

Flying UNDER RADAR removes your red dot from within the radar ring. Two different things controlled by 2 different settings... If I got it right? DAR_BAR was set at 250 ft in the last scenario, RADAR was at 450 or 500.
Perverse is the perfect word, when you get done reading the training doc, look it up.
Unless they're doing something you don't like ... but they obviously do ...
Exactly.

First off, do you have any idea how out of date those trainers pages are? The ship gunnery page has no mention of the new system. The GV page isn't even aware of the existance of the M4A3's.  Projectile strenght annalysis is god only knows how inaccurate after so long. The stuff about tactics is still relevant, but the stuff about arena settings and specific vehicles might not be.

You've read stuff off of an outdated page, I have in game expierence. Guess which counts for more?

second, Perverse:
"1.(of a person or their actions) Showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.

2.Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice"

Neither defenition fits this thread. You've achieved linguistics-fail, congrats.

And third, giving defenders and advantage isn't limiting anyone, which is what you accused me of trying to do. Just like in the pfeil thread, you've completly 'effed up your entire argument simply by jumping around, and ignoring facts.

[EVZ]

Dorks Arranging game-enviRonmentsettings.

[B-17]

You've read stuff off of an outdated page, I have in game expierence. Guess which counts for more?

Meh. I've done both. And spent a year on the BBS and 3 offline practicing the game. And I STILL suck

Neither defenition fits this thread. You've achieved linguistics-fail, congrats.

*snickers in the background*

[B-17]

First off, do you have any idea how out of date those trainers pages are? The ship gunner...aware of the existance of the M4A3's.  Projectile strenght annalysis  ....you've completly 'effed uyour

LOL

Second look reveals MUCH more.

[Tank-Ace]

Thats spelling-fail, which I openly admit to. I never claimed to be a good speller, and its usually worse at night, since I'm lazy when I'm tired, and think "eh.... f*** it, good enough.". But its not linguistics-fail.

I still use the English language correctly, and don't screw up my definitions when I'm trying to look clever, like EVZ over there.


Oh, and P.S.,
Thanks for the hijack EVZ and B-17's. B-17's, you're exempt from this since you've been reasonable, but I do believe that EVZ is being what he himself defined as an "obstructive idiot"  .

[B-17]

Spelling and improper use/non-use of apostrophes.

I would actually say I was the hijacker, in this case at least. My apologies

[Tank-Ace]

Yes, but you're not being the "obstructive idiot", as EVZ termed it in his pfeil thread. Hes basicly putting this down because I was one of the people trying to explain to him with the Do 335 shouldn't really be in the game.

[EVZ]

Hes basicly putting this down because I was one of the people trying to explain to him with the Do 335 shouldn't really be in the game.

No, I'm putting this down because you are trying to pervert a feature (DarBar) that simulates the reality of a Visual Observation network (like the English Observer Corps). You want to use it as a mechanical means to control player behavior and force them to play the game YOUR way. And because you are misinforming the general population and making claims contrary to HTCs published documentation. ...

NOW you go ahead and explain to the people what I REALLY mean.

[Tank-Ace]

No, I'm trying to improve the game, I'm not at all trying to force behavior that is unreasonable or unacceptable. I'm not trying to do anything contrary to the accepted standards or practices, because there IS no accepted standard or practices. And neither am I trying to force people to play the game 'my' way.

Theres a difference between giving people viable options in play style and 'forcing' them on people. Have you ever stopped to consider that the difficulty of finding a decent sized fight that isn't a horde could be called forcing a style of play on others? No, you didn't, that concept is far beyond your limited cognitive abilities.

Darbar is a longstanding game feature, that serves to inform players of the presence of groups of enemy and friendly aircraft, and their estimated strength. As far as I can remember, you've always been able to fly below darbar level.

Since we don't know the rationale behind the darbar (to prevent base sneaks, to encourage fighting, etc), we can't say if this suggestion is contrary to that accepted 'standard'.

However, if you insist that simple change is perversion (which you likely will), then there aren't words strong enough to describe what you're trying to do to the game. The home page even says "the best WWII and WWII combat experience". No where does it mention postwar 1946 arenas, or 'experimental aircraft that never saw combat in WWI or WWII'. Arguably, all your requests for Do 335's and other post war aircraft are perversions of the entire game, not one individual facet of it.

You are simply trying to portray my suggestion in a negative light for petty and selfish reasons of your own.

[B-17]

WWI*

And of COURSE it doesn't mention experimental/non WWII/WWI aircraft, because none of them have been introduced to the game! :rolleyes

So, then, were the requests for the B-29 and the La-7

perversions

of the game? By your logic, then I say yes.

Arguably, all your repquests for Do 335s are perversions of the game, not one individual facet of it.

[guncrasher]

No, I'm trying to improve the game, I'm not at all trying to force behavior that is unreasonable or unacceptable. I'm not trying to do anything contrary to the accepted standards or practices, because there IS no accepted standard or practices. And neither am I trying to force people to play the game 'my' way.

Theres a difference between giving people viable options in play style and 'forcing' them on people. Have you ever stopped to consider that the difficulty of finding a decent sized fight that isn't a horde could be called forcing a style of play on others? No, you didn't, that concept is far beyond your limited cognitive abilities.

Darbar is a longstanding game feature, that serves to inform players of the presence of groups of enemy and friendly aircraft, and their estimated strength. As far as I can remember, you've always been able to fly below darbar level.

Since we don't know the rationale behind the darbar (to prevent base sneaks, to encourage fighting, etc), we can't say if this suggestion is contrary to that accepted 'standard'.

However, if you insist that simple change is perversion (which you likely will), then there aren't words strong enough to describe what you're trying to do to the game. The home page even says "the best WWII and WWII combat experience". No where does it mention postwar 1946 arenas, or 'experimental aircraft that never saw combat in WWI or WWII'. Arguably, all your requests for Do 335's and other post war aircraft are perversions of the entire game, not one individual facet of it.

You are simply trying to portray my suggestion in a negative light for petty and selfish reasons of your own.

I am confused.  you want to find small fights because fighting against a horde is not your thing.  but you dont want a small group of players to show up on dar, so how will anybody find a fight that is small enough when only the "horde" bar will show?


semp

[Tank-Ace]

You're missing the forest in all the trees there, bud.

My point is that hes saying this particular change would be a perversion for no more reason that it changes something. Following that logic, wouldn't moving the game away from WWI/WWII be a perversion as well?


Personally, I don't see changes as perversions, so its not my logic. I just think post WWII is a bad idea, since one of two things will happen: 1) it will become a second WWI arena, or 2) it will steal all the player base away from the WWII arenas and turn everything they've done so far into a giant WWI arena.



B-17's, you really would do better to stop trying to pick apart my posts, and use quotes out of context. When you look at things as individuals, you loose their true meanings, which are altered by the context. Quite frankly, you loose sight of the forest in all the trees.

[B-17]

I would love to know where the heck you got that extensive vocabulary of yours.

And I wasn't using the

perversion

out of context; I was simply showing that indeed, you had used that word.

I dunno about the last quote though... it was a little out of context, and now that I'm on the computer, not my phone, I can see what you ACTUALLY wrote. My apologies

[Tank-Ace]

I am confused.  you want to find small fights because fighting against a horde is not your thing.  but you dont want a small group of players to show up on dar, so how will anybody find a fight that is small enough when only the "horde" bar will show?

semp

No, the purpose isn't to make small groups harder to find, its to make fighting in smaller groups equally or more effective than fighting in a big horde. If 5 people can do the same thing as 30 people, but do it faster, cleaner, and while keeping the field intact, then what are people going to start doing?

Like I said, those are just ballpark numbers, and can easily be adjusted. Or we could just pick a maximum number of players, and say that any group exceeding that limit will always display a darbar regardless of their altitude. But dot dar and base flashing would remain unchanged.