Carrier missions posted

[Wiley]

Exactly what I'm talking about.

Little things, like limiting the severity of a turn based on proximity to enemy forces/land would be a start.

Which would affect little, because the vast majority of the time people are launching close to the enemy/land.  Nothing wrong with the idea, but would the effectiveness be worth it?

An audible warning to players on the carrier several seconds before it begins a turn would be nice, though I don't know how feasible.

Which has the side effect of making the carrier less maneuverable in the event of bomber drop.  Whether that's good or bad is debatable.

Even just making it a little easier to tell the state of the task force, again we're talking accessibility to the average player here, from the tower - would be nice.

Again, nothing wrong with the idea, but if it's only available in the tower, how useful is that once you've taken the deck?  If I'm griefing the deck, I'm not going to turn until I see them start to move.

There's a great tendency for people in online games to want the powers that be to Do Something About It!(tm) when something inconveniences them.  There is rarely any thought put into the side effects or how much good it would actually do, or possible downsides, such as the OP displays.

I'm all for change that actually accomplishes something, I just dislike change for the sake of change.

Wiley.

[Volron]

Fugi, I honestly believe you'll accomplish more by pissing into the wind than by talking to tunnel.   Just sayin.

[The Fugitive]

Fugi, I honestly believe you'll accomplish more by pissing into the wind than by talking to tunnel.   Just sayin.

I know. I'm easily misunderstood, but I'm a nice guy and I'll try to help everyone........... well ok, I'll just leave it like that 

[tunnelrat]

(deleted)

[tunnelrat]

(deleted)

[tunnelrat]

I know. I'm easily misunderstood, but I'm a nice guy and I'll try to help everyone........... well ok, I'll just leave it like that 

I've got nothing against you, personally... and maybe my frustration was a bit misguided... but I am tired of watching people post legitimate wishes be descended upon by the Vigilante Tech Support squadron.

ET is a damn good guy, and if he is coming here to post an issue he has dealt with it multiple times and it's caused legitimate grief.

I have... an exceptional amount of experience with just about every facet of online gaming, down to layer 1.  I have never seen the code for AH, nor do I presume to know ANYTHING about what goes into the development and successful release of a change.  What I do know all about is exploits with grief potential, and this is one of them.  The answer to griefing is NEVER to throw it back on the one being griefed.

ET represents the voice of the core of the player base... i.e., the silent majority who probably don't even have forum accounts.  We are talking, literally, ages 8 to 80.  Working class fellas with a 2 to 3 hour window to play, on a good night.  These are guys that aren't on enough to have the level of experience or coordination required to successfully navigate the deck of a turning carrier when they have already begun their roll.

Anyway, sorry for getting defensive, but ET's in my sacred hoop.

[tunnelrat]

There's a great tendency for people in online games to want the powers that be to Do Something About It!(tm) when something inconveniences them.  There is rarely any thought put into the side effects or how much good it would actually do, or possible downsides, such as the OP displays.

I'm all for change that actually accomplishes something, I just dislike change for the sake of change.

Wiley.

I agree wholeheartedly, and this forum exists specifically to allow for this type of discussion... I certainly don't think any of my ideas are slam-dunk fixes, not by any margin... I simply don't know what the solution is.  The only thing I know is that the current set-up allows for easy grief potential and pilot training or finding someone with a low enough rank to take it over is not the answer.

We talked to a CM last night about this issue, and he had the idea that perhaps making it to where the carrier can't turn when someone is on the deck...

Playing devil's advocate (as you have done above) I said "But some jerk will just park on the CV deck to prevent it from being turned.." and he said "Yes, but you'll know exactly who it is..."

So, I think there ARE some options here... but whether or not they merit a code change... well, far above my pay grade.

[kvuo75]

These are guys that aren't on enough to have the level of experience or coordination required to successfully navigate the deck of a turning carrier when they have already begun their roll.

seriously? and they aren't interested in learning how either? perhaps they should just limit their flights to/from airbases.  

[tunnelrat]

seriously? and they aren't interested in learning how either? perhaps they should just limit their flights to/from airbases.  

There was a reason that carriers turned into the wind and cruised straight while launching/collecting aircraft during WW2...

But, I completely agree with your point on the one hand... of course, I can't land a Storch on a cruiser like some guys haha...

[Volron]

That's funny, maybe instead of taking shots for the good ole' boys BBS club, you could take a look at a map and figure out how to hit a hangar you are assigned.  Just sayin. 

Right, right.  Funny thing is, when the DD's assign me a hanger, that is what I'm gonna hit.  Unlike some, I actually will CONFIRM my target before we get there (I think I pissed ET off once confirming 2 times ).  I've learned to confirm targets when flying in rather large scale bomber mission as it prevents screw ups like what happened the other day.  Which has me wondering, was there an update to Pand's Maps?   Last I recall for a small field (according to the maps I currently have), FH3 was the S hanger, FH1 is the N hanger.  Since I was assigned FH1, which was the N hanger on my map, that was what I was hitting, till someone else got it.   I didn't see anything posted on the BBS about him updating the maps and my version is 2.2.

[matt]

 

[icepac]

I would like to see launching from the cv disabled while a mission waits for launch.

Just make the limit of the "waiting mission shot clock" to be 10 minutes or less.

It could possibly be gamed to deny takeoffs, though.

[tunnelrat]

Right, right.  Funny thing is, when the DD's assign me a hanger, that is what I'm gonna hit.  Unlike some, I actually will CONFIRM my target before we get there (I think I pissed ET off once confirming 2 times ).  I've learned to confirm targets when flying in rather large scale bomber mission as it prevents screw ups like what happened the other day.  Which has me wondering, was there an update to Pand's Maps?   Last I recall for a small field (according to the maps I currently have), FH3 was the S hanger, FH1 is the N hanger.  Since I was assigned FH1, which was the N hanger on my map, that was what I was hitting, till someone else got it.   I didn't see anything posted on the BBS about him updating the maps and my version is 2.2.

What I said was jerk-tastic, I apologize.  Bad morning, should have stayed off the forums.

[Old Sport]

As far as the dreaded turning CV goes, I suggested a long time ago to simply do what real US carriers did - when flight ops were in progress (i.e. the carrier is sailing straight) you see a green light up on the bridge from your spawn location on the deck. When flight ops had ceased (i.e. the carrier is turning) you see a red light from the same location. It doesn't prevent anyone from taking off during red light-turning CV, but it warns people. Course the response I got was to look at the wake - which I could never see from a hog   

Regarding the task force - this is a purely hypothetical question:

What if perks were at stake for anyone taking command of the Task Force?

Any commander who lets the task force get sunk loses perks - enough to sting a bit.

On the other hand, a commander gets a small percentage of the perk points from planes, PTs or cruiser shelling that accrue points while in command.

Perhaps a CV mission could lock the CO of an un-commanded Task Force for that mission - though not exceeding, say two hours max. (or some limiting number). Other non-mission players could still launch... or... maybe for a few minutes during mission launch they could be prevented....

Low number guys could still bump any TF CO that does not have a mission in progress.

Just an idea... sink it if you like. 

[Wiley]

I agree wholeheartedly, and this forum exists specifically to allow for this type of discussion... I certainly don't think any of my ideas are slam-dunk fixes, not by any margin... I simply don't know what the solution is.

I usually try to keep my criticisms civil, unless the person with the idea is presenting it as though it's a perfect solution, and has the tone of 'God!  I just can't believe they haven't implemented this simple fix!' (not saying that's happened here, btw)  The OP asked why he shouldn't be able to have control of the CV for his mission, the first response explained why.  Tone is irrelevant.

The only thing I know is that the current set-up allows for easy grief potential and pilot training or finding someone with a low enough rank to take it over is not the answer.

The only thing I can see that would take away the grief potential of controllable CVs is to take away the ability to control them.  If a player can control it, it can be used to grief, period.

As to 'pilot training', I disagree.  It takes pilot training to learn how to take off and land from an airbase, fly the plane, hit what you're aiming at, and land.  It takes a little bit more to take off and land from a CV, but it's not onerous.  Unless you're in a worst case scenario with bombs, rockets, and full fuel it is not crushingly difficult to take off from a turning CV.  Once you've done it a few times, it's just another thing you have to take into account.

Looking at carriers and how they work though, you've got two factors on a seesaw:

1) The ability for people to take off.
2) The ability for the carrier to dodge bombs/shells from artillery.

The game currently favors the ability to dodge.  Most CV battles I've seen, if planes on the deck prevented the CV from turning, the battles would last about 1/10th of the time they do.

We talked to a CM last night about this issue, and he had the idea that perhaps making it to where the carrier can't turn when someone is on the deck...

Playing devil's advocate (as you have done above) I said "But some jerk will just park on the CV deck to prevent it from being turned.." and he said "Yes, but you'll know exactly who it is..."

And taken to the next logical step, then what?  A nasty thread on the forums?  Nasty PMs to the person?  Public flogging?  HTC playing hall monitor and booting them from the game?  How do we distinguish griefer from newb?  If people take his head off and it's a newb, that's going to leave a bad taste for sure.

I'd lay money if you could tell HTC what time you were trying to launch from a specific carrier and the person in control turned it, if they were so inclined they could look through a log and see who did it.  If they wanted to, they already can know exactly who it is.  However, once you put rules in place, you've got to enforce them.

CVs being maliciously turned happens occasionally, but it's not insurmountable for players to overcome it.

So, I think there ARE some options here... but whether or not they merit a code change... well, far above my pay grade.

Yup.  IMO it is how it is because of the necessity for CVs to avoid incoming fire.  That has to take priority over takeoff smoothness.

Wiley.