Eliminate GV perk loss if killed by AC

[TDeacon]

If a GV is killed by a ground attack aircraft, give the AC perk points for the kill, but don't charge the GV player for the loss.  If a GV is killed in any other manner, including by another GV, charge the GVer perk points for the loss as usual. 

This was suggested in another thread, and it appeals to me for some reason.  For one thing, it would encourage perked GVs to get off the tarmac.  I would like to get a chance to try to kill King Tigers with lesser GVs, and this is not practical if they are sitting at the VBase.  Another benefit might be to reduce antagonism felt in some situations by GVers towards unopposed ground attack AC guys, sometimes disparaged as "bomb tards".  Anything which improves the social atmosphere is probably good for the game. 

Yes I realize that the seeming assymetry of this suggestion will distress some, but look at it as a possibly beneficial game-play tweak.   

MH

[Lusche]

As a matter of fact, I have thought about something like that for a long time, along with other measures aimed at encouraging players to use the fat tanks more offensively instead of just sitting on the base.

Usually it's King Tigers sitting on a base waiting for cheap Panzer & T-34/85 attacking (because an attacking tank can almost universally be considered as a loss at the moment it spawns in somewhere). Wouldn't it be great when more often a KT would be brought in to battle the KT sitting on a Vbase in a epic shootout instead of simply dropping a 1000lbs on it?

[cobia38]

 so you are saying king tigers never had bomb dropped on them in RL ? 

[TDeacon]

so you are saying king tigers never had bomb dropped on them in RL ? 

Read it again, Cobia, I know you can do it if you try.   

MH

[Lusche]

so you are saying king tigers never had bomb dropped on them in RL ? 

I have to admit I can't figure out how you can have read this out of TDeacons post 

[Wiley]

Why make it asymmetric?  Is a guy flying a C hog or a Tempest being dragged to a wirble having his gameplay disrupted any less by the GV he has no interest in?

Wiley.

[whiteman]

that wouldn't bother me any, I spent a good portion of time hitting the spawn at V85 from a nearby carrier. Drop two bombs, hit 2 or 3 and rearm and repeat. No way i would up a perk tank over there, it's just to easy.

[Lusche]

Why make it asymmetric?  Is a guy flying a C hog or a Tempest being dragged to a wirble having his gameplay disrupted any less by the GV he has no interest in?

Wiley.

This is absolutely not comparable in any way.

[Wiley]

This is absolutely not comparable in any way.

Care to explain that?

Wiley.

[Zoney]

Absolutely ridiculous.

No.

[cobia38]

I have to admit I can't figure out how you can have read this out of TDeacons post 

 I suppose that sarcasm is dead now in the world eh

 
      but anyways,here is my take on it
       player A cry cause player B drops bomb and kills perk tank and player A lose perk points
   so now player A wants to be immune  to losing perk points due to getting killed by a bomb.
  
 so my theory is this,when a wirble/osty/m16 gets a kill on a perk plane,no perks are lost also.  
    
  
    

[aztec]

Inclined plane the GVs.

[guncrasher]

dont give perks to tanks for killing aircraft either.


semp

[Karnak]

No cost, no.  Maybe only lose half or a quarter of the perk value.  A Tiger II is a tough nut to crack for a plane.

[waystin2]

A death has consequences.  I have lost Tigers and other perk GV's and I have taken them from others.  Keep it the way it is.  -1