GV's overload

[Wiley]

Rather than wish for there not to be GV's so that they are forced into aircraft, boosting aircraft numbers, why not just wish for more players? 

Hehe, well, that's kind of what I meant.  I never said I wanted GV's gone, I was just commenting that given the current situation, that's how they feel to me.  Of course many of the dedicated GVers wouldn't fly if they took GV's away, same as I wouldn't GV if they took away the planes.

Assuming that the probability of GV's being removed from the game is approximately zero, it's more practical and productive to devote one's thoughts and energies into discussions of how to get more players into the game.

Of course it is.  Unfortunately the things I like about the gameplay are not widely attractive to most gamers.  My belief is a lot of the things that make the other games popular would ruin AH.  If I wanted that gameplay, I'd be there not here.  Obviously the numbers speak for themselves.

Wiley.

[RotBaron]

Hehe, well, that's kind of what I meant.  I never said I wanted GV's gone, I was just commenting that given the current situation, that's how they feel to me.  Of course many of the dedicated GVers wouldn't fly if they took GV's away, same as I wouldn't GV if they took away the planes.

Of course it is.  Unfortunately the things I like about the gameplay are not widely attractive to most gamers.  My belief is a lot of the things that make the other games popular would ruin AH.  If I wanted that gameplay, I'd be there not here.  Obviously the numbers speak for themselves.

Wiley.

Sheriff Joe at your service:

He wasn't saying any of that. He was just saying that if there were more ppl everybody would be happier.

[Brooke]

I think that a lot of people would love AH if they tried it, but they have no idea about it.

My most-recent recruiting effort is my optometrist who is a pilot.

[Wiley]

I think that a lot of people would love AH if they tried it, but they have no idea about it.

And that's where I think our opinions diverge.  I don't think there are that many people interested in playing a game with the kind of learning curve and commitment this game requires.

To play the game comfortably IMO requires a subscription, a decent computer, some kind of head tracking like trackIR, joystick (preferably HOTAS) and pedals.  Playing with less than that is doable, but it's not the full experience that can keep a person up til 3 AM with work in the morning if they've found a good battle.  That's not even to mention what it takes to become a competent stick actually playing the game.

It's not something an average person can just walk into with their mouse and keyboard and do well in, which seems to be what most people want out of a game these days.  There's also nothing built into the game to make it fair.  Those two traits, among others, are what makes it worth coming back to for me.

My most-recent recruiting effort is my optometrist who is a pilot.

Good luck!  The more the merrier.

Wiley.

[Brooke]

I think it takes an $800 computer setup, a $35 joystick, and $15 headphones -- not that much -- and you can have a very good time.

It doesn't take that long to become competent at bombing (not a gunning ace, but competent in bombing) or GV combat (not a tank ace, but competent at fighting).  It takes a little longer to get competent at divebombing.   Yes, it takes much longer to get competent at air-to-air combat, but that gives you levels of the game into which you can grow.  It takes a long time to get up to higher levels in World of Warcraft or to become thoroughly integrated into EVE Online, too.

Yes, a flight combat sim isn't going to have the same potential audience size as WoW, but it doesn't need that to be successful and lots of fun for the players.  I think it's all about player density, not player numbers.

What is a sufficient amount for fun?  I would say that as long as a given player has about 5-10 other players around him fighting, it is fun.  Air Warrior was fun with 10 people in the whole arena -- but AW arenas were two AH sectors by two AH sectors in size.

So, the game could be fun with 5 in one country and 5 in the other as long as those 5 are fighting it out against each other.

What could help are maps that get smaller, or some aspect of the map that funnels participation into a smaller area, when there are fewer players.

This, to me, seems to be the key.

All of this lamentation about GV's or even about player numbers is missing the vital thing:  density.

[save]

I still don't get it, why can a enemy GV sit in a hangar and shoot people off the runway, and still is only be detected as within radar range with a flashing field, no radar signature ??

Its spawn camping without having the ability to shoot back if you are spawning in a plane, without risk if GV hangar is down.


You can advocate that you should take off from another base, but some maps that means flying up to two sectors away, and if If I approach a field in a plane everyone knows with meter precision where I am, but the GV does not even give away a radar signature on sector, and are only seen while shooting off their tracers off in a Wirbie, about the same time those tracers hit if you are flying low.

I saw a thread in the wish forum about Wirbie should have tracers off capability, really ???

Instead, make low level bomb****ing in 4 engined buffs almost impossible to hit a GV, like in ww2.

[Tinkles]

I still don't get it, why can a enemy GV sit in a hangar and shoot people off the runway, and still is only be detected as within radar range with a flashing field, no radar signature ??

Its spawn camping without having the ability to shoot back if you are spawning in a plane, without risk if GV hangar is down.


You can advocate that you should take off from another base, but some maps that means flying up to two sectors away, and if If I approach a field in a plane everyone knows with meter precision where I am, but the GV does not even give away a radar signature on sector, and are only seen while shooting off their tracers off in a Wirbie, about the same time those tracers hit if you are flying low.

I saw a thread in the wish forum about Wirbie should have tracers off capability, really ???

Instead, make low level bomb****ing in 4 engined buffs almost impossible to hit a GV, like in ww2.

Wirbles can turn off their tracers now, I have tried to do it.  Hard to hit anything though when you don't use the gunsight

I'm not really sure what you're asking for though, care to elaborate?

Tinkles

<<S>>

[save]

I want a standing chance to select a flashing field that do not have a GV hiding in a hangar, or a hundred yards from it, waiting for another plane spawn kill.
Someone told me only you do not see the tracers, if turned off, others do.

[Tinkles]

I want a standing chance to select a flashing field that do not have a GV hiding in a hangar, or a hundred yards from it, waiting for another plane spawn kill.
Someone told me only you do not see the tracers, if turned off, others do.

I'm not sure on the tracer part. I've been attacked by planes with no tracers before.

Well as for the gv in the hanger, whether or not they have tracers on or off is irrelevant if they can aim. As for plane spawn kills, I've been a victim of them before. Use flaps full power + wep and get out of there! Once your airborne you're a harder target to hit

I understand your frustration, but your example on GVs doesn't happen too often (it does happen but not every sortie or base take).

Improve. Adapt. Overcome. - HiTech

Tinkles

<<S>>

[715]

Its spawn camping without having the ability to shoot back if you are spawning in a plane, without risk if GV hangar is down.

Not entirely without risk: the 88 mm player manned guns have an AP option- just hit backspace.  And you can kill a lot of different GVs, including Wirblewinds, with the normal 37 mm flak gun.

[bozon]

Wirbles can turn off their tracers now, I have tried to do it.  Hard to hit anything though when you don't use the gunsight

I'm not really sure what you're asking for though, care to elaborate?

I think what save is asking for is a bar-dar equivalent for the presence of GVs, or some very short range dot dar that show GVs in view distance from the field. The latter I do not have a strong opinion about, but GV dar-bar is something I've asked for several times.

The other thing save was alluding to was to disable bomb release while in external view (F3). I fully agree with that, and this has also been requested many times before. Some people went as far as requesting no bomb release unless in F6 view (bomb sight) in planes that have it. This would make dive bombing in these planes nearly impossible since F6 also engages the auto-level. Such a mechanism would be a problem to the TBM and Moss XVI that should be able to dive bomb. Also, it is not clear how this will work in planes that can load/unload a glass nose in the hangar (e.g. B-25).

[Tilt]

I fully agree with that, and this has also been requested many times before. Some people went as far as requesting no bomb release unless in F6 view (bomb sight) in planes that have it. This would make dive bombing in these planes nearly impossible since F6 also engages the auto-level. Such a mechanism would be a problem to the TBM and Moss XVI that should be able to dive bomb. Also, it is not clear how this will work in planes that can load/unload a glass nose in the hangar (e.g. B-25).

My take is that to release from the pilots position the player should select attack mode which would in turn disable formations.

[Scca]

My take is that to release from the pilots position the player should select attack mode which would in turn disable formations.

In the short term, you or a squaddie can take out ords at the airfield for many bomb free minutes of spawn camping fun

[Bruv119]

on some large maps it can get out of hand,  people would rather hide in GV's / soft guns than do any meaningful combat. 

Problem is a vicious cycle,  people resort to GV ing because they can't fly for toffee.  Too old or too lazy, eyes are gone etc.   I have no problem with these guys until they try and capture all my bases.   If they try they will get bombed.  Such is life in AH to create the perfect battle we all enjoy both teams have to have some balance to enforce a stalemate on the ground and in the air.   

Most teams / squads just give up on a particular base if it proves too difficult your not ever going to change that. 

I would support the motion of having a GV counter.   If more than 5 gvs spawn into my territory it should put a ^ in the corner of the grid.  If 10 come in double ^^.    If its joker style or bish in general triple ^^^  for 15 gvs inbound.   That way me and a teammate can up an A20 in time and get 16 kills and prevent the lame horde approach from winning. 

[Tilt]

In the short term, you or a squaddie can take out ords at the airfield for many bomb free minutes of spawn camping fun

 

The choice is to have the pilot release from F3 or F1 or F6 or all or some of those positions. IMO all pure bombers should be limited to F6 release under all conditions. Attack aircraft should be limited to F1 (No F3 and they do not have an F6). Where aircraft enjoy both classifications (e.g. Boston/Ju88) then when a player chooses attack formations are disabled and F1 permitted (with F6), when a player chooses Bomber then only F6 would be enabled but formations permitted.

Thus forcing eg lancstukas to F6 release, enabling Ju88s to be used as the attack aircraft they were used as but not in formations and disabling  bomb release in F3 totally.