Simple way to make AH GV-friendly and increase subscribers

[TDeacon]

Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle.  This can be adjustable.  

Rationale:

1)   Assumption is that HTC wants to attract GV subscribers as well as AC subscribers.  If not, all bets are off.  
2)   If so, they need to consistently provide a portion of the main LW arena where GVs can play relatively unmolested by AC.  It is frustrating for experienced players to realize that any halfway competent player in a plane can kill their expensive perk tank, and there is nothing they can do about it.  Imagine then how much worse it is for new player.  
3)   The preceding is best achieved by integrating GV-safe and GV-open-season areas over the entire map, on all maps.  Thus, they will always be there, no matter when you log on.  
4)   But map changes are a lot of extra work for HTC.  
5)   The OP allows use of existing maps with a simple rules change.  
6)   The “war” can still be fought and won using the air bases, which comprise the majority on all maps.  VBases can also be captured to “win the war” if attackers are able to do so without bombing GVs within the circle.  
7)   GVs can still be bombed normally everywhere else, so that play style is retained.  

MH

[Tinkles]

Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle.  This can be adjustable.  

Rationale:

1)   Assumption is that HTC wants to attract GV subscribers as well as AC subscribers.  If not, all bets are off.  
2)   If so, they need to consistently provide a portion of the main LW arena where GVs can play relatively unmolested by AC.  It is frustrating for experienced players to realize that any halfway competent player in a plane can kill their expensive perk tank, and there is nothing they can do about it.  Imagine then how much worse it is for new player.  
3)   The preceding is best achieved by integrating GV-safe and GV-open-season areas over the entire map, on all maps.  Thus, they will always be there, no matter when you log on.  
4)   But map changes are a lot of extra work for HTC.  
5)   The OP allows use of existing maps with a simple rules change.  
6)   The “war” can still be fought and won using the air bases, which comprise the majority on all maps.  VBases can also be captured to “win the war” if attackers are able to do so without bombing GVs within the circle.  
7)   GVs can still be bombed normally everywhere else, so that play style is retained.  

MH

Bring a wirble friend.

If this is the case, then GVs should lose perks many more perks if they kill any plane with their main gun while in a Vbase radar (or airfield). Also, lose perks if wirbles get any kills in Vbase radar.

1 sided (in my opinion) whine wish.   

Something that would be PRODUCTIVE to Aces High. Would be to add portable 88mm anti-tank/anti-aircraft batteries. That a Jeep or M3 would tow. That would work exactly like our 88mms at base, that you could shoot at tanks with AND defend your tanks with from planes. 

This isn't productive, it's a "keep away area". Not fun for the plane members of Aces High.

-1 for this wish.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Aspen]

I will say no thanks. I enjoy air to ground and ground to air combat and don't want it reduced.  If my pricey perk tank gets bombed, I can up a wirble or plane and try and extract revenge.  When I lose a perk tank its usually because I'm camping or causing enough trouble to where I don't blame the guy one bit for dropping an egg on me.

If I run low on perks, the "free" or really cheap tanks are capable of accomplishing about anything.  When CraterMA pops up in rotation, a couple hours in a Panzer F and M3 in Tank Town and perks stack up pretty fast.

[TDeacon]

BTW, I realize that the usual 10 anti-GV guys will post negative replies, because, by in large, they enjoy the current situation, which forces GVers to be mice to their cats everywhere on the map.  And I can see why, if you don't GV much, this seems like it might be over-controlling the game (violates the traditional "free-for-all" philosophy).  

However, don't forget that HTC has apparently decided to support GVs as an equal part of their game, as evidenced by all the new GV models introduced, and the new GV control mode.  Once this step was taken by HTC, the fundamental inferiority of GVs relative to AC becomes central to a large minority of the player base, rather than peripheral as before.  Thus, it seems approprate to reexamine the traditional "laissez faire" attitude and to perhaps take steps to adjust to the new reality, such as that suggested in this OP.  

Speaking for myself, I will maintain my subscription regardless, even though the current situation makes the game less fun than it could be.  However, those mostly interested in GVs will be frustrated, and may not become and/or remain a part of the paying AH community.  

MH

[Karnak]

It is an interesting idea, but I am not sure it would be very effective.

[TDeacon]

It is an interesting idea, but I am not sure it would be very effective.

Well, HTC could probably try it relatively easily to see how well it works.  I assume you are thinking that the revenge motivation would still determine what people do?  I had my Panther hunted down by a formation (!) of B24s yesterday in TT.  I guess that the question is how many perk points would someone be willing to lose in order to obtain revenge.  I think it would deter the griefers at least.  

MH

[FLS]

The notion that bombing a GV base and hitting a GV should be penalized strikes me as ludicrous. I think the greifer would be parking in the GV hanger.

[Tinkles]

Well, HTC could probably try it relatively easily to see how well it works.  I assume you are thinking that the revenge motivation would still determine what people do?  I had my Panther hunted down by a formation (!) of B24s yesterday in TT.  I guess that the question is how many perk points would someone be willing to lose in order to obtain revenge.  I think it would deter the griefers at least.  

MH

Not an anti-GVer. Very bad to assume as to the reasons why anyone posts anything, because most of the time someone is wrong.

As for the bold part of your statement (above), a wish similar to this would be FAR more better to address the problem.

All heavy bombers shouldn't be able to drop bombs under 5000 feet.


(However, some bombers who have the option to carry things like Torpedos (ju88 and He111 (I think)) would be able to drop only torpedos at their respective altitudes/speeds. Including the LANC with it's anti-bridge bomb    )

I am a GVer, but I do understand that HTC while supporting the GVs doesn't give you the right to be a jerk to those you know won't support your wish.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Tracerfi]

From TDeacon  "Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle"

Its a Bloody Aircraft game with tanks I GV enough to know that bombing GVs is common enough to be a pain but the part i quoted is an excuse to make GVs impervious to danger.
GVs are targets no matter what you cant stop people from doing it and its not really fair to punish people for playing the game the way they its there 15$ (Rant over)

[Ack-Ack]

How is penalizing one segment of the player base for playing the game going to increase subscribers?  Make no mistake about it, all your wish amounts is to penalize the player for simply playing the game.  There is absolutely nothing wrong about a player bombing another player's GV, after all it's part of the game mechanics.

ack-ack

[muzik]

There is NOTHING wrong with punishing players for "playing the game" if it is a detrimental aspect of the game. What those of you who stated otherwise are ignoring, is AH ALREADY punishes people for bad behavior. Kill shooter for example.

The difference here is that Deacon's gripe is FAR LOWER on the scale of distasteful behavior than shooting one's own countryman. That does not make it right.

I don't think Deacon's idea is the right answer to this problem, but his concerns are absolutely a problem and are NOT just a matter of people "playing the game." It's a minor form of harassment, it's poor sportsmanship and immature behavior just to name a few.

I hear more complaints about people running from air to air engagements just to come back and pick than I do about Deacon's complaint and in my opinion, sore losers looking for sucker punch-revenge kills are the lower form of life.

The facts are, GVs are already more vulnerable to air attack than in real life. They are helpless for the most part. They are an important part of the game and any imbalance is bad for business.

This game needs to set itself apart from the squeaker-fests found in FPS's. If someone want's revenge for getting their bellybutton kicked in a fair fight then so be it, but don't make it so easy that they can make a bee-line right to you and send you to tower 5 minutes after you killed them.

[FLS]

Aces High by it's nature promotes, but doesn't require, cooperative gameplay. AA and air cover are better solutions then penalizing players for playing within the rules.

[Tracerfi]

There is NOTHING wrong with punishing players for "playing the game" if it is a detrimental aspect of the game. What those of you who stated otherwise are ignoring, is AH ALREADY punishes people for bad behavior. Kill shooter for example.

The difference here is that Deacon's gripe is FAR LOWER on the scale of distasteful behavior than shooting one's own countryman. That does not make it right.

I don't think Deacon's idea is the right answer to this problem, but his concerns are absolutely a problem and are NOT just a matter of people "playing the game." It's a minor form of harassment, it's poor sportsmanship and immature behavior just to name a few.

I hear more complaints about people running from air to air engagements just to come back and pick than I do about Deacon's complaint and in my opinion, sore losers looking for sucker punch-revenge kills are the lower form of life.

The facts are, GVs are already more vulnerable to air attack than in real life. They are helpless for the most part. They are an important part of the game and any imbalance is bad for business.

This game needs to set itself apart from the squeaker-fests found in FPS's. If someone want's revenge for getting their bellybutton kicked in a fair fight then so be it, but don't make it so easy that they can make a bee-line right to you and send you to tower 5 minutes after you killed them.

First off punishing people for playing the game within the rules is bad for bussiness FLS has a point the game does not require co-op game play its there 15 Dollars  so they can play anywaythey like within the game rules

[bustr]

From D-Day on this was the SOP for German tanks. Pilots were imbedded with front line units to call air strikes because they could speak attack pilot. Or light aircraft were used, or the troops and tankers called it in themselves. Just like our game works now.

Forward Cntrlr: Dog flight leader we have a tiger blocking our column West of alpha12 sector, east entrance to Malme village.

Dog flight Ldr: roger, 5 heavy inbound, 3 minutes.

Forward Cntrlr: Left of the church 1000yds, behind the wall.

Dog flight Ldr: roger, confirmation. 1 minute.

Boom, Dead tiger.

Forward Cntrlr: thank you dog flight leader.

Dog flight Ldr: roger, back on station, call if you need us.

If you don't want to get shot for your $14.95 in Aces High. Find another game, or put up your own custom arena. I don't like getting shot or bombed anymore than the next guy. Tanking is no more special than flying. Everyone gets killed in this game and no one likes it less just because they are not in a tank. Hitech is not Obama, and the MA is not a government program to provide charity to tankers because they say they are victims of being bombed too much.

The only rule in the MA: "No Rules"

[FLS]

First off punishing people for playing the game within the rules is bad for bussiness FLS has a point the game does not require co-op game play its there 15 Dollars  so they can play anywaythey like within the game rules

Actually my point is that your team mates can cover you.