Alternative simple way to make AH GV-friendly and increase subscribers

[TDeacon]

You do realize that "open season" would still apply on most of the map, don't you?  The idea here is to add additional scope to the game, not reduce it.  IMHO, additional scope will appeal to more people, and increase the fun level, and hopefully attract more subscribers.  As I have said elsewhere, my best friend is an AFV modeler, and would be interested in this game if they put some GV-safe areas in it.  

You also should remember that this proposed change applies equally to all of us, including you and me.  All advantages and disadvantages apply to all of us, and it is in that sense balanced.  

MH

You could start a poll.

Yes I could, but why?  I already know that there is a significant minority of rabid anti-GV guys, although I don't understand why.  In any case, the point of the thread is to make a suggestion to the company who owns the game.  

BTW, You didn't respond to my question.  

MH

[The Fugitive]

You do think about these things before you post them, don't you??  No?  Well because of course most people have better things to do than baby-sit other people's game play.  

But here's an idea.  Why don't you perform this function?  I'll announce on channel 200 whenever I need you to cover me in a Wirble or fighter.  You of course will then immedately bail from your current plane, and tag along behind me, in order to provide that wirble/fighter cover that you advocate.  Looking forward to your post where you agree to undertake this function...

MH

If you can't find someone to cover you then thats the chance you take. It is the same with flying wing with another fighter, or being cover for a bomber group. What you are asking for is a death free zone from anything other than another GV. In that vein fighter guys could ask for a death free zone over a base while they vulch, and bomber should ask for one over the strats so they could concentrate on bombing instead of going defensive.

The biggest problem with the idea, and ideas like this is you guys can't seem to see the other side of the coin.

[ReVo]

You do think about these things before you post them, don't you??  No?  Well because of course most people have better things to do than baby-sit other people's game play.  

But here's an idea.  Why don't you perform this function?  I'll announce on channel 200 whenever I need you to cover me in a Wirble or fighter.  You of course will then immedately bail from your current plane, and tag along behind me, in order to provide that wirble/fighter cover that you advocate.  Looking forward to your post where you agree to undertake this function...

MH

You're absolutely right, nobody is going to follow you around 24/7 with a wirb or fighter. However, if your tanks are being harassed by aircraft you can feel free to request assistance on country and I am sure that more often then not at least one person will come to assist. Not because we like to "baby-sit" you, but because we like to kill things.  

Here, let me try this again. The furball area at the center of the map exists to create combat of all kinds, not just the kind you enjoy. Some people like gving, some enjoy furballing, others want to bomb things. Just because you dislike being bombed does not mean that they should be forced to stop bombing you. Please accept that this game is not a Burger King. You can't always "Have it your way".

[TDeacon]

You're absolutely right, nobody is going to follow you around 24/7 with a wirb or fighter. However, if your tanks are being harassed by aircraft you can feel free to request assistance on country and I am sure that more often then not at least one person will come to assist. Not because we like to "baby-sit" you, but because we like to kill things.  

Sounds good, but doesn't work, because people don't like to fly CAP.  We see this everywhere in the game (strats, CVs, etc.) and not just over GVs.  Calling for help after the A20 shows up is futile; even if someone ups to help you, you are dead way before they get there.  In the Wirble case, sometimes people show up in a Wirble. However, having it follow you around is impractical without ruining the GV “furball” experience.  It’s like requiring a fighter escort for a plane-versus-plane fight; not practical.  Believe me, I’ve tried these types of solutions, and about 20 other ones, and none of them work very well.  The sad fact is, we have a fundamental imbalance in AH with respect to the GV-AC tactical interactions.  If HTC really wants to take advantage of this additional game play (and subscriber) opportunity, which they themselves have introduced into their game, they IMHO need to provide a portion of the map where this imbalance is corrected.  

I really encourage you to try GVing yourself (outside of a horde, and to make it really educational, use an expensive perk tank).  You will see how it goes, and understand the motivation for these threads better.  If you want, I can up with you and give you pointers.  I’m not the best GVer in the game, but I am certainly competent.  Shoot me a PM.  

Here, let me try this again. The furball area at the center of the map exists to create combat of all kinds, not just the kind you enjoy. Some people like gving, some enjoy furballing, others want to bomb things. Just because you dislike being bombed does not mean that they should be forced to stop bombing you. Please accept that this game is not a Burger King. You can't always "Have it your way".

Remember, this isn’t the OzKansas TT thread.  Also, FYI, I enjoy game fighter-to-fighter combat as well as GV combat; I started out with the former over 20 years ago.  However, the former can be found anywhere on the AH map, while worthwhile GV combat areas are  hard to find.  

MH

[TDeacon]

If you can't find someone to cover you then thats the chance you take. It is the same with flying wing with another fighter, or being cover for a bomber group. What you are asking for is a death free zone from anything other than another GV. In that vein fighter guys could ask for a death free zone over a base while they vulch, and bomber should ask for one over the strats so they could concentrate on bombing instead of going defensive.

The biggest problem with the idea, and ideas like this is you guys can't seem to see the other side of the coin.

That's sort of correct, in that GV-safe areas are being asked for.  But I don't think that puritanical reactions are appropriate here.  This suggested rule change is not morally "good" or "bad", but just expedient and practical, in that it increases the fun factor for GVers by adding an additional play mode.  So far it's good.  Now what are the side effects to the non-GVers?  Well, the only one I can think of is that some GVers will choose to play in the separate arena / VBase GV-friendly zones.  So to that extent, there will be fewer easy ground attack targets.  But I think that current evidence strongly suggests that many GVers will still operate outside the GV-safe zones, as they participate in the overall "war" and base capture efforts.  Thus there would still be GVs to bomb normally.  If my theory is correct, then, it's win-win.  What's wrong with that?  

So, I can see the other side of the coin.  I even alluded to this in my OPs, though you may have missed it.  

[Karnak]

That's sort of correct, in that GV-safe areas are being asked for.  But I don't think that puritanical reactions are appropriate here.  This suggested rule change is not morally "good" or "bad", but just expedient and practical, in that it increases the fun factor for GVers by adding an additional play mode.  So far it's good.  Now what are the side effects to the non-GVers?  Well, the only one I can think of is that some GVers will choose to play in the separate arena / VBase GV-friendly zones.  So to that extent, there will be fewer easy ground attack targets.  But I think that current evidence strongly suggests that many GVers will still operate outside the GV-safe zones, as they participate in the overall "war" and base capture efforts.  Thus there would still be GVs to bomb normally.  If my theory is correct, then, it's win-win.  What's wrong with that?  

So, I can see the other side of the coin.  I even alluded to this in my OPs, though you may have missed it.  

It removes players from the game.  It removes options for players who are not just here for airplanes or tanks, but for doing what they want at a given time.  I suck in GVs, but if there is a hot GV fight I'll jump into a GV to have fun and add numbers (and a target) in that fight.  Put the GVers in a different arena and that no longer happens.

So, go ahead and create a GV only arena, or space in the Dueling Arena, but make it like the Dueling Arena with no base capturing, war winning or perks.  If you want to move the lines and such, play in the MA and help create the diversity of combat seen in the MA.

[SirNuke]

AH is designed to promote teamplay. One player can't do it all, or be invicible in any way.  When I have a spit8 on my p51's tail I need a wingman, not an artifial rule to assist me.

[Rino]

     It must be tough to find someone else who puts your gameplay enjoyment over everyone else's
huh?  Of course they must also being in the right place, with the right aircraft, with the skills needed
to eliminate the opposition before they destroy your tank.

     I guess it will also be handy if they had a thick skin, so when they eventually fail to safe your tank,
they can put up with the wonk wonking on country channel about how bad they suck. 

[VonMessa]

Has someone found a big wheel of cheese to accompany this thread, yet?

[waystin2]

Has someone found a big wheel of cheese to accompany this thread, yet?

[TDeacon]

It removes players from the game.  It removes options for players who are not just here for airplanes or tanks, but for doing what they want at a given time.  I suck in GVs, but if there is a hot GV fight I'll jump into a GV to have fun and add numbers (and a target) in that fight.  Put the GVers in a different arena and that no longer happens.

So, go ahead and create a GV only arena, or space in the Dueling Arena, but make it like the Dueling Arena with no base capturing, war winning or perks.  If you want to move the lines and such, play in the MA and help create the diversity of combat seen in the MA.

Not quite right.  It removes players (at their choice) from the ground attack shooting gallery, not from the game; GVing is part of the game.  Furthermore, it increases options overall.  That's because most of the map remains the same (so same options on that portion).  But in addition, there are now areas of the map which are GV-friendly (thus new options). 

The dueling arena idea has been shot down in several ways in previous posts.  Firstly, it lacks visibility, and the game lacks an adequate advertising method.  Secondly, people grief in the dueling arena. There were other issues as well, but I don't recall them at the moment. 

MH

[Karnak]

Not quite right.  It removes players (at their choice) from the ground attack shooting gallery, not from the game; GVing is part of the game.  Furthermore, it increases options overall.  That's because most of the map remains the same (so same options on that portion).  But in addition, there are now areas of the map which are GV-friendly (thus new options). 

The dueling arena idea has been shot down in several ways in previous posts.  Firstly, it lacks visibility, and the game lacks an adequate advertising method.  Secondly, people grief in the dueling arena. There were other issues as well, but I don't recall them at the moment. 

MH

Reread what I wrote.

It removes options from the game.  Players who will normally fly, but should a big GV fight happen find it fun to jump into a GV and play the role of target would no longer have that option.  The players who would form that fight are functionally removed from the game.

[TDeacon]

Reread what I wrote.

It removes options from the game.  Players who will normally fly, but should a big GV fight happen find it fun to jump into a GV and play the role of target would no longer have that option.  The players who would form that fight are functionally removed from the game.

I reread what you wrote, but it still looks the same as before (...).  

I don't see how you come up with "...would no longer have that option...".  The OP only increases GV-friendliness inside VBase circles.  If players attack an air base and some want to "...play the role of target...", they will be able to, as those areas are unchanged from currently.  As you know, there are plenty of "...big GV fights..." near air bases.  

Also, removing GV icons inside VBase circles won't completely deter bombing.  It will just make it slightly more difficult.  However, I guarantee you that many of the fine individuals (like the guy who has provided us with the nice picture of the cheese) posting on this thread will redouble their efforts to kill GVs if this change is implemented, and I'm sure they will find partial workarounds.  In particular, there are *very* few good firing positions which are under trees, so GVs behind hills or on hills will unfortunately still be visible to determined ground attack pilots.  

MH

[Karnak]

I was referring to the separate arena suggestion in your post I quoted.

Removing icons from GVs is a 100% bad idea.  Even the 600 yards is a bad idea so long as friendlies have a 6000 yard visibility on GV icons.  Every single time I have died to a Wirbie had been because some runner ran to his little flak battery which proceeded to interfere in an air-to-air fight.

Perhaps you can see why I am not all that sympathetic to GVers complaints about aircraft bombing them when I have lost many fighters to Wirblewinds that were defending nothing but friendly fighters.

[TDeacon]

I was referring to the separate arena suggestion in your post I quoted.

Yea; that was another thread by Mano.  I am not entirely sure a separate GV arena is a good idea, but would be willing to try it, and it shouldn't take much SW development by HTC to set it up as a trial.  BTW, we don't even know if people would use the separate arena, and it is almost a certainty than many users of GVs would stay in the regular MA, thus preserving the existing styles of play you are concerned about.  But, as to the OP ...

Removing icons from GVs is a 100% bad idea.  Even the 600 yards is a bad idea so long as friendlies have a 6000 yard visibility on GV icons.  Every single time I have died to a Wirbie had been because some runner ran to his little flak battery which proceeded to interfere in an air-to-air fight.
<snip>

Remove icons for both friendly and enemy GVs (in the VBase circles), and your problem is solved.  BTW, this increases the GV-friendliness of the zones further, because people would need to worry about killshooter.  (I would say “as in real life” but won’t, as this is a game play discussion).  

MH