An Alternative, Alternative, to the Alternative Wish

[Arlo]

I know full well why he started it; my question was of course rhetorical. 

MH

Here's a rhetorical link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

[TDeacon]

Here's a rhetorical link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Thank you so much.  And here's one for you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark

[Arlo]

Thank you so much.  And here's one for you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark

Going alphabetical, I see. Still not rhetorical. Just even more random. 

[nrshida]

   'shida...I'm going to use this quote in my sig going forward.

    \o/

Then why all the fuss  ?

I am not making a fuss I'm taking the piss.

I see...  So it happened once, and you decided to start this thread?

<Looks up from newspaper in a Tommy Lee Jones stylee>

(2) interfering with a GV battle.  

Here's your problem right here, and I don't mean getting bombed while in your tank. In Aces High there is no GV battle. There are battles, a facet of which might be between GVs. Bringing an aircraft with bombs is historically realistic and as much a paradigm of warfare as that of the faster plane dictating the fight. Your rhetoric about adding subscribers is as persuasive as the rest of your argument i.e. not at all.

A separate GV arena would remove the ground war element from the MA where it is intended by HTC (as I was lead to believe) to promote air combat. This would be detrimental to the game if you have the foresight and imagination to see why.

[TDeacon]

<snip>
I am not making a fuss I'm taking the piss. (sic)

Hmm; somehow I don’t see this nrshida guy as being the elderly retired English professor he claims to be …

<snip>  (2) interfering with a GV battle.  <snip>

<snip>
Here's your problem right here, and I don't mean getting bombed while in your tank. In Aces High there is no GV battle. There are battles, a facet of which might be between GVs. Bringing an aircraft with bombs is historically realistic and as much a paradigm of warfare as that of the faster plane dictating the fight. Your rhetoric about adding subscribers is as persuasive as the rest of your argument i.e. not at all.

A separate GV arena would remove the ground war element from the MA where it is intended by HTC (as I was lead to believe) to promote air combat. This would be detrimental to the game if you have the foresight and imagination to see why.

You are mistaken.  Aces High, at various times and in various places has had and does have *GV battles*, and this is clearly intentional.  A good example was Trinity TT.  Those 30K (?) mountains surrounding it were there for a reason.  Even the current popular CraterMa TT was intended by its designer to be difficult for attack aircraft to reach, which implies a degree of intentional GV-friendliness.  

Attempting to justify AH *game* play (rather than details of AC/GV platform performance) by quoting selected historical precedents is illogical, because even HTC has admitted that that game exists to allow use of historical AC/GV platforms, and is not itself intended to be a simulation of WWII.  There are hundreds of example of this, which should be evident to even the most ignorant and undiscerning person.  At another level, the purpose of the game is to entertain the widest range of subscribers, in order to generate income.  Whatever does that best will eventually make its way into the game.  

What I see here, and in the posts of some of your colleagues, is the selfish desire to force others to be your targets for easy-mode ground attacks.  You ignore the fact that most of the GV-friendly suggestions do not remove existing play styles but instead supplement them.  You fear that if the *option* (*not* requirement) exists to play in a GV-safe area that too many GVers will choose to use it, leaving you high and dry.  Typically, because you have no good arguments available to oppose these initiatives, you resort to misstatements of fact, false analogies, and personal insults.  

MH

[FLOOB]

Remember before aircraft AP ammo was nerfed and you could well ventilate a panzer's roof? Remember when GVs couldn't magically and instantly repair themselves? I want the game to go back to that level of realism.

[TDeacon]

Remember before aircraft AP ammo was nerfed and you could well ventilate a panzer's roof? Remember when GVs couldn't magically and instantly repair themselves? I want the game to go back to that level of realism.

I can't comment on the first claim, but the second is one of the game-play elements I refer to above.  It's there in an attempt to improve game play, in the context of a game which is intended to provide us with a place to play with simulated planes and tanks.  Aces high is a *game* with realistic AC and GV platforms.  Game play realism (as opposed to AC/GV platform realism) is and must be secondary in such a context, if only because of the fundamental time and space differences between the "real thing" and an online game environment where people may only be able to play for an hour.  

MH

[ReVo]

Remember before aircraft AP ammo was nerfed and you could well ventilate a panzer's roof? Remember when GVs couldn't magically and instantly repair themselves? I want the game to go back to that level of realism.

The instant resupply/repair of a tank seems a bit silly to me. A few TT maps ago I took a Tiger II out to the spawn and started picking off tanks. Few minutes later Latrobe and a squaddie of his came after me in T-34-85's using the terrain as cover until they could flank me. A very close range fight ensued during which I was turreted and tracked multiple times. However a teammate was able to spawn in M3's and drop supplies for me allowing me to get my vehicle back in the fight the second it was damaged. They deserved to win and I only came out on top because of a mechanic that seems a little broken to me.

My opinion is that vehicle supplies should exist, but that they should be on a thirty second timer just like when you pull up on the rearm pad in an aircraft.

[nrshida]

Hmm; somehow I don’t see this nrshida guy as being the elderly retired English professor he claims to be …

I have made no such claim. These are your assumptions and like your others, of low quality. You implied I was undereducated because I didn't agree with your wish and I corrected you.

What I see here, and in the posts of some of your colleagues, is the selfish desire to force others to be your targets for easy-mode ground attacks.

No you are externalizing your own insecurities. Speaking for myself I have no interested in ground vehicles, I don't bomb them or strafe them and pretty well ignore them until flaks start shooting at me.

I think you're misinterpreting a lot of the response you (people) have received which is essentially a backlash against your articulated whine: 'Wah wah wah I got killed by an aircraft, no fair!'.

You fear that if the *option* (*not* requirement) exists to play in a GV-safe area that too many GVers will choose to use it, leaving you high and dry.  

I don't fear that at all. My AH playtime is exclusively in fighter aircraft. I'd be far happier if HTC specialized exclusively in the air war but I concede to their experience and business model. If they choose to INCORPORATE a ground war element then I presume they know better. Partitioning that off into essentially a sub-game would be detrimental to the game because it would dilute player numbers in an already depleted MA.

Your *option / requirement* argument is more rhetoric because most players tend find the least line of resistance to their goal. This must be obvious to you since you are apparently so desperate to get out from underneath the evil aircraft when tanking.

The MA is a mixed battlefield and if you want to GV, you face the same vulnerability they face in real wars. Your own nation chose to redress an imbalance in ground vehicle numbers by designing an aircraft. That's even before discussing the Blitzkrieg tactics pioneered during the period this very game is placed in.

Typically, because you have no good arguments available to oppose these initiatives, you resort to misstatements of fact, false analogies, and personal insults.  

The burden isn't on me to make a good argument as I am not the one campaigning for a change. Your arguments are weak, full of unsubstantiated assumption and selfishly motivated. Good luck thinking attacking a detractor, me for instance, is strengthening your case, it isn't, and it's adding fuel to the wah wah selfish I want to GV in an air combat game and not be killed by an aircraft nature of these requests.

[Mano]

I have made no such claim. These are your assumptions and like your others, of low quality. You implied I was undereducated because I didn't agree with your wish and I corrected you.


No you are externalizing your own insecurities. Speaking for myself I have no interested in ground vehicles, I don't bomb them or strafe them and pretty well ignore them until flaks start shooting at me.

I think you're misinterpreting a lot of the response you (people) have received which is essentially a backlash against your articulated whine: 'Wah wah wah I got killed by an aircraft, no fair!'.


I don't fear that at all. My AH playtime is exclusively in fighter aircraft. I'd be far happier if HTC specialized exclusively in the air war but I concede to their experience and business model. If they choose to INCORPORATE a ground war element then I presume they know better. Partitioning that off into essentially a sub-game would be detrimental to the game because it would dilute player numbers in an already depleted MA.

Your *option / requirement* argument is more rhetoric because most players tend find the least line of resistance to their goal. This must be obvious to you since you are apparently so desperate to get out from underneath the evil aircraft when tanking.

The MA is a mixed battlefield and if you want to GV, you face the same vulnerability they face in real wars. Your own nation chose to redress an imbalance in ground vehicle numbers by designing an aircraft. That's even before discussing the Blitzkrieg tactics pioneered during the period this very game is placed in.


The burden isn't on me to make a good argument as I am not the one campaigning for a change. Your arguments are weak, full of unsubstantiated assumption and selfishly motivated. Good luck thinking attacking a detractor, me for instance, is strengthening your case, it isn't, and it's adding fuel to the wah wah selfish I want to GV in an air combat game and not be killed by an aircraft nature of these requests.

Anyone that makes a suggestion that they feel would improve game play is called a WHINER ! Call it what you want, but name calling is flaming. Anyone that disagrees with you gets an insult. I have not seen any evidence of someone with an education in any of your posts. I really don't care about your education. If Tank Ace, TDeacon, or anyone else makes a valid argument you insult them.

Aces High may have started out as a flight sim, but whether you like it or not there are at least 20 GV's now and all of them are being used. The terrain has become dated and has some real limitatation when it comes to GV's. I prefer the flight models and damage models in the game over eye candy any day. But for GV's there is no natural camouflage or anywhere for GV's to hide period. A storch plane can find anything because icons are turned on. Ditto for any a/c within 600 yards. In RL tanks were covered or parked in buildings or anywhere so they could not be seen. We don't have that option in AH. It takes a long time to get enough perks to drive a Tiger 2 out of the barn. When it comes to perks it is not a level playing field between GV's and A/C. By the way A/C is an acronym for air craft. If Aces High gets a graphics update in the future this topic may become a moot point. I did my best to keep this post simple and an easy read. Feel free to google any of those big words.

[Gemini]

yeah stop trolling shida    

this aggression will not stand, man

[Mano]

Thank you so much.  And here's one for you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark

ROFLOL. Now that's a good read.   

[nrshida]

yeah stop trolling shida    

this aggression will not stand, man

  I'm only defending myself. Sometimes I do it aggressively. <3 Loxy.

Anyone that disagrees with you gets an insult.

No, anyone who insults me gets an insult, go back and read the sequence.

I have not seen any evidence of someone with an education in any of your posts. I really don't care about your education.

I wasn't the one who brought up my education. I was accused of being uneducated, ironically because I didn't agree with their opinion. Do you think you're stealthily insulting me with this comment?

If Tank Ace, TDeacon, or anyone else makes a valid argument you insult them.

They haven't made an argument at all and in the case of Deacon, he began to insult as soon as I disagreed. See point 1.

Anyone that makes a suggestion that they feel would improve game play* is called a WHINER ! Call it what you want, but name calling is flaming.

*That will improve game play for them while claiming it is better for the whole community.

Aces High may have started out as a flight sim, but whether you like it or not there are at least 20 GV's now and all of them are being used. The terrain has become dated and has some real limitatation when it comes to GV's. I prefer the flight models and damage models in the game over eye candy any day. But for GV's there is no natural camouflage or anywhere for GV's to hide period. A storch plane can find anything because icons are turned on. Ditto for any a/c within 600 yards. In RL tanks were covered or parked in buildings or anywhere so they could not be seen. We don't have that option in AH. It takes a long time to get enough perks to drive a Tiger 2 out of the barn. When it comes to perks it is not a level playing field between GV's and A/C. By the way A/C is an acronym for air craft. If Aces High gets a graphics update in the future this topic may become a moot point.

Ah I see. So you support the movement to improve the gameplay purely for GVers, a movement I don't agree with hence your many veiled insults in this post. So in other words, and I direct you to your own signature also, it's alright for you to do it, but not when someone else does?

What you're suggesting is a massive investment of resources for a tiny company who can already only release maybe two to three aircraft a year on average. You'd have them commit a huge amount of their resources, likely to the exclusion of all else to purely improve the ground war element of a predominantly air combat game, and you'd have them do this even though your requests are already likely incorporated into a dedicated ground warfare game such as World of Tanks say, and I'M THE ONE BEING UNREASONABLE.

I did my best to keep this post simple and an easy read.
.
.
.
Feel free to google any of those big words.

Google this: hypocrite.

[Mano]

I think my gameplay would be considerably enhanced if all armoured vehicles were fitted with large orange funnels to help guide bombs to target. 

You did a real good job of impeaching yourself. WTG! You started a thread to incite or annoy GV'ers, nothing more.
You are not contributing an idea or suggesting anything that would enhance game play in AH. If you are going to flame everyone that makes a suggestion that you don't like, then you better develop a thicker skin. 

[nrshida]

You did a real good job of impeaching yourself. WTG!

Yeah thanks. Wasn't very difficult.

You started a thread to incite or annoy GV'ers, nothing more.

Nonsense. My wish is as valid as all the GV faction's ones campaigning for less GV deaths. Think about that for a few minutes, get some help if you like.

If you are going to flame everyone that makes a suggestion that you don't like, then you better develop a thicker skin. 

Oh yes indeed, I am absolutely driven to distraction by players being mildly abusive over the internet because they can't have their own way like 12 year olds. Can't sleep, lost my appetite and I'm considering deleting my account.