The future of the game: let's help write it

[Wiley]

Bingo!

You're taking it too far. The idea is not to take GVers and put them in fighters, it's to get some Gvers into tank killer aircraft. Fighters will show up to kill them and other fighters will show up to fight those fighters.

Or they log because they were killed by an aircraft.

What we really need is to advertise.  Maybe at airshows.

Wiley.

[Devil 505]

Or they log because they were killed by an aircraft.

What we really need is to advertise.  Maybe at airshows.

Wiley.

As it is, pilots are logging off because there's not much to shoot at in their planes. If a pilot stays at the expense of an GVer, that's a win in my book.

[eddiek]

I, for one, do realize that some people are not good at fighters or flying in general, and that the GV side of the game is their means of participating.
What those people appear to not realize, and some of that is because the current system in the game is all they have ever known, is just how (my opinion) coddled the GV crowd has been over the years. 
My thoughts on improving the future of the game:

Add a proper ground gun sight for the 88mm.  All we have or have ever had for this weapon is a circle, and with the weapon recoil, it's "by guess and by God" on aiming the thing.
Add more views to the 17lb antitank gun.  Only being able to look forward.........meh........ma kes the weapon a waste, IMO>
Modify the terrain tiles to eliminate trees and bushes for a minimum of one mile around all bases, ports, etc.  Allow clear fields of fire for the defensive weapons on bases. 
Expand the defensive perimeter at all ports and bases.
Eliminate the spawns across bodies of water.  If you want to take a base on another island or "continent", use naval forces or air power.
Compromise on the GV issue.  Eliminate the GV dar, but set the GV icon range to 3K viz from the air. 
Instead of changing the terrains when the arena numbers get low, shrink down the playable area to a 3x3 or 4x4 playable area.  No insta death for those who fly outside the playable area, instead ramp up the fuel multiplier to 6X, 8X, or even 10X.  Or have the arena automatically "jettison" ammo and ordinance from those who fly outside the playable area.
Adding more wind layers and crosswinds at higher altitudes, maybe cut down on the super accurate bombing we see in the arena.  Carpet bombing was used in the ETO, the Norden wasn't THAT accurate, and even in the PTO, LeMay had the bombers attack from a lower altitude so they would actually hit their targets.  I'm not saying players shouldn't be able to fly at 30K..........but their bombing accuracy might more closely reflect real world results if they had to fly lower to put bombs on target.

In the end, we can add our thoughts/wishes, but HiTech will be the one to decide what happens with the game's future.

[Wiley]

The problem going back to the old style vehicle icons is, you can identify, orient, and make a bombing run trivially with a heavy fighter all in one pass.  Basically if the fighter has a bomb, if he sees you, you've got about 10 seconds before he can put ordnance on you.  The way it is now it either requires teamwork with a storch, or likely multiple passes over unless the fighter sees you without icon.

Wiley.

[eddiek]

Agreed.........that is why I suggested 3K icon range rather than the old 6K range.
It's just my thoughts on the matter............since we can't implement tracks in the dirt, grass, or mud, or dust trails, due to the impact on frame rates, increasing the icon range a bit would be a compromise in my opinion.
After all, GV's didn't use mag-lev propulsion, they didn't pass over ground without a trace.  Again, compromise in some way.  3K isn't a lot of time to set up a run.
A thought I threw at HT on the phone was keeping the present GV icon range in place near V bases, but near airfield, it goes to 3K. 
Compromise is what I am asking for, not a return to the old days of being able to see a GV from 18K feet in the air.

[Meatwad]

And to get numbers up, open 5 planes and GVs to "FREE" to play IN the main arena. This way new players dont feel like they are wasting money getting killed over and over again. Once they start learning a few tricks they may get the full subscription, but even if they dont your not any worst off than you are now.

YES!

[guncrasher]

YES!

they have 2 weeks with all the plane available and they don't stick around for more than 15 minutes.  what does 5 free planes gonna accomplish?

semp

[CptTrips]

I can't bear to see it go the way of the dodo simply because of the intransigence of the community.

Good luck with that.
 

[Wiley]

Agreed.........that is why I suggested 3K icon range rather than the old 6K range.
It's just my thoughts on the matter............since we can't implement tracks in the dirt, grass, or mud, or dust trails, due to the impact on frame rates, increasing the icon range a bit would be a compromise in my opinion.
After all, GV's didn't use mag-lev propulsion, they didn't pass over ground without a trace.  Again, compromise in some way.  3K isn't a lot of time to set up a run.
A thought I threw at HT on the phone was keeping the present GV icon range in place near V bases, but near airfield, it goes to 3K. 
Compromise is what I am asking for, not a return to the old days of being able to see a GV from 18K feet in the air.

I don't remember 6k, I was basing that comment on 3k.  With a 3k icon, it's trivial to see them and hit them in one pass.

Good luck with that.
 

When in your entire experience with HT has he E V E R gone, "That's a fantastic idea!  Oh wait, 10 people on the forum didn't like it, so I'm not going to do it!"   

It's all noise after the initial idea.

Wiley.

[100Coogn]

I think you should concentrate on making one amazing game, rather than trying to double-dip with a dumbed down version of AHIII.

Coogan

[Shuffler]

I think you should concentrate on making one amazing game, rather than trying to double-dip with a dumbed down version of AHIII.

Coogan

I do not think it is taking that much time. It is for experimentation that would be possibly harmful in the MA.

[CptTrips]

When in your entire experience with HT has he E V E R gone, "That's a fantastic idea!  Oh wait, 10 people on the forum didn't like it, so I'm not going to do it!"   

<shrug>  OK.  Whatever.

[100Coogn]

I do not think it is taking that much time. It is for experimentation that would be possibly harmful in the MA.

I disagree.  It's taking Hitechs' time & focus away from the main game.

Coogan

[Devil 505]

The problem going back to the old style vehicle icons is, you can identify, orient, and make a bombing run trivially with a heavy fighter all in one pass.  Basically if the fighter has a bomb, if he sees you, you've got about 10 seconds before he can put ordnance on you.  The way it is now it either requires teamwork with a storch, or likely multiple passes over unless the fighter sees you without icon.

Wiley.

You're proving my point. When we had long range GV icons, you had players upping planes much more often to hunt GV's because it was easy enough to do for the average player to have success in that role. Now, anyone but the most dedicated of GV hunter is just wasting their time in a plane, because it is much easier for a player to take another tank to kill a GV. Or even worse, they up a set of bombers and pork the hangars from 20K.

That high level of team work should not be needed to kill a single enemy, but it should be necessary to shut down an entire base. The MA has it backwards.

[Wiley]

You're proving my point. When we had long range GV icons, you had players upping planes much more often to hunt GV's because it was easy enough to do for the average player to have success in that role. Now, anyone but the most dedicated of GV hunter is just wasting their time in a plane, because it is much easier for a player to take another tank to kill a GV. Or even worse, they up a set of bombers and pork the hangars from 20K.

That high level of team work should not be needed to kill a single enemy, but it should be necessary to shut down an entire base. The MA has it backwards.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that's the result with longer GV icons.  On the one hand, it makes taking out an unsupported GV with an unsupported aircraft awfully easy.  From the other side, it's demotivational to upping GVs.  As much as we may want to see more guys in planes, GVing seems to be desired by a lot of people and they don't enjoy getting bombed with little that they can do about it.

As it stands now, you've got to find the GV then not lose track of it when you reverse.  I think it's still a bit too hard for the JABO guy but it's still possible and the GV guy has a chance to move/hide as opposed to being a sitting duck.

Wiley.