Author Topic: Time for the 163?  (Read 820 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Time for the 163?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2002, 04:13:51 PM »
I dunno... them things are tiny and FAST..  Even with the concession ridden "all guns slaved to one" that fluffers  enjoy... It would be hard to hit em plus... I believe that you might just see more than one 163 taking off to kill the killjoy.  Lotta pent up resentment out there..
lazs

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
Time for the 163?
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2002, 04:17:03 PM »
At some point in the future, yes.
Right now, no.
Too many other planes I would rather see added, P47M, Spit14, etc......
Like has been said earlier, with the current strat system, what does the buff REALLY accomplish when he comes over and hits a field?  Nothing.  Oh, the hangar will be down for a few minutes, but a resupply puts it back up real quick.
You don't like a buff coming over and hitting the field while you are down furring, "having fun"?  Ignore him then, simple as that.
Who says the buff pilot isn't having fun?  You deserve to have fun more than a buff pilot?  More than a little selfish IMO.  Ignore the buff, go on furring, have all the fun you want.  All adding the Komet would do is penalize buff pilots for doing what they enjoy, PLUS, the LW gets ANOTHER low production toy, while other planes just as important, like the Spit14, remain left out in the cold.  
The hi alt performance of the buffs needs looked at, no doubt about it.  No way should a buff be able to outmaneuver a fighter at alt, and at speed.  I am wondering if somewhere in the coding in AH, the hi alt data is off just a tad.  Seen too many B-17's split-S away from fighters in the arenas, which is total BS.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Time for the 163?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2002, 04:26:43 PM »
eddiek... the planes you mention are just high cost perk rides that no one will ever use anyway..  They will simply be useless and anoying..  

Nothing I can think of would have the "fun factor" or novelty value of the 163 and still not create a fighter imbalance.   As for killing lone suicide fluffs ??   Well... yeah!  who cares if you spoil their fun?   Seriously... they don't deserve to have "fun" at so many others expense.   Their "fun" is lopsided compared to their effort (wasting time is not "effort").   The 163 would only affect the single or two bomber unescorted suicide mission.   And no.... I can't ignore them taking down the field to fighters for "a few minutes" every few minutes.   They are not doing anything but milkrunning.   I don't care about their fun when weighed against the fun of dozens of other players.
lazs

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
Time for the 163?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2002, 05:36:03 PM »
lazs, you mean YOU might not ever use the P47M or the Spit14?  I don't see how you can speak for all the players in AH.  Just because they would be perk planes doesn't mean they won't be used.  I don't fly the perk planes we have because none of them interest me.  Simple as that.  If we ever get the P47M, you will see me in one all the time, as long as I have the perk points to get in one and fly.
What I see here is pretty much a difference of opinion.  You have the right to yours, I have the right to mine, everyone else has the same privilege.
Now, reading into your initial post, what I detect is a pure dislike for buffs in general.  And from what I can gather, it is based mainly on your desire to just go out and have fun and furrball endlessly.  Nothing wrong with that, if that is what you like.  You don't like it when they come over and take out hangars.  I can see where that would make you mad, because they are messing with "your" version of fun.
Tell me again, I think you posted sometime in the past about it:  You would prefer to have NO bombers in AH, is this correct, or am I reading too much into your statements?
Your gonna find all kinds of personalities in any online game.  And don't take that as a slur or me putting you down.  I don't know you, you don't know me.
I just personally think you have a really deep dislike of anyone or anything who doesn't play the game the way you want, and if you had your way, everyone would play exactly by your set of rules, or they would not play at all.
Fair enough.  I get a kick out of reading these posts because I can usually get a feel for a person just from what they say and how they say it.
The simplest solution to your problem with buffs, if I am correct in my assessment of your feelings about them, is for you to just set up your own H2H arena, disable all buffs, and furball to your hearts content.  That way no one will come along in a bomber and disturb your fun.
Now, back to the original topic of the Me163, if and when they add it, I think it should only be available at strategic targets, such as the HQ, city, etc, and field placed on the map within a short distance of each target for the purpose of defending the target.
On the topic of bombers disrupting your fun, in conclusion all I can say is live with it.  I don't think I would be too far from the truth if I said that for every player in the game, there is something they did not like about it.  There is lots I do not like about it, but my personal attitude is what I just suggested to you:  I live with it, go on, do what I want to do.  If I can't, I log off and do something in the "real world".
Imagine what it would be like if HTC added crater damage to the runways...........then buffs would just fly over, crater the runways and the field would be REALLY screwed up.  HHHmmm.....not a bad idea now that I think about it.........
;)

Offline Wegaman

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Time for the 163?
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2002, 06:11:03 PM »
i used to do that all the time back in the old days drop big bombs on the runway and when planes crashed and died u would get the kill lol.

Offline Gadfly

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1364
Time for the 163?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2002, 09:15:39 PM »
Boo-fluff'n Hoo, hey are not playing like Laz wants!

I would fly the 163, though.....

Offline Mikepb42

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Time for the 163?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2002, 10:39:43 PM »
The 163 would be a lot of fun.  Of course it should explode in a spectacular manner occasionally while the engine is running,  while the engine is off,  when landing,  when sitting still,  when it is thought about in a vaugely negative manner by an opposing aircraft,  ect..  ;)

Offline SageFIN

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Time for the 163?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2002, 12:47:55 AM »
With the 30 mm's you wouldn't hit squat going at 500mph or so. Dead 6 or 12 might work, but it's quite suicidal because of
1) the buff guns
2) the 163 is a flying can of highly flammable rocket fuel.

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Time for the 163?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2002, 01:45:04 AM »
Unperked 163s sound like quite a bit of fun IMO.

Hooligan

Offline Buzzbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
Time for the 163?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2002, 02:01:01 AM »
S!

Include 'em by  all means...

And include the historical possibility they will detonate inflight, or turn over during takeoff, or turn over during landing, both of which will turn the pilot into jello when the T-Stoff pours out on him...  ;)

The 163 had 9 kills in all its time in action.  Far more than that number of German pilots bit the big one flying them.

They were a political project, approved cause old Uncle Adolf thought the idea was suitably Aryan.

Offline tofri at work

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Time for the 163?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2002, 03:09:35 AM »
I am happy to se so many historic educated people discussing the historic role of the 163.

But we are in AcesHigh Main Arena Land.
Not in Brandis, Germany.

Yes, certainly someone will take this rocket to kill one lousy strato buff, who climbed for one hour to take down two hangars.

But most will take this fast, well armed and very agile fighter for close field defence.
Why should anybody climb to the sky, if he could hunt down low La7's or G10. The Me163 would give us a new kind of boom 'n zoom.

Be careful, what you wish, you might get it.

Offline popeye

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3703
Time for the 163?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2002, 07:48:52 AM »
163 would be fun, but not really necessary to stop buffs, since fields can be resupplied with a tenth of the effort it takes to shut them down.
KONG

Where is Major Kong?!?

Offline K West

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1445
Time for the 163?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2002, 07:49:51 AM »
"by pink... are they gay?"

 The grandest line in the great whole topic. I swear he's the best straight man on these boards ;)

 Westy

Offline Rude

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
Time for the 163?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2002, 08:20:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
eddiek... the planes you mention are just high cost perk rides that no one will ever use anyway..  They will simply be useless and anoying..  

Nothing I can think of would have the "fun factor" or novelty value of the 163 and still not create a fighter imbalance.   As for killing lone suicide fluffs ??   Well... yeah!  who cares if you spoil their fun?   Seriously... they don't deserve to have "fun" at so many others expense.   Their "fun" is lopsided compared to their effort (wasting time is not "effort").   The 163 would only affect the single or two bomber unescorted suicide mission.   And no.... I can't ignore them taking down the field to fighters for "a few minutes" every few minutes.   They are not doing anything but milkrunning.   I don't care about their fun when weighed against the fun of dozens of other players.
lazs


My goodness....what's next after the buffs Lazs? P-51's?

:)


Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Time for the 163?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2002, 08:25:33 AM »
Lasz, I dont know what your problem is, but you come across vain as a peacock and as graceless as a bowl of toejame in the morning.

You seem determined to display a stunning arrogance, combined with an almost schizophrenic ability to first contradict yourself and then pretend it never happened. In one thread (fields need to be closer) you ask rhetorically "Who am I to critique others fun?" only to in the next thread (this one) blurt out " they don't deserve to have "fun".

One would think you learned something from that…but nooo...  Instead you babble on like a baboon undergoing shock treatment about how the MA should be changed to fit your desires.
Claiming to speak for the majority, using K/T stats to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.

You advocate an outrageously biased point of view, slander anyone who disagrees with your latest little pet idea on how to improve your valued statistics, and you are in fact a walking, talking argument in favor of dropping the stats page altogether .. *bites tounge* (must remember that lasz is not representative of the BB population, if he was, the entire BB we would have managed to sink itself into the ocean in some clumsy way).