Author Topic: Perk 'Em all, Let HTC sort em out! (Read 937 times)

muckmaw · « **on:** January 25, 2002, 01:12:41 PM »

Sitting in an office on a slow friday leaves alot of time to read these message boards, and a thought occurred to me.

The latest round of complaints seems to be based on the proliferation of LA-7s and other late war planes, and their dominance of early war planes.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say I'm a fighter jock. I'm not. I know very little about which fighter does what best.

But why not perk ALL planes, and Vehicles?

I'd be willing to bet my life this thought has been posted before, but perhaps it's worth revisiting.

Obviously, the Perk All system would be on a scale in step with a planes overall ability.

For fighters, the Me-262 would still be on the top of the Perk level at the usual 200, while the oldest, least effective fighter...(whatever that is) would be free. Each progressively advance plane would require more Perk Points to fly.

Now the inherint problem here is the best pilots will get the top rides and dominate the arena. SO how do we combat this? A 500 Perk allowance for everyone at the beggining of the month?

Crash too much, lose all your perks, and your flying the worst plane in the arena. Keep your perks and keep your hot ride.

Of course, this would not be limited to fighters. Add perks for bombers and vehicles too.

So A guy flying an La-7 has earned it. ANd in order to keep his ride, he will tangle with other high reward planes to keep earning perks.

Meanwhile the guys with the lower perk planes are not as attractive to the hot plans, as losing a fight to one would result in a high loss of points for very little reward.

Is this a ridiculous idea? Is it something that could work?

What do you think?

Shane · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:25:59 PM »

blah, this punishes people who simply like to Qua.. err furball by artifically imposing a "death" penalty, as if the arena needs even MORE running, ganging rutabagas who couldn't acm their way out of an air castle.

.salvo 12 < boom*12 > hope this buries this idea - and if i see you repeating it, why, i'll have to hunt you down mercilessly - in the 17 me-262's i can afford.

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:28:39 PM »

Muckmaw,

Spend an evening or a week flying the C.202 online. See how much fun it is/isn't.

That may color your perspective a bit.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:33:34 PM »

The first problem I can see with this is the subjective argument over which planes are better and how they should be perked. Arguments such as “hey this fighter is perked XX, and this one is X”. We squabble between us now at the price of the F4U4 and the 152. Can you imagine the arguments about the LA7/P51D/190D9?

Also, depending on what kind of flying you want to do, 500 perks can go fast depending on aircraft cost. The argument is it promotes safe flying. Not everyone wants to fly safe all the time. Taking into account some of us can be online for a large portion of a tour it’s possible to wind up having to fly a 202 as your only choice for weeks.

The main argument is the subscription that is paid to play the game. If I understand correctly, the perk system is in place to limit the amount of aircraft that had limited numbers during the war. It has also been used to curb the popularity of a particular aircraft.

It’s not a bad idea. Actually it would bring everything to a type of fairness. If one is perked then perk them all. On the other hand, if one is not perked then none of them should be. By being used to limit the number of late war aircraft in the arena, it happens to be serving its purpose.

Zippatuh

muckmaw · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:38:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shane
blah, this punishes people who simply like to Qua.. err furball by artifically imposing a "death" penalty, as if the arena needs even MORE running, ganging rutabagas who couldn't acm their way out of an air castle.

.salvo 12 < boom*12 > hope this buries this idea - and if i see you repeating it, why, i'll have to hunt you down mercilessly - in the 17 me-262's i can afford.

If hunting me is how you want to spend your $15 a month, be my guest. I'll post whatever I want, you warm up your jet.

On a more serious note, Karnak, I assume the C.202 is considered the worst plane in the game.

So the month would start off with pilots flying La-7's and such, and end with the less deserving pilots being out of perks, and flying 202's trying to earns perks against other 202's, etc, dodging bounces from the La's all the while.

I can see your point. So if these planes are so useless, why even have them?

Zip- Don't get me wrong, I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, or dictate how anyone flies. I just think in a semi realistic war, not everyone would be flying LA-7s, 190's, P-51's etc. Only the top pilots (of which I am certainly not...check my score) would get the hot rides, giving the lower guys something to work towards, and limiting the number of late war planes in the arena.

Maybe a daily perk allowance would work better. Each time you log in you get X number of perks added to your overall perk score so you have a chance to fly at least a decent plane each day.

Run out of perks and your a gunner, or a tanker, to earn some back.

As I said, these are just my thoughts.

Shane · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:51:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
I just think in a semi realistic war, not everyone would be flying LA-7s, 190's, P-51's etc. Only the top pilots (of which I am certainly not...check my score) would get the hot rides, giving the lower guys something to work towards, and limiting the number of late war planes in the arena.

this is a game, not a semi-realistic war, as if such a thing could exist in the first place.

even back in the Fully Realistic war that was WW2, you had raw green pilots fresh out of flight school and flying (and dying) in the latest available planes, plus a lot in the more "doggy" planes like the p-40 and p-39 series, hell they even had vets flying these, no one was really given much of a choice in ride.

besides, there's the Combat Theatre for this type of concept, check it out.

muckmaw · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2002, 02:00:16 PM »

I totally understand this is not even a semi-realistic war.

And if you consider WWII as an example, the ratio of higher end aircraft is much higher in AH, then in WWII.

Quite frankly, the La's and such don't bother me much at all. What bothers me is a guy in an La who knows how to attack and down a B-26. That's what makes my life difficult.

I know AH is not a WWII simulation, but by adding a larger scale perk system, perhaps we could balance out the population with regards to which aircraft are utilized, as was the case in WWII.

If nothing else, I think it would make the game much more challenging, and rewarding.

I will take your advice and check out the CT tonight. Maybe it is more to my taste.

MrLars · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2002, 03:32:01 PM »

If HTC started perking the whole planeset in the MA then I would imagine their revenue base would drop dramaticly...I'd be one of the first to cancel. 'Nuff said

eskimo2 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2002, 03:43:33 PM »

MuckMaw,
Although I agree with most of the reasons stated above why perking most planes wouldn't fly, or be fair in AH, I salute effort to solve a huge problem with the main arena.
It would certainly shift the late-war plane dominance towards a good mixture of WWII eras and make the arena much more interesting, but it would also really burn many players, especially newbies to the point that I fear that many would quit.
Meanwhile, the immediate solution to most of the problems with the main can be found in the CT. I find myself flying in there more and more, and enjoying AH more than ever.

See you there,

eskimo

Kratzer · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2002, 03:45:30 PM »

All the planes are already perked. Most of them are just at the same level - 0.

Trying to make the game 'fair' can have some really retarded results - for example imagine a game that would make Bf-110s free while perking Bf-109Es. Oh wait...

Tuck · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:10:04 PM »

i've said it before, and i'll say it again: PERK THE PEOPLE WHINNING ABOUT THE PERKS!

The Tuckster

"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Col. Chuck Yeager, USAAF

Wlfgng · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:20:12 PM »

perking bites IMO.
how about just limiting the numbers of late war rides?

I.E. x number per country.. first come, first serve.

Shane · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:23:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng
perking bites IMO.
how about just limiting the numbers of late war rides?

I.E. x number per country.. first come, first serve.

totally stupid idea. think about it. if you can.

MrLars · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:35:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shane

totally stupid idea. think about it. if you can.

But wouldn't it be nice to be able to destroy a countries ability to produce Spits, Zekes, La's, P51's etc? That's one of the features I really liked in AW, strat with a real purpose that has a definite impact on the outcome of the game. I'll bet you'd get more than a few guys willing to intercept a bomber formation headed to your favorite rides factory

muckmaw · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:48:07 PM »

Thats not a bad idea, Lars.

Only trouble is I have a suspicion the LA-7 Etc Factories would be perma-dead. That would be the first target of any country. Then you are taking away the ability of the furballers to use their favorite ride. Something like this would cause a bigger rift, IMO, between the Strat guys and the furballers.

I like it, but I think the furballers would hate it.

Maybe have Aircraft factories whose production is unknown until the enemy country destroys it?

This way the LA-7 factory would be somewhat hidden, and not always dead?