Author Topic: HT talks 4XBuffs  (Read 2191 times)

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #105 on: May 18, 2002, 10:13:38 AM »
Skurj what does this have to do with anything?

Sorry I missed your point.

Anyway in answer to your question I will let him run and find another fight. I'll extend to another direction and grab some altitude. Then later if he shows signs he wants to try again and the sky is clear I'll have a go.

What would you do?
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #106 on: May 18, 2002, 11:03:21 AM »
I don't get it.
I'm a newbie.
The only time I die to a bomber is when I sit on thier six.
90% of the players in the MA only attack bombers from thier six.
Therefore bomber guns are WAY too powerfull.  Yea, thats it.  Lets attack a bomber from the point where it has the most firepower and squeak when we cant kill it!

High-speed passes from the top/bottom/sides are incredibly difficult to deal with from the bomber, other than to hope they screw up and fall into your six.

Offline Taiaha

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #107 on: May 18, 2002, 11:40:02 AM »
Esme, thoughtful post.  I like the idea of engine overheating for buffs, I think that would throw an interesting wrinkle into the mix.  As you suggest, I'm not sure I'd model it for fighters, but for bombers, sure, why not.  Ditto the idea of fire constraints.  I noticed that in its latest release Warbirds went in this direction.  OK, slightly different scenario in that they were trying to place constraints on the ridiculously potent otto, but the principle could be applied here.  Otto can't fire if the plane is banking at more than 45 degrees, or pulling more than 2Gs.  Seems like a sensible restriction to me.

I'm not in favor of Otto gunners, but I like the idea of otto observers, and I think that especially when your vision is going to be obscured in a 4-ship box, it would be a useful idea.  However, I wouldn't want the otto observer from WB who keeps calling out planes at ridiculous distances.

The only points where I don't agree with you are on the guns (I still don't believe they are too powerful), and the damage levels of the bombers.  The damage level seems pretty good to me, I've taken a lot of damage and survived, and I've been killed in one firing pass.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2002, 12:48:52 PM »
"What? 5 minutes ago you were claiming that B-17s didn't have any armor and now you are an expert on how well that armor resists German projectiles? "

I said they didnt have any armour TO SPEAK OF. You just need to go to a museum and see how much armour those things had in the fuselage. And im talking about the parts where the gunners stood in.

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #109 on: May 18, 2002, 01:41:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Skurj what does this have to do with anything?

Sorry I missed your point.


The fact that you missed his point means that you've also missed mine.  Whether the B-17 flight model is accurate or not in AH is irrelevant.  The scenario you presented with the B-17 at 27k is one in which the buff, not the fighter, holds most of the advantages.  It should come as no surprise then that, given the circumstances you described, it would be very difficult to effectively kill the buff.

How is that any different than the situation Skurj just described?  How easy would it be for your P-51 to kill the fleeing La-7?  Pretty tough if you're in a situation where he's got a performance edge.  It's no different for the situation you described.  You had no problems telling Skurj, "I will let him run and find another fight. I'll extend to another direction and grab some altitude. Then later if he shows signs he wants to try again and the sky is clear I'll have a go."  Why then should you be capable of killing a buff if it, likewise, holds the performance edge?  It seems that some players suffer from a mental schism that renders them enable to see the similarities between fighters and buffs in this regard.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #110 on: May 18, 2002, 01:59:27 PM »
So we're back to the seemingly porked buff modeling (or were they really that good up high? I thought AH lancaster can climb with full load over its real life max altitude and still outmanouver fighters..) and with you telling me to accept the fact that buffs outmanouver fighters at very high altitudes even when they couldn't do that in reality.

Yes sure this is a game and I know the limitations. That's why I rarely if ever waste my time climbing up to the stratobuffs. I let them do their mission untouched and pork the field.

Is this right? I consider it a bit like camping in FPS games, the other player takes a position that gives him an advantage over the other players using holes in gamecode - and blasts others away from his position untill his ammo runs out.

I think this discussion is handling whether we want to tolerate this kind of 'flaws' in the game and people who take advantage of them. Another approach would be to fix the modeling to prevent that.

If the majority wants to keep the model as it is and tolerate the players gaming them, then we all must just learn to live with it and how to exploit all possible flaws in the game. IMO it's a short way to induced warps, lag and other anomalities the game technology lets a player induce if he wants to get an edge over the others.
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #111 on: May 18, 2002, 03:19:21 PM »
they aren't flaws per se... its the way the game is designed to be played...

Hell I used to play chess... the friggen king shoulda been able to move more than one position per turn !!!! game is porked!!!


SKurj

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #112 on: May 18, 2002, 03:24:37 PM »
Skurj if you would be able to move your king outside of the board to safety while you attack the enemy, it would resemble more of the situation described and yes, it would be porked.
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone

Offline Pooh21

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3145
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #113 on: May 18, 2002, 04:02:17 PM »
Ok 4 buffs at a time sounds cool, Im a buff dweeb joined AH to fly them, havent much lately because they are annoying. When the buff AI is introduced hwo smart will it be. Blind kamikazes that fly to targets leaking fuel, trailing oil and engine parts or when you hit them will they break off? How will kills be scored? Will gun arcs be fixed? that is main problem now. HO a b17 you have up to 9 guns shooting at you. Through its own wings,props,tail. 2 cheek guns with super field of fire whose manning them anyway? How much skill does it take to kill a fighter with 36+ 50s all hitting at same spot? I've killed 190s with only 20 rounds or less before. 1 ping will have a new meaning. Tonight I lost a 262 at 1.1 to a b17 I was heading same direction on his 3 preparing for a slashing attack, with only 1 gun it would only been about 3 or 4 bullets total. but with the 9 shooting 10 rounds per second rapidly means your gonna be in world of hurt, now multiply that by 4. Even with the must successful buff attack the average pilot will be pinged a few times, which with current buff modelling means death.

    What about formation keeping? Will the 4 buffs go full throttle making the ridiculous speed of 300 while turning all over the sky? Buffs did evasive action in real, true but not at 300 miles an hour. Half the fun off killing buff formations is busting it up, then killing stragglers. Current tailsteer dweebs who can do turns with minimal E loss cause the computer flys plane for them got to be one of the most realism killing things in this game. Will whole buff formations fly with Thunderbirds style perfection through snap rolls, loops and hammerheads current buffs employ? This is too long ending here
Bis endlich der Fiend am Boden liegt.
Bis Bishland bis Bishland bis Bishland wird besiegt!

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #114 on: May 18, 2002, 04:11:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKWabbit
The buff will now be the ULTIMATE power in the universe!  I suggest we use it.


:cool:
Wab


Dont be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed... the ability to control multiple bombers is insignificant, next to the power of the Force.  :D

PS:  Great idea, WTFG HTC!

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #115 on: May 18, 2002, 04:14:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
So we're back to the seemingly porked buff modeling (or were they really that good up high? I thought AH lancaster can climb with full load over its real life max altitude and still outmanouver fighters..) and with you telling me to accept the fact that buffs outmanouver fighters at very high altitudes even when they couldn't do that in reality.
[/B]

Let me say this one more freaking time so you can maybe, finally, unequivocally understand.  This discussion is not about the validity of the AH bomber models.

Stop trying to push it in that direction.  Debate the flight models all you want, but debating them with me is idiocy.  I don't care.  The fact is that buffs are easy kills when you utilize the proper tactics whether they model them properly or improperly.
When you persist in saying things like:

Quote
I think this discussion is handling whether we want to tolerate this kind of 'flaws' in the game and people who take advantage of them. Another approach would be to fix the modeling to prevent that.
[/b]

It shows that you have no idea what point I'm trying to make.  Or more likely, you don't care in your single-minded effort to make your own, unrelated point.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #116 on: May 18, 2002, 04:49:07 PM »
Oh sorry Sir I forgot you're in total charge of the discussion here.

If you would have read my post more carefully I already cleared my position regarding your point of view on gameplay. I deal with the current FM - still it doesn't mean I have to like it or not raise questions if things could be improved.
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #117 on: May 18, 2002, 05:07:36 PM »
Uhmm, B17's went down pretty easy when hit by 20 and 30mm. Just watch any gun camera fotage and you'll see that in 95% of those films the gunners are not shooting anymore, no armored glass, specially not as thin as the turret gunners/tail gunner had can protect from cannon shells not to mention a waist gunner.

The problem with buffs is that they outperform fighters above 25k or so, even the TA152, which was, and still is (if there were any flying) on the very edge of what a piston engine plane can do, that means at what alt and speed it can reach, specially alt.
No other piston engine plane has every been able to compete with its high alt performance and yet B17's outclimb it at 30k?

One way to acually limit high alt use of bombers and fighter would be to modell high alt preasure. When you reach an altitude of about 30k or so, a bit less even, and don't have a preassurized cockpit you're vision narrows down and your boddy starts to hurt aswell as you get weaker. I have the pilot report from a TA152 pilot who brought a TA152 up to about 40k or so, the cockpit preasurisation was broken.

Now, the only fighter in AH, and (I think) the only fighter to see service in WW2 with a preasurised cockpit was the TA152, modell that fatigue and high alt preasure in AH and the TA152 would become the high alt beast it was capable of (we all know they used them mostly as low alt field defenders).
Modell the narrow vision and thus buff gunners will have a hard time shooting, modell the weak muscells by making gun movement slow, sluggish and make them wobble. Allso add gunners passing out at extreem alts, much like pilot wounded.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #118 on: May 18, 2002, 05:26:15 PM »
its not the pressure but lack of oxygen afaik most fighters had o2 systems. Hell most need o2 at 22k.

btw the g1 had a pressurized cockpit.

I dont see how buffs could perform at those alts like they do in ah even with super charged eng.

I damn sure know that in those manuvers the probrability of a gunner hitting anything would be near 0.

However you dont see many buffs above 20k and if you are sure you cant kill um or think they are too uber let umm go. Thats what i do. But i dont turn fight zekes in a jug. :)

I still maintain that the stablity of the gun platform whether through the vibration of the gun itself or  of the ability to track a plane across the sky at 400 mph is what gives buff the lethality they have now. They arent unbeatable nor are they too hard to kill. But if every buff died at the sight of a nme fighter then no one would fly umm. So it stands to reason that a gameplay concession be made here and there to encourage folks to fly umm.

With the new system otw a lot of the current concessions and being curtailed. If you have read the news you will know that manuvering the 4 buff formation will be rather delicate couple that with the new bombsite/bomb drift seems nice and steady will be the norm. If you cant find a way to kill them then you might as well give up trying :)

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
HT talks 4XBuffs
« Reply #119 on: May 18, 2002, 06:31:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Oh sorry Sir I forgot you're in total charge of the discussion here.
[/B]

I'd like to think I'm in charge of my own argument.  When you attempt to divert my main point into some tangent utterly unrelated to it in order to serve your own agenda, then you must expect that I'll call you on it.  You're welcome to talk about gameplay, "gaming the game," flight models, or whatnot.  To bring those up as responses to my argument, however, serves no purpose other than to prove that you either don't understand what I'm saying, or you don't care because it doesn't serve your interests.  Preach it to someone else, because it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Quote
If you would have read my post more carefully I already cleared my position regarding your point of view on gameplay. I deal with the current FM - still it doesn't mean I have to like it or not raise questions if things could be improved.


That's just it... I'm not making any point on gameplay.  I'm saying that buffs are easy to kill when you utilize proper tactics, regardless of the validity of their flight models.  Period.  Whether their flight models improve or detract from gameplay for you doesn't matter to me.

-- Todd/Leviathn