Ship control

[kfsone]

Seems to me that the moment, whilst the ranking idea is preventing a pell-mell grabbing of helm control, people will "abuse" (maybe a bit strong) their points and suddenly yank the CV off it's course to follow their little sortie to some field...

I haven't been driving the CVs, just observing, and it seems to me that a solution would be that driving the CV requires you to be onboard the CV. This won't prevent people from redirecting the CV between flights, but if they want to retain that CV control, they will have to stay shipboard.

Why? Because there is a mentality to ship driving. I've seen people point the ships as straight as they can, and then blame everyone else for the fact the CV was sunk by a B17 dropping from 35k.

Two features that might also be nice for the future would be ability for a shipboard fleet controller to sound battle stations, and for a navigation option "defend" or "attack". Defend puts the ships into a defensive zig-zag, attempting to follow their plotted course, attack puts the ships into their current mode of steaming full speed.


K

[Maverick]

I noted a possible change as a result of trying to turn the cv I was on to avoid a buff attack. When I went to the fleet page the names column was dark. I tried to click on the one for the fleet I was on and it wouldn't allow me to control it. No indication of any name there in control. Has this been a change?? Is the commanders name intentionally blanked out? For what it was worth that same cv was sunk 2 times by buffs last night. I couldn't get in to make a course change and the buff just droned over and took it out.

Mav

[jihad]

driving the CV requires you to be onboard the CV

 Good idea,I just watched a guy take the CV away from a player who was doing well with it-then mindlessly furball with the ship steaming back and forth 5k from the enemy VH.

 We must have killed 50 PT boats but the law of averages finally kicked in and we took a spread of torpedoes. 8(

[kfsone]

Another advantage to this method is that it would, hopefully, deter the "cv parkers". The type that decide having obtained 4 cvs, they don't want to risk any of them in confrontation, and move the CVs to the back of the map well out of reach of the rest of the playerbase.

Yeah I realise this sounds whiny, but when a whine covers both sides of an argument, it's usually not a whine... cv parking deprives BOTH sides of the fight from the use of the CV.

K

[Ghosth]

Agreed Kfsone, I think requireing your prescence aboard would solve a lot of the problems you mention.

I also think that if you lose the CV a couple times in a 24 hour period your score or perk points should reflect that loss.

[Nash]

Well, I wouldn't want to see someone having to be stuck on board the CV for the hour it takes to get from the port to the, er, FLOT.

Even whilst near the enemy, I still wouldn't want to chain him on board the CV itself... as I think it's a pretty good idea that he get himself airborne and do some recon at the very least.

Someone here mentioned a pretty good idea.. that is... Put him on some kind of virtual tether, with a defined range from the CV. Once he gets outside of that range, the tether breaks, and he loses control of the CV.

I don't even know if THAT's even doable, and it still doesn't solve the problem with forcing a guy to spend an hour near the fleet when that fleet aint near anything else.

This is probably one of those things that we just gotta rely on the responsibility and judgement of the CV commander and live with it. It sucks when bad decisions are being made... but I can't realistically think of any way around it.

As it is, these issues do crop up, but it doesn't seem to be the norm. I'd have to say that generally, despite the odd problem from time to time, the system now seems reasonable to me.




[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 01-13-2001).]

[Pepino]

Please, remove the possibility of a player controlling more than one TG.

Cheers,

Pepe

[Mighty1]

I like the idea of having to be onboard to control the CV.

I don't know how many times I've been on a CV being attacked and some dimwit is half a sector away flying and won't give up command so the CV gets killed because we cannot avoid a buff or a torpedo.  

[eagl]

I also like the IDEA of a player being able to control only one task group, and having to be onboard the carrier to command it.  Dunno how it would work in the arena, but it would sure give people a sense of ownership and responsibility over the fleets if they had to actually remain with the carrier while driving it.  Only the truly dedicated would stick with a carrier for hours as it transited the arena, and I think I'd prefer a dedicated player driving the cv instead of short attention span players fighting over it's direction.



------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!

[Pepino]

That would go nicely with knocking out In-Flight Radar & GPS (well, maybe only In-Flight Radar, to begin with). This would give the guy at the helm the possibility of doing something while cruising (you know, vectoring, coordination, etc.).

Plus, It would be nice to give the TG commander control over the deck (allow/disable for air operations). Stealth missions won't be a problem that way.

Cheers,

Pepe