is it a good idea ???????

[chris3]

i have a idea how to creat the perky mission

The Problem is how to diside how the people get there perkis by joinig a mission. I know that it is hard to programed
so here my esier idea i think:
if, for example 55 % of all peoples who flown in mission Stayalive , and these 55%peopple have earned in adjaverage for example 2.5 Perkis  all the other which have worked in mission get XX perkis after the mission have completly ended.
i hope this idee would be esyer to creat.

And i hope too it becomes clear what i mean , sorry my bead english.


cu in the endless war :-))

[Booky]

I think I see why HT doesn't post in as many threads as I would like to see.


Thank You Wotan for showing that you are to blame for that:mad:

Hitech and friends.

Booky

[Wotan]

Ok Booky

Either fly with 20 guys and rape the enemy and fight over kills, or fly with maybe 2 or 3 guys and get raped by the enemy and whine about it. I tend to find myself in the later of the two.

You know I am right. As for where and why HT posts thats up to him.

Lepaul your idea is still terrible no matter how well meaning you think it is.

That was the sum total of my "insult" toward you.

HT that thread by Gruenherz about taking sides. Heres what he meant. Read Booky's post in the other thread. He basically said  the same thing I did then comes here to pat your back for "chatising" me.

Where were you during the post where every other guy went through calling hazed and us Nazis?

Its your board you set the tone, if you say you dont want phrases like "50 man base rape" well thats the rules.

But whatever symantics are used its still true.

[brady]

yawn....

 Wotan put the gun down and back away man:)

  They got ya sorounded:)

   First off it is not imo a good Idea to inchurage mishions in the MA, but I am biased, I dont care for the MA anymore, not since it exceaded like 300 people during prime time, since that time the MA is typicaly a series of fights with a very lage density of planes that moves between fields acording to atrition and the side with the lowere numbers gets bushed back and they are killed on the runway and their base is levaled. ( not how I was PC and avoided saying furball, gange bange and base rape. )

 Thier is a point hear thought, a lot of people curently playing AH werent hear when it was different and their were fewer people playing, and skill and dogfighting were more of a factor than at present, not only do they not know the diferance they like it the way it is, as do some of the old hands.

 If Wotan used potientaly inflamatory statements to collor his posting it was more than likely becuase he is pashionate about the game and sad to see it has changed so in a way that is to him dishearting. I dont beleave he ment any of the above a personal insult to anyone he is a good guy.

 HiTech Has a point a lot of people will never see beyond somthing in any statement that contains somthing that is ofensive to them, they simply arent big enough or objective enough to filter through what they consider toejam to see the inhearent truth. Posting when I am upset has helped me loses several debates because of my deleverys for this fact alone. While this fact is inhearently twisted and wrong it is a very real thing and ultimatly can't be argued aganst.

   

[Booky]

Originally posted by Wotan
Ok Booky

 

You know I am right. As for where and why HT posts thats up to him.

Lepaul your idea is still terrible no matter how well meaning you think it is.

That was the sum total of my "insult" toward you.

HT that thread by Gruenherz about taking sides. Heres what he meant. Read Booky's post in the other thread. He basically said  the same thing I did then comes here to pat your back for "chatising" me.

Where were you during the post where every other guy went through calling hazed and us Nazis?

Its your board you set the tone, if you say you dont want phrases like "50 man base rape" well thats the rules.

But whatever symantics are used its still true.

Woton, first of all I'll give you credit for useing my other post. Yes I agree that it is like a rapefest in the MA, you got me on that one. However that is not why I said what I said about you being the reason HT doesn't post as much as most would like. He can't just come in here and tell you why he is setting things up the way he is without people like you shooting back saying something to the effect of "your a idiot to think that, I want it my way." Now I know those aren't your exact words, but in a way they can be interpreted that way. SO that is why I said what I said, and I stand by the comment too.

Booky

[Wotan]

Re read what I said. I asked for nothing. A suggestion was made and I stated why I thought it was "terrible". HT and I agree on the original suggestion. Not exactly for the same reasons, ofcourse.

Ht's point was my use of the words "gangbang planner" and "50 man base rape missions". He thinks they can be "offensive." Therefore I "deserve" or at the very least "asked" to be called whatever name comes up. "Whiner" in this case.

No where do I imply or state that things should be done my way nor do I call anyone a name. I make no "demands".

In fact I have touted the idea behind the mission planner and made post both in the cap and tod forums on how side cos could use the mission planner. I have always critized the "gangbangs".

This "whine" consists of the same words you used and that others have used. If we are going to talk about "perception" and how things are "interpreted" then its fair game to point to how the things others say, even ht, can have multiple "interpretations".

Lepaul has had trouble in the past with folks who disagree with his opinions. Read any of the old "I am a poor bomber pilot" threads and you will see a consistant pattern.

Now your last post could apply to the others in the thread. Someone makes a suggestion, ht answers why things are how they are, then they make alternate suggestion based on each reply ht makes. Its the "never ending cycle".

I would ask that you just read what was written. If you had done that you would see HT was calling me on symantics. The very same ones used by you.

I am off to work and wont reply any more in this thread as a favor to Brady.

See I love ya Man

[AKDejaVu]

The problem with this idea is that it can only be implimented for offense related missions... as if we didn't have enough of them already.

Reward attacking bases even more... I don't think that's needed.  In case you haven't flown in the MA recently, you've missed that the best defense is to let someone capture the base, wait until they move on to the next one and then re-capture the base back.

As a result, you see 8 different 50:5 fights going on across the map.

Seems it would be more benificial to give more perks out than normal for shooting down someone who's in a mission.  Anything that would promote the desire to actually defend a base is a good thing IMO.

AKDejaVu

[brady]

Thanks Wotan:)

  What AKDejaVu said was a very well put summery of the MA, consise polite and bang on.

[MrLars]

Combine a perk point modifier that adjusts for the number of friendlys vs. enemys within con range during missions.

If you attack w/ overwhelming odds then your perk points will be less, attack a field that is well defended then you reap extra perkies.

The same with normal MA engagements but maybe reduce the range down to D1000 or so...maybe a way to encourage less lopsided fighting, but then there are those who don't care for more or less perkies.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Wotan

Lepaul has had trouble in the past with folks who disagree with his opinions. Read any of the old "I am a poor bomber pilot" threads and you will see a consistant pattern.

 

LOL....oh pa-leeaase....you are so lost in yourself...

And I'm not the first to call you on it.

People disagree with me all the time, so what?  I read your posts and you exaggerate and whine pretty consistently.  

Go ahead, backpeddle some more.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by hitech
And what about cap missions?

HiTech

Mission objectives such as "fighter cap" could be rewarded if air to air kills were made.......

Mission objectives such as attack could be rewarded if field objects /gv's were destroyed

Mission objectives such as bomber could be rewarded if strat objects were destroyed or fields captured.

Mission objectives such as GV could be rewarded if field objects /gv's were destroyed/captured and  ground to air kills were made.

The problem is really the thwarting of the mission perk by multiple builders  of one man missions.....

I agree with Wotan's observation re the Mission tool as a promoter of the mass raid.......   however I would promote the use of a field limit to level this

I think we would also benefit if the attack / fighter button was removed and add an attack list with attack points......... (the only thing called a bomber would have a level bombing sight)........ if you choose any thing else with bombs or rockets  (or cannon over 30mm) you are in attack mode.

Then the acm folk have a points column they can call their own.

[mrsid2]

I agree with Wotan on the 'gangbang planner.'

It got so boring and frustrating to see missions that consisted of more players than the defender had altogether, attacking a single empty field..

It was common practise while I still played in MA. We might have been fighting at around 120vs100vs50 odds barely surviving the combined attack of 180 or so players with 50 defenders all around the map, and then country x launches a huge mission to take an empty field.

What to do then? Speed there to defend and die usually 20:1 odds? Continue fighting where you were and watch them capture the undefended field?

I did my portion of the first, then started to do the latter and finally came to the realisation that any resistance was futile. Nothing was going to change in MA and the same attitude was going to ensure that you had to choose either from boring superiority in numbers or being retardedly outnumbered. Either way fun factor was zero for people who wanted decent fights.

There will always be a huge group of people who want to have cheap thrills and ensure winning with minimal participation or skill. They attack in hordes and get their kicks mostly by vulching fields or furballs of others.

Anyone suggesting to even up numbers so that real player skill would be represented better in the game result was slaughtered publicly in the UBB. The whine accusations and arguments were abysmal. Nobody saw any problem with the way things were.. There WAS NO numbers imbalance despite the gazillions of screenshots displayed.

But then in the end people (HTC) saw the thing I saw months before I signed out of my account in protest and the perk balancer was introduced. Looks like even that hasn't removed the problems completely but the direction is right and there seems to be hope.

If the gangbang hordes that created the 3:1 or worse ratio are now gone I might consider reactivating the account.

[Furious]

its a great idea....


..IF it costs perks to join such a mission.

[Nwbie]

Hers a question that has been running through my mind(a jigsaw puzzle in itself, but that is a different subject all together) Is it possible to increase field ack lethality as the number of bases owned decrease? For example, if Rooks are down to 25% bases, then the remaining AI and mannable flak guns at their bases are more deadly? I am in no way a software programmer, and I can imagine that this may be a nightmare to to do, but think that the harder it is to take a base as the numbers decrease for the losing side, may even out the fact of larger numbers being harder to defend against.
If this is impossible or a real pain in the keister to even think about, I apologize profusely


NwBie

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Furious
its a great idea....


..IF it costs perks to join such a mission.

Interesting, and does the cost to join flucuate depending on which side is up/down,  as we have now with perked aircraft/vehicles?