Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BnZs on June 27, 2014, 01:19:54 AM
-
This is something I see a great deal more of than when I started in 2006. It is a bad gameplay dynamic, the ultimate anti-fun. What purpose does it serve in game, other than to annoy?
We used to have furballs that went on for hours. Now you can expect the the life span of a gung-ho fight to be measured in minutes before an individual from one side or the other decide to cut off the endless supply of airplanes. CVs, once the ultimate source of near instant-gratification fighting in the MA, are now lucky if they last a quarter of an hour after the enemy knows they are there.
It really doesn't matter whether it is your own fighter hangars that just go dropped or that of the enemy base you just flew to-these egg-toting grinches cut out the supply of fun for BOTH sides in a fight.
So get rid of toolshedding I say. Bomb tards can still get the bizarre jollies they derive from smashing inanimate objects by taking out town, taking out guns, etc. Just make hangars indestructible, so that the fun of the majority is not subject to the whims to tiny number of fun-loathing cranks in a jabos or bombers. If one is not able to take a base except by removing the ability of the defenders to defend, then one does not deserve to take the base anyway.
-
Kill the ords...
Kill the bombers...
Stop dying... Or tell everyone else to stop dying...
-
This is something I see a great deal more of than when I started in 2006. It is a bad gameplay dynamic, the ultimate anti-fun. What purpose does it serve in game, other than to annoy?
We used to have furballs that went on for hours. Now you can expect the the life span of a gung-ho fight to be measured in minutes before an individual from one side or the other decide to cut off the endless supply of airplanes. CVs, once the ultimate source of near instant-gratification fighting in the MA, are now lucky if they last a quarter of an hour after the enemy knows they are there.
It really doesn't matter whether it is your own fighter hangars that just go dropped or that of the enemy base you just flew to-these egg-toting grinches cut out the supply of fun for BOTH sides in a fight.
So get rid of toolshedding I say. Bomb tards can still get the bizarre jollies they derive from smashing inanimate objects by taking out town, taking out guns, etc. Just make hangars indestructible, so that the fun of the majority is not subject to the whims to tiny number of fun-loathing cranks in a jabos or bombers. If one is not able to take a base except by removing the ability of the defenders to defend, then one does not deserve to take the base anyway.
LOL nice troll.
ack-ack
-
Stop dying... Or tell everyone else to stop dying...
I love dying. I die time after time with a smile on my face defending bases.
Being denied the opportunity to die, and "my friends, the enemy" being denied the opportunity to kill me is the problem.
I dare anyone to explain to me what tool shedding does to add fun to this game that balances the anti-fun if causes by ending fights.
-
I dare anyone to explain to me what tool shedding does to add fun to this game
the shedders find it fun?
-
Kill the ords...
So become a minor toolshedder myself aye? :rofl I do not pay $15 a month to waste my playtime destroying inanimate objects. And btw, the fact that one guy in a suicide 190 can take down ords and prevent defenders from dealing with vehicles is ANOTHER bad dynamic in this game, although not as bad as the ability of buffs to grief the primary focus of this game, fighter combat.
Kill the bombers...
Nor do I pay $15 a month to hunt buffs. I will kill them at opportunity, but stopping buff toolshedders is an unrealistic proposition. If every defender hung around at 15K in a cannon bird no buffs would get through, but they don't. They tangle with the other fighters coming in, and enjoy the furball, so a griefing toolshedder is normally able to get through and destroy the furball everyone else is enjoying.
-
the shedders find it fun?
Having fun by ending the fun for everyone else? I think absolute turds are a demographic to which AH does not particularly need to cater.
-
Just make hangars indestructible
:lol
Ummm...No -1
Go to the DA.
-
:lol
Um mm...No -1
Go to the DA.
It's usually empty now, especially at the hours when fights are becoming scarce in the MA.
I've explained what tool shedding does to detract from overall fun in the game. I challenge you to logically explain what tool shedding adds in overall fun that balances what it takes away.
-
Having fun by ending the fun for everyone else? I think absolute turds are a demographic to which AH does not particularly need to cater.
Some say pickers have fun zooming in and picking a guy who is other wise occupied. .... but you wouldn't know about that.
Tool shedders have there place as targets as well as being the guys that a good fighter cover will defend all the way to the target there by bringing more fighters to a fight.
-
Hitech has stated that one goal of the game is to piss people off.
Mission accomplished.
-
Some say pickers have fun zooming in and picking a guy who is other wise occupied. .... but you wouldn't know about that.
Heh...picking is clearly all I know right? http://www.mediafire.com/download/25h3ina2eo9pyhz/20142slo_0041.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/download/25h3ina2eo9pyhz/20142slo_0041.ahf)
Actually, I've let you slide on remarks like this a bit in the past. But I find it is getting a bit old, so I'm going to skip irony and play my cards open: I'm probably better at ACM than you. I took a quick peak. Stats aren't everything, k/d doesn't mean much, but having only 2-2.6 kills per hour does mean something. Simply put, you very seldom manage to shoot anyone down. Which clashes oddly with what you talk on the BBS, because hair-on-fire, will-fight-against-any-odds furballers generally have great kills/time, at the expense of k/d. Combine that with constant complaints about how other people are flying fighter, and I'm getting a picture of a guy who is frustrated by his own ineffectiveness in the MA, and turns the blame outwards rather than inwards.
But I digress...
Tool shedders have there place as targets as well as being the guys that a good fighter cover will defend all the way to the target there by bringing more fighters to a fight.
I *think* I can get the gist out of this cluster of words. My response: It simply does not work this way. Typically a fight begins with fighters clashing. Most of the action will be at ten thousand feet or below. Bombers will come in high or jabos will come in fast, and defenders will have no opportunity to stop them before they drop their bombs because they are currently dealing with fighters at a lower alt and simply don't have the warning time or opportunity to get in position for proper attacks on bombers. This is how it ACTUALLY goes down time after time. The end result is an abrupt end to opportunities to fight, which actually screws fighter pilots on BOTH sides out of fun. (Toolshedding friendly bombers are possibly more annoying than enemies doing the same thing, at least the enemy bomber are themselves an opportunity to shoot something.)
Due to a range of factors there is simply not good balance between the ability of offense to destroy the very possibility of base defense and the ability of the defense to stop them.
Now, OTOH if offense establishes enough air superiority for a goon to fly in and have troops survive WITHOUT dropping the hangars, they actually deserve the take. And instead of being an anti-climatic bore with no combat, the fight will be a fun clash right up until the moment that the capture succeeds or fails. That is what important, for this is a combat game and its dynamics need to promote player vs. player fighting, not squashing opportunities for players to fight.
-
Hitech has stated that one goal of the game is to piss people off.
Mission accomplished.
I am sure this is more of a joke aimed at people who complain about losing fights than a statement of serious intent or a design parameter. The goal of any game is fun for both sides. If not, then it is a bad game.
I am NOT complaining about losing fights. I am complaining about people not having the opportunity to win or lose fights because the flawed game dynamic known as "toolshedding" allows spoilsports to take away the ability of one side to up and fight, pretty much at will.
-
I am sure this is more of a joke aimed at people who complain about losing fights than a statement of serious intent or a design parameter. The goal of any game is fun for both sides. If not, then it is a bad game.
I am NOT complaining about losing fights. I am complaining about people not having the opportunity to win or lose fights because the flawed game dynamic known as "toolshedding" allows spoilsports to take away the ability of one side to up and fight, pretty much at will.
There is more than one base, there is also a great deal of sky above 3k AGL. If you put those two facts together, you could come up with the idea that it is possible for fighters to get into position to stop the toolshedders with some regularity. I am sure your response to that is that you don't want to, that's fine. There are several people who do enjoy that aspect of gameplay from both sides, and frankly if you take away the urgency of trying to save the items they're bombing, it becomes less attractive to bother stopping them.
DA's on the left. There are enough people that grumble about this kind of thing that you guys really should organize All Furball All the Time in the DA. Why does that not happen?
-
There is more than one base,
That is the base that the enemy is NOT at. Even if people would up to defend from the next base over in large numbers, (they usually don't) the spoilsports are greatly increasing the time and inconvenience before one gets to the tun part. Again screwing over fighter pilots on BOTH sides of the furball. And if significant resistance starts coming from the next base over, sure enough they'll toolshed that one as well.
DA's on the left. There are enough people that grumble about this kind of thing that you guys really should organize All Furball All the Time in the DA. Why does that not happen?
Why don't those who like smashing inanimate objects and apparently don't like actual combat between players to eist just go ahead and fly bomber missions offline?
Hell, they could build terrains for their offline bomber flying that are nothing but endless cities and buildings to bomb for hours and hours. Maybe even modify a sound pack so that they could hear simulated cries of women and children burning to death, that sort of thing would probably appeal to the personality type that toolshedds.
-
BnZs - Get rid of him.
:banana:
-
That is the base that the enemy is NOT at. Even if people would up to defend from the next base over in large numbers, (they usually don't) the spoilsports are greatly increasing the time and inconvenience before one gets to the tun part. Again screwing over fighter pilots on BOTH sides of the furball. And if significant resistance starts coming from the next base over, sure enough they'll toolshed that one as well.
It's a really good thing they're not invulnerable to bullets. Oh wait, you're the guy what was on about how completely impossible to kill bombers are... nvm.
Why don't those who like smashing inanimate objects and apparently don't like actual combat between players to eist just go ahead and fly bomber missions offline?
Hell, they could build terrains for their offline bomber flying that are nothing but endless cities and buildings to bomb for hours and hours. Maybe even modify a sound pack so that they could hear simulated cries of women and children burning to death, that sort of thing would probably appeal to the personality type that toolshedds.
Why are people who are looking for instant action constant dogfight expecting it in an arena that isn't set up to cater only to that playstyle?
Wiley.
-
BnZs - Get rid of him.
:banana:
Yes. I'm so awful for actually wanting to up from a base under attack and be shot down by 'leet sticks like you. It's horrible that I want to be take off under your 109F or C205 o' death and give you a minute of action before I burn, instead of watching you fly above the base from the tower while we both die of boredom. Obviously I hate you and don't want you to have any fun at all in the game. :devil
You know, something I find ironic-We who still fly fighter in AH often spend our time bashing each other for not flying fighter "right"-bloody pickers runners hoers! Yet most of us don't have anything at all to say against those who who grief us by preventing furballs from occuring. That is illogical. Frankly, it is also a bit brain dead.
-
destroying towns and bases-hangers ords bunkers field funs radars-is a part of war--has been done done in every real war and simulated..i don't think and i hope your wish won't be granted....if you can't destroy the hangers..you can't win the base.....because the overall object of the game is to have fun and win the war.....and bombing hangers is nothing new--been doing it since day 1.
-
Yes. I'm so awful for actually wanting to up from a base under attack and be shot down by 'leet sticks like you. It's horrible that I want to be take off under your 109F or C205 o' death and give you a minute of action before I burn, instead of watching you fly above the base from the tower while we both die of boredom. Obviously I hate you and don't want you to have any fun at all in the game. :devil
You know, something I find ironic-We who still fly fighter in AH often spend our time bashing each other for not flying fighter "right"-bloody pickers runners hoers! Yet most of us don't have anything at all to say against those who who grief us by preventing furballs from occuring. That is illogical. Frankly, it is also a bit brain dead.
well don't take off from a base being vulched...thats just silly..take off from another base to get alt.then attack them ..if your taking off from vulched fields..thats your fault
-
destroying towns and bases-hangers ords bunkers field funs radars-is a part of war
You may not have noticed, but the AH main isn't exactly a war. Nor is it a simulation of one, after the manner of true wargames. For instance, no one never really dies. There is no attrition. When you shoot down a the enemy doesn't lose 10 hard to replace crewmen and a very expensive airplane. Etc.
The AH main's capture the flag dynamic ideally promotes players shooting at it each other, which is the whole reason to pay the fee for MMO play. The tool-shedding dynamic destroys player-on-player combat. Nor can it be called realistic from the "war" POV...destroying a couple of buildings stopped every fighter in a 625 square mile area from upping during WWII? :rofl
if you can't destroy the hangers..you can't win the base.....
Now this exemplifies everything wrong with what win-teh-war types bring to the game. If you can't establish enough superiority to hold down the enemy fighters and get your troops in without toolshedding, you don't *deserve* to take the base. And this style of base taking, vicious fighting until the very last minute, is far and away more fun for both sides than the bomb the hangars out of existence and leisurely drive troops into undefended territory style that predominates in the game these days.
-
well don't take off from a base being vulched...thats just silly..take off from another base to get alt.then attack them
Um, your reading comprehension not quite working today? I WANT to take off from the vulched base and fight. Presumably the guys trying to vulch want me to take off as well, so they can kill me. Tool-shedding bomb****s screw both the defenders and the vulchers over.
Also Cargnico don't vulch. He hangs out a little above and kills you to death when you try to climb up and kill his ENY gazillion plane. Fair enough. :aok
-
I sunk a CV yesterday that ended a huge two sector full darbar on both sides furball. I was participating in this furball for a good while until the 5" tards started to target fighters in the furball after they got shot down. After getting knocked down three times in a row by them I decided to up some Tu-2s climbed to 7k and sunk it. I love CV fights but once the act tards come out I will end it real quick.
-
BnZ instead of whining about bombers, why don't you try and defend your base? The problem isn't players 'tool shedding', the problem is players like you are too lazy to defend their base so you come to the forums and post a wish to nerf a certain aspect of the game instead.
ack-ack
-
Also Cargnico don't vulch. He hangs out a little above and kills you to death when you try to climb up and kill his ENY gazillion plane. Fair enough. <-- who said anything anout this guy<--
Um, your reading comprehension not quite working today? I WANT to take off from the vulched base and fight. Presumably the guys trying to vulch want me to take off as well, so they can kill me. Tool-shedding bomb****s screw both the defenders and the vulchers over.
with indestrucable hangers-all your doing is padding their score--when they vulch---cause and effect--hangers not down--people keep upping get vulched--pads bad guys score....if they make hangers un killable--people will quit because it doesent make sense...and your need for your cartoon pilot to die is only in your self intrest...and i'm afraid your the only one that wants this--if you can't destroy the hangers--theres no reason to attack a base...and that is what the bombers are for..
-
BnZ instead of whining about bombers, why don't you try and defend your base? The problem isn't players 'tool shedding', the problem is players like you are too lazy to defend their base so you come to the forums and post a wish to nerf a certain aspect of the game instead.
ack-ack
:aok :salute
-
AKAK, here is why your opinion is irrelevant. First of all, your MO on the boards is to lambaste anyone who suggests the game isn't perfect, whether they are correct or not. When you don't have a logical rebuttal you simply substitute ad hominem, as the case now.
Second, the suggestions to just hunt the buffs is fairly easy for you to say, since hanging out in the stratosphere in a P-38 and engaging very conservatively at best is your MO in the arena. I don't have a problem with that style generally, but when you spew shallow-witted tripe of this nature, I will call you on that little detail.
How would you suggest I "defend my base" effectively when I just upped two minutes ago and am heavily engaged fighters? Do you expect me to just up a cannon bird and spend my limited playtime hanging out at 20K, on the chance that buffs are coming in, instead of engaging in the dogfight, where the fun is? That is the very definition of a boring chore, which is why no one does it.
You cannot come up with anything reasonable to demonstrate why the tool-shedding game dynamic adds to fun rather than detracting from it, so you accuse me of "whining". Typical.
BnZ instead of whining about bombers, why don't you try and defend your base? The problem isn't players 'tool shedding', the problem is players like you are too lazy to defend their base so you come to the forums and post a wish to nerf a certain aspect of the game instead.
ack-ack
-
with indestrucable hangers-all your doing is padding their score--when they vulch---cause and effect--hangers not down--people keep upping get vulched--pads bad guys score....
I don't CARE if vulchers score gets padded, and I :rofl at a you, defending bombtarredism and then judging ANY other kind of player as "bad".
Even with a completely de-acked field, windows wherein one can up will occur quickly. And if one of them gets me, so what? Planes are infinite and free...unless griefers in buffs have been at work.
if they make hangers un killable--people will quit because it doesent make sense.. destroy the hangers--
The "killing two buildings, now the enemy has absolutely no airplanes" thing does not make sense. Myriad dynamics in the MA do not make sense, because they are simply props to create combat and fun. Tool-shedding is a flawed dynamic in that regard, because it ends combat and detracts from fun.
-if you can't destroy the hangers theres no reason to attack a base...and that is what the bombers are for..
No reason? How actually getting to have a fight with other player-flown machines? Air Combat Maneuvering, ever heard of it? Now I'm sure you exemplify everything wrong with the "win teh war" crowd.
And bombers are for destroying infrastructure and facilities on a nation-wide scale for strategic purposes. We don't have a strat game in the MA, and the current use of bombers as tool-shedding implements is as unrealistic as it is annoying.
-
if they make hangers un killable--people will quit
In case you haven't been paying attention, people HAVE been quitting in droves for a while now, as evidenced by the numbers. Maybe flawed anti-fun game dynamics have something to do with that aye? Bombers would still be very useful for destroying towns, gun positions, etc. They just wouldn't have destroying fun as a primary mission anymore.
BTW, I just noticed that your arguments complain a huge logical contradiction. You alleged that those "bad vulchers" can vulch so effectively that no one can possibly get up and offer real resistance, but you ALSO claim that bases cannot be taken without dropping the hangars. Busted! :ahand
-
AKAK, here is why your opinion is irrelevant. First of all, your MO on the boards is to lambaste anyone who suggests the game isn't perfect, whether they are correct or not. When you don't have a logical rebuttal you simply substitute ad hominem, as the case now.
You dismiss my comment because you know I'm correct. I've seen your type over the two decades of playing online flight sims, your kind cries to nerf aspects of the game they suck at. You can't shoot down bombers so you want to nerf them. Bombers aren't the problem, it's you.
ack-ack
-
You dismiss my comment because you know I'm correct. I've seen your type over the two decades of playing online flight sims, your kind cries to nerf aspects of the game they suck at. You can't shoot down bombers so you want to nerf them. Bombers aren't the problem, it's you.
ack-ack
Suck? Why Ack, the only time we ever got it on in the dueling arena I shot you down in your own favorite plane and you made some excuse about being on drugs. I'm no Bruv or Grizz, but my better-than-average competence as a fighter pilot is well established. So I :rofl at your latest attempt to argue via ad hominem because you don't have a response involving reason.
Again:
How would you suggest I "defend my base" effectively when I just upped two minutes ago and am heavily engaged with fighters? Do you expect me to just up a cannon bird and spend my limited playtime hanging out at 20K, on the chance that buffs are coming in, instead of engaging in the dogfight, where the fun is? That is the very definition of a boring chore, which is why no one does it.
-
Put me down with the ones who think "if you pay your $15 a month play however the Hell you want".
Sure there are styles that bother me, most of all those who think only "their" style is the right style". But I'd never have the gall to say their legal method of playing is wrong. Even flying to TTs and killing perk tanks. I let tankers have their game at TTs, "not at airfields", but if somebody wants to up a Lanc and go bomb them they are doing nothing illegal. And its easily solved by someone upping a long duration fighter and making life hell for the bomber. Same goes for CVs. Im always amazed how nobody bothers to defend a CV yet they will snivel when one is dumped by a Bomber set.
-
Put me down with the ones who think "if you pay your $15 a month play however the Hell you want".
Yes, yes, that is a truism, you get to play within whatever limitations the conditions of the game impose. My point is that the tool-shedding dynamic of the game detracts from fun and modifying that condition would improve the game.
-
Yes, yes, that is a truism, you get to play within whatever limitations the conditions of the game impose. My point is that the tool-shedding dynamic of the game detracts from fun and modifying that condition would improve the game.
Would improve the game for those that only like to fight, there is so much more to the game then just fighting half way. What about those that enjoy bombers, those that can only fly bombers be it age, eye sight. One of the Main objectives is to win the war, if it wasn't then you would have only airfield and only fighters as I ww1. If punching hangers and pushing the fight back moves the line forward it only makes sense to me.
-
What about those that enjoy bombers, those that can only fly bombers be it age, eye sight.
Town. Taking down gun emplacements. Destroying vehicles. Plenty for them to do that doesn't involve being the fun police.
-
Town. Taking down gun emplacements. Destroying vehicles. Plenty for them to do that doesn't involve being the fun police.
I did not know the fun police were involved. What constitutes fun? Fun for you is different then fun for someone else? I hate to say it but the opinion of others is hard to judge. How many of the subscribers have you polled?
-
-1
BnZ,
Your wish would result in a game I would not want to play. I like playing the game as it is, therefore I must disagree with your wish, thank you.
-
-1BnZ
Your wish would result in a game I would not want to play.
Explain. The only real difference would be that taking bases would require enough superiority to thoroughly oppress the defenders while the troops roll in, and fights would potentially be hotly contested until the moment troops went into the map room. I do not see why this is bad, in fact this sounds very, very good. What is it about the tool-shedding dynamic that you think makes the game more fun for the majority of players?
-
Explain. The only real difference would be that taking bases would require enough superiority to thoroughly oppress the defenders while the troops roll in, and fights would potentially be hotly contested until the moment troops went into the map room. I do not see why this is bad, in fact this sounds very, very good. What is it about the tool-shedding dynamic that you think makes the game more fun for the majority of players?
I shall not offer any explanations sir, as I do not want to be the object of your derision or have my style of gameplay marginalized because you do not agree with it.
-
In other words, this would just mean that hordes would be required to take a base.
-
I feel limiting one aspect of game play would not have the effect you are looking for. It would alienate bomber pilots, hamper small squad base takes. In all honesty what your looking for is in other games like WoW or warthunder, if all you want is dogfights and fighters you might be happier there. I also feel if it was as big an issue as you lead us to believe htc would have changed something in the last 10 years or so.
-
I shall not offer any explanations sir, as I do not want to be the object of your derision or have my style of gameplay marginalized because you do not agree with it.
I am asking for reasonable response, no derision because you haven't opened the ball game by deriding me. If it involves flawed logic I will point out those flaws, but still no derision. If you do not have one and are man enough to admit it and concede the point, still no derision, in fact a hearty :salute
-
In other words, this would just mean that hordes would be required to take a base.
Fighting a horde is challenging, but here you are essentially arguing that fighting against a horde is worse than not getting to fight at all. Not if you LIKE fighting, and I believe this is a *combat game*. Its dynamics should promote combat, not reduce combat.
-
Keep the game as is.
Making hangars indestructible will just mean that vulches get set up far more otften.
Making hangars indestructible will warrant the endless use of hording, even though it's already there.
Making hangars indestructible is AGAINST what this game is about.
Bomber dweebs gotta have fun too, and part of that fun is killing hangars. Just because you're whining about it doesn't mean that it'll change. If you haven't noticed almost everyone in here is against it, which would lead you to believe that it might be a bad idea, right?
-
I feel limiting one aspect of game play would not have the effect you are looking for. It would alienate bomber pilots, hamper small squad base takes.
Bomber pilots would still have plenty to do, and perhaps HTC could add more options. As for small squads, are you really suggesting that the offense/defense balance should be skewed by a method that allows that allows offense to easily deny greater numbers of defenders any fair chance of combat?
Perhaps the only thing worse than not being able to up in defense is taking the time to fly to a base and discover that the fight is destroyed. There are times I would pay perk points to be able to shoot down *friendly* bombers. As I continue to point out, the tool-shedder mentality actually removes fun for players on *both* sides, not just the defensive team.
I also feel if it was as big an issue as you lead us to believe htc would have changed something in the last 10 years or so.
Tool-shedders weren't such a big issue when I first started playing years ago. Fights could and did literally go back and forth for hours. Now I observe they rarely last more than half an hour or so before someone drops the fighter hangars.
-
Alas it is your opinion vs those that have answered your wish and as skorpion put it " most object to it" other then what has been stated and in your delusion ignored what more can be said. This more fun for us comment would warrant more people agreeing with you.... where are they? Why are you the only advocate for this? And why are your remarks the only ones that matter?
-
Keep the game as is.
Making hangars indestructible will just mean that vulches get set up far more otften.
Vulches are the reward for establishing total air superiority. And if I get vulched that is okay, at least I had a slim chance to get up and fight.
Making hangars indestructible will warrant the endless use of hording, even though it's already there.
So you are saying my idea is bad because it will cause something that already happens anyway. :D Oh, watching people on this forum try to use logic is fun.
Making hangars indestructible is AGAINST what this game is about.
This game is primarily about fighting planes with planes, or the commercial I saw on the History Channel back in 2006 was false advertising. Tool-shedding hampers fighting badly these days, and thus is against what the game is about.
Bomber dweebs gotta have fun too, and part of that fun is killing hangars. Just because you're whining about it doesn't mean that it'll change. If you haven't noticed almost everyone in here is against it, which would lead you to believe that it might be a bad idea, right?
Bomber dweebs would still have things to do in the game, your logic here is full of questionable assumptions. You first assume that the respondents here represent a majority, and then you assume that truth is best determined by a show of hands.
-
This more fun for us comment would warrant more people agreeing with you.... where are they? Why are you the only advocate for this? And why are your remarks the only ones that matter?
Where are they? You do go to the MA right? I assure times of rampant tool-shedding are still lamented by those who like to fight.
Why am I the only advocate for this? Sadly, most people do not think very deeply nor very logically. This is true on the boards as well as in the general population. AHers will complain they "cannot find fights", yet their explanations for why they can't find fights are poorly thought out and illogical. They don't seem to notice the elephant in the room, that when a fight DOES spring up it usually gets killed in short order by a tool-shedder.
My remarks are so far are the only ones without gaping holes in logic.
-
I am asking for reasonable response, no derision because you haven't opened the ball game by deriding me. If it involves flawed logic I will point out those flaws, but still no derision. If you do not have one and are man enough to admit it and concede the point, still no derision, in fact a hearty :salute
I personally enjoy thwarting those who come to kill any object on the field. If it is bombers or fighters it does not matter, I try to put myself in a position to kill them before they can drop. I think it is fun and I have the patience to be in a position to have a chance of stopping them.
I also trust HTC to have a much better understanding of game play dynamics than I either you or I. What I want may be selfish but no more or less than what you want. Every aspect of this game has the winner denying something from the loser. I want the gameplay, and the skillset of the players to determine what you many deny your opponent, not a rule change.
-
I personally enjoy thwarting those who come to kill any object on the field. If it is bombers or fighters it does not matter, I try to put myself in a position to kill them before they can drop. I think it is fun and I have the patience to be in a position to have a chance of stopping them.
Because warning time tends to be short, the defense does not have a reasonable chance of being in position to deal effectively with tool-shedding bombers, especially if said tool-shedders come to kill what was previously simply a fun furball. Like I said, one could simply up a good interceptor plane and loiter at typical bomber altitudes in hope as soon as one sees a red DAR, but this is very likely to be excruciatingly dull and I do not think it is reasonable to expect most players to do this.
Also, the reality of bomber offensives in R/L is that they will tend to get through, and the job of the interceptors is to simply make it too costly in lives and treasure to continue the bomber offensive through attrition. Since lives and planes are infinite in Aces High, attrition does not exist and this skews the balance even further.
I also trust HTC to have a much better understanding of game play dynamics than I either you or I.
Player numbers have been declining rather steadily for awhile now.
-
Because warning time tends to be short, the defense does not have a reasonable chance of being in position to deal effectively with tool-shedding bombers, especially if said tool-shedders come to kill what was previously simply a fun furball. )I have a very good chance of of being in position because I'm studying the DAR map and can use the information to be in position)Like I said, one could simply up a good interceptor plane and loiter at typical bomber altitudes in hope as soon as one sees a red DAR, but this is very likely to be excruciatingly dull It is not dull at all for me. Yes I have time invested in climbing and flying to the right spot, but that investment increases the excitment I feel when I have a successful intercept) and I do not think it is reasonable to expect most players to do this.
Also, the reality of bomber offensives in R/L is that they will tend to get through, and the job of the interceptors is to simply make it too costly in lives and treasure to continue the bomber offensive through attrition. Since lives and planes are infinite in Aces High, attrition does not exist and this skews the balance even further.
Player numbers have been declining rather steadily for awhile now. (You are assuming that your proposed change will make a difference in the numbers of people that play but have absolutely no basis for that conclusion)
-
Vulches are the reward for establishing total air superiority. And if I get vulched that is okay, at least I had a slim chance to get up and fight.
- You only need to kill base ack and manned guns to set up a vulch, which isn't very hard.
So you are saying my idea is bad because it will cause something that already happens anyway. :D Oh, watching people on this forum try to use logic is fun.
-I said it already happens, what will happen after this "idea" of yours is nothing but hordes from other countries. Nobody will go to take a base unless they have a ton of people backing them up.
This game is primarily about fighting planes with planes, or the commercial I saw on the History Channel back in 2006 was false advertising. Tool-shedding hampers fighting badly these days, and thus is against what the game is about.
-Tool-shedding as you call it promotes combat. Shoot down those bombers (AKA Combat) or lose your hangars. It's a use it or lose it deal going on.
Bomber dweebs would still have things to do in the game, your logic here is full of questionable assumptions. You first assume that the respondents here represent a majority, and then you assume that truth is best determined by a show of hands.
-Bombers killing hangars is just part of the game. Deal with it and don't whine about it.
-
Player numbers have been declining rather steadily for awhile now.
Numbers had also been growing massively for years, despite of CV's being sunk, land being grabbed in NOE raids and hangars being smashed alot.
I for one always liked battles in AH. As huge, fluid and as complex as possible.
-
I understand that you like intercepting buffs Zoney. I am not proposing to eliminate buffs, but rather simply making them less of a detriment to the overall intensity of the fighting going on.
You are assuming that your proposed change will make a difference in the numbers of people that play but have absolutely no basis for that conclusion.
Actually I was providing a reason as to why there might be room to doubt the statement of yours I quoted. But it is reasonable to hypothesize that numbers have been declining and/or going to other sims at least in part because it can often be difficult to find action. And my suggestion would somewhat mitigate that problem, for all the logical reasons I outlined.
-
Numbers had also been growing massively for years, despite of CV's being sunk, land being grabbed in NOE raids and hangars being smashed alot.
I for one always liked battles in AH. As huge, fluid and as complex as possible.
The human factor cannot be ignored. We started out as overwhelmingly a fighter pilot/ACM culture. I think we still lean that way, but somewhere along the line the base take dynamic that was originally intended as an excuse to shoot each other became the primary objective for some. With element around it becomes clear that it is far too easy an individual or two to end a fight for everybody, basically at will.
-
I just killed a couples of hanger... Now my nipples are hard enough to cut glass.... I can see why people do this! :devil
-
I just killed a couples of hanger... Now my nipples are hard enough to cut glass.... I can see why people do this! :devil
:cheers:
-
I think it's safe to say that this wish will be filed somewhere under "When the sky falls and Hell freezes over". :aok
-
I just killed a couples of hanger... Now my nipples are hard enough to cut glass.... I can see why people do this! :devil
I hit a hangar or two in P-47s back in my early days of playing. Then I realized that effectively denying *myself* enemy planes to play with was dumb, as well as a bit of a ratty thing to do to other players paying money for *air combat*. :aok
-
I think it's safe to say that this wish will be filed somewhere under "When the sky falls and Hell freezes over". :aok
I think this is quite likely, even though the wish is reasonable and I can justify it logically. How are those player numbers again?
-
I think this is quite likely, even though the wish is reasonable and I can justify it logically. How are those player numbers again?
toolshedders killing hangars/cv's may ruin it for you, but have you considered how ace furballers ruin it for the baby seals they like clubbing?
everyone gets to ruin each other's favorite mode of play in this game.. that's what makes it great... you can go drop bombs on tanks, vulch fighters, intercept bombers, bomb cv's, kill vulchers with ack, shut down hangars, etc... don't like it? go stop them!
-
Personally id like to see it set up were if a field lost all its fighter hangars only planes ENY 30 and above could be launched, this way buffs can still take down hangars but defenders can still defend even if the field is vulched.
Its my $14.95 and if i want to take off from a vulched field and disrupt the horde in my yak7b or hurri1 why shouldn't i be allowed to ?
EatG
-
I have read the majority of this thread and there are some erudite arguments, however BnZ does have a reasonable point.
The argument of "it's their $15" only goes so far.
It's like saying: "everyone pays their car tax, so they should be allowed to drive however the hell they like, if you feel it's destroying your enjoyment of driving? Simply modify the way you drive"
There really are some behaviours in this game that are detrimental to the experience of playing as a whole.
This is a question of moderation, I was riding my bike the other day and thinking about something similar.
It is fairly universally accepted that it is wise to fly by the Dikta Boelcka, fair enough, however you would have everyone at their absolute ceiling, all flying in the same direction with sun at their backs, there simply would not be a fight, so on one hand the Dikta would work, as no one would get shot down.
I have yet to find anyone, short of those being blatantly belligerent, who admits to, what are considered to be the morally debatable forms of gameplay, i.e picking, vulching, hoing, toolshedding, bumbturding,hordeing, ganging and about 10 other "ings" :old:
-
toolshedders killing hangars/cv's may ruin it for you, but have you considered how ace furballers ruin it for the baby seals they like clubbing?
The distinction between losing a fight and not even being given the opportunity to fight, win or lose, is an important one.
-
This would be better than the current system alright. Anything that doesn't totally kill combat would be.
Personally id like to see it set up were if a field lost all its fighter hangars only planes ENY 30 and above could be launched, this way buffs can still take down hangars but defenders can still defend even if the field is vulched.
Its my $14.95 and if i want to take off from a vulched field and disrupt the horde in my yak7b or hurri1 why shouldn't i be allowed to ?
EatG
-
BnZ you ask for reasonable responses and when you get dozens of them you ignore them and stick to the only bit of logic you have posted and that is tool shedders spoil YOUR fun.
Me first response was both a little jab at your rumored style of flying as well as pointing out a different way of having fun. If HTC should set it up so you could not "pick" an engaged aircraft would it spoil some players "fun"? Of course it would, some people live to fight that way. Its the same as tool shedders.
My "score" for what it is worth, shows I up from a base out away from the fight and fly TO the fights instead of upping UNDER them.
I happen to agree with you that there is less fighting in the game, but it is NOT because HTC allows toolshedders to do there thing. You said it yourself that years ago there were longer furballs, we still had buffs and bombs and all hangers were easy enough to destroy back then, what changed? The players changed.
Todays players don't train or try to get better at fighting, they just avoid it and capture fields. To todays players a big darbar (furball) looks like a base take and so they "help" by dropping the hangers. Changing the play style of todays players is what your really looking for. If HTC took away to ablity to bomb hangers you would get bigger hordes..... the ones we have now are big enough thank-you.... and you would chase away those who like to help take bases.
-
Today with so much over scaled territory on maps from another era in the game. We have fewer players scrambling for quality moments that are not consumed by watching the map to try and catch up with three or four attackers against out of the way places. Granted those might end up becoming something bigger, maybe. The single big country vs country dars on average are going to attract everything because that's where the people are. And they are going to use the tools provided within the mechanics that followed us out of our giant hoard era.
Except for a few nights a week, maps of maybe 12x12 sectors would equate the action we once had in the hoard era with 400-600 players on our super sized purpose built maps to manage the hoards.
Now that there are not hungry defenders everywhere all the time to interfere with bombers going to the strats. And longer stretches of empty territory. The bombers are following the action again like they did years ago. The strats were once a nice idea in the past for the really hardcore strategic players.
BnZ is loudly identifying an imbalance that I hope Hitech is musing over with the new game release coming up. We once had hoards avoiding combat against each other and Hitech took notice to change that. Today the sheer area of our maps allows our smaller numbers to avoid combat again, or stall out between two fields with little territory movement. While the few players who like bombers and short flights to the action, are impacting the limited quality group actions the fighter jocks get each evening. Because on our giant wasteland maps, that's where the people are.
You should try being a knight fighter jock. I watch the knights furball on the deck around their field half way to the enemy field while being warned the town is down, and all the hangers are down. And warned to start looking for M3. Then suddenly we no longer have the great furball on the deck anymore. Then just like that a bunch of knights all have to go to bed. And it's the crapz getting another one started up after that. There will always be players who see your back turned to them as the best moment to kick you in the rear. In the MA you rarely get to be totally ADHD all night long on the single aspect of the game that gives you a woodie. BnZ has played this game long enough to know that.
BnZ is simplifying what he has identified due to emotions. But, he is not incorrect in spirit. Some kind of changes relevant to lower numbers in the MA are in order which only Hitech can implement.
-
BnZ you ask for reasonable responses and when you get dozens of them you ignore them and stick to the only bit of logic you have posted and that is tool shedders spoil YOUR fun.
No response to me has been without logical holes. And it doesn't just ruin my fun, it ruins the fun of everyone on both sides who wants to fight.
Me first response was both a little jab at your rumored style of flying
A rumor based on ignorance and my call-sign. ;) When I first got interested in ACM, I thought a well-flown energy fight against a more maneuverable aircraft the highest expression of the art...and I still do. But eh, I fly however seems tactically appropriate or just plain fun. I estimate I fly "stupid" rather than "smart" more than the average stick in this game these days. Watch the film? That is the sort of thing I do for training when the DA lake is actually alive.
May "score" for what it is worth shows I up from a base out and fly TO the fights instead of upping UNDER them.
The K/D part of score can indeed easily be gamed by timid flying. Kills-per-hour is a better measurement, although I admit is not entirely fair either. And are are you arguing for some sort of high-ground because you don't do desperate base defense? :huh But all that is tangential. Sometimes I don't think we are flying in the same MA. I can find other players in fighter planes who are willing to kill me most of the time. They provide me with adequate challenge in the trying get kills department. The only snag I run into with it frequently is hangars having been killed by some tool-shedder.
-
IT'S AN OUTRAGE!! bnz's wish is just self indulgent..and unreasonable.they are not going to make hangers industructable----get over it, and quit whineing....your argument is not valed or winable.
-
NT
-
I think we just need to get rid of the giant maps until player numbers go back up. I mean, honestly it's VERY rare to be able to find a fight larger than 2v2 during the daytime. Having a map such as NDisles, my personal favorite, instead of the 700 base Tagma would largely rectify this problem. As it stands now, mo bases = mo problems, and less fun for everyone.
-
I think we just need to get rid of the giant maps until player numbers go back up. I mean, honestly it's VERY rare to be able to find a fight larger than 2v2 during the daytime. Having a map such as NDisles, my personal favorite, instead of the 700 base Tagma would largely rectify this problem. As it stands now, mo bases = mo problems, and less fun for everyone.
you may be right about the large maps...but when i log on almost everybody is conjugated into groups at certin bases..you don't see battles scattered all over the map.all countries are fighting at a 3 to 4 square radius---but as you know if they make the maps smaller--you will have people whineing that the maps are to small-can't win
-
You know they have a mechanism that forces a base capture order. I think that system would draw down on the widespread non contact base sneaks. I am not saying that would be good or bad.
But I do agree that it is exhausting to hear a constant call for alerts for about 6 bases while you are trying to gather maybe 4 or 5 good guys together to capture a base. In my experience, gathering a good group together and rolling bases one after the other usually nets more fields gained than bases lost.
Just following the red dar bar and defending is the lazy way of playing and does nothing for country if someone else is not attacking enemy fields. To each his own, but I have WAY more fun rolling bases than beating back the horde. Don't get me wrong, quick action is great too. CV attacks are the most fun to defend against with the right guys working along side you.
-
We got the giant maps because of growth. Nothing wrong with contracting to get lean and mean. Might even give the few new 2-weekers something exciting to tell friends other than how boring the vast empty maps are. Scale in or out of concert with populations has centuries of study to the negative and positive effects of not balancing adequately to the real abilities versus unrealistic expectations of the population.
We could even say the circle has come full and now we are back to our roots. Those halcyon days when the arena was small then, filled with a proportionate number of fans who enjoyed air combat. This time around we picked up some new friends who like to fly bombers and drive tanks.
Now that the second most popular AH game has been shut down by the recent mega ban hammer. The current rounds of grousing and interpersonal dissatisfaction here in the forums has a bit more validity to the state of the game.
We know Hitech is in the process of changing the game. Granted we don't know how he will in totality as we've been given only crumbs with no real connect the dots value. Or silence when we try to connect anything that looks like dots.
Just like it was so easy to play the second most popular AH game here in the forums of going for each others throats over nothing and anything. We are allowing ourselves to turn our anxiety over not having a solid idea of what the game's future will look and play like. Along with our concern over the smaller numbers in the arena to turn us into using those things as the new source of the second most popular AH game.
Hitech is coding a new game. What is now will change. The 64 million dollar question is when.
-
Just following the red dar bar and defending is the lazy way of playing and does nothing for country if someone else is not attacking enemy fields.
Oh boy, now I've heard everyhing. :rofl My country is called the United States. Chess piece patriotism, sheesh.
Lazy way to play? I don't know about you bub, but I play sitting my bellybutton in a chair with a strong drink in hand, and I expect you do as well. But at least actually fighting can get your heart rate up a bit. :D
To each his own, but I have WAY more fun rolling bases than beating back the horde. Don't get me wrong, quick action is great too. CV attacks are the most fun to defend against with the right guys working along side you.
Trying to get guns on other fighters while they are constantly doing the same versus blowing up inanimate objects and driving troop transports...okay, I gotta say it surprises the dickens out of me that anybody could prefer the latter. And yeah, defending against CV attacks is great until some gink sinks the thing and takes away the buffet.
-
How would one "get rid of tool shedding?"
Get rid of bombs and rockets?
No thanks.
-
I AM HERE TO CHEW BUBBLE GUM AND BOMB YOUR BASE FLAT
AND I AM ALL OUT OF BUBBLE GUM....
-
If you don't think doing bombing and attack missions are massively popular, I invite you to show up at an FSO and talk to the 300+ other people who do.
-
No treading on the tool shedding!
I'll bring my 190-F8
-
This is my last response to you on the topic. I should know better than to try and dicuss something with you as you seem to want nothing more than to twist people words to say what YOU want them to instead of what they really wanted to. That or your ignore the points you can stand against.
No response to me has been without logical holes. And it doesn't just ruin my fun, it ruins the fun of everyone on both sides who wants to fight.
Someone one elect as spokesman for the "fighter types"? As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, HiTech has said that the game is about ticking people off. :D While I agree the "fighting" has dropped off over the years, making the hangers invulnerable isn't going to make other players fight, it will just increase the hordes and make more targets, but NOT fights. You want targets, the off line drones reappear after you kill the pilot for ever.
A rumor based on ignorance and my call-sign. ;) When I first got interested in ACM, I thought a well-flown energy fight against a more maneuverable aircraft the highest expression of the art...and I still do. But eh, I fly however seems tactically appropriate or just plain fun. I estimate I fly "stupid" rather than "smart" more than the average stick in this game these days. Watch the film? That is the sort of thing I do for training when the DA lake is actually alive.
Yes lets jump to the "defense" and ignore the point of the comment. Removing the ability to "pick" and other wise engage player would remove someones type of fun would it not? What would players like Rocky and Skyyr do? :devil
The K/D part of score can indeed easily be gamed by timid flying. Kills-per-hour is a better measurement, although I admit is not entirely fair either. And are are you arguing for some sort of high-ground because you don't do desperate base defense? :huh But all that is tangential.
I never mentioned ANYTHING about K/D. Why you would bring that up I don't know. You mentioned my K/H numbers and I pointed out that they are most likely due to me upping 25 miles or more away from a fight and taking the time to fly and grab TO the fight. As I seem to dive into the horde more often than not with out a wingman I like the advantage of some alt/E to help me last a bit longer.
Sometimes I don't think we are flying in the same MA. I can find other players in fighter planes who are willing to kill me most of the time. They provide me with adequate challenge in the trying get kills department. The only snag I run into with it frequently is hangars having been killed by some tool-shedder.
Maybe we are not. Time zones make a huge difference in game play. I too can find player willing to shoot up my planes. More often than not it's 5-6 to 1. Some times I get one or two, more often than not I don't. You seem to be a "score guy" I'd almost be willing to bet I get more assists than any other player in the game. My aim sucks, I dive into impossible odds, and I spend most of my time defending. As I already come from a rear base, toolshedders dropping the hangers aren't much of a problem for me.
You have pointed out a problem in the game....well with game play. There are less and less fights to be had. Stopping bomber guy from dropping hangers isn't going to make more people fight. Instead they will drop the ack.....most likely with carpet bombing with little bombs, 3 guys in formations dropping a crap load of 100 lbs. Then these same bombers will circle the field now deacked and vulch while the rest of the horde does what it normally does. Your not going to get off the ground with 9 B17's circling the field at 200 feet.
[/quote]
-
(http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b629/Zacherof/tumblr_md3v137hMv1qamxdjo1_400_zps21322b96.jpg)
-
This evening on my first sortie I took off from 123 there on the right, fought, and died. It was fun. When I tried to take off from 123 again, no dice, hangars down. Tried to to take off from 126 there on the left, hangars also down. Tried C120 and it was sunk.
This was the only major fight on the map at the time. I logged in disgust and did other things.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain how all of this is my fault cause I suck, how I should have intercepted bombers I didn't even know existed instead of engaging with other fighters. :rolleyes:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10458595_10201802588938868_6912985607483457803_n.jpg)
-
I see Vehicle Hangar is available 125 in that screenshot ;)
Please try not to be offended, I share your enthusiasm for constant quick dogfight action. HTC has taken this into consideration by allowing hangars to respawn in 15 minutes no matter what.
Snailman, led me to this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,357450.msg4739201.html#msg4739201 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,357450.msg4739201.html#msg4739201) explaining the use of down time commands and even how to place this useful chart on to your clipboard.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/dtreference10_zpsa601e12d.png)
This and other tools that HTC has continued to add over the years allows sanity to prevail, even in frustrating situations. I would bet that not long after you logged off, a fighter hangar popped somewhere.
I usually would only share such information with players of my same "country" (sarcasm) :rolleyes: but since you and I mostly want to get our dogfights on, I find a certain kindred.
By the way, Country = the term coined by HTC, not me. Chess Piece is what each country is named. Loyalty has nothing to do with expanding your own options along with other allies. Heard the saying, "the best defense, is a good offense"?
-
Heard the saying, "the best defense, is a good offense"?
Tool-shedding kills the fight whether you're on the offensive or defense. There are times when I'd give all my perks to be able to shoot *friendly* bombers.
-
Not only bombers kill hangars. I frequently take Jabo to knock out a hangar and then it is dogfight time.
I get what you are saying, and am not doubting the impact it has on the game. Truth of the matter, if they didn't have some ability to "damage" another country, the fight could very easily wind up being 2 sided, leaving another entire "chess piece" with nothing else to do. I have seen this already in early EST off hours / low numbers with large dar bar, of other 2 chess pieces battling it out and "nothing" for 3rd chess piece to do.
The land grab, is here to stay..... and you would be looking at an empty arena if it were to leave without an easily obtainable team objective. Killing the bad guys is ultimately more difficult if they are not engaging near your turf.
This thread with a very cool alternative on how you can help your team capture turf and stir up those combatants that you want to swat at: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,363738.msg4837884.html#msg4837884 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,363738.msg4837884.html#msg4837884)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/claudewick/Bf%20109%20F4%20%20JG5/DSCF7409.jpg)
-
This is something I see a great deal more of than when I started in 2006. It is a bad gameplay dynamic, the ultimate anti-fun. What purpose does it serve in game, other than to annoy?
We used to have furballs that went on for hours. Now you can expect the the life span of a gung-ho fight to be measured in minutes before an individual from one side or the other decide to cut off the endless supply of airplanes. CVs, once the ultimate source of near instant-gratification fighting in the MA, are now lucky if they last a quarter of an hour after the enemy knows they are there.
It really doesn't matter whether it is your own fighter hangars that just go dropped or that of the enemy base you just flew to-these egg-toting grinches cut out the supply of fun for BOTH sides in a fight.
So get rid of toolshedding I say. Bomb tards can still get the bizarre jollies they derive from smashing inanimate objects by taking out town, taking out guns, etc. Just make hangars indestructible, so that the fun of the majority is not subject to the whims to tiny number of fun-loathing cranks in a jabos or bombers. If one is not able to take a base except by removing the ability of the defenders to defend, then one does not deserve to take the base anyway.
1/10 made me reply
I prefer bombing a HQ and bailing when the nearest con is at 3K.
-
The land grab, is here to stay..... and you would be looking at an empty arena if it were to leave without an easily obtainable team objective.
[/quot
I am NOT saying take away base captures, far from it. I'm saying change this bad game dynamic so that a prime requirement for the capture is fighting and suppressing defenders, rather than bombing a few buildings so that there can be no defense. Even though they are rare nowadays, I have seen base captures where there was resistance and yet the hangars were not dropped. Such contests are exciting and involve PvP fighting up until the very end. This is a vastly preferable sort of fight.
-
How would one "get rid of tool shedding?"
Get rid of bombs and rockets?
No thanks.
You'll still need bombs and rockets for town buildings, gun emplacements, etc. I suggested making the hangars non-destructable, not getting rid of ord entirely.
-
Its not the bomber pilot that kills your fighter hangars, Jabos do much more often. Its the guys u want to fight over the base that kills them because they dont want to fight with u. Everytime a field getting vulched there are people screaming on the radio for bombers to kill the hangars on the attackers fields. So in my opinion an overwhelming majority of the players sees hangar bombing as a vital part of the game.
AH is not an arcade game, an amount of strategy is required to win. Its about teams fighting each other in order to win the map by taking bases. Sneaking bases and avoiding opposition is something all teams trise to do on a regular basis.
-
Its not the bomber pilot that kills your fighter hangars, Jabos do much more often. Its the guys u want to fight over the base that kills them because they dont want to fight with u. Everytime a field getting vulched there are people screaming on the radio for bombers to kill the hangars on the attackers fields. So in my opinion an overwhelming majority of the players sees hangar bombing as a vital part of the game.
AH is not an arcade game, an amount of strategy is required to win. Its about teams fighting each other in order to win the map by taking bases. Sneaking bases and avoiding opposition is something all teams trise to do on a regular basis.
While in a real war this would be a great plan. However this is a game. This is a place for players to see if their team is better than the oppositions team. Who has the better fighters? Who has the better plan? Who has the better execution of their plan? Avoiding combat in a COMBAT game kinda takes the fun out of it don't you think?
-
No, first of all im a really crappy fighter pilot so im more of a target drone in furballs and second: my impression is that there are a sense of satisfaction among players that just sneaked a base. it is fun and exciting to go noe to a base, pop and level the town and drop goons before the enemy can react.
-
Its the guys u want to fight over the base that kills them because they dont want to fight with u.
The whole point of an MMO like AH is that you are paying your money to fight other player-controlled airplanes. People who want to avoid combat with other humans would logically be better off saving their bills and playing something else
Everytime a field getting vulched there are people screaming on the radio for bombers to kill the hangars on the attackers fields.
Translation-"They've beaten us down in this furball, so now we are getting vulched. Rather than doing anything to try to up and turn the tables, we are going to to take away the option of fighting, like sulky children kicking over the gameboard." Thank you for bringing that up Zimme and giving me the chance to explain how pathetic that mindset is.
AH is not an arcade game, an amount of strategy is required to win. Its about teams fighting each other in order to win the map by taking bases. Sneaking bases and avoiding opposition is something all teams trise to do on a regular basis.
I :rofl at those of you who think Aces High is a war-simulator/strategy game. If one has ever played a true wargame, "War in the Pacific" comes to mind, the comparison makes one realize how laughable it is to call Aces High a game of that genre. Aces High is a combat flight simulator game. The MA has a very simplified and mickey-mouse base capture dynamic as a way to promote player-controlled machines shooting at other other player-controlled machines. When a game dynamic demonstrably tends to hamper player versus player combat, then that dynamic is contradictory to what the game is about and flawed.
-
No, first of all im a really crappy fighter pilot so im more of a target drone in furballs and second: my impression is that there are a sense of satisfaction among players that just sneaked a base. it is fun and exciting to go noe to a base, pop and level the town and drop goons before the enemy can react.
Why on Earth would one pay $15 a month for THIS game if one is not particularly interested in dogfights, if one thinks the land-grab is the primary objective, rather than the fight? There are tons of actual war strategy games out there. Aces High is brilliant game in the combat flight simulator genre. As an entry into the war strategy game genre, it would be laughable.
-
I :rofl at those of you who think Aces High is a war-simulator/strategy game. If one has ever played a true wargame, "War in the Pacific" comes to mind, the comparison makes one realize how laughable it is to call Aces High a game of that genre. Aces High is a combat flight simulator game. The MA has a very simplified and mickey-mouse base capture dynamic as a way to promote player-controlled machines shooting at other other player-controlled machines. When a game dynamic demonstrably tends to hamper player versus player combat, then that dynamic is contradictory to what the game is about and flawed.
AH is what you make of it, not what you say it is. I love furballs as much as anybody, but I also love a good NOE run or base take once in a while. There are definitely elements of strategy that some enjoy more than others. Others simply want an arcade-style one-dimensional furball arena. That is how the WW1 arena is set up, and I believe its lack of dynamic action is just one reason why its population is about the same as the DA on a daily basis. I say live and let live. Up an A20 if FH's are down, it will out-turn a lot of MA rides. By the time you're shot down FH's are back up.
-
I didnt said that its a war simulation, just that the idea of the game is that an amount of strategy is needed.
I pay as much money as u to play and therefore i belive that my wish to bomb your bases is as valid as your wish to stop me from being able to do so.
There are often GV.s camping the fields and kills planes that are uppping, should we get rid of GV:s too?
However i think its far to easy to bomb hangars because high level bombing is far too accurate, a single set of buff should not be able to close down a base.
-
Why on Earth would one pay $15 a month for THIS game if one is not particularly interested in dogfights, if one thinks the land-grab is the primary objective, rather than the fight? There are tons of actual war strategy games out there. Aces High is brilliant game in the combat flight simulator genre. As an entry into the war strategy game genre, it would be laughable.
Because ive played for a month and im playing against guys that have been here for a decade, i dont excpect to be as good as them yet. I do dogfighting and furballing but i think it will be boring to do only that.
-
Toolshedding is a perspective of the person behind the screen.
If you are on the side trying to take a base, and you have many guys wrapped up fighting to gain air superiority, you have guys taking off and vulching the troops.
Often times the guys trying to take the field wind up having to take off and fly back creating a daisy chain grinder effect. In my playbook, if you don't get the base in the first 10 minutes, let everything reset and try it again later. Many of the FSO squads are mission oriented. As in real combat, you have to knock out comms of the enemy. Since we can't do that here, the next best method is to get in as quickly as possible and wipe the hangers out rendering the immediate comms useless. Then go to work on the take.
The dynamic of the fight evolves depending on the situation and circumstances. I personally prefer adapting to a situation as things change. I will defend as long as possible as well as go on the attack.
But my personal opinion is that taking a base down isn't the true definition of toolshedding if it is an effort to take a base as there is usually an effort to resupply the base and town to make it immediately operational to get back into the schematic action of the game.
I understand the frustration, however, I simply find the environment I want to play cartoon fighter, bomber, tanker, etc... and do that. When I am with my squaddies, I am usually enjoying the company while doing something I love to do. But I would be against making hangers indestructible as it would promote bigger hordes to take a base IMHO.
I am not telling anyone how to play. Just giving my opinion on the subject. No disrespect intended.
-
What is the official definition of "tool shedding" in this game?
Thanks. :salute
-
Not taking the troll bait this time, but I will take the liberty of padding my post count. :neener:
-
What is the official definition of "tool shedding" in this game?
Thanks. :salute
There is no such thing as "official definition" of toolshedding. A "toolshed" is any building, hanger, or object that can be destroyed. "Toolshedding" is the act of destroying said objects.
..... and I too have increased my post count :neener:
-
Toolshedding - the art or science of denying the enemy of his tools of war or combat; Killing hangars, fuel, ammo.
Also extended to include strategic targets; Dar, Personnel, fuel, city etc.
-
Toolshedding - the art or science of denying the enemy of his tools of war or combat; Killing hangars, fuel, ammo.
"Art" "Science" :rofl
(http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/wp-content/blogs.dir/457/files/2012/04/i-328a7c5e192be3ddec24aa942b51e161-dr.evil.laser_lj.jpg)
-
"Art" "Science" :rofl
(http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/wp-content/blogs.dir/457/files/2012/04/i-328a7c5e192be3ddec24aa942b51e161-dr.evil.laser_lj.jpg)
:aok
-
Interceptor - The art or science of meeting and destroying incoming toolshedder(s).
Also extended to include hordes.
-
No Fugi, no! Pissing into wind better! :noid
Not taking the troll bait this time, but I will take the liberty of padding my post count. :neener:
That's pretty much what I've been doing here. :D
-
How about this: put a fixed number of aircraft, by category ( otherwise choose able), at each base. You can up until the quantity is maxed, after that only when one lands.
Indeed, I think it'd be best if everything was arrayed historically accurately with the airplanes sitting out. You could up it until some clown strafed it to oblivion. After they're all gone, you have to fight from elsewhere, until some kind of reset.
This would have a couple of significant consequences.
1 the fighting would spread out, as opposed to being 1 big fireball a la pee-wee soccer
2. Capping a base would mean also having to shoot up the aircraft on the ground
3. "The war" would be more realistic
4. People who want instant combat would have to choose da.
-
How about this: put a fixed number of aircraft, by category ( otherwise choose able), at each base. You can up until the quantity is maxed, after that only when one lands.
Indeed, I think it'd be best if everything was arrayed historically accurately with the airplanes sitting out. You could up it until some clown strafed it to oblivion. After they're all gone, you have to fight from elsewhere, until some kind of reset.
This would have a couple of significant consequences.
1 the fighting would spread out, as opposed to being 1 big fireball a la pee-wee soccer
2. Capping a base would mean also having to shoot up the aircraft on the ground
3. "The war" would be more realistic
4. People who want instant combat would have to choose da.
1. fighting is already spread out, to the point where it is hard to find enemies.
3. Realism doesn't equate to fun in the ratio you think it might.
4. So further lowering the MA's population?
I'll give you a +1 for coming up with an idea to try and fix something.
But I give a -1 for reasons stated above.
-
Also, I'm chuckling a bit... BnZs again attempt to engage in a logical argument about something he's postulated. It always goes something like this:
Bnz: let's change the game such that local hangar destruction no longer impedes upping
Retort 1: you must suck
Retort 2: the only problem with this game is your whining
Retort 3: don't take off from a capped base
Retort 4: the sky is falling!
Retort 5: these go to 11
Retort 6: you're just mad because I boffed your wife/daughter/mother/girlfriend last night
Retort 7: you suck against bombers...
All I can say is, nice try - and good luck. :aok
-
1. fighting is already spread out, to the point where it is hard to find enemies.
3. Realism doesn't equate to fun in the ratio you think it might.
4. So further lowering the MA's population?
I'll give you a +1 for coming up with an idea to try and fix something.
But I give a -1 for reasons stated above.
1. I disagree. It's too bad Lusche didn't have a stat related to concentration - percentage of players within a specific subset of overall map area. My anecdotal observation: all the action is in one, possibly two small clusters
2. There is no 2.
3. Agreed - but I like realism anyway.
4. Ma pop is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed by other means ( and would fix a lot of this complaining anyway)
Net = 0... Ideas are part of what I do.
-
Tertiary thought: fights were incidental, IRL, to the purposes in which the combatants were engaged.
"Bomb target x".
"Will there be flak and fighters?"
"Wipe the Luftwaffe from the skies".
"Will they cooperate?"
What we really need is a game atop another game. There needs to be a subordinate game that's all muddy and is about things like territory and strategic goals.
-
Also, I'm chuckling a bit... BnZs again attempt to engage in a logical argument about something he's postulated. It always goes something like this:
Bnz: let's change the game such that local hangar destruction no longer impedes upping
Retort 1: you must suck
Retort 2: the only problem with this game is your whining
Retort 3: don't take off from a capped base
Retort 4: the sky is falling!
Retort 5: these go to 11
Retort 6: you're just mad because I boffed your wife/daughter/mother/girlfriend last night
Retort 7: you suck against bombers...
All I can say is, nice try - and good luck. :aok
:cheers:
(http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i53/2/12/7/frabz-Im-not-a-grumpy-cat-i-just-have-a-very-low-tolerance-for-stupid--7670a5.jpg)
-
1. I disagree. It's too bad Lusche didn't have a stat related to concentration - percentage of players within a specific subset of overall map area. My anecdotal observation: all the action is in one, possibly two small clusters
2. There is no 2.
3. Agreed - but I like realism anyway.
4. Ma pop is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed by other means ( and would fix a lot of this complaining anyway)
Net = 0... Ideas are part of what I do.
I agreed/ had no issues with your #2. :)
I see your perspective better than what I did with your initial post. I recant most of my objections. But I do have a question, if you can only take a certain #, and you get that 'ticket' back if someone lands, what if they don't? Does it reset if they alnd, die, bail etc? What if they land at a different base, does that intial base get the ticket back?
-
My thought about this is that fighting over something meaningful is often much more intense than just fighting for the sake of fighting. Removing the chance that the hangars can be destroyed may itself effectively destroy the fight.
-
My thought about this is that fighting over something meaningful is often much more intense than just fighting for the sake of fighting. Removing the chance that the hangars can be destroyed may itself effectively destroy the fight.
I this idea would help with that. It's sort of a compromise on both sides, but still benefits everyone.
1 hangar dead, no 0-5 ENY planes, 2 hangars dead 0-15 ENY, 3 hangars 0-25 all hangars only 35-40 ENY planes can take off from a base. That way you can't disable players from taking off (which promotes combat), however for the defenders failure to keep their hangars alive, they can only fly 35-40 ENY planes. However, it doesn't give a complete edge to the attackers, because the defenders can still take off in planes. While they might be 'lower quality' or harder to fly, they can still get kills in them.
DO you guys think this would work? I personally think there is nothing wrong with it, I think it gives a compromise on both sides. For attackers, they give up the ability to fully disable a base, however get planes to vulch (and fight). Defenders give up their lower eny planes if they fail to effectively defend, however, if they lose all 4 hangars, they can still defend even if it is with planes they may not prefer to use.
:cheers:
-
1 hangar dead, no 0-5 ENY planes, 2 hangars dead 0-15 ENY, 3 hangars 0-25 all hangars only 35-40 ENY planes can take off from a base. That way you can't disable players from taking off (which promotes combat), however for the defenders failure to keep their hangars alive, they can only fly 35-40 ENY planes. However, it doesn't give a complete edge to the attackers, because the defenders can still take off in planes. While they might be 'lower quality' or harder to fly, they can still get kills in them.
DO you guys think this would work? I personally think there is nothing wrong with it, I think it gives a compromise on both sides. For attackers, they give up the ability to fully disable a base, however get planes to vulch (and fight). Defenders give up their lower eny planes if they fail to effectively defend, however, if they lose all 4 hangars, they can still defend even if it is with planes they may not prefer to use.
:cheers:
No. This runs counter to the low side having the ENY advantage. Destroying hangars with 30 ENY Mosquitoes is very easy and is almost as impossible to defend against as P-51Ds or Typhoons. Using Mossies in that fashion would rapidly remove, at least locally, the only advantage of being outnumbered, the ability to use La-7s, P-51Ds and Spitfire XVIs against a side that can't use those.
Now, keeping it as it is until all hangars are down and then still allowing 35-40 ENY rides to be flown might work.
-
No. This runs counter to the low side having the ENY advantage. Destroying hangars with 30 ENY Mosquitoes is very easy and is almost as impossible to defend against as P-51Ds or Typhoons. Using Mossies in that fashion would rapidly remove, at least locally, the only advantage of being outnumbered, the ability to use La-7s, P-51Ds and Spitfire XVIs against a side that can't use those.
Now, keeping it as it is until all hangars are down and then still allowing 35-40 ENY rides to be flown might work.
That's fair. At least it would make it so fights would last longer, and if the seals (higher eny planes) are getting clubbed hard. I can always man the 88 :devil
-
I am sure this is more of a joke aimed at people who complain about losing fights than a statement of serious intent or a design parameter. The goal of any game is fun for both sides. If not, then it is a bad game.
I am NOT complaining about losing fights. I am complaining about people not having the opportunity to win or lose fights because the flawed game dynamic known as "toolshedding" allows spoilsports to take away the ability of one side to up and fight, pretty much at will.
Your entire premise is wrong. It's not the game that is poorly designed. It is your desire to change the game to favor your preferred gameplay that is poorly conceived. The game you describe would be a very shallow game indeed. The depth that Aces High offers is one reason that it has survived while others of similar design have withered and died. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but your suggestions fall far short of correcting the issues and would in fact destroy the game. Never fear, however, hitech is smart enough to steer clear.
-
wow ,what a great post, what we need is to have endless furballs of fighters only that is easy to get to,easy to engage,and easy to come back to for more fun.....oh wait, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT,ITS CALLED THE DUELLING ARENA......maybe this guy didnt have such a great post after all,LOL :rofl
-
I agreed/ had no issues with your #2. :)
I see your perspective better than what I did with your initial post. I recant most of my objections. But I do have a question, if you can only take a certain #, and you get that 'ticket' back if someone lands, what if they don't? Does it reset if they alnd, die, bail etc? What if they land at a different base, does that intial base get the ticket back?
My initial thought was that it only resets immediately if they land at the same base. Otherwise, the reset takes some reset or resupply, just like the other fixed objects in the game. What I'm thinking is that the finite count of uppable machines live as fixed objects - ground targets - until upped and so behave like the radar or ack guns. If returned, they perpetuate. If shot down or moved, they take some time...
BTW, your fun issue is one I recognize. In some ways, this might make getting to a fight harder. However, I think the real issue in AH is the "idleness" of action. Play needs an underlying purpose, both to motivate it and to lend consequence for failure.
-
Now, keeping it as it is until all hangars are down and then still allowing 35-40 ENY rides to be flown might work.
I suggested this earlier in the thread, just requoting as i believe this is possibly the best way as people can still try to defend at least
-
My thought about this is that fighting over something meaningful is often much more intense than just fighting for the sake of fighting. Removing the chance that the hangars can be destroyed may itself effectively destroy the fight.
You know, many people (not you Karnak, but many) are acting as if proposed taking away the base capture element. That is not at all what I am after. I agree that the base capture dynamic and having certain objects that must be destroyed (town buildings and guns) is necessary and adds variety to the game.
What I do not understand is how people can allege that toolshedding, literally taking away the opponent's ability to up and fight actually promotes the fight. Old sayings about "screwing for virginity" come to mind. I have been in fights for a base where they did not drop the hangars. It is always vicious, competitive, and can go either way right up until the second the last troop makes it into the map room. Who wouldn't prefer this sort of fight?
But unfortunately I find this style of base-taking all too uncommon these days. Mostly I see good furballs springing up, only to be killed by as little as a single individual who wishes to toolshedd, then an anti-climatic base take.
-
You know, many people (not you Karnak, but many) are acting as if proposed taking away the base capture element. That is not at all what I am after. I agree that the base capture dynamic and having certain objects that must be destroyed (town buildings and guns) is necessary and adds variety to the game.
What I do not understand is how people can allege that toolshedding, literally taking away the opponent's ability to up and fight actually promotes the fight. Old sayings about "screwing for virginity" come to mind. I have been in fights for a base where they did not drop the hangars. It is always vicious, competitive, and can go either way right up until the second the last troop makes it into the map room. Who wouldn't prefer this sort of fight?
But unfortunately I find this style of base-taking all too uncommon these days. Mostly I see good furballs springing up, only to be killed by as little as a single individual who wishes to toolshedd, then an anti-climatic base take.
Most likely the issue of the misunderstanding is due to your use of the word "toolshedding". Toolshedding is the destruction of any and all build, hangers and objects. Maybe you should use the term "fighter hanger" and then have less confusion.
-
What about simply adding more hangars to fields as a compromise?
-
Most likely the issue of the misunderstanding is due to your use of the word "toolshedding". Toolshedding is the destruction of any and all build, hangers and objects. Maybe you should use the term "fighter hanger" and then have less confusion.
You know, you're right. My bad. Thank you for pointing this out :salute Guys, what Fugi said.
-
IMHO - the only reason to kill the hangers is to block the enemy's ability to launch and immediately fly to the MR or M3 spawns or LVTs. There are MANY defending cartoon flyers that also don't care about the fight and only the defense (which there is nothing wrong with this) only to kill the troops or troop carriers.
The ENY plane thing does have merit, however it doesn't solve problem of stopping the spawn camper (or troops killers).
yes, this is an air combat game. It is ALSO a GV tanking game. It is also a Capture the Flag type game. It is ALSO a scenario historic type game.
Having all of the different types of arenas gives a lot of depth to the game and it really is what we put into it.
Personally, I really have to be in the mood to do certain things. If I feel like defending, I will do that. If I feel like only fighting, I will fly around and go find a fight. When I am doing laundry or other things around the house, I will go bomb strats.
Sometimes I feel like being in a horde and sometimes I feel like going after bases with 3 or 4 peeps. Sometimes, I only run troops and supplies.
It simply depends.
I am still against the wish but do think it makes for interesting discussion and feedback.
The DA is there and you can get into a fight relatively quick. I haven't visited the DA in some time as I usually find quick action in the MAs as of late.
-
It is also a Capture the Flag type game.
True, and I have stated repeatedly that the capture the flag dynamic is needed and in and of itself spawns fun. What I do not think is fun is playing capture the flag when one side is forced to be sitting in the tower. As for defenders upping and racing to kill troops-that is why it is called a FIGHT. If the attackers cannot suppress the defenders well enough to get their troops to the maproom without taking down the fighter hangars, then they do not deserve the take IMO.
The DA is there and you can get into a fight relatively quick. I haven't visited the DA in some time as I usually find quick action in the MAs as of late.
If you had visited lately you would know that it is often empty, and usually completely dead at those times of day when it is also hard to find a fight in the MA.
-
You know, many people (not you Karnak, but many) are acting as if proposed taking away the base capture element. That is not at all what I am after. I agree that the base capture dynamic and having certain objects that must be destroyed (town buildings and guns) is necessary and adds variety to the game.
What I do not understand is how people can allege that toolshedding, literally taking away the opponent's ability to up and fight actually promotes the fight. Old sayings about "screwing for virginity" come to mind. I have been in fights for a base where they did not drop the hangars. It is always vicious, competitive, and can go either way right up until the second the last troop makes it into the map room. Who wouldn't prefer this sort of fight?
But unfortunately I find this style of base-taking all too uncommon these days. Mostly I see good furballs springing up, only to be killed by as little as a single individual who wishes to toolshedd, then an anti-climatic base take.
I understand that you aren't talking about taking away base captures. Likewise, I wasn't talking about it either. I was talking about taking away the fight. The fact that the hangars/carrier can be destroyed may make the fight more intense, both in the effort to defend and the effort to attack them. The thing risking being taken away is the fight and just capturing a base does not carry the same sting to it, at least not to me.
Obviously I am not certain of this as it is just a guess. The ultimate results of a massive change like you suggest are often hard to accurately predict.
-
killing fh's = bad
vulching = good
:rofl
if you make hangars indestructible, the ack should be indestructible also.. you know.. for "the fight"... let them defenders get up and have a chance..
-
LOL nice troll.
:aok
-
In honor of this thread, I'm now taking off to bomb a few hangars :salute
-
In honor of this thread, I'm now taking off to bomb a few hangars :salute
:cheers:
-
If the attackers cannot suppress the defenders well enough to get their troops to the maproom without taking down the fighter hangars, then they do not deserve the take IMO.
If you had visited lately you would know that it is often empty, and usually completely dead at those times of day when it is also hard to find a fight in the MA.
Understand what you are saying, however, if you get in and cap the base, and guys are dropping down to keep a path clean, then either a horde is developing or the attackers loose guys and have to fly all the way back creating the daisy chain grinder. While I agree that you should be good enough to capture the base, however, often times when an attack begins, we have dropped a town and had cap before. But the resupply effort makes it near impossible if defended correctly as the town can be up in minutes after being dropped. Sometimes, the ONLY way to stop the defenders is to drop the base, clear the skies, then put the vulch on the resupply effort.
It really seriously depends on who is there, who is defending, what time of day, etc...
You are right, my last few visits to the DA were ridiculous. Took off only to get vulched or to meet in the middle with a handful of guys in the atmosphere. You get into a few good fights and the cannon plane gods are on you when you are wrapped up. Not really that fun in there to me any longer. Every now and then it can still be okay. The WW1 arena is fun if you find anyone in there. Fairly even fights.
Again. All good points but sometimes, if you are outnumbered and any given side has crazy response to defend a base, even if you do drop the base, you still can't take it. It is usually based on the determination of the side attacking or defending.
-
Gold Member
*****
Reg: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3788
Offline Offline
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Tool Shedding-Get rid of it.
« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2014, 02:05:20 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Zoney on June 27, 2014, 02:03:06 PM
-1BnZ
Your wish would result in a game I would not want to play.
Explain. The only real difference would be that taking bases would require enough superiority to thoroughly oppress the defenders while the troops roll in, and fights would potentially be hotly contested until the moment troops went into the map room. I do not see why this is bad, in fact this sounds very, very good. What is it about the tool-shedding dynamic that you think makes the game more fun for the majority of players?
and what make you think it doesent---you don't know what people think or what people want-you can't speak for other people--you think your using logic for your wish---what you think MR. SPOCK---if he were real and here--he would say your logic sucks--you should be able to tell your logic is flawed by the response for the other players post's here---it would be ill-logical to make hangers indestructale.
you said bombers would have other things to bomb--what just cv groups and towns-that's not enough.
you said you've been playing since 2006-so what-others have played a lot longer than you--I'm in my 5th or 6th year--100 to 150 hrs aweek. and I'm sure the REAL vets of this game can tell you that hanger bombing hasen't changed in all that time because it's a part of this game.. if you take away hanger destruction you might as well end this game because it would be boring-----and besides fighter,bomber,and vehicle hangers are down for only 15 minutes
and bnzs no matter what logic or how bad you wish for killable hangers are here to stay.....if not might as well play xbox or playstation.
-
Good Lord... 100-150 hours a week?
That sounds like substituitng virtual reality for reality. You know, you could probably be good at something valuable if you put the game down every now and then.
As for the hated BnZs,
Oh yeah...
Retort #8: What are you, some kind of green-blooded Vulcan?
-
Good Lord... 100-150 hours a week?
That sounds like substituitng virtual reality for reality. You know, you could probably be good at something valuable if you put the game down every now and then.
As for the hated BnZs,
Oh yeah...
Retort #8: What are you, some kind of green-blooded Vulcan?
No, I work, parts manager at a dealership,9 hrs a day 5 days a week..I cook supper,clean house,cut the grass, go to movies,shopping,I don' watch tv much,except for ncis,I dont go to bars or run around and get introuble,anymore,i' 56 yrs old I like to stay at home. And no i'm not a vulcan
-
Okay, then I guess that 100-150 hours a week is overstated. This is to your benefit, quite independently of anything I might write about it. I note here, a week is 168 hours, TOTAL. You can see why I might question such an assertion. I envisioned some twinkie-gobbling, meth-snorting teen who was completely fixated and could do nothing else.
The Retort 8 was for BnZs. His suggestion has netted a good deal of ad hominem response, retort #8 being just another one of them. He'll get it - because of my earlier post in which I cited items 1-7, and, because, like me, he is afflicted with convergent thinking.
-
I envisioned some twinkie-gobbling, meth-snorting teen who was completely fixated and could do nothing else.
:rofl
-
Okay, then I guess that 100-150 hours a week is overstated. This is to your benefit, quite independently of anything I might write about it. I note here, a week is 168 hours, TOTAL. You can see why I might question such an assertion. I envisioned some twinkie-gobbling, meth-snorting teen who was completely fixated and could do nothing else.
If I was was killing less than a third as often as I died, and only getting 1.44 kills per hour in, I probably wouldn't be bragging about how much practice I get at the game.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10443521_10201814385793782_4902238459544276660_n.jpg)
The Retort 8 was for BnZs. His suggestion has netted a good deal of ad hominem response, retort #8 being just another one of them. He'll get it - because of my earlier post in which I cited items 1-7, and, because, like me, he is afflicted with convergent thinking.
It is so adorable that he thinks "Your logic sucks!" is a logical rebuttal.
-
a former squad co of mine told me i was spending 100-150 hours a week playing--may be he was excurating--i never bothered to look...i think your right because that would only leave me 18hrs to do anything else.but i do play alot...and was not ment to mean that i play any more than anybody else.
-
no bnz's i'm saying YOUR logic sucks----i'm not bragging about anything--i play to have fun--wether i die 9 out of 10 times so what..at least i got 1 kill.if your gonna check my stats check previous tour where i have done better--because this tour i missed most of the 1st 2 weeks--because of moving..and don't care about score.
-
no bnz's i'm saying YOUR logic sucks-
?
Methinks your reading comprehension roughly parallels your fighter skills.
Tell you what, I know you *feel* (I wouldn't call it thinking) that "my logic sucks", so I'm going to lay my argument out for you as simply as I can, and give you a fair shot to come up with anything substantive to say against it.
1. Finding fights can be difficult in the arena as it is.
2. When fights do spring up, they tend to have a very limited lifespan because some players apparently feel it is their sacred duty to knock down hangars and end "mindless furballing". This makes the finding fights problem even worse.
3. Because of the way the radar in AH works, how the bombers are set up, and the general dynamics of the game, one cannot reasonably expect the defenders to intercept the bombers reliably. Note the screenshot of a map I posted to this thread. I took off, engaged some fighters, fought, died. When I tried to up again, every single base anywhere near the only fight on the map was down. I logged in disgust. Please explain to me how I "suck" for failing to intercept buffs I never knew existed until I came back to the tower and found the hangars down.
Basically a single player can decide to up bombers and end the fight for everybody else enjoying it on *both* sides, and succeed most of the time. I don't think single individuals should have the power of this much anti-fun in the game, I think whatever enjoyment he gets out of doing this does not justify taking away enjoyment from so many other players, especially the ones on HIS OWN team who were enjoying the fight. (Even if the point of game really is "pissing other people off", I do not think that principle applies to the green guys.)
Therefore, I propose that hangars no longer be destructible. I believe it will have the following effects:
1. Fights will last longer because they can no longer be ended by a few players with a grudge against buildings and fun.
2. Fights for the base take will be BETTER because the matter will be hotly contested and last up until the troops go in the maproom, instead of ending when all the hangars go down followed by an anti-climatic troop delivery.
3. More and longer lasting fights will stop this death spiral the game is in, where people don't play because they can't find any action, which leads to less action in the arena, which lead to...you get the drift.
4. This change will not negatively impact the game because there will still be important work to be done with ordnance, such as town building and gun destruction. Mayhaps the towns could even be made larger, with more buildings, to give bombers something important to do that does not inherently kill fights and fun for everyone else. This sort of work would also look a lot more like the real strategic bombing campaign than precision bombing a couple of hangars.
-
Understand what you are saying, however, if you get in and cap the base, and guys are dropping down to keep a path clean, then either a horde is developing or the attackers loose guys and have to fly all the way back creating the daisy chain grinder. While I agree that you should be good enough to capture the base, however, often times when an attack begins, we have dropped a town and had cap before. But the resupply effort makes it near impossible if defended correctly as the town can be up in minutes after being dropped. Sometimes, the ONLY way to stop the defenders is to drop the base, clear the skies, then put the vulch on the resupply effort.
Re-supply vehicles are helpless or semi-helpless targets. The attackers should rejoice at the chance to pad their score killing those until the troops run in. If they can't stop such, the attackers do not deserve the base take.
I don't know what the "daisy chain grinder" is but if it means planes continuously upping, fighting, dying, and upping again in large numbers, this is a good thing and something I often miss playing the game today.
Again. All good points but sometimes, if you are outnumbered and any given side has crazy response to defend a base, even if you do drop the base, you still can't take it. It is usually based on the determination of the side attacking or defending.
If there are far more defenders than attackers at a given base then I'd say the defenders should succeed, all things being equal. If a small number of attackers regularly take bases defended by larger number players then I'd say the offense/defense balance of the game is off-balance.
-
killing fh's = bad
vulching = good
Vulching planes trying to take off isn't giving them much of a chance to fight.
Taking down hangars means not giving them ANY chance to fight. So yes, it is perfectly logical to say that vulching is better than toolshedding.
Vulchers are presumably enjoying the vulching. Some would even say the vulch is the "reward" for establishing total air superiority. And presumably those who choose to up under the vulch (me, often enough) are getting something out of it, possibly the chance to say "base take denied!" or "you didn't get to land those kills vulcher!". In any case, you have players on both sides engaging in this activity willingly, and then some single individual comes along and ends it for all the participants on both teams. Doesn't sound too fair now does it?
BTW, I am probably on defense more often than offense these days, and I never have been much of a vulcher. Not good at strafing ground targets and AA seems to have a personal vendetta against me. So I mostly shoot my birds on the wing as it were.
if you make hangars indestructible, the ack should be indestructible also.. you know.. for "the fight"... let them defenders get up and have a chance..
I think this would tilt the balance a little too far in the direction of defense, and take away something for the bombers/jabos to do that is NOT inherently anti-fun. Defenders could just up wirbs to defend their runway and help their comrades get up in planes, if all the ack is down. (When I suggest hangars be indestructible, I mean ALL the hangars.)
BUT, even though I think your proposal here is flawed, those conditions would still be better than the current one. There would be action at least. Let the carnage rage on! :aok
-
go ahead and attack my lack of flying skill all you want--i am safe in the knowledge to your wish won't be granted.. :D----no more from me
-
Hmmm...so a guy is wildly unsuccessful at flying fighters. And this same guy wants grinchs in buffs to keep on being able to grief those who are enjoying the fight via toolshedding. I think the two facts are maybe, just MAYBE related. :devil
go ahead and attack my lack of flying skill all you want--i am safe in the knowledge to your wish won't be granted.. :D----no more from me
(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10450871_10201815164013237_544449698359966203_n.jpg)
-
If I was was killing less than a third as often as I died, and only getting 1.44 kills per hour in, I probably wouldn't be bragging about how much practice I get at the game.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10443521_10201814385793782_4902238459544276660_n.jpg)
It is so adorable that he thinks "Your logic sucks!" is a logical rebuttal.
Lunatic1 most likely flies 100-150 hours a tour/month, not a week.
As for the rest, yes at times it can be hard to find a fight and I have been saying this for a long time, but from what I've seen it is the players are turning to base capture and NOT fighting. Furballs/base takes del out not only because the FH gets taken out but because the "mission" is called a bust and the players regroup for another attack some place on the maps less well defended.
Making the hangars indestructible is only going to make larger hordes, not better fights.
-
Making the hangars indestructible is only going to make larger hordes, not better fights.
A horde? Excellent, IF I can actually up to fight them. At least that is action, and it is entirely possible to do something crazy like, I dunno, bring some of your own guys to even the odds.
Fugi your whole argument here is that having NO fight because one cannot up is better than actually having a fight which does not meet your high standards for fairness, quality and whatever else it is that keeps you complaining on these boards and 200 incessantly.
You have towering vials of wrath for anyone not flying fighter in a way in which you approve, yet you have nothing to say against those who kill entire fights with their toolshedding. I find that bizarre.
-
Give it a rest already BnZ.
The bottom line is, you really have no idea what will happen to gameplay if your suggestion is implemented. We do know how it works now. When the hangers go down, fighters have to come from a different base. Sometimes they are in time to save the base, sometimes not. We know how they dynamics of taking a base work, and we know about fights that are generated with the base take mechanics we have in play.
Everything you say about what will happen if your idea is implemented is pure conjecture. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm saying your only guessing because AW, WB, and now AH have never been played that way.
You keep throwing out explanations of how your idea will work as if the results you list are gospel, give it a rest.
:salute
-
Everything you say about what will happen if your idea is implemented is pure conjecture.
I have experienced the difference between fights where the hangars were left up and "fights" in which they were dropped. Therefore my points are NOT entirely conjecture.
-
I kind of like the idea of 40 ENY fighters still being available when all the hangars are down. Problem is, who is going to fly them? Many players log off if ENY hits 5.0. The net effect of this change would be practically nothing.
-
I kind of like the idea of 40 ENY fighters still being available when all the hangars are down. Problem is, who is going to fly them? Many players log off if ENY hits 5.0. The net effect of this change would be practically nothing.
This would be better than nothing. But I do not understand these desires for defenders to be at an enormous disadvantage. The attackers are by definition mostly starting out with an altitude advantage, and usually a numbers advantage when the attack is first detected.
-
Play the way I like! All other ways are flawed and NOT fun! :bhead
Also, yet another wish blaming bombers for "killing the fun". I'm beginning to see a pattern there... :P
-
I do not understand these desires for defenders to be at an enormous disadvantage. The attackers are by definition mostly starting out with an altitude advantage, and usually a numbers advantage when the attack is first detected.
Base taking promotes the fights you want. If La7s can up endlessly, it's going to require even bigger hordes to suppress the defense.
In caldera's perfect world: the bases would have much more lethal ack to allow defenders to get airborne, while still allowing critical targets to be bombed from altitude (not the ez mode 2 pass gun runs that take down ords and dar). At the same time, towns would be totally undefended by ack and far from airfields; requiring players to go there and defend. The defenders would have a slight advantage of shorter travel time to the town but otherwise, there would be no ack hugging or vulching. In other words, fair fights. Or at least fights with a chance for either side.
-
Play the way I like! All other ways are flawed and NOT fun! :bhead
Also, yet another wish blaming bombers for "killing the fun". I'm beginning to see a pattern there... :P
There is an important distinction to be made between fighting in different styles and preventing people from fighting at all, wouldn't you say? Most people who complain about a certain style do so because they got killed, whereas I'm asking for what amounts to being able to up in situations where I will probably get shot down. Very important difference.
-
Base taking promotes the fights you want. If La7s can up endlessly, it's going to require even bigger hordes to suppress the defense.
Big hordes? More targets. And surely such a large dar bar will attract a horde of defenders-fight on!, IF people are able to up in the first place.
As for the rest of your ideas, I dunno, they might be good in combo with my wish to cut hangar banging out of the MA. BTW, it is interesting to me that some people arguing with me on this thread think that my ideas would give the defense too much advantage and some others seem to think I want this idea in place to promote vulching of defenders-Which is it? :rolleyes:
-
There is an important distinction to be made between fighting in different styles and preventing people from fighting at all, wouldn't you say?
I'll bite and answer this post.
Pissed that some guy upped a bomber and blew your hangars to pieces? Well, you could have prevented that in a lot of ways. The simplest of them all is killing ords. You can also fly a high cap or simply up a spit XIV when the darbar is a sector away.
But this is funnier :P
We used to have bombing runs that went on for hours. Now you can expect the the life span of an active field to be measured in minutes before an individual from one side or the other decide to destroy ords. CVs, once the ultimate source of near instant-gratification fighting in the MA, are now lucky if they last a quarter of an hour after the enemy knows they are there.
It really doesn't matter whether it is your own ords that just go dropped or that of the enemy base you just flew to-these egg-toting grinches cut out the supply of bombers for BOTH sides in a war.
So get rid of ords busting I say. Jabo tards can still get the bizarre jollies they derive from smashing inanimate objects by taking out town, taking out guns, etc. Just make ords indestructible, so that the fun of the majority is not subject to the whims to tiny number of fun-loathing cranks in jabos or fighters. If one is not able to hit strats unless enemy ords are down to defend his own, then one does not deserve to hit those strats anyway.
-
This would be better than nothing. But I do not understand these desires for defenders to be at an enormous disadvantage. The attackers are by definition mostly starting out with an altitude advantage, and usually a numbers advantage when the attack is first detected.
I think the A6M2 is actually one of the best last ditch defenders due to its relatively brisk acceleration and agility at low speeds, coupled with decent firepower.
-
I'll bite and answer this post.
Pissed that some guy upped a bomber and blew your hangars to pieces? Well, you could have prevented that in a lot of ways. The simplest of them all is killing ords. You can also fly a high cap or simply up a spit XIV when the darbar is a sector away.
As I have explained it before, bomber interception before the drop is generally not practical. And if one's objective is to engage in fighter combat, spending one's time on attack runs or hanging out at 20K in a cannon bird deprives one of that objective just as effectively as hangar-dropping.
As for the sarcasm, you're not nearly as good at it as I am, or you would have done something original instead of copying and pasting my words. :D
Hangar banging, which removes the fight for people on *both* sides of it, stands alone as a bad design feature of the MA compared to other player actions, because it inhibits combat rather promoting it. Thus your re-write of my original post is quite illogical. Say I wrote "It is dark at night" and you changed it to "It is dark at day"-Your attempt here makes THAT kind of sense. :rofl
-
I think the A6M2 is actually one of the best last ditch defenders due to its relatively brisk acceleration and agility at low speeds, coupled with decent firepower.
It would no doubt be one of the only planes seen at base defenses in the situation we are discussing, but my point in the quoted post stands.
That some are saying "No! This will give the defense too much advantage!" and others are saying "It will let attackers vulch all day long!". It is hilarious contradiction. The latter camp though, I don't know what their problem is. If people are upping under a vulch, they are doing so because they wish to do so, it is bizarre that some are trying to twist it around like they are doing the defenders a favor by bomb****ing them out of their fight.
-
That some are saying "No! This will give the defense too much advantage!" and others are saying "It will let attackers vulch all day long!". It is hilarious contradiction.
They are both possibilities that depend on the numerical strength of attacker or defenders. Not contradictions.
-
They are both possibilities that depend on the numerical strength of attacker or defenders. Not contradictions.
Have you ever been struggling to get up and into the fight with lots and lots of enemy fighters over the base, maybe getting killed a lot, and actually said to yourself, "Man, I wish some toolshedders would drop the FHs and save me from myself?" I think not. :rofl Thus the "Your idea is bad because vulching is bad!" argument holds no water.
The "It would make the defense too strong!" argument isn't inherently stupid like the "bad vulchers!" complaint, but it is very debatable. I know that if the attackers are having to suppress defenders up until the minute troops go then by definition combat is occurring. I know that if there are people willing to up from the base and defend but cannot, combat is being impeded. It is logically inarguable.
Some people seem to be saying "Oh, but it will be very difficult to take a base if there are more defenders than attackers!". Seems to me that result is natural if offense and defense are actually in balance, and a different result occurring a large percentage of the time is a sign something is not well balanced.
-
As I have explained it before, bomber interception before the drop is generally not practical.
Bombers at alt show a huge darbar. You can climb to them in a spit XIV in less than 4 minutes and get them before the drop.
And if one's objective is to engage in fighter combat, spending one's time on attack runs or hanging out at 20K in a cannon bird deprives one of that objective just as effectively as hangar-dropping.
Well, here's your problem. You expect everybody to play by your rules. I don't like to climb high, so nobody should. If you're one of the instant-gratification-or-nothing types, you can always take off from a vulched base or a CV under attack to die in a few seconds.
Hangar banging, which removes the fight for people on *both* sides of it, stands alone as a bad design feature of the MA compared to other player actions, because it inhibits combat rather promoting it. Thus your re-write of my original post is quite illogical.
Do you realize that there's more to this game than a big low furball? I mean, we got strats, carriers and stuff. For some players bombing hangars and other inanimate objects (because airplanes are living beings) is the fight.
-
Bombers at alt show a huge darbar. You can climb to them in a spit XIV in less than 4 minutes and get them before the drop.
A large group of fighters also shows a huge darbar. And the distance between the bases being short, defender's don't really have much reaction time to figure out what they are up against. And when you do know they are coming, the absolutely lethal nature of defensive flex-gun fire as modeled in Aces High makes interception an unappealing proposition. (Sometimes I almost think HTC modeled this game to cater to bomber pilots, and fighter jocks are just here to pay their subs and help keep the doors open.)
Now, If the warning time and radar accuracy was more like what they had in WWII, IOW you could tell it was bombers at X altitude a long time in advance, my opinion on this issue would be more like yours.
Do you realize that there's more to this game than a big low furball?
Most of the time climbing any higher than 12K is a waste of time, you won't find any fighters higher. And sometimes it is fast as well as slow. I'm partial to the P-51 myself, as well as the Fm2.
I mean, we got strats, carriers and stuff. For some players bombing hangars and other inanimate objects (because airplanes are living beings) is the fight.
Okay, we'll say fighting "other player controlled aircraft and vehicles", just so you don't get confused anymore. :D
By definition bombing things in this game is NOT fighting, because last time I looked a hangar doesn't have mad ACM or gunnery skills or anything like that. It just totally sits there dude. You might as well call buying a side of beef "hunting" as call hangar banging "fighting".
-
Whoops, missed this one.
How are those player numbers again?
With your wish, like the DA, if lucky.
-
And when you do know they are coming, the absolutely lethal nature of defensive flex-gun fire as modeled in Aces High makes interception an unappealing proposition. (Sometimes I almost think HTC modeled this game to cater to bomber pilots, and fighter jocks are just here to pay their subs and help keep the doors open.)
Most of the time climbing any higher than 12K is a waste of time, you won't find any fighters higher.
By definition bombing things in this game is NOT fighting, because last time I looked a hangar doesn't have mad ACM or gunnery skills or anything like that.
At least you tried.
:rolleyes:
-
Whoops, missed this one.
With your wish, like the DA, if lucky.
First, your supposition that removing hanger destruction would make the MA just like the DA is ludicrous. There would still be myriad things to destroy with bombs, and the base capture system would still be there.
Second, the DA Lake was quite lively almost 24/7 once. And it was a great place to practice with no fuss, no muss. It has been the victim of falling numbers, just like the Mid War and the WWI arenas. We are in a death-spiral...people can't find action so they log off which reduces the amount of action, which leads to more people not playing in a vicious cycle. How long do you think a new player is going to stay if they log in a few times when it is convenient for them and find little to no fighting? They won't be here any longer than their 2 week trial. In such circumstances, any game dynamic that tends to dampen rather than promote player versus player fighting is a luxury the game can no longer afford.
-
Fighters don't fly over 12K? You've obviously not looked at the Rook fighter tactics book. 12K for me is too low and I welcome those who fly at 12K as lunch, SA or not. My M jug doesn't like to fly below 15K or it gets all nervous and jerky and I have to go back up and shoot down Ta152's, P-51 Mustangs, 109's and other P-47's that are normally between 22- 27K....
I'll then go land the 4 or 5 kills I got while on that sortie, grab a formation of B-29's and go bomb the strats at 35K. You'll never shoot me down cause you don't fly that high. I'm safe and sound and your strats are hosed (that is unless you fly for the Bishop). If I've got any ordnance left from my strat run, I'll fly over a field and pork the radar, ord and whatever else I can hit on one pass. I fly home, land and cha-ching, the perks just a roll in.
-
Fighters don't fly over 12K? You've obviously not looked at the Rook fighter tactics book. 12K for me is too low and I welcome those who fly at 12K as lunch, SA or not. My M jug doesn't like to fly below 15K or it gets all nervous and jerky and I have to go back up and shoot down Ta152's, P-51 Mustangs, 109's and other P-47's that are normally between 22- 27K....
*Shrug*, Like I say, I find climbing that high to be a waste of time most of the time. And finding opposition above 20K is extremely rare, and has always been in my 8 years of playing this game.
I occasionally climb a fully-fueled P-47N as high as it will go and let it tool around on auto while I'm cleaning house or something. So far no one has ever come up to me. :)
Bombing strats, which as I understand it makes things like guns and town buildings come back up more slowly, is a good reward for buff flying and does not inherently kill fights like hangar banging does. :aok
I fly home, land and cha-ching, the perks just a roll in.
Well. Glad to know you have your priorities in the game straight.
-
*Shrug*, Like I say, I find climbing that high to be a waste of time most of the time. And finding opposition above 20K is extremely rare, and has always been in my 8 years of playing this game.
If you rarely get past 12K, it's no surprise you don't find opposition above 20K :aok.
Most of my bombing or interception runs are past those alts. And you'd better nor ask Lusche about his preferred alts... :lol
-
There are a ton of guys up high, above 20k.
You'll never see them if you're always down in the weeds.
You'll never fight them if you don't have the patience to climb out.
You'll never get good at intercepting buffs unless you practice it.
It's a 3 Dimensional world out there. Lamenting about what goes on, down on the deck, and ignoring all the other opportunities for a fun fight elsewhere is your fault, not the Game's fault.
-
A horde? Excellent, IF I can actually up to fight them. At least that is action, and it is entirely possible to do something crazy like, I dunno, bring some of your own guys to even the odds.
Fugi your whole argument here is that having NO fight because one cannot up is better than actually having a fight which does not meet your high standards for fairness, quality and whatever else it is that keeps you complaining on these boards and 200 incessantly.
Again with the twisting of words. Please point out where I SAY/TYPE anything about "having NO fight because one cannot up is better than actually having a fight which does not meet your high standards for fairness, quality and whatever else". You said that not me. I'm not wild about fighting the horde because it is easy as long as you keep your SA up and don't get stupid. I landed 6 kills Saturday in my hog doing just that.
You may call my posts "complaining" I call them challenges to those who seem to enjoy being stuck in mediocrity.
You have towering vials of wrath for anyone not flying fighter in a way in which you approve, yet you have nothing to say against those who kill entire fights with their toolshedding. I find that bizarre.
I never tell anyone how they should fly. I point out they are missing out on a large portion of the game by flying one way. Again I don't "like" players taking down hangars but I know if I want to stop them all I have to do is pay attention to the map a bit and intercept them. If I don't like playing that aspect of the game at that time, I go look for a new fight when the first dies out.
You will NEVER get the hangars indestructible, NEVER! Just like others will never get spawn camping done away with in GVs, or vulching a field, or bombing strats, because it is part of the game.
As to the lack of fights AND subscribers, that is something that HTC is going to have to look at. It may take something along the lines of adding a new angle for players. Something that promotes more combat on a quicker scale, timed missions for achievements/perks/points/win the war rules. Most of the kids playing these games today are use to mini bouts. I don't know. Maybe the new graphics WILL be enough to get it rolling again, I don't know. I DO know that hangars will be taken down when ever a player wants to and has the skill and timing to get it done.
-
There are a ton of guys up high, above 20k.
You can see guys at 20K from where I fly, and I used to fly higher regularly. We obviously disagree on what the term "tons" means.
You'll never see them if you're always down in the weeds.
I'll never have the chance to meet another P-51, only to go about two turns and then have it unload and dive 10 miles to its ack? I'll get by somehow.
You'll never get good at intercepting buffs unless you practice it.
The last time my squaddie B2B and I rolled in on B-17s we destroyed two on the first pass and I cleaned up the third. No fuss, no muss. Yes, yes, I know the frickin' roll in and go straight down technique, and it usually works if you have the time, although with no one to divide the fire it's still a dicey proposition. (I am quite tired of peeps, some of whom I have killed in fair fights, having "Well you suck if you think bombers are too much!" as their goto retort.)
The problem is being in the right position to do this in time to save the hangars with the limited information available to you in the MA and the short distances between bases is extremely problematic, unless you are one of the rare sort with no boredom gene who will hang out at 20K in a cannon bird, avoiding engagements with fighters and watching your k/d and hit% rise while your kph plummets. But hey, I do think people like Snailman should get more rewards for buff hunting. I believe the Germans awarded more "points" for bringing down a 4-engine bomber than they did a fighter, a higher value for bomber kills than fighter kills reflected in scoring/perks might be a valid solution instead of my current proposal.
-
Ya know, maybe this is just a Troll like " Vic formation for interceptors and a new "Interceptor" scoring category " was. Shame on me for getting sucked in again.
This wish is not going to happen, no way, no how.
No one or very few are agreeing with you, there are too many posts for me to check to see if any one actually has.
I'm out of this one <S> have fun.
-
a higher value for bomber kills than fighter kills reflected in scoring/perks might be a valid solution instead of my current proposal.
So you just don't like bombers.
-
Again with the twisting of words. Please point out where I SAY/TYPE anything about "having NO fight because one cannot up is better than actually having a fight which does not meet your high standards for fairness, quality and whatever else".
I twist nothing. I'm pointing out the logical implications of your opinings. You are against my idea because you think it would cause people to attack bases in hordes. Therefore you think a situation where the defenders cannot up at all due to hangar banging is superior in some way to a situation where they can up but will be facing a horde. This is the logically irrefutable implication of your own words!
You said that not me. I'm not wild about fighting the horde because it is easy as long as you keep your SA up and don't get stupid. I landed 6 kills Saturday in my hog doing just that.
Yes Fugi, fighting against superior numbers is very easy, and THAT is why you are against my idea. :rolleyes: That is why you (going by posts of yours I have read in the past) try very hard to find small fights, and why you, on average, take about two hours to get those six kills. Because the game is just too darn easy for you. You are such a great pilot that fighting out-numbered and disadvantaged in alt just doesn't hold any challenge...that is why you seek out small fights, 1v1s preferably. Because it is usually harder to beat just one guy from an equal footing than a multitude coming in with alt, as all the world of fighter piloting knows. (My thoughts drift to the fight between Fezzik and Wesley in "The Princess Bride.) Whatever. :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw1_iHPS34A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw1_iHPS34A)
Yep, just too darn easy...
You may call my posts "complaining" I call them challenges to those who seem to enjoy being stuck in mediocrity.
I saw you having a spat on 200 with Goatropr. This is player newly returned after not playing for a long time. Way to welcome him back and encourage him to stay Fugi. I never met the guy before, but the previous day I had dueled him in P38s into the wee hours to help him knock the rust off, we had a great time. Much laughter. Oh well, after your spat with the guy I invited him to tune squad vox and wing up, so all's well that ends well.. This incident illustrates the difference between our two approaches to the game clear as day, methinks. Oh, and after we spoke, you squelched me or claimed to, not surprising, because this is your MO when confronted by anyone who eloquently explains to you exactly why you are wrong.
(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10450871_10201815164013237_544449698359966203_n.jpg)
-
So you just don't like bombers.
Bomber interception is more important to the cartoon war effort than killing fighters for the most part. If we want to refer to the real world, shooting down a buff inflicts a lot more cost on the enemy while potentially preventing whatever damage the buff was going to do. However, most individuals apparently find it more tedious, because it actually is far more tedious than engaging other fighters. This results in constant hangar dropping and the attendant drop in fighting. Therefore, some extra incentives and rewards for buff hunters are in order, and would require little work on the HTC's part. :aok
-
I twist nothing. I'm pointing out the logical implications of your opinings. You are against my idea because you think it would cause people to attack bases in hordes. Therefore you think a situation where the defenders cannot up at all due to hangar banging is superior in some way to a situation where they can up but will be facing a horde. This is the logically irrefutable implication of your own words!
You need to work on your idea of logic. Following a logical path means there are no other options along the way and so end up at your "logical" conclusion. Your "logic" falls apart here, "Therefore you think a situation where the defenders cannot up at all due to hangar banging is superior in some way to a situation where they can up but will be facing a horde." As I have said I just look for another fight if Im not in the mood to hunt buffs , we have two other options right there.
Yes Fugi, fighting against superior numbers is very easy, and THAT is why you are against my idea. :rolleyes: That is why you (going by posts of yours I have read in the past) try very hard to find small fights, and why you, on average, take about two hours to get those six kills. Because the game is just too darn easy for you. You are such a great pilot that fighting out-numbered and disadvantaged in alt just doesn't hold any challenge...that is why you seek out small fights, 1v1s preferably. Because it is usually harder to beat just one guy from an equal footing than a multitude coming in with alt, as all the world of fighter piloting knows.
Yes it does some times take 2 hours to get those 6 kills. I may even "die" a dozen times in that same 2 hours.Saturday I had the 6 kill run in 15 minutes I believe, I can check the film if your really that interested. Picking in a furball isn't fighting to me. Anyone with good SA can do it. I enjoy a 1 vs 1 or even a 2-3 vs 1, but a horde is usually 5-6 vs 1 and it isn't any where near as much fun pinging a guy and having to break off to dodge the next picker coming in.
I saw you having a spat on 200 with Goatropr. This is player newly returned after not playing for a long time. Way to welcome him back and encourage him to stay Fugi. I never met the guy before, but the previous day I had dueled him in P38s into the wee hours to help him knock the rust off, we had a great time. Much laughter. Oh well, after your spat with the guy I invited him to tune squad vox and wing up, so all's well that ends well.. This incident illustrates the difference between our two approaches to the game clear as day, methinks. Oh, and after we spoke, you squelched me or claimed to, not surprising, because this is your MO when confronted by anyone who eloquently explains to you exactly why you are wrong.
All I did was ask him why he ran to a buddy? It was just him and me. I was in a pony, he was in an LA he had the alt advantage as well as speed. A couple turns and he was heading for the deck to a buddy. His buddy had alt on both of us. A few turns later I finished of his buddies P47 and just rolled a bit too slow to avoid his last pass and he took my wing off. I fought the whole time..... except when he was running :D
Instead of having a conversation he started getting all defensive and then belligerent. You and one other started mouthing off so I said good luck and squelched all 3 of you. I even pointed out to the guy he isn't going to learn anything running away.
But all this is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with hangars being taken out. You've been told by any number of people here why your idea won't fly yet against all "logic" you continue to go on. Enjoy your troll, I'm done.
-
it actually is far more tedious than engaging other fighters. This results in constant hangar dropping and the attendant drop in fighting. Therefore, some extra incentives and rewards for buff hunters are in order, and would require little work on the HTC's part. :aok
Opinions aren't facts. If you find bomber hunting tedious, don't do it. A lot of people love the hunt, and bombers are free kills most of the time. Don't expect HTC to implement some ridiculous perk prize just so you can be bothered to go kill some bombers.
You want instant reward? Up from a carrier, a base under attack or something. But don't complain that someone actually took the time to climb higher than you and evade your little fighter flying on the deck to drop some hangars. And then you ask for a prize for climbing up there... :rolleyes:
By the way, by your logic FH should be indestructible because they remove fighters from the equation, so I guess that ords should be indestructible too, right? I mean, they put the bombers out of the sky, it's only fair! And what about manned ack? I mean, I can't gun anymore just because some strafing dweeb had to destroy them! Make them indestructible! And don't get me started on VH, they should have been from day one :furious
-
And my indestructible fuel, so I can take as much as I want :old:
-
Planes should be indestructible too. not fun to get killed 30 sek after take off. :furious
-
And towns and map rooms, no one likes it when you take a furball base :D
-
Opinions aren't facts. If you find bomber hunting tedious, don't do it. A lot of people love the hunt, and bombers are free kills most of the time. Don't expect HTC to implement some ridiculous perk prize just so you can be bothered to go kill some bombers.
Obviously it is tedious. The numbers of dedicated buff hunters is relatively few. If it were barrels of fun everyone would be doing it.
Why should someone not be given more reward for killing a bomber than say a P-51D? Especially considering that your average bomber formation is more dangerous to fight than your average P-51D. And again, it is hard to argue that bomber formations aren't more important to the MA war effort than fighters.
By the way, by your logic FH should be indestructible because they remove fighters from the equation, so I guess that ords should be indestructible too, right? I mean, they put the bombers out of the sky, it's only fair! And what about manned ack? I mean, I can't gun anymore just because some strafing dweeb had to destroy them! Make them indestructible! And don't get me started on VH, they should have been from day one :furious
Actually, if there were no hangar banging I would see little reason to destroy ords in the first place. And it has always seemed a bit silly that one suicide 190 can take out ords. Manned guns are already inherently different in that they don't score a kill and you don't get a death when they take them out, so they are fine.
When I say hangars should no longer be destructible objects, I include the VHs. Picture it: The attackers drop the acks and starts vulching. Some of the vulchees up wirbles to defend their runway and take vengeance on the vulchers. The attackers bring back bombers and jabos and take vengeance on the vehicles stacked on the runway. Then the defenders up cannon birds to take vengeance on the bombers...on and on it goes.
The cycle of carnage is much superior gameplay over the typical story: Attackers drop hangars and shoot some town objects. Someone brings a troop transport. Done. *Yawn* :rolleyes:
-
Obviously it is tedious.
It's tedious for you.
Why should someone not be given more reward for killing a bomber than say a P-51D? Especially considering that your average bomber formation is more dangerous to fight than your average P-51D.
Well, why should it be more rewarded? And by the way, killing a bomber formation takes mostly one skill: patience. Even lousy shots like myself can get a whole formation with little risk, if you use the correct approaches and know where to aim. Or simply fly a Me-410 and snipe them to pieces without getting a single hit.
Picture it: The attackers drop the acks and starts vulching. Some of the vulchees up wirbles to defend their runway and take vengeance on the vulchers. The attackers bring back bombers and jabos and take vengeance on the vehicles stacked on the runway. Then the defenders up cannon birds to take vengeance on the bombers...on and on it goes.
You do realize why the VH is one of the first things to drop when taking a base, right? To prevent an endless swarm of wirbels rushing to town. Add some suicide La7 pilots on the deck and you have an impossible base take. Of course, to clean that pileup of gvs in town someone is eventually gonna up a formation of lancasters and carpet bomb the center. And then you'll whine again... :P
It's the circle of life!
-
:old:
Why not this?
Any Airbase = VH is indestructible; Must kill troops to stop a resupply elsewhere for the amount of time per current conditions
Any Vehicle base = Storch hanger is indestructible; Maybe push it a little further away from the MR
Any port = Storch hanger is indestructible
Would slightly change the dynamic of the base take while promoting the fight. Base take would take longer...
-
Well, why should it be more rewarded? And by the way, killing a bomber formation takes mostly one skill: patience.
By "patience", you mean being born without a boredom gene. It is statistically interesting that many AH players seem to share that anomaly, but crafting the game around them makes it less appealing for the rest of the human species, as is clearly indicated by AH's death spiral on player numbers.
Again, it should be rewarded because it is a more important duty that is not as inherently fun for most as fighter-on-fighter combat.
Of course, to clean that pileup of gvs in town someone is eventually gonna up a formation of lancasters and carpet bomb the center. And then you'll whine again... :P
That is a piece of the scenario I outlined earlier and clearly called a good thing, as long as the guys who just got bombed can up for vengeance. I will probably be in a fighter of course, so I won't whine, I will be glad to see swarms of low Lancs. Endless cycle of reprisals, bad for societies but good for a game that is supposed to be about player-versus-player combat.
-
I am beginning to think that some of what BnZ has said has legs FWIW :old: (which is little if the degree of pedantry and vitriol in here so far is anything to go by)
-
Just think how many fun killing bombers BnZs could have dispatched, with the amount of time he invested in this thread. ;)
-
Just think how many fun killing bombers BnZs could have dispatched, with the amount of time he invested in this thread. ;)
Well, if he is anything like me, none. He would have spent 45 minutes trying to get above them, or in front of them unsuccessfully, only to be lasered by what appear to be Lanc belly guns when opting for getting below them :bhead
-
Just think how many fun killing bombers BnZs could have dispatched, with the amount of time he invested in this thread. ;)
The back and forth on the BBS is more fun than the typical mission profile for buff hunting. That says something I think. Thus mebbe there need to be extra incentives for the necessary task of buff hunting.
-
I am beginning to think that some of what BnZ has said has legs FWIW :old: (which is little if the degree of pedantry and vitriol in here so far is anything to go by)
Hmmm... One who is influenced by fact and/or logic... what do we call this?
-
And what about the seaborne counterpart to all this; the CV? On one hand, leaving the CV up ensures a stream of heavy meat. OTOH, is IS an attractive target for somebody looking to land some big damage.
-
By "patience", you mean being born without a boredom gene.
Nothing to add here :P
It is statistically interesting that many AH players seem to share that anomaly
Maybe...maybe they even enjoy it! Those little stinky bastards! How dare they enjoy something I don't? :furious
I will be glad to see swarms of low Lancs.
So it's a-ok when the buffs are low and you don't need to spend two minutes climbing that extra 10K. It almost seems like you want them served on a platter... :aok
Again, it should be rewarded because it is a more important duty that is not as inherently fun for most as fighter-on-fighter combat.
Killing a set of buffs already gives you more perks than a low eny fighter. And if you have more trouble killing a set of lancs than getting a P-51D, there's not much I can do for you.
Thus mebbe there need to be extra incentives for the necessary task of buff hunting.
So you want HTC to make your job easier hunting those dirty bombers. What's next, asking for drones to kill formations quicker? Oh wait... :rofl
-
Since BnZ is identifying a time and scale dynamic out of proportion to the current active player population on any given night. Why not ask for an adjustment in down times of hangers and other objects to be less than the current in force? Leave their reward numbers as is for their efforts. Weren't those times increased some years back to account for the super hoards we once had in the MA?
The biggest unintended consequence will be having to bring a mega hoard to wipe the field out in a single blow, or a very organized group to capture the town relying more on accurate bomber passes to lead the way. Maybe set NOE back to what it once was for radar. You would defiantly get more nibblers attacking something. Maybe more missions in general. Otherwise, the nibblers in their jabo trucks and lonesome bomber pilots will "Only Be Irritating" to the hard core nightly furball in progress. And the tankers who often rely on the furball's two airfields proximity for their spawn battles will be happier.
These are numbers HTC can adjust right now. Then monitor the forums for the purse fights and end of the world whines as they erupt in response.
-
Maybe...maybe they even enjoy it! Those little stinky bastards! How dare they enjoy something I don't? :furious
Actually most don't enjoy it, because most aren't doing it. I am simply pointing out that since the game been becoming more boring and driving players off for a few years (through being so darn boring), the tendencies of the remaining players probably skew a bit towards an absent boredom gene. Moreover, the culture of the BBS leans towards defending the status quo in the same manner that fundamentalists defend Biblical inerrancy. This further skews opinion one sees on the boards.
So it's a-ok when the buffs are low and you don't need to spend two minutes climbing that extra 10K. It almost seems like you want them served on a platter... :aok
You said I would object to a set of Lancs coming to carpet bomb vehicles defending town. I pointed out how this actually fits perfectly into the scenario of continuous action that I positively endorsed. This bit of sophistry is just you trying to conceal the fact of your logical pwn'age. Thanks for stepping directly into the cut!
Killing a set of buffs already gives you more perks than a low eny fighter. And if you have more trouble killing a set of lancs than getting a P-51D, there's not much I can do for you.
When I meet another individual alone in a P-51D with just enough energy to close on him, it almost always turns out to be free kill for me. Hell, when they dive on me with the energy advantage it is also almost always a free kill if they commit to fighting instead of running. I am soon in a better position and there is nothing they can do but eventually die in the vast majority of cases.
Now compare this to attacking heavy buff formations. If my energy advantage is only just enough to close on their tails, then my attack is suicide. One really needs what amounts to a rather massive E advantage over buffs before attacking. If you need more of an advantage to fight average buffs than you do your average P-51D, then it is perfectly logical to say that bombers have been made more formidable than P-51Ds in this game, especially as gunnery in bombers has been deliberately made as simple as using as mouse with a GUI. I tried upping a set of B-17s one night, gunning with the mouse, and with no bomber experience whatsoever I killed fighters with shocking ease. In another case, I encountered the same pilot over the course of a weekend when he was flying both fighters and bombers. I never failed to pwn his fighter with ease every single time, but he managed to damage my plane every single time he was flying bombers. Note that this rough experiment removed all variables related to skill level, because the same two players participated in all encounters. Therefore, it is again perfectly logical to say that in some respects bombers have been made tougher to fight than fighters in this game, and I think it is reasonable to say that this is odd and probably skews things a certain direction.
-
Yes, imj, a fighting Pony is an easier kill than a trio of Lancs. The Lancs fight back.
You still suck, though, BnZs, for trying to deprive Smeegol of his precious.
MEanwhile, you should address my question on the CV and what to do about it. This one's a little more tricky.
Of course, none of this will go beyond the four virtual walls of this room. HT is not letting us peek behind the curtain just lately. I wonder what's up?
-
Actually most don't enjoy it, because most aren't doing it.
Most fighter pilots will jump on any co-alt bombers they find, or climb 5-10K to reach them. And that's without getting into the kind of people who fly high caps and wait for that darbar to approach.
You said I would object to a set of Lancs coming to carpet bomb vehicles defending town. I pointed out how this actually fits perfectly into the scenario of continuous action that I positively endorsed.
Would you still endorse it if it's a set of 25K B-17s?
Now compare this to attacking heavy buff formations. If my energy advantage is only just enough to close on their tails, then my attack is suicide. One really needs what amounts to a rather massive E advantage over buffs before attacking. If you need more of an advantage to fight average buffs than you do your average P-51D, then it is perfectly logical to say that bombers have been made more formidable than P-51Ds in this game
Well, if you slowly come creeping up a bomber's tail and set a perfect shot for the tail gunner, you know what's coming. Do you need an E advantage when fighting bombers? Yes! But it's quite hard to have less E than the average bomber once you're co-alt. Take a P-51D, for example. It has a 100mph speed advantage over a B-17 formation at every altitude.
But then again, approach and where to aim matter a lot more than the plane you're in, or your E state. I've gunned down Komets in a Ki-67 because they used the lazy tail approach, and I've been shot down by a raging F4F without scoring a single hit on him, simply because he used the correct approach.
Hell, ask 999000 what happens when someone does vertical passes on a formation in a cannon bird. It's incredibly hard to counter. But I'll use something different to show you that what matters is the approach and where to aim, not the airplane:
(http://s27.postimg.org/5pt79w02b/lancs.jpg)
And for the record, those weren't afk :P
-
Hitech has stated that one goal of the game is to piss people off.
Mission accomplished.
:aok As a former subscriber, and C.O. of an awesome "toolshedder" bomb group, we took great delight in being the burr under the bad guy's hide. And the result was a hell of a firefight. Sometimes we survived quite well. Other times, we ended up as scrap. A lot of fun, either way.
-
Most fighter pilots will jump on any co-alt bombers they find, or climb 5-10K to reach them. And that's without getting into the kind of people who fly high caps and wait for that darbar to approach.
Most people are obviously not patrolling for bombers, because they get through with such frequency. The logic here is inescapable. Apparently the lure of easy kills still cannot induce most players to spend their valuable sortie time sitting there at 20K waiting for buffs.
Would you still endorse it if it's a set of 25K B-17s?
I'm fine with any action in the game that doesn't inherently tend to prevent combat from occurring, which is the point of this whole thread. The point of the game is to kill the other guy's machine with your own after all. You specified clearing out vehicles however, a guy climbing to 25K in buffs would kinda be wasting his own time trying to hit much from that altitude.
Well, if you slowly come creeping up a bomber's tail and set a perfect shot for the tail gunner, you know what's coming. Do you need an E advantage when fighting bombers? Yes! But it's quite hard to have less E than the average bomber once you're co-alt. Take a P-51D, for example. It has a 100mph speed advantage over a B-17 formation at every altitude.
But creeping up another P-51D's tale works perfectly well to kill him. So again, you need more of an energy advantage over a bomber formation to kill it than you need over another P-51D. Therefore it is again logical to say that in some respects bombers have been made more difficult to kill than fighters in this game.
Also the P-51D is one of the very fastest fighters in this game. Many fighters will have much more trouble accelerating and chasing down bombers, especially if they have to climb above them first.
To make a decently safe pass on bombers you have to be both fast enough to have closure and significantly above them, two parameters that take a very long time to satisfy unless you are already there. If you spot bomber co-alt or above in the MA, you're generally not going to get this position in time to stop the drop. You can do so afterwards of course, but this does nothing if they have already dropped.
Hmmm...this is a key point of the imbalance. Bombers dropping hangars impedes one side from upping, while shooting down bombers does nothing to impede more buffs from coming in. No attrition, you see. If buffs were off limits to an individual player for perhaps 15 minutes after his entire formation was shot down, that would be a whole different kettle of fish. But that is yet another proposal that will be rejected out of hand because it ain't what already is. :devil
Hell, ask 999000 what happens when someone does vertical passes on a formation in a cannon bird. It's incredibly hard to counter. But I'll use something different to show you that what matters is the approach and where to aim, not the airplane:
I have taken damage even doing "perfect" passes from above. It doesn't really make the fighter pilot invincible or the bomber pilot a helpless target, it more just gives the fighter pilot a fair chance.
-
:aok As a former subscriber, and C.O. of an awesome "toolshedder" bomb group, we took great delight in being the burr under the bad guy's hide. And the result was a hell of a firefight. Sometimes we survived quite well. Other times, we ended up as scrap. A lot of fun, either way.
Your group needs you badly for this. :aok They don't seem to do it as often as they use to. :(
-
I have taken damage even doing "perfect" passes from above. It doesn't really make the fighter pilot invincible or the bomber pilot a helpless target, it more just gives the fighter pilot a fair chance.
By "fair chance" you mean almost guaranteed to win.
-
consider:
there is more than one base on any given map.
one set of buffs doesn't take out all the FH's in one pass.
and yet again, buffs are basically sitting ducks when properly attacked.
(sticking up for hangar bangers and I haven't dropped a bomb on a hangar in probably 5 years)
-
Bombers dropping hangars impedes one side from upping, while shooting down bombers does nothing to impede more buffs from coming in.
As long as I know, shooting down fighters doesn't impede more fighters to come either :rolleyes:. But dropping bomber hangars has the exact same effect as dropping fighter hangars: preventing those planes from taking off. Except that you only need one or two strafing passes to kill ords and you're already leaving the bombers on the ground. But doing that would take away precious seconds of the real fight, of course :P
I'm confident that I can now rephrase your current (and most of your past) wishes:
MAKE BOMBERS EASIER TO KILL
Please say that it was just another sarcastic post and let us all move on :lol
-
to skuzzy--i just noticed th OP did not say i wish to get rid of tool shedding---it looks more like a demand....and this thread should be locked and sent to the o-club---my 2 cents
-
As long as I know, shooting down fighters doesn't impede more fighters to come either :rolleyes:. But dropping bomber hangars has the exact same effect as dropping fighter hangars: preventing those planes from taking off. Except that you only need one or two strafing passes to kill ords and you're already leaving the bombers on the ground. But doing that would take away precious seconds of the real fight, of course :P
Seconds to fly to an enemy base? I was unaware any aircraft in the game had hyperdrive. And again, I don't pay a subscription fee for a MMO combat game to spend my time shooting at buildings instead of other player controlled machines.
I'm confident that I can now rephrase your current (and most of your past) wishes:
MAKE BOMBERS EASIER TO KILL
My OP had nothing to do with changing bombers in any way. All your points having been dismissed logically, you resort to bald-faced lying.
Please say that it was just another sarcastic post and let us all move on :lol
If it were a sarcastic post I would have used the sarcasm sign to indicate so. Seems to be necessary to overtly say it, the general level of wit being what it is on this board. :rolleyes:
-
to skuzzy--i just noticed th OP did not say i wish to get rid of tool shedding---it looks more like a demand....and this thread should be locked and sent to the o-club---my 2 cents
Oh, that is just delicious. "This guy disagrees with me and can explain clearly why I'm wrong-SILENCE HIM!"
Maybe if you spent some of those 150 hours a week you spend playing the game studying logic instead, you could come up with something better than this.
Then again, those hours don't seem to have done you much good in playing the game either...
-
By "fair chance" you mean almost guaranteed to win.
The heavy buffs have what you call a top turret, which can be brought to bear unless the angle of the dive is absolutely pristine. Also one will be subject to the arc of the fire of the ball turret as one dives beneath the bomber on such a vertical pass.
-
Two more retorts:
Retort #9: STFU with yer fancy "lawgic"
Retort #10 (a modification of the "you suck at killing bombers" retort): You want to make bombers easier to kill
Guys, this isn't that tough. The proposal on the table relates strictly to the FH and whether or not you can disable fighter upping by bombing same.
That said, yes, the tactic of vertically diving on bombers is pretty effective, especially if you're using some kind of low-velocity shell that drops a lot (like the 30 mil). I still remember how surprised I was first time I tried that with a Ghay-4. Aligned with gravity, that 30mil has nothing but drop - but no curvature in its trajectory, which makes life easy. The problem is time, of course. Every time I get shot down by bombers I always curse myself for having rushed it. 3-9 line isn't bad either, but you can see retrun fire from the top or waists. The HO... depends on the bomber, but I wouldn't advise it on the 17G or any of the 24s. Even the Lancs have some peashooters up there. Good thing the pilot typically has o jump around in there.
Speaking of drop, I saw some idiot on the country channel writing some tripe about how the bigger bullets/shells drop more because they're heavier. I know most of you guys know better. Parabolic motion: constant accel in the grav field... That accel is mass independent, as demonstrated by whoever that dude was who demonstrated that, for an identical drag profile, two varying masses while have the exact same accel, velocity, and position when dropped at the same time from the same height. I'm shocked to see that kind of ignorance in game, given that I thought we got past that some time during the enlightenment. Come to think, it was probably Zack trying to gull some morons so that he could later get their checking account numbers by means of the promise of a cash package. He's good at that kind of stuff, though he has real disdain for using candy vans to lure minors.
-
Ok bnzs you know itwasn't per week--it is per month. But is so funny,your trying to logic on a computer game--that you only play 16 to 20 hours per tour--and since you play so little of this game why do you care to make hangers indestructable..i'm not the only player that spends alot of time playing here.why do you want to spoil other peoples fun when you are hardly ever on?
-
Ok bnzs you know itwasn't per week--it is per month. But is so funny,your trying to logic on a computer game--that you only play 16 to 20 hours per tour--and since you play so little of this game why do you care to make hangers indestructable..i'm not the only player that spends alot of time playing here.why do you want to spoil other peoples fun when you are hardly ever on?
And yet I manage to be better at the game than you by virtually every measurable statistic, despite actually occasionally doing other things with my time.
For instance, we both appear to like the P-51D. Actually I like it, and you appear to have a fetish for it, being virtually the only thing you have a2a kills in last tour. I have 28 kills to 4 deaths in the thing last tour. You have 202 kills in it to 196 deaths.
Now at this point you're going to accuse me of gaming my statistics through timidity. However, doing this inevitably causes one's kph to plummet. So obviously my kills per hour must by something shockingly low, on the order of 1.48...wait, nope, that's you.
-
I'm shocked to see that kind of ignorance in game, given that I thought we got past that some time during the enlightenment.
When I informed a well-known and beloved vet that his assertion "The pony turns better at high speed!" was wrong because turn rate is defined by speed and G and in AH all "pilots" are under the same G limit, he proceeded to "laugh" at me, or at least type about laughing in the text buffer.
-
And yet I manage to be better at the game than you by virtually every measurable statistic, despite actually occasionally doing other things with my time.
I'm better than you, therefore I'm right.
I think we're done here, let's move to the other buff-hating whine thread :aok
-
And yet I manage to be better at the game than you by virtually every measurable statistic, despite actually occasionally doing other things with my time.
For instance, we both appear to like the P-51D. Actually I like it, and you appear to have a fetish for it, being virtually the only thing you have a2a kills in last tour. I have 28 kills to 4 deaths in the thing last tour. You have 202 kills in it to 196 deaths.
Now at this point you're going to accuse me of gaming my statistics through timidity. However, doing this inevitably causes one's kph to plummet. So obviously my kills per hour must by something shockingly low, on the order of 1.48...wait, nope, that's you.
I don't care if if you have 100 kills to my 1 kill--i never said anything about being a good fighter pilot-I never said anything at all about being a pilot at all--in fact i'm a lousy pilot.but at least I try..I usally fly and gv each night..I don' fly full time,it's something like 50/50--plane and gv.so if it makes you feel better about yourself to crack on me about being better than me,than go right ahead,help yourself.
And as a matter of fact,i'm not very good in gv's either--but who cares--i play to have fun--there have been times when i've been on for 3 hours and have only 3 kills--in anything--so what I still had fun.
-
I don't care if if you have 100 kills to my 1 kill--i never said anything about being a good fighter pilot-I never said anything at all about being a pilot at all--in fact i'm a lousy pilot.but at least I try..I usally fly and gv each night..I don' fly full time,it's something like 50/50--plane and gv.so if it makes you feel better about yourself to crack on me about being better than me,than go right ahead,help yourself.
And as a matter of fact,i'm not very good in gv's either--but who cares--i play to have fun--there have been times when i've been on for 3 hours and have only 3 kills--in anything--so what I still had fun.
:lol Yeah, I get more kills in 3 hours. :neener: You did NOT specify if myself wasn't to be included in the kill scoring! :D
-
I'm better than you, therefore I'm right.
I think we're done here, let's move to the other buff-hating whine thread :aok
He is the one who brought up number of hours in the game (150 a week?) as if it were pertinent to topic at hand. If someone is going to do that, then I feel free in contrasting their hours logged with their ineptitude. I can only imagine what *I* could do with that kind of practice.