Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: mold on December 14, 2003, 12:57:38 PM
-
Nah, not really, but I kinda wanted to get some traffic in here. Sorry for the underhanded methods. :D
Anyway, I have an idea for solving the pork-auger problem. Perking bombs doesn't seem like the right way to go about this--it's like perking bullets in a fighter. Furthermore, I don't think it would solve the problem--people would still pork/auger with bullets, and even with bombs if they don't care about "the next time". Score effects will also not solve this problem, since (as others have pointed out) the reason for most pork/augering has nothing to do with score.
But here's another idea: how about making it so that, if the plane that dropped the bombs dies within 1 minute (adjustable) of the target getting hit, all damage from his bombs is negated? In fact this could be applied to any type of ground damage from a plane, including bullets--so it could take care of suicide de-ackers as well! Also this would automatically take care of dive-lancs and noe-forts.
Comments? Best idea ever? Or does it suck rocks through a straw?
-
rocks through a straw? I have yet to see an idea that directly 'punishes' the player for that behavior that doesnt unfairly include players that just happen have the bad luck of going down just after dropping.
I think festers idea of better field ack defence, and lazs hardening of field resources (fuel) are better directions to take.
That said, the issue rarely bothers me, except on the large maps where front line bases are 25% fuel, and you have to up too far away to get to the fight.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
unfairly include players that just happen have the bad luck of going down just after dropping.
Is this actually a common occurence? I think probably what you attribute to bad luck is closer to bad planning, and my approach would mitigate that because everyone would know that in order to have an affect, you have to at least try to survive.
-
I think "suicide dweebs" will go away once there are multiple arenas setup for specific styles of play.
1. The Fighter Jock "dogfighting" arena where nothing can be captured or bombed.
2. The MA-as-we-know-it arena where suicide Jabo's will still be seen regardless of what you do.
3. The strategic "war" arena that we will eventually see available in AH2 where suicide Jabo runs hurt your ability to replane quickly or in the same ride...
-
Originally posted by mold
Is this actually a common occurence? I think probably what you attribute to bad luck is closer to bad planning, and my approach would mitigate that because everyone would know that in order to have an affect, you have to at least try to survive.
I routinely orbit friendly bases waiting to lead in on the next jabo artist. More often than not, they are trying to survive. Either I catch and kill them on the zoom, or bounce them down into the pack. Either way, they die shortly after the drop. Not to mention all those that happen to catch AA rounds during their drop. All cases of those that are at least trying to survive. Besides that suicide jabo was a reality, at least in the pacific, and in reality they adjusted to that by trying to beef up defences.
-
Originally posted by Hyrax81st
2. The MA-as-we-know-it arena where suicide Jabo's will still be seen regardless of what you do.
But that's the beauty of my idea. Right in the MA, it totally and completely prevents suicide jabo-ing, by construction. But in such a way as to not affect the honest stratter at all.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I routinely orbit friendly bases waiting to lead in on the next jabo artist. More often than not, they are trying to survive. Either I catch and kill them on the zoom, or bounce them down into the pack. Either way, they die shortly after the drop. Not to mention all those that happen to catch AA rounds during their drop. All cases of those that are at least trying to survive.
They are always trying to survive, regardless. There is actually no suicide dweebing, until he dies--all suicide dweebers would prefer to live, except the conveyor belt types I guess. But I would say that if they dive bomb fuel while ack is up or while you are orbiting, then that is indeed a suicide run (regardless of whether they wanted to live or not). They should have brought some CAP.
Originally posted by Murdr
Besides that suicide jabo was a reality, at least in the pacific, and in reality they adjusted to that by trying to beef up defences.
You are essentially saying that suicide porkers are not a problem, and thus do not require a solution. I think there are many folks that would disagree with that, in both the strat and furball camps. ;)
Furthermore, this is not a valid comparison--because death in this game does not have the same penalty as death in real life.
-
This idea was tossed around some time ago and I think HiTech considered negating damage done within a specific period after one dies. There are a lot of potential problems which is why I believe he didn't implement it.
-
Hmm, that's too bad. Do you recall any of the disadvantages? I will try a search and see if I can find the thread.
-
Just have online play disabled unless the server can confirm you have the wires properly taped to your nads. Then anyone who dies (be it a suicide buff weenie or a furballer or a guy in a chute) gets their jewels electrically cleaned for a millisecond. Hmmmm ... ok ... knowing some of yas, this really wouldn't change anything.
:eek: :lol
-
Originally posted by mold
You are essentially saying that suicide porkers are not a problem, and thus do not require a solution. I think there are many folks that would disagree with that, in both the strat and furball camps. ;)
Not at all read my first post, I stated that I agree with others that the solution is in hardening defences, and targets, and not in a broad brush stroke of behavior modification through penalties/reward.....Well no, I really shouldnt say 'reward' because there is none under what you are proposing.
-
I don't recall all of the objections or problems but I do remember some. For example: You follow your buddy on an attack on the town. He kills the town ack but is hit by it and crashes just as you make a pass and drop some buildings. Since he dies the town ack is restored and kills you as you egress from your run. If the ack had been up when you started your run you wouldn't have shown it your six.
See, when you mess around with time travel you might wind up killing your own grandfather. Which is of course detrimental to your own health cause yer grandma is pissed you spoiled her sex life. ;)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Not at all read my first post, I stated that I agree with others that the solution is in hardening defences, and targets, and not in a broad brush stroke of behavior modification through penalties/reward.....Well no, I really shouldnt say 'reward' because there is none under what you are proposing.
I was responding to your Kamikaze comment...
Anyway, the hardening target solution IMO doesn't work. Is it a solution if two suicide porkers can destroy fuel instead of one?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't recall all of the objections or problems but I do remember some. For example: You follow your buddy on an attack on the town. He kills the town ack but is hit by it and crashes just as you make a pass and drop some buildings. Since he dies the town ack is restored and kills you as you egress from your run. If the ack had been up when you started your run you wouldn't have shown it your six.
Yeah, that's a wierd situation to be sure. However, I think it is somewhat marginal. Furthermore, the if the first guy knew about the ack-rebuild, he might be more careful in the first place. And if he dies, he can send a quick warning to his teammate saying "I died, watch out". So although this situation seems really wierd, I think you can work around it in this way or another way--especially since it offers such major advantages in the handling of death.
Originally posted by AKIron
See, when you mess around with time travel you might wind up killing your own grandfather. Which is of course detrimental to your own health cause yer grandma is pissed you spoiled her sex life. ;)
LOL :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Just have online play disabled unless the server can confirm you have the wires properly taped to your nads. Then anyone who dies (be it a suicide buff weenie or a furballer or a guy in a chute) gets their jewels electrically cleaned for a millisecond. Hmmmm ... ok ... knowing some of yas, this really wouldn't change anything.
LOL...we can only hope! :lol Screw this video card in a computer crap. I want the brain plug. :D
-
Mold ... wake up. You're in the matrix.
- Morpheus
-
Originally posted by mold
They are always trying to survive, regardless. There is actually no suicide dweebing, until he dies--all suicide dweebers would prefer to live, except the conveyor belt types I guess. But I would say that if they dive bomb fuel while ack is up or while you are orbiting, then that is indeed a suicide run (regardless of whether they wanted to live or not).
I really dont think the inbound pony/jug/tiff believes that they are going to be caught. I guess our view differs between them and those that auger/drop in one fell swoop They should have brought some CAP.
So it is ok then if 2 porkers can destroy fuel instead of one?
-
One posible solution would be not allowing you to reup from a base less than 50 miles from where you died.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Mold ... wake up. You're in the matrix.
No. It's not true. I want out. Let me outta here! I WANT OUT! GET AWAY FROM ME!!
Damn, does this mean I can fly through walls?? Hold on a sec, I'll be right back.
Duuuuuh, I'm back. Duuuh. Droool. I thiiink I'll chuuute some shooots noow. Drooool.
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I really dont think the inbound pony/jug/tiff believes that they are going to be caught. I guess our view differs between them and those that auger/drop in one fell swoop
Regardless of whether they want to survive or not, I feel these two types should be put in the same category (in a sense).
Originally posted by Murdr
So it is ok then if 2 porkers can destroy fuel instead of one?
LOL :) No, the idea is if there is enough CAP, both will survive. The variable time can be adjusted to distinguish between honest stratters and porkers. Really, these gray situations are the extreme minority. In general, you're either clearly a suicide dweeb or you're clearly not...and the time parameter can be easily used to distinguish between them.
-
Originally posted by zmeg
One posible solution would be not allowing you to reup from a base less than 50 miles from where you died.
Yeah, but the thing is many folks don't do this for the conveyor belt effect. As nopoop mentioned in another thread, many folks do this to be a part of the team. "Everything's down guys, send in the goons". Especially for a new player, this type of thing brings him into the community, which is great but with the wrong methods.
Also, I think many people will object to being denied upping from whichever base they choose, and I think I'd agree with them on that. ;)
-
I would object to flying 3 sectors to bomb a field, only to have it not count for anything because something happens to go wrong at the target. Personally I feel wasting someones time by taking away the effects of their actions is no less offensive than not letting them up from a field. Probably more.
-
Had a thread that was 100 plus by HT awhile back on that very subject.
-
Hate to bring the A word into this...but in AW the ack (which was not 37mm shells, but flak bursts) was adjusted quite a bit. At times the setting were such that the first burst may kill you at 12,000 agl. My view that defense is the better route is from experience, and I disagree that it would not have an effect. It would be better if it was much harder to earn the effects that a pork run causes.
The basic premise of the problem is that 'suicide porkers' have an disproportional effect on other peoples style of game play. I agree with that. My objection to your idea is that instead of trying to lessen their effect on others game play, you are trying to change their style of play. I see no difference other than just inconviencing the other group of players. I will agree to disagree, and leave it at that ;)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I would object to flying 3 sectors to bomb a field, only to have it not count for anything because something happens to go wrong at the target. Personally I feel wasting someones time by taking away the effects of their actions is no less offensive than not letting them up from a field. Probably more.
If you are flying 3 sectors (presumably a buff), how often would "something go wrong" within a minute of the drop? This situation is just not gonna happen. If there was actually hi-alt cap at the base (yeah right LOL), they're gonna get you before you drop.
If you're in a fighter flying 3 sectors to a target, and you manage to die within a minute of drop...well that is definitely a suicide run. 3 sectors...good god. You should have *plenty* of alt to choose not to dive if you see enough cons that you think you will die within a minute.
-
Originally posted by nopoop
Had a thread that was 100 plus by HT awhile back on that very subject.
Thx, I will look for that.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Hate to bring the A word into this...but in AW the ack (which was not 37mm shells, but flak bursts) was adjusted quite a bit. At times the setting were such that the first burst may kill you at 12,000 agl. My view that defense is the better route is from experience, and I disagree that it would not have an effect. It would be better if it was much harder to earn the effects that a pork run causes.
Hmm, perhaps you are right about this. But doesn't doing this alter the "strategic balance" for those who play strat honestly? I mean some thought was presumably put into the current hardness levels in view of an honest strat game...changing that might unbalance the game for the honest stratters.
Originally posted by Murdr
My objection to your idea is that instead of trying to lessen their effect on others game play, you are trying to change their style of play. I see no difference other than just inconviencing the other group of players.
But the currently game play is not inherently natural, it is an artificial product of the rules as they are. Changing the gameplay incentives to something different is no more artificial than what we already have.
Originally posted by Murdr
I will agree to disagree, and leave it at that ;)
'k, that's cool. :)
-
I hate to get involved in this discussion, but I agree 110%. Currently, its too easy and too wide spread... last night alone, there wasn't a single base within 50 miles of the front that had fuel.
You may call that a success, you're probably right, I just log off.
-
25% never stops me from either defending or attacking. A pony can go a long way on a quarter tank of gas. Of course my insensitive squaddies do snicker whenever I run outta gas. :D
-
Your in on a town with your P-38 ...
You let 2 1000 pounders go to take out the last remaining buildings.
T -1:00 minute
There is a goon hot on your heels and as soon as the buildings explode, he releases the drunks.
T -0:50
You have extented out and up to CAP any inbounds from wacking the goon. You spot one and drop down for the fight.
T -0:45
Meanwhile the drunks have hit the ground and are running. You are now involved in a cat fight with a Spit. As hard as you try, the Spit is coming around on ya.
T -0:20
There are only 4 more drunks on the ground making their way to the map room. The Spit sends home some 20mm and boom your dead. Nobody has witnessed your fight ... you are over 6K away from the town.
T -0:05
Magically ... at town over 6K away, the buildings that you knocked down re-materialize out of thin air just as the last 2 drunks are at the map room door.
Sorry ... no capture this time
You think you have heard a whine now ... you haven't heard anything until this scenario takes place.
-
I think the best solution, as previously stated, is better base defenses.
Increase the number of AA (like double or triple) and harden them. Put them behind sandbags, in ditches, whatever.
There also needs to be mannable AT weapons at the fields.
-
if you want to go with better defenses, the easiest change is to make acks no-straffable.
-
Just the little AI troops manning it. Oh wait .... damn.
-
Hide the strat stuff in the forest under the eaves...
-
Considerably better base defenses are a good idea for a number of reasons. First, it's probably more historically accurate. From what I've read, coming in low over a sizeable enemy airfield was often almost sure death. There are a few stories of groups of a dozen planes going in low to attack an airfield, and only two planes emerging alive on the other side. Second, it would make capturing a field from the air a more difficult endevour requiring a little more coordination than your average stream of suicide porkers. Third, it would make assault from the ground a more attractive choice, which is cool for GV people, and people who like to hunt them. (Generally these people are attack pilots who are -not- suicide porkers).
-
I would also like to see the ack defenses much more accurate up until the ground radar at that field has been destroyed. It would help in the 'feel' a little.
It would be a bonus if you could hear the tone in your headphones informing you that you've been targeted by the drone guns.
-
Don't you guys realize that increasing the defences will only encourage suicidedweebery? The more difficult it is to take out a target and survive, the more guys won't care if they survive. Why take the time to "do it right" when you are likely to die anyway and the effect of your attack is probably little if any? Why do you think people started suicidedweebery? Why do you think the Japanese used the Kamikaze? They were as good as dead anyway, but at least they could increase their chance of hitting something. The only way of "controlling" behaviour is doing just that ... CONTROLLING behaviour. HTC needs to lay down the rules on what is not acceptable behaviour in AH. If enough complaints are logged (with film) the individual is banned, temporarily or permanently.
-
In FA - a long time ago and in another land - if you got shot down before your bombs exploded then they were automatically defused and harmless - you could also set a time on them so they'd explode after 5 secs, 10 secs whatever - great fun screaming over a runway - dropping your eggs then watch them explode 10 secs later when everyone thinks it's clear and are respawning!
-
The idea has merit, but it seems to me it will only promote an even greater horde mentality.
-
Gscholz is right - I sincerely agree.
There are a few reasons to suicidal mentality, and weak field defenses is just one of them only. Strengthen the field defense, and we will just see more people going into kamikaze attacks. Instead of strengthening field defenses, we should rather seek ways to weaken the effectiveness of kamikaze runs.
One solution, is to give back the dedicated ground attack planes their roles:
A single P-47D-30 carries 5000lbs of ordnance in AH(2x1000lbs + 10xHVAR(250lbs each) + 1x500lbs). A single P-51D carries 3500lbs, P-38L 4000lbs, F4U-1D 3500lbs. The Typhoon, carries 2000lbs, but is also the fastest non-perked fighter of the set.
These planes, in the hands of a good pilot, can knock down 1 major field structure(hangar), and 3~4 more minor structures.
That's not a problem since there aren't many good pilots around. But the problem is, their incredible armament option, (usually) fast speed, and potent fighter capabilities, also allows a bad pilot to take out 1 major structure, or various minor structues, before getting caught or augering to the ground.
While it is not strange to see late war planes which evolved into a multi-task fighter doing multi-task roles, in terms of planeset/gameplay, it encourages suicidal mentality and lopsided plane usage - because one or two deaths(even if not intended), will get your job done. Gather three~four people thinking the same, and you get a force of power that can shut down a small aifield in its totality,
Personally, I prefer the perk method. But whatever else method there can be out there, the point is in either limiting the usage of those late war planes, or limiting the usage of particular ordnance options, so the player behind the stick would have to pay(in one way or another) and feel the bitterness of death.
The goal we must seek, is to limit air to ground effectivity. If somehow the usage of those late war planes(at least in the attack role) can be limited, the alternative, perk-free(limit-free) A2G attack planes with decent loadouts will naturally be the less capable planes such as Mosquitos, 110s, 190F-8s, Il-2s and etc.
This serves us with some positive effects:
1) Since the perk-free(or whatever type of limit-free) A2G planes with decent loadouts are less capable, they will be easier to intercept.
2) Being easier to intercept means, they won't belike P-51Ds or Typhoons just ignoring all interceptors and going straight towards the field, shouting "Banzai!". They will get caught.
3) That means the rate of successfully achieving mission goal(whether he survives the mission or not), will ultimately be lowered.
4) To do successful attack runs, proper steps and precautions will need to be taken:
If they choose to come in with altitude to ensure penetration to target field, the interval of punitive suicidal strikes will naturally become longer(ever try taking a fully loaded Mossie to 20k?).
If they come in low, they will be easily caught before reaching the field.
To be successful in those slower, lumbering attack planes, it would actually require some skill in situational awareness - how the airpath may be open, how friendly air cover clears the skies for a needed time.
5) Since they are hardly competitive as close-range fighters, jabos such as Mossies or 110s are relatively easy prey(although there are some good pilots in those planes).
Unlike the P-38s or P-51s dropping ord, and immediately switching to CAP role with great success, the dedicated attack fighters will probably become the first of prey to fall, against normal field defenses, organized defenses, and counter attacks. This means, even if suicidal hits continuously pound a base, the remaining field CAP/vulch strengths of the attacking side is greatly weakened.
6) Since the dedicated jabos, actually carry less bomb loads than compared to the late war USAAF fighters, it will take more of them to swiftly and decisively knock out major field structures before they respawn. Unless one side has uncountable numbers advantage, when two sides (of simular force) operate in the same sector, more piloys allocated to jabo duty means weaker fighter power. A balance between fighter power and jabo power will be required, since if the late war monster planes are somehow limited, the role of planes will distinctively diverge between the fighter role and the attack role.
7) If they choose to do what they used to do - dropping ord, and if they luckily survive the attack run, switch to fighter duty - they will have to do it in the limit-less planes. Most fighters outside those normally used for jabo currently, carry a single 1000lbs, or 500lbs bomb, with maybe a couple of rockets. The P-47D-25 has to armo the bazooka pods for rocket power, and most other planes can rarely carry more than 1500~2000lbs.
In any case, the effectivity of suicidal runs are limited, the roles between planes can diverge, and people will face the need to balance numbers between jabos and fighters, operating in the target sector.
Or, if they think that's too harsh for them, they'll give up the jabo role entirely, which means fighters will come in strafing fields - it will kill the fuels, yes, but it will need a lot of numbers advantage to suppress a field. Also, if they want to capture the field, they're not gonna do it any time quick by just strafing the town buildings(we all know how people hate to leave the vulch scene, don't we?)
So if one side has enough local numbers advantage, they will probably do the same thing without bombs - come in kamikaze, strafing the field.
However, if the numbers are matched, they won't just slip past defenses and go kill every fuel or every hangar, or every barracks or every ammo bunker with just two, three planes.
ps1) Better yet, if the field objects accompany some changes along with the above suggestion:
(a) The most important of all resources(fuel), is placed within armoured bunkers or depots requiring a couple of thousand pounds to kill.. maybe 50% of fuels in armoured bunkers, and rest 50% in normal drums..?
(b) Some objects, such as town buildings(which are probably made of wood, stone, or concrete) are impervious to machine gun/cannon fire under 30mm. Town buildings, armoured bunkers, vehicle hangar, shore batteries come into mind.
If those two changes are implemented alongside above suggestion, then I guarantee the suicidal madness will be a thing of the past. Jabo role, and I mean an effective, good jabo role, that almost instantly renders a field defenseless, fuel-less, GV-less, and town-down for capture, will be considered a thing for trained jabo specialists and good bomber pilots, as much as a2a combat needs skill.
Oh sure, nobody's gonna stop you or punish you from doing what you like to do. Except you won't make a dent to the defenders if you don't do it right.
...
ps2) For more thinking, please look up my NPA linked in the sig. More detailed discussions on diverse plane sets and limiting abusive kamikaze tactics by means of perking, is discussed there.
-
Add more potent manned guns of the CV/Cruiser variety at airfields.
And as a side note: In AH2 the guns are pretty much impossible to kill already (you can't see them)
-
I remember the days in AW when base defenses were turned up.. As stated previously the idea of a one ping death at 12k agl over a enemy base was very possible. 88mm in AH now I feel is one of the worst aspects of the game.. To be far removed from a fight and die from a 1 ping 'AI' hit is, well, bs.... IMO making AI defenses stronger, more accurate, more deadly would be a poor mistake. We play this game to play other folks... Not the computer... Randomization is BS........
The strat key seems to be to be as simple as increasing the fuel/ammo hardness... Maybe more fuel dumps.. Increase the fuel hardness 4x and there will still be fuel porkage as there should be.. Its part of the game.. Simply, that fuel porkage wont be the alone 'deciding' factor of play in that particular area.. If fuel hardness is turned up, in the absense of organization, it would take 1-2 individuals 4x the trips to take out the fuel.. thereby giving fuel time to respawn.. seems like a cycle that could be contained... Maybe even turn down fuel respawn times..
Players will not change... The field ack isnt broken... Adjust the fuel bunkers first....
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Your in on a town with your P-38 ...
You let 2 1000 pounders go to take out the last remaining buildings.
T -1:00 minute
OK that's true, I see that this scenario is more common. :) But still, I think the time parameter can be adjusted to distinguish between this scenario and the porkers. Now that you bring this up, 1 minute does seem like an awfully long time. But perhaps 15 seconds or so? I believe you can come up with a timeframe sufficiently large that the incentive to plan for suicide attacks is reduced, but sufficiently small that you aren't miles away when building reappear.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Don't you guys realize that increasing the defences will only encourage suicidedweebery? The more difficult it is to take out a target and survive, the more guys won't care if they survive. Why take the time to "do it right" when you are likely to die anyway and the effect of your attack is probably little if any? Why do you think people started suicidedweebery? Why do you think the Japanese used the Kamikaze? They were as good as dead anyway, but at least they could increase their chance of hitting something.
This is a VERY good point which had not occurred to me, and I find myself in agreement with you.
Originally posted by GScholz
The only way of "controlling" behaviour is doing just that ... CONTROLLING behaviour. HTC needs to lay down the rules on what is not acceptable behaviour in AH. If enough complaints are logged (with film) the individual is banned, temporarily or permanently.
Well, yeah, ideally if you die you suffer realistic consequences, like you get booted from the game, your account is closed, and you are consigned to an AH-less hell. :D But I don't think HTC is gonna go for that.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
If those two changes are implemented alongside above suggestion, then I guarantee the suicidal madness will be a thing of the past. Jabo role, and I mean an effective, good jabo role, that almost instantly renders a field defenseless, fuel-less, GV-less, and town-down for capture, will be considered a thing for trained jabo specialists and good bomber pilots, as much as a2a combat needs skill.
Wow. First of all, thanks for that very well though-out post. I see that I was missing a few points on the analysis of the effects of perking ord. In particular, the idea of perking ord on late war monsters only seems like a very good idea! In fact, I think that this even deals with the issue of guys wanting to do it just for teamwork's sake. Basically, instead of forcing the issue like I'm suggesting, make it harder to take a base through suicides without making the base grabbing inherently harder for honest stratters. I like it.
Originally posted by Kweassa
For more thinking, please look up my NPA linked in the sig. More detailed discussions on diverse plane sets and limiting abusive kamikaze tactics by means of perking, is discussed there.
I will certainly do that, thanks for the link.
-
Originally posted by mold
Well, yeah, ideally if you die you suffer realistic consequences, like you get booted from the game, your account is closed, and you are consigned to an AH-less hell. :D But I don't think HTC is gonna go for that.
Not if you die ... if you suicide. Unsportsmanlike behaviour should be punished. I can understand that HTC might think banning players is bad for business, but on the other hand how many players are quitting because of this? How many new players are discouraged because of vulching, ganging, spawncamping and other "gamey" tactics?
Like I said most other multiplayer games have rules governing player behaviour. Fighter Ace for instance prohibits "unsportsmanlike" behaviour and airfield denial tactics (vulching/camping), it's actually stated in their End User Agreement at the penalty of banning. Even most QUAKE and CT servers prohibit camping.
-
Ok just to jump back into this one for a sec....
Originally posted by Kappa
I remember the days in AW when base defenses were turned up.. As stated previously the idea of a one ping death at 12k agl over a enemy base was very possible. 88mm in AH now I feel is one of the worst aspects of the game.. To be far removed from a fight and die from a 1 ping 'AI' hit is, well, bs.... IMO making AI defenses stronger, more accurate, more deadly would be a poor mistake. We play this game to play other folks... Not the computer... Randomization is BS........
If I remember correctly Fester was asking for manned 88's and a few more ack spread out. Which would be different than the AI tweeks you described. I only used the AW acks as an example of experience.
Originally posted by GScholz
The only way of "controlling" behaviour is doing just that ... CONTROLLING behaviour.
I would guess you are politically way left of center. HTC should mandate everything to your way of thinking. Fortunatly, HTC continues the online flight sim tradition of supplying tools to deal with issues rather than butting in with idealist rules.
From reading past furball/strat arguments. Most furballers could give a rats behind if people find it fun to attack a tool shed, die, and do it all over again. The problem arises when they have a disproportional impact on other peoples game play (which is magnified by certian maps that we have shoved on us for a week at a time). Rather than lessen the impact, you would rather control behavior? Like I said in weaker terms before...what the **** is the difference between other players inpacting your playing style, and you forcing them to play the way you want? Nothing.
Unsportsmanlike behaviour should be punished. I can understand that HTC might think banning players is bad for business, but on the other hand how many players are quitting because of this? How many new players are discouraged because of vulching, ganging, spawncamping and other "gamey" tactics?
Like I said most other multiplayer games have rules governing player behaviour. Fighter Ace for instance prohibits "unsportsmanlike" behaviour and airfield denial tactics (vulching/camping), it's actually stated in their End User Agreement at the penalty of banning. Even most QUAKE and CT servers prohibit camping.
Go play FA then. If AH players wanted FA's structure, that is where they would be. Lol all of the stuff you are complaining about were realities in WW2. In these huge maps, with enemy counters and flashing icons, its your fault if you let any of those happen a second time. Ok, mabey not spawncamping, but the only gamey part of that is remote spawning. Militarily, it would be foolish not to take advantage of ambushing when the opportunity is presented. The last time I spawned into a camper, that tiger ate my m8 rounds a minute later. Provide tools, dont mandate.
-
LOL! Driving CV almost onto land to cover an airfield in ack was a "reality" in WWII? Suicidebombing and then grabbing another ride and suicide all over again was a "reality"?
For your information the WERE rules and a code of conduct in WWII aerial combat. None of which are followed here.
-
Well Said Murdr. What your stating makes a great deal of sense.
BTW Nice job clipping my Mossie tail off earlier tonight. You killed a great kill streak of mine. I thought I was staying out of flak range while capping that field but you hit me with a great shot from distance.
Higgins_Mskt
-
It's covered under the "Unsportsmanlike behavior" section of the Geneva convention. :rolleyes:
Gunther ... you're going nowhere fast with this soapbox campaign. But ... hey ... it's your time to waste. :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! Driving CV almost onto land to cover an airfield in ack was a "reality" in WWII?
Resorting to adding to the list of complaints now eh?
Suicidebombing and then grabbing another ride and suicide all over again was a "reality"?
Read the news, suicide bombing happens alot, except in reality they find another fool to take the next trip.
For your information the WERE rules and a code of conduct in WWII aerial combat. None of which are followed here.
Like say, American bomber escorts waiting for the Germans to RTB fuel and shoot them down on approach?
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Read the news, suicide bombing happens alot, except in reality they find another fool to take the next trip.
How many of those suicidebombers pick up another bomb and do it all over again? How many did it in a P-51 or other jabo? Idiot.
Originally posted by Murdr
Like say, American bomber escorts waiting for the Germans to RTB fuel and shoot them down on approach?
And when has this been called dweebery? Lowering your landing gear was/is a sign of surrender ... at least until the bloody 100th violated that rule. Shooting a pilot in a parachute is in fact a violation of the Geneva Convention, still some US pilots did that (that SOB Yeager for instance). Hmmm I'm seeing a pattern here.
Originally posted by Arlo
Gunther ... you're going nowhere fast with this soapbox campaign. But ... hey ... it's your time to waste. :D
I know, but I'm also wasting your time so it's ok. :D
-
No you're not, Gunther. You're amusing if not practical. :D
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Murdr
Read the news, suicide bombing happens alot, except in reality they find another fool to take the next trip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GScholz
How many of those suicidebombers pick up another bomb and do it all over again? How many did it in a P-51 or other jabo? Idiot.
:rofl Funny how the Code of Conduct advocate is now resorting to personal attacks...Im not calling names, but who looks like a what when they blast the first half of a sentence, and ignore the content of the other half?
-
No Murdr wouldn't resort to personal attacks ... no not Murdr.
Originally posted by Murdr
I would guess you are politically way left of center.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I would guess you are politically way left of center.
Many people would take this as a complement. Now its equal to calling someone Idiot?...who knew?
-
Looks like he was offended by your appraisal of his political stance, Murd. :(
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not if you die ... if you suicide. Unsportsmanlike behaviour should be punished. I can understand that HTC might think banning players is bad for business, but on the other hand how many players are quitting because of this? How many new players are discouraged because of vulching, ganging, spawncamping and other "gamey" tactics?
While I agree with you that players should play honorably, I don't think that this should be forced. One of the problems is that everyone has a different idea of what "unsportsmanlike" means. Some folks will vulch and shoot chutes because it is "just a game", but will not steal kills because that is part of their personal code of conduct. At the other extreme, someone else might consider attacking any con at a lower alt to be dishonorable!
Another problem is that if you use rules rather than incentives, people find ways of getting around the rules and you're back at square one.
-
What incentive are you suggesting other than if everyone played the way you wanted them to, you'd be happier? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What incentive are you suggesting other than if everyone played the way you wanted them to, you'd be happier? :D
LOL. OK, that's sorta a good point. :) Let me see--well, how about this. Solving the suicide dweeb problem makes the game more balanced. Well, yeah that's kind of a half-assed justification, but what to do. Greatest good for the greatest number, maybe? Encourages skill building? Gives me more kills? Yeah, I like that last one. :D
-
Did Yeager really shoot at chutes?
-
HMMMM..............
That idea of perkin ord for late war planes has some merit IMHO.
It would give us a use for our Attack points. Might be worth tryin.
Hmmm.. maybe that was in some way an HTC original intention?
What are the attack point good for otherwise????
Oh Well just thought i'd put in my $0.02 :)