Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Captain Virgil Hilts on August 19, 2004, 03:22:11 PM
-
This is NOT flame bait, and it is not a whine, I'm asking an honest question of the community here.
I would hope that it does not offend Hitech or HTC, or become too controversial. If it does, I have no issue with it being closed or even deleted.
I have one request in regards to that however: If someone posts something inflammatory or offensive, rather than close the thread, could an HTC employee please delete or otherwise remove the offending post rather than lock the thread? The information may prove valuable to someone.
In answering, please just simply state your position on using some sort of system to remove features and or planes/vehicles/etc from one side as a way of forcing or attempting to force the numerical balance of the main arena with a simple yes or no to the question.
Thank you.
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
Edit: This is not a question about the perk system, meaning unlimited acces to ALL planes but rather the ENY balance system.
-
We do both virgil, just depends on the thread. But if we edit a post the entire contents of the post will be removed.
-
Yes
However you really wrote a "trick question". the goal is to promote a balanced arena...not to inflict punishment on one side or another. The implementation is ABOVE any side however you want to make the result about one side gaining and the other losing.
I dont feel that I'm "losing" anything if I'm on the side with higher numbers and have a plane (or planes) unavailable. It's simply another issue to deal with and overcome. I can accomplish the same thing in a plane with an ENY of 30 that I can with any other plane in the game...it's really a big deal about nothing...
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
Virgil: I do not belive that is a resonable question. I view it as the same type question: " When did you stop beeting your wife"
HiTech
-
Absolutely. Lets say I am a huge fan of the P-40B. Well, even a fool can see that the P-40B is not competitive in an arena full of 1945 planes. Therefore, you are denying me my right to enjoy the game in a plane I want to fly.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Virgil: I do not belive that is a resonable question. I view it as the same type question: " When did you stop beeting your wife"
HiTech
As soon as I saw how well she can shoot:D
-
Originally posted by hitech
Virgil: I do not belive that is a resonable question. I view it as the same type question: " When did you stop beeting your wife"
HiTech
Really? I take it that you mean that no answer can be viewed as being positive. Or only one answer can be viewed as positive.
What I'm after here is a general feel for the attitude of the community. Not to criticize anyone or belittle them. More to make them think, and see what they decide when they think.
Neither a yes nor a no answer is necessarily correct. There is no correct answer, only what you feel.
By all means, if you have a better way to ask the question, I'm certainly interested. By no means do I think the question is perfect as is. Just the best I could do.
-
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to control access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc in order to make the game more enjoyable for all?
yes
-
Virgil
You wrote that question as someone else on another team taking away your right to fly your plane of choice.
The same thing would never be allowed at any sports game other than Tball.
Team A has 10 players & team B has 18 on the field? Where is the fair play in that?
Thats where you have it backward.
One team having overwhelming numbers advantage takes away My right to play period!
This is not what knights, or bish have decided. This is what HITECH has decided. To level the playing field. To even the score just a little. Take the hint. This is here to stay for the time being. Change happens, deal with it & move on.
Personally I logged on the other morning to find knights under the gun plane wise.
We had 2 to 1 #'s on bishops and were up to 18 ENY or something like that.
We still flew, yaks the greatest killer in AH with a high ENY value. A20's still rock ground to air, esp if you get it light & fly it like a twin engine p47.
On the whole I've seen much better balance, much better gameplay, and a MUCH more diverse set of planes being flown.
This is a GOOD thing.
Quit thinking about it as being told what you can't do.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Virgil
Take the hint. This is here to stay for the time being. Change happens, deal with it & move on.
Personally I logged on the other morning to find knights under the gun plane wise.
We had 2 to 1 #'s on bishops and were up to 18 ENY or something like that.
We still flew, yaks the greatest killer in AH with a high ENY value. A20's still rock ground to air, esp if you get it light & fly it like a twin engine p47.
On the whole I've seen much better balance, much better gameplay, and a MUCH more diverse set of planes being flown.
This is a GOOD thing.
Quit thinking about it as what your told you can't do.
You're missing the point here. I'm not trying to make this go away. I've already said I'm not complaining. I am asking a question to see what others think about resolving the issues. I'm dealing with it, I'm just trying to get a feel for the general attitude.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to control access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc in order to make the game more enjoyable for all?
yes
You edited the question to allow you to answer it a certain way. Doesn't work that way. I'm looking for something else.
-
The general attitude is this is the best thing since sliced bread!
If that is really what you wanted thats what you should have posted.
-
Sure. All is fair
-
By all means, if you have a better way to ask the question, I'm certainly interested. By no means do I think the question is perfect as is. Just the best I could do.
Virgil: zanth did just what asked to be done.
-
Actually, what he did was cut out the useless crap in the question. The two questions mean the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Actually, what he did was cut out the useless crap in the question. The two questions mean the same thing.
No, they do not. They do not at all.
The first asks are you willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier.
The second is entirely different.
The question has actually been answered though. :D
-
I look at it this way.
HTC has gone through great pain to make this game as realistic as it can possibly be. This new system of taking away the higher end planes, in my opinion, takes away from the overall realisum. This game is a war game. Plain and simple. And in war, you hit until the enemy stops hitting back. I think there are many other alternatives to balancing out the field than disabling planes.
Now the argument can also be made that this will make you a better pilot in other aircraft. I don't feel that as a paying member I should be forced into that train of thought.
If the game is ever truely going to be balanced then there needs to be some sort of control over what team people are on. Why not take non squad members from one team and move them to another to balance the field. Or have a limit to how many can join one team before it forces users to choose another team. I think this can be solved my moving man power rather than punnishing any particular team because they are winning the war.
My opinion is that this is a step backwards and makes the game more like an arcade game instead of a realistic battle simulation.
Just my .2 cents.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You edited the question to allow you to answer it a certain way. Doesn't work that way. I'm looking for something else.
He rephrased it to be non-leading. Reading your original question I felt I was being forced into a "No" response when the situation is a lot more complicated than that. Your phrasing made it a leading question, as HiTech pointed out when he referenced the archtypical leading question.
That fact is that I don't have any problems with the system as implimented. I usually fly the Mossie, which has an ENY of 40 and so will never be affected (and if it is there is a real big problem). However I plan on switching to the Ki-84 which I am sure will have a much, much lower ENY and will be affected every so often. My response on those occasions will be to switch countries if I really want to fly the Ki-84 that day, or to fly the Fw190A-5 and Mosquito instead. I have no problem with those options. I don't think that the system is denying anybody the ability to fly whatever they want. It is making the choose between flying with the horde and flying the aircraft they want to fly.
-
lol Virgil,
In regards to your question...
Yes and no, meaning I honestly dont care one way or another what planes are removed and which ones aren't for any period of time.
Wth all of the planes that are in the game, I can find something else to fly for an hour or so while I am on line.
I love the new rules. :aok
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Do me a favor, just delete this whole thread. What I was looking for was not an indictment of what you've done, but rather something else.
What he did when he edited the question that way changed the entire nature of the question.
I think the way you worded the question was an indictment.
The question would lead one to think (I did as I read it) that they might me considered mean-sprited if they answer ... YES.
The orginal question does not truely reflect the sprit in which the change was made.
Zanth's change reflects the spirit ... and I would have added ...
... and creates a level playing field for all."
My answer .. YES
-
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.
The way Zanth phrased the question, it stated a guarantee of improvement for everyone, which is not possible in that situation.
While there is nothing inherently wrong in acting in your own best interests, even if it imposes certain things on others (without actually causing real life harm), being dishonest with yourself about it is interesting.
It cuts both ways.
-
Originally posted by Puff
I look at it this way.
HTC has gone through great pain to make this game as realistic as it can possibly be. This new system of taking away the higher end planes, in my opinion, takes away from the overall realisum. This game is a war game. Plain and simple. And in war, you hit until the enemy stops hitting back. I think there are many other alternatives to balancing out the field than disabling planes.
Now the argument can also be made that this will make you a better pilot in other aircraft. I don't feel that as a paying member I should be forced into that train of thought.
If the game is ever truely going to be balanced then there needs to be some sort of control over what team people are on. Why not take non squad members from one team and move them to another to balance the field. Or have a limit to how many can join one team before it forces users to choose another team. I think this can be solved my moving man power rather than punnishing any particular team because they are winning the war.
My opinion is that this is a step backwards and makes the game more like an arcade game instead of a realistic battle simulation.
Just my .2 cents.
Your basically saying to not pee in your pool, but its ok to pee in someone elses pool.
Don't forcefully take my plane from me, but rather, force that squad to move to somewhere they might not want to be.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
Well, since you chose to add a subjective comment to what you claim to be an objective question...you make it very tough to answer.
How about this one...
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to set up a system, whereby one group of players can dominate the others by simply overwhelming them with numbers, thereby dimishing their enjoyment of the game?
See what I mean? :) Both questions are stacked.
-
I do not believe that I am acting strictly in my own best interests when I say "Yes".
That you believe that to be so, and worded the question thusly, does not make it so.
A reciprical question might look like:
Do you think it is fair to force a person who is paying exactly the same amount of money you are to face overwhelming odds day after day and defeat after defeat while you enjoy the support of a significant neumerical advantage that makes your success both inevitable and easy?
That's a pretty loaded question and is no more accurate than yours.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.
The way Zanth phrased the question, it stated a guarantee of improvement for everyone, which is not possible in that situation.
While there is nothing inherently wrong in acting in your own best interests, even if it imposes certain things on others (without actually causing real life harm), being dishonest with yourself about it is interesting.
It cuts both ways.
I don't agree with that. I answered YES, not because I was acting on my own interest, but rather in the interest of this game. I have just as much to lose with the ENY disabler as anybody else in this game.
This ENY disabler will eventually bite all countries and I believe that it areadly has ... this is something that I can live with and deal with. If it was singling out just one country, then I would have a problem with it.
-
Yep. I'll even tell you why. On the rare occasions that the side I'm on has the numbers, it get's really boring. Evening out the quantity factor adds to my enjoyment, whether I'm on the side with the high numbers or the side with the low numbers.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Your basically saying to not pee in your pool, but its ok to pee in someone elses pool.
Don't forcefully take my plane from me, but rather, force that squad to move to somewhere they might not want to be.
If you notice I said NONSquad member... I'm talking about new members and guys that haven't been playing long.. guys that don't have an allegiance to any side just yet.
-
YES
Case point, A country (whichevr one) currently has 30 players more than any other coutry, you cannot fly you prefferred plane.
Options-
If you are country loyal you simply =find another ride
Plane loyal, =Find another country
Loyal to Country & Plane, =find another time to fly
Loyal to PLane, Country & limted on flight times, =Post on BBS cause we know you wont be flyin.
The change was designed to create a level playing field, after it was obvious the players would not. Im sure HTC would MUCH rather we the players, just switched sides & evened it out ourselves, but that didnt happen. So in essence we forced him to make these changes, I'm glad he did.
A_Clown
-
"HTC has gone through great pain to make this game as realistic as it can possibly be. "
when you base your argument on such a premiss it kind of defeats the whole argument before you make it.
-
Actually what Zanth did was to remove your question from the category known as "Leading Questions". Not saying that you intended it as a leading question, just that it is one.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Virgil: I do not belive that is a resonable question. I view it as the same type question: " When did you stop beeting your wife"
I agree.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The first asks are you willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier.
Are you?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
No, I don't feel so.
And regarding "more enjoyable for all". It is obviously not more enjoyable for all, otherwise you wouldn't see whining about P8 here. May be more important question is: "Is this patch more enjoyable for majority?" I don't know the answer on this question.
It is senseless to ask this here because only few percents of players on MA participate in this forum, and most of them are veterans. They can fly whatever they want with the same success, so this patch doesn't affect them much. Moreover, this patch actually helps them. It allows veterans to fly early war planes and have less competition from new players.
BTW, as you can see many junior members of this forum are against this patch.
I wonder what is the proportion of relatively new players to veterans on MA?
-
I'm with the people who say you pay for access to the arena.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, what Zanth did was to change the question so that it allowed people to answer yes without saying they were acting strictly in their own interests.
The way Zanth phrased the question, it stated a guarantee of improvement for everyone, which is not possible in that situation.
While there is nothing inherently wrong in acting in your own best interests, even if it imposes certain things on others (without actually causing real life harm), being dishonest with yourself about it is interesting.
It cuts both ways.
Your fishing way in the deepend here, the problem is in your original phrasing not anyones response to it...
-
Yes. Easily. Without a doubt.
-Sik
-
Virgil,
My general reaction to your question is that would seem immoral to answer yes to your question in the simple context of enhancing your own enjoyment at the cost of diminishing someone elses, as you put it. Hitech was quick to point this out.
However, you seem to be a reasonable guy, and since you say you did the best you could do, I will help you rephrase your question to be less of a "wife beating question". I understand that what you really meant to say was:
"In the interest of balancing adversaries, do you mind if some paying customers are inconvenienced by having to switch to another country in order to enjoy a full plane selection?"
My answer would be "no".
Here is my "wife beating question" to you Virgil:
In the interest of fairness to paying customers, would you insist on the right to retain your choice of country and demand a full planeset although you know full well that many paying customers would suffer the agony of an unbalanced arena? Yes or No.
It's not fair question, Virgil, so you don't have to answer.
Just thought I'd help a little by giving an example. Sometimes its hard to see the other side, but that's what makes things fun!
Cheers,
RitteR
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to control access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc in order to make the game more enjoyable for all?
yes
ditto....
-
I have not nor am I insisting on having access to all non perk planes. I did say that I did not think restricting peoples access to the planes they enjoyed flying was a good idea. But I said a couple of days or so ago that I agreed that SOMETHING needed to be done, and that while I did not actually agree with what was done, I could accept it and deal with it.
No, I do not want anyone else's enjoyment hampered in order to enhance mine. I do not like artificially leveling a field.
I'd rather get my tail shot off and have to figure out how to stop it than have someone else fix it for me.
Personally, I wil not go looking for a fight I can't win anymore than I'll look for a fight I can't lose. I like a good fight.
The assumption that most players on the Rook side actually want to have their boot on the throat of the Knights or Bishops 24/7 is not necessarily true. cetainly there are those that do, as there are those who are totally loyal to the Knights or Bishops who would like to have their boots on the throats of the other countries. That is human nature, and last I looked, the game was played by humans.
As expected, this thread has been about people rationalizing their position, instead of directly answering the question.
example by player "x": Yes, I feel it is okay to keep someone else from flying a plane with an ENY of 5 because I enjoy a plane with an ENY of 40.
That was actually an honest answer to the question. It was not wrong. The problem is that people automatically assumed there was a right and wrong answer, and there was not.
I was actually looking to see how many players would honestly say that they felt it was okay to restrict someone else in order to allow that player to have more fun. But at least 80% who would like to answer yes, felt it was necessary to rationalize it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to tho se things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
hitech is right, there is extreme bias in the way the question is posed
No access to game features/vehicles/etc is being removed from anybody at any time.
You can be loyal to your country, you can be loyal to your plane, but at certain times there are certain planes where you can't simultaneously be loyal to both.
Seems reasonable to me.
-
The day I started carroting her, and once in awhile I potato her.
NUTTZ
Originally posted by hitech
snipped... " When did you stop beeting your wife"
HiTech
-
I dont believe HTC should be promoting country hopping and disloyalty by limiting aircraft. "Coercing" people to make a decision they wouldnt normally make, tends to upset alot of players (myself included). The game would have eventually fixed itself if left alone, just as it has in the past.
On another note, I flew Bishop for a long while until my squad moved to the Rooks. The only night that Rooks have an extreme numbers advantage is Sunday night (RJO). Even when I flew as Bish I never really saw this as a problem. We would usually buckle up, up from a base that wasnt under attack and fight back. To be truthful the biggest gripe in the arena about Rooks wasnt their numbers, it was always about their flying at ungodly alts (is that going to be dealt with also with arena changes?).
Final point: The ENY Limiter decision, I feel, wasnt thought through long enough and other viable options looked at before it was placed into the game. Personally I think if the last 50 Resets info was looked at, you probably wouldnt find a huge disparity between the winners of the "War" (yes it is a "war", the game says so itself). And war is not even nor fair, so if your "side" is losing DO something about it constructively within the fight not whine "woe is me" and beg an outside influence to change the rules to benefit you and handicap others.
-
Originally posted by Herr Milde
Virgil,
My general reaction to your question is that would seem immoral to answer yes to your question in the simple context of enhancing your own enjoyment at the cost of diminishing someone elses, as you put it. Hitech was quick to point this out.
However, you seem to be a reasonable guy, and since you say you did the best you could do, I will help you rephrase your question to be less of a "wife beating question". I understand that what you really meant to say was:
"In the interest of balancing adversaries, do you mind if some paying customers are inconvenienced by having to switch to another country in order to enjoy a full plane selection?"
My answer would be "no".
Here is my "wife beating question" to you Virgil:
In the interest of fairness to paying customers, would you insist on the right to retain your choice of country and demand a full planeset although you know full well that many paying customers would suffer the agony of an unbalanced arena? Yes or No.
It's not fair question, Virgil, so you don't have to answer.
Just thought I'd help a little by giving an example. Sometimes its hard to see the other side, but that's what makes things fun!
Cheers,
RitteR
Your rephrasing of my question is not at all what I intended.
I'm not at all bothered by your question. It IS fair. If I could not answer it, I would not have asjked the one I did.
The minute you ask for another person to be handicapped for your sake, you better be able to answer the same question about yourself. So no, again, your question is no more unfair than mine was. It simply requires one to be willing to be honest.
The answer to your question is no, I would not do so for myself. I did not insist on it and I do not insist on it. Do I fly planes other than my normal ride more often now than before? Yes. Do I find it at times annoying? Yes. But then you can't get a P-38 on a carrier either. So it wasn't like an outrageous imposition on me. I already flew the Corsair when I wanted to go where the CV went. I added the P-47 BEFORE the current system. So the current system DOES NOT affect me as much as you might think. Despite being a Rook who normally flies a plane with an ENY of 15, and flies it poorly more often than not.
But I don't like it being forced on everyone. I'm simply one of those who will take my whoopin (and come back for more, again and again). If I can't take it, I'll go look for a more fair fight, or I'll take a break. Ask people I fly with. I usually only quit when I feel I have a personal issue keeping me from competing at all.
I don't want anything given to me, especially at the cost of someone else. It rubs me the wrong way. Goes against the way I was raised.
And I figure if I can't get enough people on my side to even things up, I might need to look in the mirror. If someone does not want to fly with me, I ask myself why. And I CAN be an prettythanghole, I freely admit it. I lose my temper, and sometimes I get angry and complain about being outnumbered, I'm at least partially human,(or maybe subhuman) with human faults and inadquacies.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You edited the question to allow you to answer it a certain way. I'm looking for something else.
I'm sure you are looking for something else.
I agree to submit to any and all rules applied fairly to all players. Whether or not other players can enjoy the game under those rules is up to them.
--Peregrine.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
hitech is right, there is extreme bias in the way the question is posed
No access to game features/vehicles/etc is being removed from anybody at any time.
You can be loyal to your country, you can be loyal to your plane, but at certain times there are certain planes where you can't simultaneously be loyal to both.
Seems reasonable to me.
No, there was not extreme bias in the question. You either are comfortable with demanding, and willing to demand, that someone else be restricted or penalized at the cost of their enjoyment for your benefit, or you are not. It really is that simple.
If human nature makes you comfortable with it, you are no more or less than anyone else.
If you feel you can't be honest and answer with a yes if that is the way you feel because it makes you uncomfortable, that is okay too.
-
Originally posted by peregrin
I'm sure you are looking for something else.
--Peregrine.
But do you understand WHAT I'm looking for? Or do you THINK you know?
-
Originally posted by NUTTZ
The day I started carroting her, and once in awhile I potato her.
NUTTZ
LOL, vegetable jokes at the expense of someone's notorious spelling problems.
Much needed levity in a thread that may be too serious.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Absolutely. Lets say I am a huge fan of the P-40B. Well, even a fool can see that the P-40B is not competitive in an arena full of 1945 planes. Therefore, you are denying me my right to enjoy the game in a plane I want to fly.
An honest answer. And it is neither correct, nor incorrect. I like it.
However, if the other player enjoys his LA7 just as much as you enjoy your P-40B, is your position fair to him?
-
Short and sweet.
In order to take advantage of the new system and be able to fly the planes of your choice it seems we are going to have to overcome the taboo of switching countries.
You want choice? Throw loyalty to the wind.
-
Originally posted by NUTTZ
The day I started carroting her, and once in awhile I potato her.
NUTTZ
lol
had to read it 3 times before i got it though
:lol
-
Loaded question.
But what you don't like happens all day everyday.....
They raise my insurance because of all your accidents, why?, to level the field for the insurers.
The gov. taxes me and gives money to poor people...why? , to level the field for the poor.
I pay an extra $30.00 on my car plates because I live in an area with public transportation, ( even tho I took the train to work when I worked in the city)...why? To level the field of public transportation costsand to encourage it's use.
I could go on all day...look around a bit harder and you'll see how many times you do the very thing you're complaining about now, you'll be surprised.
Oh and like paying taxes, you'll get used to it. :eek:
BTW,I usually fly older planes and will never have to worry about these things,lol.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
Edit: This is not a question about the perk system, meaning unlimited acces to ALL planes but rather the ENY balance system. [/B]
Your question shows a limited point of reference. Because this has largely affected Rooks to date it is understandable, but still flawed thinking.
You are assuming that a country has an inherent right to outnumber the other 2. What if uneven sides was never part of HT's vision for the game?
My opinion is HT views his creation as a game of skill, and as a game of skill he wants his victory conditions determined by something other than numbers.
If a fair fight in the MA is HTC's intent for the MA then any side that refuses to follow the rules of the game should absolutely be penalized. Just like any other skill based game with rules and norms.
The only inherent "right" of the AH customer is to log on and get a fair fight.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Absolutely. Lets say I am a huge fan of the P-40B. Well, even a fool can see that the P-40B is not competitive in an arena full of 1945 planes. Therefore, you are denying me my right to enjoy the game in a plane I want to fly.
exactly....im the same, but with the 190a5.......(ok ok not as extreme as your example but.....)
-
Virgil,
This new system has me thinking of the Ayn Rand book "Atlas Shrugged" and its descriptions of a society that tries to level the playing field.
Ol' Ayn was a bit to the right of the right for me, but with this new system I see our steam engine heading into that long suffocating tunnel, all in the name of trying to make things "fair."
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
No. I dont think it is fair that if I belong to a particular country, that I should constistantly find that other paying customers are limiting my access to the games features by choosing to fly with opposing country(s) that decidedly have more people than the other sides.
Now, when that choice is accompanied by a sacrifice of their own access to features....That's Fair.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
An honest answer. And it is neither correct, nor incorrect. I like it.
However, if the other player enjoys his LA7 just as much as you enjoy your P-40B, is your position fair to him?
Well, to be absolutely honest, I don't even know if such a thing is possible. A lot of American kids grow up (well, the ones that read about WW2 anyway) and hear about the Flying Tigers, find out they flew the P-40 and go WOW that plane is awesome, I want to do that when I grow up! And a love affair is born. Or the Mustang, or the Spitfire.
Perhaps Russian schoolchildren read about VVS aces and their La-7s, but there aren't to many Russians playing this game. In fact, there is only 1 that I know of, although a couple more post on the BBS.
So if someone "is in love with the La7", they are in love with it precisely because it is the best plane they can get for free. If perchance the 190D-9 were modelled to be better than the La7, I can guarantee there'd be a lot more born-again Luftwobbles flying in AH.
Anyway, to get back on track, I feel that in the case where one person is going to be limited, it ought to be the person seeking the most advantage over others. If it came down to perking the P-40B or the La-7, you might have 1 or 2 guys yelling their heads off about HTC perking their favorite airplane. If HTC perks the La7, I can guarantee there will be a ****storm that is the mother of all ****storms from people yelling about them perking their "favorite plane".
To kind of bring that argument into the correct context, here we have an arena with 3 sides. Each side has their pick of 70-odd planes. It is assumed (probably a poor assumption, but I'll make it anyway) that people are playing this game to kill other people and "win fights". There are three ways to "win fights"... you either bring more planes, bring better planes, or bring more better planes.
In a situation where one side outnumbers the other two sides combined (which admittedly doesn't happen all that often), the small sides simply have no chance. No fights will be "won" that night for them. There is simply no way to overcome an opponent who is bringing more of the best planes than you can get. If your opponent has more planes, you can bring better planes and perhaps even up the fight, and maybe even "win. If your opponent has better planes, you can try to swamp him with numbers. In both cases, you at least have a chance to win. If your opponent is flying the "best" plane (typically a mix of the fastest and most manueverable, i.e 50% la7, 50% spit/nik) and has more planes than you've got, you are screwed.
Therefore, the side with the most numbers and best toys is implicitly denying the right of the paying customers on the other sides to have fun. This patch seeks to redress that by seperating the ability to bring overwhelming numbers combined with overwhelming performance. Got a little long-winded there, and probably some logical errors, but I'm no philiosophy major. Thats just the way I see it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, there was not extreme bias in the question. You either are comfortable with demanding, and willing to demand, that someone else be restricted or penalized at the cost of their enjoyment for your benefit, or you are not. It really is that simple.
A. You still don't seem to grasp it is only your own stubborness that is restricting you of anything. You can fly any plane you want at any time you want.
B. Yes, I am completely comfortable with placing the imposition of having to switch teams on people who wish to fly certain planes during certain times of numbers imbalance.
If you choose to view it as having your fun spoiled to enhance mine, well, that just seems like a problem with your personal perspective.
-
YES this is a great system.
I would have said no if it were only implimented on the rooks or just nits or bish but it is not, everyone at some point has to deal the limitations this new system brings and it is working fine.
At least now when I up in an early war plane I can find a fair fight and even if I'm greatly out numbered I still feel I have a chance.
When the limiter hits the my country (Bish) I like the chalange of finding another plane to get the job at hand done.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Question:
Do you feel that it is fair and reasonable, and a good idea to remove access to certain features and or planes/vehicles/etc from someone else who is also a customer who pays the same fee as you, while allowing you full and unrestriced access to those things you've taken from him, thereby diminishing his enjoyment of the game, in order to make your enjoyment greater?
[/B]
Yes - the phrase "Greater Good" springs to mind.
-
I'm sorry, this is crap. Your arguing semantics here.
My answer is yes.
As a reminder we COULD have an RPS here.
Then a valid question would be..
My fav plane is a late war ride. Is it fair TO ME to have access to it less than a week out of the tour ???
Then my answer would be no, that's not fair.
The degree of whine here over losing a late war ride when choices are available to remedy it is what I find amazing.
Sorry for being so short and combative. My daughters rabbit chewed through my rudder pedals usb cord.
I would like to fly ANYTHING !!
Is that fair ??? HT is STILL TAKING MY MONEY !!
ISN'T THERE A "THE RABBIT RUINED MY PEDALS" CLAUSE ???
I WANT A REFUND !!
-
Originally posted by Samiam
A. You still don't seem to grasp it is only your own stubborness that is restricting you of anything. You can fly any plane you want at any time you want.
See, you ignore again the fact that I am not complaining about being restricted. That is not what I was asking. I'm not being stubborn, the restrictions rarely affect me anyway. What is it about this subject that makes everyone take it so personal?
B. Yes, I am completely comfortable with placing the imposition of having to switch teams on people who wish to fly certain planes during certain times of numbers imbalance.
That's an honest answer and all I was looking for.
If you choose to view it as having your fun spoiled to enhance mine, well, that just seems like a problem with your personal perspective.
It isn't spoiling MY fun. I was actually interested in how people felt about this considering all the complaints of heard from people actually in the arena and flying, and not just Rooks when they had numbers, either.
-
Originally posted by Hornet
Your question shows a limited point of reference. Because this has largely affected Rooks to date it is understandable, but still flawed thinking.
You are assuming that a country has an inherent right to outnumber the other 2. What if uneven sides was never part of HT's vision for the game?
My opinion is HT views his creation as a game of skill, and as a game of skill he wants his victory conditions determined by something other than numbers.
If a fair fight in the MA is HTC's intent for the MA then any side that refuses to follow the rules of the game should absolutely be penalized. Just like any other skill based game with rules and norms.
The only inherent "right" of the AH customer is to log on and get a fair fight.
You are assuming too much. I'm not asking this for the reason everyone assumes.
It is not based on a limited point of reference, the Rooks are not the only country to be subjected to the ENY restriction.
Try to forget Rooks, Bishops, and Knights. Just consider the plain simple question. Without the baggage. Forget the current application, and your current situation in the game.
I'm not assuming anything. To think that the sides in a game such as AH would never been uneven, possibly very uneven, would be pure foolishness, and I'm certain that Hitech had already seen lopsided odds long before AH. Give the man more credit than that, he certainly deserves it.
You are assuming that there is, or for that matter, ever was a RULE, that REQUIRED even sides. If there ever was, I've never seen it. Not here, not in AH I, not in that "other" game, and not in AW. There is no RULE that says a country can't have more players. So no country is breaking a rule, so that is not a valid justification for a penalty.
You pay for the priviledge to log on, no one has ever had a "right" to a "fair" fight. It is probably reasonable to expect somewhat even numbers among the countries, but a fair and even fight has never been a guarantee. It (numerical equality) will occur for periods of time as the numerical superiority pendulum swings back and forth, but is never guaranteed nor is it a right.
-
I feel your pain Virgil... All these fanboys sticking up for this, makes me feel sad that a simple, and I mean simple question just can not be answerd without the rhetoric.
Ofcourse if they did better with their reading comprehension skills they would just answer, YES, or , NO.
Virgil; my answer is NO. Dont like the system, I know they are trying to help the imbalace problem. I simply dont agree with it, and it's ok if they want to go off on me for my opinion, I'm used to it.
I think it would most likely take care of itself over time.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Well, to be absolutely honest, I don't even know if such a thing is possible. A lot of American kids grow up (well, the ones that read about WW2 anyway) and hear about the Flying Tigers, find out they flew the P-40 and go WOW that plane is awesome, I want to do that when I grow up! And a love affair is born. Or the Mustang, or the Spitfire.
Perhaps Russian schoolchildren read about VVS aces and their La-7s, but there aren't to many Russians playing this game. In fact, there is only 1 that I know of, although a couple more post on the BBS.
So if someone "is in love with the La7", they are in love with it precisely because it is the best plane they can get for free. If perchance the 190D-9 were modelled to be better than the La7, I can guarantee there'd be a lot more born-again Luftwobbles flying in AH.
Anyway, to get back on track, I feel that in the case where one person is going to be limited, it ought to be the person seeking the most advantage over others. If it came down to perking the P-40B or the La-7, you might have 1 or 2 guys yelling their heads off about HTC perking their favorite airplane. If HTC perks the La7, I can guarantee there will be a ****storm that is the mother of all ****storms from people yelling about them perking their "favorite plane".
To kind of bring that argument into the correct context, here we have an arena with 3 sides. Each side has their pick of 70-odd planes. It is assumed (probably a poor assumption, but I'll make it anyway) that people are playing this game to kill other people and "win fights". There are three ways to "win fights"... you either bring more planes, bring better planes, or bring more better planes.
In a situation where one side outnumbers the other two sides combined (which admittedly doesn't happen all that often), the small sides simply have no chance. No fights will be "won" that night for them. There is simply no way to overcome an opponent who is bringing more of the best planes than you can get. If your opponent has more planes, you can bring better planes and perhaps even up the fight, and maybe even "win. If your opponent has better planes, you can try to swamp him with numbers. In both cases, you at least have a chance to win. If your opponent is flying the "best" plane (typically a mix of the fastest and most manueverable, i.e 50% la7, 50% spit/nik) and has more planes than you've got, you are screwed.
Therefore, the side with the most numbers and best toys is implicitly denying the right of the paying customers on the other sides to have fun. This patch seeks to redress that by seperating the ability to bring overwhelming numbers combined with overwhelming performance. Got a little long-winded there, and probably some logical errors, but I'm no philiosophy major. Thats just the way I see it.
Thanks Urchin.
Rather than cut your post up and intersperse the reply, I'll try to reply to yours in the order of your points.
Okay, forget the Russian plane, make it a P-51D, or a Spitfire IX. Still dramatically low ENY compared to your example of a P-40B. and you have the possibility of a genuine fondness for the plane, regardless of performance.
Well, of course you'd never perk the P-40B, there MAY be some arguement for a low perk price on the LA 7 (not advocating that mind you). But lets forget perks. That's a distraction. And not the real issue.
It is not an invalid assumption to say people want to win fights, I think its pretty sound.
On the other hand, you say there are three ways to win: More planes, better planes, and more better planes. I see more than three ways.
What about better planning and execution? I have heard about, and seen first hand, a well lead smaller country holding its ground, and even pushing back a larger country. In fact, I know it is the most fun I've had, and every time I hear someone else talk about it, they say the same thing, it was the best time they ever had.
While I agree that there are times, sometimes rare, sometimes not so rare, when one country outnumbers the other two. This can and does present problems. But I've also seen a lot more times where one country has around 200+, and the other two have 120 to 150 each a lot more often, even on Sundays. Don't forget, the ENY penalty applies to that as well.
In that case, you could see two things happen.
Situation 1: the country with just over 200 and one of the other two attack the third, with the smaller country facing either 350 to 120, or 320 to 150 (and this is probably never the case as all of two countries will never have a complete truce).
OR,
Situation 2: you have two smaller countries battling the larger with odds of 270 to 200 (again, there is never a complete truce so the numbers are close anf rough, not exact.
Now, if the first situation occurs, again the numbers are not exact, at some point the ENY multiplier still affects the largest country, and you still have another country (one of the two smaller countries) still guilty of ganging up on the other smaller country.
Net result: Biggest country gets penalized, one smaller country still gets ganged severely, and the other country still commits what is viewed as a foul (ganging) with no penalty. There have been plenty of people complaining about this, and saying it happens often.
Now, if the second situation occurs, you have the largest country being penalized, but facing the worst odds. Netresult needs no explanation.
Now realize I'm not providing EXACT numbers. Or the EXACT threshold of the ENY limiter. Those are just two very rough, but very possible scenarios.
And of course, even you admit that one country does not often outnumber the other two combined, and even then it isn't often by a real great margin.
Great discussion, and honest as well. Give yourself credit, you deserve it, there weren't any real logical errors. It was in fact refreshingly well reasoned and devoid of nonsense. It was actually excellent, I enjoyed it and I appreciate it.
-
No, I do not think it fair to limit the plane set for a team that has
a slight numerical advantage over the one of the others. I fly
with the Rooks. Knights and Bishops show up as enemy in the
arena. I have been shot down by both. So the way I see it
the Rooks are outnumbered by the Knights+Bishops any time
I have flown.
If the sides need to be equalized, then turn off team switching
all together and assign each new player as they come on to the
lower number teams until they are all equal. After that assign
them 1 Bishop, 1 Knight, 1 Rook.
Mike Callahan
-
Originally posted by ZZ3
I feel your pain Virgil... All these fanboys sticking up for this, makes me feel sad that a simple, and I mean simple question just can not be answerd without the rhetoric.
Ofcourse if they did better with their reading comprehension skills they would just answer, YES, or , NO.
Virgil; my answer is NO. Dont like the system, I know they are trying to help the imbalace problem. I simply dont agree with it, and it's ok if they want to go off on me for my opinion, I'm used to it.
I think it would most likely take care of itself over time.
I'm not feeling any pain. This has actually been quite enjoyable, and I do actually like seeing the other side. A couple of the posts have been particularly good, and well reasoned.
I'm not trying to be callous towards you here, but I don't see them as fanboys, or the need to call them that. I understand your feelings and position, and I do appreciate your support. But passing out labels is kind of counterproductive. Even though some of them have drifted towards making it a personal complaint issue when it is not.
Like I said, the point of the question was not to have a right or wrong answer, but to actually get honest answers to the question. Just to see where the small cross section of the AH community here on the boards is and where they are coming from.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
No. I dont think it is fair that if I belong to a particular country, that I should constistantly find that other paying customers are limiting my access to the games features by choosing to fly with opposing country(s) that decidedly have more people than the other sides.
Now, when that choice is accompanied by a sacrifice of their own access to features....That's Fair.
Thanks Murdr.
Are you answering my original question with No? It does not seem to fit with the rest of your reply.
If you don't mind, with regards to you belonging to a particular country, and a player belonging to an opposing country:
If that player has been a loyal member of that country as long as you have been a loyal member of yours (let's just disregard the names of countries for the sake of arguement), and you both go back to where your country was either equal to or superior to his numerically, should he be penalized for choosing to remain with his country that he likes as much as you like yours, and is just as loyal to his as you are to yours? Just because the numerical superiority pendulum has swung in a different direction.
-
Originally posted by Darkish
Yes - the phrase "Greater Good" springs to mind.
Fair enough. But whose "Greater Good"? By what measure?
-
Being politically correct has never been my strong suit, as the label I gave shows.
With that said, I see the same people posting all the time, and these same people always gang up on someone with a dissenting point of view.
God forbid you disagree or feel something is wrong with the game!
Sorry Virgil, my only intent, with respect to my reference of your pain was, that no one could simply vote with a YES or a NO.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Virgil
You wrote that question as someone else on another team taking away your right to fly your plane of choice.
The same thing would never be allowed at any sports game other than Tball.
Team A has 10 players & team B has 18 on the field? Where is the fair play in that?
Thats where you have it backward.
One team having overwhelming numbers advantage takes away My right to play period!
This is not what knights, or bish have decided. This is what HITECH has decided. To level the playing field. To even the score just a little. Take the hint. This is here to stay for the time being. Change happens, deal with it & move on.
Personally I logged on the other morning to find knights under the gun plane wise.
We had 2 to 1 #'s on bishops and were up to 18 ENY or something like that.
We still flew, yaks the greatest killer in AH with a high ENY value. A20's still rock ground to air, esp if you get it light & fly it like a twin engine p47.
On the whole I've seen much better balance, much better gameplay, and a MUCH more diverse set of planes being flown.
This is a GOOD thing.
Quit thinking about it as being told what you can't do.
Again, no, it isn't from myperspective as a Rook. The ENY limiter rarely affects me, I don't LIKE those planes. My squad is supposedly a P-51 squad, and I almost NEVER fly one. The HIGHEST I get on the food chain is the P-38 at 15 ENY.
This isn't a sport, it's a game. There never has been a rule about even sides.
This is not about Knights and Bishops and Rooks.
Again, I didn't say it wasn't here to stay, and I just asked a simple question with a simple answer.
Again, your response goes right back to your supposition that this is all about me vs. you, or Rooks vs Knights, or Rooks vs Bishops, it ain't. There's nothing to have backwards.
I fly at ENY 15 and HIGHER. If I go to a CV I don't go lower on the ENY to a Seafire, I go higher to a non perk Corsair.
Oh, and I never said the Knights and Bishops decided, but if you deny that they campaigned long, loud, hard, and steady, you are being way less than honest. But again, Knight, Bishop, Rook, it's all irrelevant to the question.
Take the hint, if you cannot answer the question, just don't answer. And I said days ago that I agreed this was here to stay and I was not going to object or complain. That is not what the question is about.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I think the way you worded the question was an indictment.
The question would lead one to think (I did as I read it) that they might me considered mean-sprited if they answer ... YES.
The orginal question does not truely reflect the sprit in which the change was made.
Zanth's change reflects the spirit ... and I would have added ...
... and creates a level playing field for all."
My answer .. YES
No, it was not an indictment. It was a question about human nature as it applies to a game, any game.
It wasn't about the current change so much as it was about games and people in general. Yes, the current change provided a basis, but it was not really what I was getting at. Not at all really.
Zanth's change completely alters the point of the question, so an answer to that doesn't apply to the issue of human nature and the game. The original question had nothing at all to do with the spirit of the change to the ENY restriction.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Are you?
No.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I don't agree with that. I answered YES, not because I was acting on my own interest, but rather in the interest of this game. I have just as much to lose with the ENY disabler as anybody else in this game.
This ENY disabler will eventually bite all countries and I believe that it areadly has ... this is something that I can live with and deal with. If it was singling out just one country, then I would have a problem with it.
No question as to your motives.
The problem with Zanth's rewrite is that it ASSUMES that EVERYONE will be happier. That assumption is absolutely and obviously false, because you simply cannot make everyone happy. Thereby making the question far less than valid.
The spirit of the change is not the question, if we discuss the change. It is or should be painfully obvious that Hitech would not be so foolish as to make a change that he did not feel was in the best interest of the game.
Again, the question was not simply about the change Hitech made, but about the human nature of the community with regards to a game.
-
"make the game more enjoyable for all"
Would it be fair to say that might not be true for those who have the limitations placed on them?
Seems to me that both ways of phrasing the question hold some element of truth.
:cool:
-
The question the way it is put makes a yes or no answer difficult.
I have no problem with the current system. I tend to think it will actually help in the long run. But thats my opinion.
But I don't fly the planes that become unavialable very often so it has little effect on me.
I flew with a RPS and I must say I don't care for it.
Hmmmmm .... why not consider the possibility that country aircaft production can fall behind demand and just like in the real war you can't always get certain planes? Seems to be a standard part of WWIIOnline?
I guess I would say YES.
because ........
It's happening to everyone. No one group is being singled out. It makes us all work a little harder, and requires we cooperate more.
Also noticed the hord still attacked and took several bases one after another they just had to use f6f's n what not and they were still managing to take some bases. And the fighting was hard and very enjoyable IMHO
-
No, I do not like the ENY system. No I don't think it is "fair".
-
Originally posted by hitech
Virgil: I do not belive that is a resonable question. I view it as the same type question: " When did you stop beeting your wife"
HiTech
You know, the more I think about it, the more I respectfully disagree.
You can't require a simple yes or no answer to "When did you stop beating your wife?" You can answer that question with "I never beat my wife".
Your assumption is that the question I posed forces you to answer negative or it makes you a bad person.
That isn't so.
But it forces you to take a real close look at yourself and think about your answer doesn't it? Or it forces you to work real hard to rationalize your position.
If the question did not raise serious issues about fairness to the person asked, everyone could answer it with yes or no and without a half a page of qualifications and rhetoric.
But so far, no one has been able to answer yes without either rewriting the question, adding a bunch of qualifications and rhetoric, or launching into a sad story about how the other side is being unfair because more people like to fly on that side. Regardless of anything else, if you can't answer yes without the rest of it, you are rationalizing, and that makes you think.
But in any case, I understand that you felt you had to make some kind of change, and you at least asked first. I can live with the change, it doesn't affect me nearly as much as it affects many others, and I'm not wasting time complaining about it.
Thanks Hitech.:aok
-
I still think people are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Hitech didn't put this in place to restrict access to planes, he put it in to balance the numbers.
A lot of people say that the numbers would have balanced themselves out, but there is also the possibility, again I said possibility, that the numbers imbalance could have have got even worse!
Now I haven't flown every night since this has been put into effect, but the nights I have flown the Bish and Rooks seem to have had almost identical numbers, with the Knights still a little behind, but a definite improvement has taken place, and the gameplay, imho, has improved.
My answer would be yes.
Shop
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You pay for the priviledge to log on, no one has ever had a "right" to a "fair" fight. It is probably reasonable to expect somewhat even numbers among the countries, but a fair and even fight has never been a guarantee. It (numerical equality) will occur for periods of time as the numerical superiority pendulum swings back and forth, but is never guaranteed nor is it a right. [/B]
But are you arguing that you do have a "right" to always fly the plane you want for the country you want? That this *should* be a guarantee? I don't recall reading that in the T&C's when I handed over my credit card number either.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that this should be true: A person's desire to fly the airplane they want to fly, for the country they wish, unrestricted at all times, trumps all other game priorities. The AH Bill of Individual Rights.
How do you reconcile this with those times when a country has overwhelming numbers and has every enemy base flattened with no FH or at least no opportunity to take-off without getting vulched? Doesn't one person's rights end where they violate anothers?
It's so simple: Pay your money. Log in. Grab an available plane (there are always plenty of purty blue ones available) and have fun.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No.
Ever shoot someone down? If you have, then you are "willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You are assuming that there is, or for that matter, ever was a RULE, that REQUIRED even sides. If there ever was, I've never seen it. Not here, not in AH I, not in that "other" game, and not in AW. There is no RULE that says a country can't have more players. So no country is breaking a rule, so that is not a valid justification for a penalty.
You pay for the priviledge to log on, no one has ever had a "right" to a "fair" fight. It is probably reasonable to expect somewhat even numbers among the countries, but a fair and even fight has never been a guarantee. It (numerical equality) will occur for periods of time as the numerical superiority pendulum swings back and forth, but is never guaranteed nor is it a right.
There is a rule about balanced play - HTC just made it - its called the ENY limiter.
I left Rooks because I believed fighting from the advantage would not improve my skillset.
So I'm sorry this change just doesn't bother me. I've never been in it for a turkey shoot and pumped up stats.
I actually enjoy the craft and working to get better. I just don't feel any pain or loss of enjoyment from losing La7s and P51D's, I don't need them. Should I feel pity for a numerically superior foe that does?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, there was not extreme bias in the question. You either are comfortable with demanding, and willing to demand, that someone else be restricted or penalized at the cost of their enjoyment .
Virgil, I havnt made it to the end of this thread, but I can believe you cant see how that question is not loaded. Just common sense
to see that.
Open those eyes man.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You know, the more I think about it, the more I respectfully disagree.
You can't require a simple yes or no answer to "When did you stop beating your wife?" You can answer that question with "I never beat my wife".
Your assumption is that the question I posed forces you to answer negative or it makes you a bad person.
That isn't so.
But it is. I say YES, it is FAIR to take away someones plane
to get them to make the game more evenly balanced, just as most games in the WORLD are....
and by saying YES to your loaded question makes me out
to be someone who takes something from someone else to better myself at other peoples expense, not taking into account
the fairness of being triple teamed. How fair is that?
I fly the pee 38 I can hold my own very well in a 1v1
but if its a 2v1 it aint so easy and if its 3v1 its damned near impossible. I think the "new rules" are a good thing.
At least I have a snoballs chance in hell of beating 3 early war models than la7s with 1 cannon kill capacity.
But if you would just equalize the playing field(battlefield)
You would not lose anything. So if you were to be fair about the numbers the rides would fall into place.
You're question is loaded in your favor, to say yes makes me look like a skunk.
-
yes
I quit beating my wife when she quit drinking to chatfaced oblivion, and any arena with 5 less LA-7 & N1K dweebs is a better arena no matter what the situation :)
-
Originally posted by phookat
Ever shoot someone down? If you have, then you are "willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier".
WOOT!!:D :lol
beet with his own carrot!
-
The answer to Zanth's question.
YES!
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Virgil, I havnt made it to the end of this thread, but I can believe you cant see how that question is not loaded. Just common sense
to see that.
Open those eyes man.
Oh, they are open. And my point has been well proven.
-
Yes. I have no problem with it. If it is intended to help with game play and the frustrations associated with very uneven sides. I too was not able to fly my favorite plane. So I flew a few I never flew before. I died!! But it was fun trying something new.
Oh sorry for the discourse. I really meant to say............
YES.
Peace
Pillur
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
But it is. I say YES, it is FAIR to take away someones plane
to get them to make the game more evenly balanced, just as most games in the WORLD are....
and by saying YES to your loaded question makes me out
to be someone who takes something from someone else to better myself at other peoples expense, not taking into account
the fairness of being triple teamed. How fair is that?
I fly the pee 38 I can hold my own very well in a 1v1
but if its a 2v1 it aint so easy and if its 3v1 its damned near impossible. I think the "new rules" are a good thing.
At least I have a snoballs chance in hell of beating 3 early war models than la7s with 1 cannon kill capacity.
But if you would just equalize the playing field(battlefield)
You would not lose anything. So if you were to be fair about the numbers the rides would fall into place.
You're question is loaded in your favor, to say yes makes me look like a skunk.
My percentage of P-38 time is likely as high as anyone's except maybe Ack Ack. I flew it in AW, and I fly it here. At least 95% of the time. Tonight I faced two Spits and a P-51 by myself. I lost. It wasn't even close. It was 3 on 1. Big fat hairy deal. I never once thought "I'd like to see someone take their uber rides and see how good they are then". Ten minutes later the odds were even and I got both Spits and pinged up the P-51. It all comes out in the wash.
The ENY balancer doesn't hurt me, when the restriction tops 15, I drag out a TBolt or a Corsair, and I go fight the same odds. I keep telling people that ain't what this is about. The problem is that they have it now, and they like it, and any discussion about it appears to be a threat to them and they can't stand that.
The question isn't in "my favor", it is just a question about people, games, and human nature. If giving a thruthful answer to the question makes you look or feel dirty, then so be it. That is a problem for you to deal with.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Ever shoot someone down? If you have, then you are "willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier".
LOL. They chose to fight, I obliged them. And no better than I fly, it could easily have gone the other way.
And your rationalization is invalid. It is a game, and a competition, with the goal of producing a winner and a loser. They chose to take part in said game.
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
WOOT!!:D :lol
beet with his own carrot!
Not hardly. Nothing more than a rationalization, and an attempt, albeit very weak, at "moral equivalency".:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
[B
The question isn't in "my favor", it is just a question about people, games, and human nature. If giving a thruthful answer to the question makes you look or feel dirty, then so be it. That is a problem for you to deal with. [/B]
You have blinders on. What part of a fair and balanced playing field dont you like?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
. If giving a thruthful answer to the question makes you look or feel dirty, then so be it. That is a problem for you to deal with.
I thought some more on it. I said YES to the question and bt doing so you SAY that it make me have fun at the expense of taking away another players fun
"willing to make someone else unhappy so you can be happier".
thats the part of the post that is leading and out of place
That make you feel bad if you answer yes.
What you failed to put in you question was the part about
the number of players. So not only is it a leading question , a loaded question Its downright dishonest and 1 sided.
Cheers!
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And your rationalization is invalid. It is a game, and a competition, with the goal of producing a winner and a loser. They chose to take part in said game.
Now who's jumping through hoops trying to look good? :D Your logic applies to the ENY limiter as well. You chose the side with greater numbers, and you knew what you were getting with it. The rule is part of the game.