Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Roundeye on July 03, 2008, 11:42:38 PM
-
Those things are waaaay too cheap. To the point of ruining gameplay. It's O.K. when used for it's intended purpose (high alt rapid intercept of bombers). But it is so abused in the MA. It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+ :rolleyes: Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged. May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.
Tonight, I saw a pile of 163s doing just that. 262s are bad enough, but not that hard to shoot down (or get them to auger or pull their wings off :D) But 163s BNZing engaged fighters is just over the line.
I'd like to see them go away but the :cry would never end. They were used very little in the war in real life anyway.
At least increase the cost to 500-1000 points so they are harder to get and the abuse should decrease.
-
I wouldn't say 1000 perks...more like 400-600.
-
I wouldn't say 1000 perks...more like 400-600.
I could deal with that. Anything that might help cut down the misuse.
-
Those things are waaaay too cheap. To the point of ruining gameplay. It's O.K. when used for it's intended purpose (high alt rapid intercept of bombers). But it is so abused in the MA. It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+ :rolleyes: Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged. May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.
Tonight, I saw a pile of 163s doing just that. 262s are bad enough, but not that hard to shoot down (or get them to auger or pull their wings off :D) But 163s BNZing engaged fighters is just over the line.
I'd like to see them go away but the :cry would never end. They were used very little in the war in real life anyway.
At least increase the cost to 500-1000 points so they are harder to get and the abuse should decrease.
im not sure because if 163's are coming into a furball, that team must have been getting beat so bad the fight is near the HQ so i think it isnt as bad that the 163 shows up to at least hault the "invasion".
im glad HTC only let the 163 come out of the base closest to HQ
163 piss me off but i think they are fine as is
-
:cry I was porking the other team near their HQ and got shot down by a 163. :cry
I've got a better recommendation. Don't get so close to enemy HQ. It's not required to meet the 40%. The 163 is already incredibly limited.
-
I'd rather see the game force the gear off, that way people can taxi it half way across the map and it would stay in its intended area of use.
-
One base, giant map, if it was your country that had 163 access I doubt we would see this post. So no perk point is enough for how little we use them. How about this idea don't fly near a 163 base?
-
im not sure because if 163's are coming into a furball, that team must have been getting beat so bad the fight is near the HQ so i think it isnt as bad that the 163 shows up to at least hault the "invasion".
im glad HTC only let the 163 come out of the base closest to HQ
163 piss me off but i think they are fine as is
ive seen people.... who shall rename nameless..
up a 163, not drop the "gear".. fly it gently with flaps to another base.. re-fuel.. fly some more... refuel.. till they get a LONG way from the HQ base.. then wreak havoc at a furball.
yea, yea,, its gamey as all hell.. but it can be done, so it will be.. just like so many other things in this increasingly gamey game..
hell, i remember when bomb craters in the runway.. ACTUALLY DAMAGED AIRCRAFT THAT RAN OVER THEM... but that was removed becaue the quake players cried too much I guess..
now you just used your auto-takeoff.. then your autoclimb.. then autoloeve..fly in to the fulball with your stall limiter on... HO everyone withing D1.0 .. get killed, do it again...
-
I'd rather see the game force the gear off, that way people can taxi it half way across the map and it would stay in its intended area of use.
And how often you see someone doing this?
I'm one of that no-life >120h/month players and in the last 3 years I have witnessed such things maybe 3 or 4 times only. I have done it myself one time to see if I can, but while I love flying the 163 I found it to be too much waste of time to repeat it regulary.
Staying away from HQ and 163 base reliably saves me from getting shot down by them.
-
A 163 complaint! :rofl They are only available at one base. I'd support raising the perk cost if they were available at all medium and large airfields.
-
I dont mind getting shot down by them. I am tired of getting rammed by them. Thus I dont fly HQ runs anymore. I aint about to spend 1 hour flying bombers to an HQ to get rammed 3 times by 13yos in 27 perk crotch rockets.
I dont see much enthusiasm for HQ runs anyway. I suspect having to see dozens of these silly things zinging around at 550 mph has something to do with it.
As weapons systems go I'll bet the Germans got more results from their trenching shovels then they did from these silly rocket planes.
-
my money is your rook and it was bish 163's. wish i would have thought to up them instead of P-40s.
-
If you get your landing right you can rearm a 163 on it's skid.
I remember when bomb craters actually DID something, I miss it :(
In 3.5years I've NEVER seen a 163 flying with it's gear on.
If you really really don't want to see a 163 stay away from the HQ.
HQ is fixed in 3 goons time.
'nuff said.
-
And wingnut, do you have any idea what kind of planning, patience, and stick skills are required to work a 163 from a rear base to a forward furball?
Its not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes its possibly gaming the game a bit, but then most of us do that in one way or another.
In order to be able to land, taxi, rearm, and takeoff you have to keep the wheels on. If you exceed 300 mph you'll damage the wheels. In which case you've just wasted your perks for nothing. If someone catch's you landing, or on the runway your toast, burnt toast.
The risks are high, the cost is high, I really don't see or hear of these being abused often enough to justify changing it.
-
And wingnut, do you have any idea what kind of planning, patience, and stick skills are required to work a 163 from a rear base to a forward furball?
Its not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes its possibly gaming the game a bit, but then most of us do that in one way or another.
In order to be able to land, taxi, rearm, and takeoff you have to keep the wheels on. If you exceed 300 mph you'll damage the wheels. In which case you've just wasted your perks for nothing. If someone catch's you landing, or on the runway your toast, burnt toast.
The risks are high, the cost is high, I really don't see or hear of these being abused often enough to justify changing it.
Ditto.
-
I remember when bomb craters actually DID something, I miss it :(
In the 6+ years that I have been playing ... bomb craters have done "nothing", but look like bomb craters.
It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+ :rolleyes: Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged. May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.
Screaming in a 600+ mph ... picking a target (other than a bomber) ... maneuvering for the kill ... and then firing those potatoes, on target ... is REAL HARD ... and there are only a handful of people that could actually pull that off.
Over exaggeration never makes a "point" ... it only weakens it.
-
That's odd.
I remember driving GV's over craters and actually having to drive OVER the rims rather than THROUGH them as we do now :(
-
Those things are waaaay too cheap. To the point of ruining gameplay. It's O.K. when used for it's intended purpose (high alt rapid intercept of bombers). But it is so abused in the MA. It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+ :rolleyes: Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged. May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.
Tonight, I saw a pile of 163s doing just that. 262s are bad enough, but not that hard to shoot down (or get them to auger or pull their wings off :D) But 163s BNZing engaged fighters is just over the line.
I'd like to see them go away but the :cry would never end. They were used very little in the war in real life anyway.
At least increase the cost to 500-1000 points so they are harder to get and the abuse should decrease.
Stop crying you baby, bishop HQ was down for almost 2 hours. As soon as it popped, your NOE P-51 missions and buff runs would kill it.
-
:cry I was porking the other team near their HQ and got shot down by a 163. :cry
How about educating yourself before attempting a smart-*** post?
We were defending a base from recapture having a great time. Things were not going their way in conventional planes so they started coming over in waves of 262s and 163s....picking the furball at low and medium altitude.
Show me just one example of a 163 being used like that in RL. Just one.
Its gamey. Just sayin.
PS: It is NOT hard to swoop in on someone who is already engaged and spray 30mm. Now if someone was one-on-one with a 163, thats difficult and requires skill.
-
Stop crying you baby
LOL! When you start growing facial hair then maybe you can call someone a baby. :D
-
Show me just one example of a 163 being used like that in RL. Just one.
Its gamey. Just sayin.
Using formations of Lancs to hunt single Panzers - gamey
Hangars respawning in 15mins - gamey
Bailing over own town to hide in maproom and kill helpless enemy troops - gamey
Destryoing ammo bunkers on enemy fields with a few cannon rounds - gamey
Strafing buildings with machine guns is much more effective than bombing them - gamey
;)
Having to cope with 163's is the price for being successful and having pushed the enemy back to his HQ bases. A rather small one as 163's can't capture bases and have only limited time to cap a base. And compared to everythign else that's "gamey" it's almost negilible.
-
yea, there are so many things in this game that are utterly unrealistic and gamy.. whats one more.
and for those who werent around..
in the past bombing the runways was an effective tactics (hey just like real life!) if an aircraft drive over a bomb crater with any speed it would damage the landing gear.
that effect was at some point (dont know when) removed.. and replaced with the BS harmless craters we have now.
-
yea, there are so many things in this game that are utterly unrealistic and gamy.. whats one more.
and for those who werent around..
in the past bombing the runways was an effective tactics (hey just like real life!) if an aircraft drive over a bomb crater with any speed it would damage the landing gear.
that effect was at some point (dont know when) removed.. and replaced with the BS harmless craters we have now.
you just liked to capet bomb runways and rack up the kills :D :D :P
ps nutt. i posted all my putr stuff in the forum if u will give it a check
-
PS: It is NOT hard to swoop in on someone who is already engaged and spray 30mm. Now if someone was one-on-one with a 163, thats difficult and requires skill.
With a 200-300mph closure rate, it can be hard to hit a B-17 going straight and level.
-
Using formations of Lancs to hunt single Panzers - gamey
Hangars respawning in 15mins - gamey
Bailing over own town to hide in maproom and kill helpless enemy troops - gamey
Destryoing ammo bunkers on enemy fields with a few cannon rounds - gamey
Strafing buildings with machine guns is much more effective than bombing them - gamey
;)
Having to cope with 163's is the price for being successful and having pushed the enemy back to his HQ bases. A rather small one as 163's can't capture bases and have only limited time to cap a base. And compared to everythign else that's "gamey" it's almost negilible.
Those are some great examples. All I'm asking is if there is a problem identified where someone for whatever reason exploits the game and means are available to fix it, then why not fix it? It could only lead to a better, more realistic and enjoyable game.
I have watched many good suggestions get shot down. There are a few here who love to find and exploit flaws in the game....they are the first ones to say deal with it and resist changes. Making it difficult, costly or impossible to exploit/misuse can only make AH a more realistic experience. I can't speak for the rest of the players here, but realism is what attracted me to this game in the first place.
Something can be done about Lancstukas, plastic ammo bunkers, stealing kills by shooting falling fuselages and picking furballers with rocket planes :rolleyes:.
I've seen alot of exploitation lately, then again it is summer and school is out. Maybe things will tone down a bit next month ;).
-
And wingnut, do you have any idea what kind of planning, patience, and stick skills are required to work a 163 from a rear base to a forward furball?
Its not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes its possibly gaming the game a bit, but then most of us do that in one way or another.
In order to be able to land, taxi, rearm, and takeoff you have to keep the wheels on. If you exceed 300 mph you'll damage the wheels. In which case you've just wasted your perks for nothing. If someone catch's you landing, or on the runway your toast, burnt toast.
The risks are high, the cost is high, I really don't see or hear of these being abused often enough to justify changing it.
^--What the smart guy said. :)
-
for refrence..
tonight at the big furball in blue at A45 that has been going on all day..
I watched a guy up a 163 from 31 by the hq, land it at 33 refuel, take off, land it at 34, refuel, take off, land at 41 refuel..then take it into the furball at 45.
its anything but difficult.
-
That's odd.
I remember driving GV's over craters and actually having to drive OVER the rims rather than THROUGH them as we do now :(
They did, but they were taken out, and so were damagable runways.. I think one lancaster could destroy the runway objects. I think the collidable craters were removed because they were too costly in bandwidth. They'd have had to be tracked by the server for any new player to see if they showed up after the craters were made, etc.
And any more than 200 perks for a 163 is exagerated. I'd say 100 tops...
-
With a 200-300mph closure rate, it can be hard to hit a B-17 going straight and level.
You mean 600-800 right?
-
I watched a guy up a 163 from 31 by the hq, land it at 33 refuel, take off, land it at 34, refuel, take off, land at 41 refuel..then take it into the furball at 45.
What were you doing? Sightseeing for all that time?
-
He was covering his 6 :noid
-
How about educating yourself before attempting a smart-*** post?
We were defending a base from recapture having a great time. Things were not going their way in conventional planes so they started coming over in waves of 262s and 163s....picking the furball at low and medium altitude.
Show me just one example of a 163 being used like that in RL. Just one.
Its gamey. Just sayin.
PS: It is NOT hard to swoop in on someone who is already engaged and spray 30mm. Now if someone was one-on-one with a 163, thats difficult and requires skill.
I'm not exactly sure how I would go about educating myself on where or how you fly and I'm pretty sure I don't care.
If it can be done in the game it will be done.
Personally, I like to fly the 163 out a couple of sectors looking for fights in it. It's got plenty of range with the throttle down (and yes, the real 163 had throttle control) and it's a wicked mean turn/E fighter.
When your done, all you have to do is use the last little bit of fuel to climb (1/8 tank or so), then glide it home.
Two sectors out from a 163 base is not a safe place to play if you don't want to see 163's.
-
Stop crying you baby, bishop HQ was down for almost 2 hours. As soon as it popped, your NOE P-51 missions and buff runs would kill it.
Hmm. It's ok for you "to be rude and immature"? "Pot meet kettle."
-
for refrence..
tonight at the big furball in blue at A45 that has been going on all day..
I watched a guy up a 163 from 31 by the hq, land it at 33 refuel, take off, land it at 34, refuel, take off, land at 41 refuel..then take it into the furball at 45.
its anything but difficult.
Yeah right ... we all believe that you spent the time to watch all that ... :rofl
-
Yeah right ... we all believe that you spent the time to watch all that ... :rofl
he was giving a play by play of it.
I was landing at 41 when he was taking off from there in it.
-
for refrence..
tonight at the big furball in blue at A45 that has been going on all day..
I watched a guy up a 163 from 31 by the hq, land it at 33 refuel, take off, land it at 34, refuel, take off, land at 41 refuel..then take it into the furball at 45.
its anything but difficult.
So?
It is only available at one base, has a small ammo load, small range, and except for HQ raids, is generally a non-factor. Therefore the current perk cost is entirely appropriate and surely does not need to be increased.
Exceptions as you cite are just that -- exceptions. Hardly a regular "abuse," if you could even call it that. I would call it having far more patience than I would have.
Kudos to those who enjoy the aircraft enough to go through the effort.
-
You mean 600-800 right?
Nah, I mean 200-300 mph faster than him, in a six chase.
Fighter tooling fat, happy, and possibly AFK at 350 mph TAS. In my experience, a 450mph dive in your typical prop plane can make for kind of short and difficult firing window. And you're only heading towards him at 100mph. These jets and rockets can go 500+ in level flight. One good reason they need such heavy guns where only one ping is required, as well as the fact they were intended for buff hunting.
-
I've vulched M3's with a 163 at a base 2 sectors away... it's all in the fuel management :D
Admittedly I did initially up to chase down a set of buffs that bailed, I just was not going home without kills :lol
-
Moot, exceed 300 mph in a 163 with the gear on and you'll break your gear. Once gear is broken, no more landing, rearming, so the best you can do is drop it, land on the skid and try again. Now granted if you use autoclimb along with good power management you can ferry a 163 forward. But you can't do it at 5-600 mph if you want to land and rearm.
Anything in the game that it is possible to do will be done by somebody at some point. Accept it!
People will find a way to do all kinds of things. Like bombing Panzers in a lancaster.
Does this mean all lancasters should be perked? Not hardly.
-
I don't know why you're telling me this? Sorry if my english has gotten so bad that it seems rude to say it this way, I just don't know if you're mistaking what I meant or if you confused someone else's post with mine.
I was asking BnZ if he really meant 200-300mph closure rate as difficult in the MK108 planes, because it isn't, especialy not with four engine bombers as targets. It's a separate argument from the gear "exploit" argument. I'm indifferent to that.
-
Those things are waaaay too cheap. To the point of ruining gameplay. It's O.K. when used for it's intended purpose (high alt rapid intercept of bombers). But it is so abused in the MA. It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+ :rolleyes: Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged. May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.
Tonight, I saw a pile of 163s doing just that. 262s are bad enough, but not that hard to shoot down (or get them to auger or pull their wings off :D) But 163s BNZing engaged fighters is just over the line.
I'd like to see them go away but the :cry would never end. They were used very little in the war in real life anyway.
At least increase the cost to 500-1000 points so they are harder to get and the abuse should decrease.
Sounds like a whine to me.
Besides, how many times do you get to use a 163 in the MA's? Once a month MAYBE? The other day the rooks captured a base next to our HQ and there was a furball. We upped a ton of 163's and got a ton of kills. But it's the rooks fault for furballing at an uncapturable base anyway so if you didn't like getting killed by 163's, go to another furball. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. :rolleyes: I really don't think the 163 needs to cost more perks. Maybe an upgrade in graphics? The cockpit could use some work. :aok
-
Its a rocket for Chrissake's, up the cost on that sukker!
Oh yeh, 1on 1 a 163 with power pulled way down can outturn just about anything, its VERY EZ to get killz in 1 on 1.
Later'z :aok
-
Sounds like a whine to me.
Besides, how many times do you get to use a 163 in the MA's? Once a month MAYBE? The other day the rooks captured a base next to our HQ and there was a furball. We upped a ton of 163's and got a ton of kills. But it's the rooks fault for furballing at an uncapturable base anyway so if you didn't like getting killed by 163's, go to another furball. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. :rolleyes: I really don't think the 163 needs to cost more perks. Maybe an upgrade in graphics? The cockpit could use some work. :aok
It's a suggestion to make the game more realistic and cut down on gamey actions. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Furballing at an uncapturable base? The furball was just out of ack range at OUR BASE. What were we supposed to do, let it go because you were not having luck with regular planes and came back in droves of jets and rockets? :rolleyes:
Besides dodging rockets everywhere, I had a great time there. I shot down one of you guys' ME262s and shot parts off of a 163 in my old slow PROPELLOR-DRIVEN Hellcat. Every time I went down I took at least one with me. :aok
-
It sounds like you had fun then doesn't it, so what's the problem then? ;)